Exclusive Interview with ‘Sweet Dreams’ Writer and Director Lije Sarki

There are many movies out there about addiction issues and the rehabilitation which comes about when some finally can take no more pain and punishment. Those which come to mind include “Clean & Sober,” “When a Man Loves a Woman,“ “I Smile Back” and “The Way Back” to name a few. Now we have “Sweet Dreams” which stars “Jackass” alumnus Johnny Knoxville as Morris, a man who has finally hit rock bottom when it comes to drugs and alcohol, and we watch as he enters a sober living facility named Sweet Dreams where he meets others struggling with the same demons. While there, he gets recruited to coach the rehab center’s softball team which he is at first reluctant to do, but it gives his life a direction and purpose he was previously lacking.

Sweet Dreams” was written and directed by Lije Sarki whose previous films include “Concrete Kids” and “Alphonso Bow,” and he was one of the producers of the indie hit “The Peanut Butter Falcon.” Like the characters here, he has also struggled with addiction issues but has since found his way past them and very much enjoys his sober lifestyle. With this film, he wanted to present the sober living, anonymous meetings and 12-step programs in a different way. Whereas most movies of this sort tend to be dark and depressing, he wanted “Sweet Dreams” to be more uplifting and to show how recovery can be fun and a joyous thing even after you have hit rock bottom. What results is a motion picture with a lot of heart, and you can see this in the writing and the performances, particularly Knoxville’s.

I got to speak with Lije recently about “Sweet Dreams,” and we talked about how the challenges he had in shooting this film (he only had 20 days), and of how he made this one stand out from so many other movies like it.

“Sweet Dreams” is now playing in theaters and is available to own and rent on digital platforms. Please check out the interview below as well as the trailer.

Terrence Malick’s ‘To the Wonder’ – Meandering but Still Unforgettably Beautiful

Terrence Malick’s “To the Wonder” is, in many ways, a mixed bag of a film. Not all of its parts go together in a way which feels entirely cohesive. It focuses on a couple played by Ben Affleck and Olga Kurylenko who fall in love and come to America to start a new life, but they eventually find themselves falling out of love, and they constantly struggle to understand how something so wonderful can go so awry. And then we have Father Quintana (Javier Bardem), a Catholic priest who is struggling to keep his faith even as he feels the presence of God eluding him at a time when he is desperate to believe in an afterlife. The balancing act between these characters is wobbly at best, but Malick still gives us many beautiful and wondrous images which are very powerful, and these images quickly remind me of how brilliant he is at capturing nature on film.

“To the Wonder” starts off in Europe where Marina (Kurylenko) finds herself completely enamored by her American boyfriend, Neil (Affleck), as they take a tour around town. Along with them is Marina’s daughter, Tatiana (Tatiana Chiline), who is thrilled when Neil asks her if she and her mom would like to move with him to the United States to live. After briefly viewing the European sights, the film then heads over to Neil’s home state of Oklahoma where the flatlands appear to stretch out as far as the eye can see. Heck, it almost looks like hardly anybody lives there, so it is a huge relief when we see t Neil and Marina actually have neighbors.

As with “The Tree of Life,” “To the Wonder” functions mostly as a silent film as the majority of the dialogue we hear is as a voiceover. Malick is far more interested in the inner thoughts of his characters than anything else as they struggle with the things they want and which are constantly outside of their grasp. We feel their passion for one another, and we also feel their pain and disappointment when their love eventually fades away.

Having read up on Malick as a filmmaker and as a person, it is clear to me how this film and “The Tree of Life” are his most autobiographical works overall. What the characters go through is not much different from what he has experienced in his own life, and with these films, it looks as though he is still trying to pick up the pieces of what went wrong.

Kurylenko first came to my attention in “Quantum of Solace,” and she has made the most of being a Bond woman as her performance here shows. It is thrilling to watch her dancing around the streets of Europe as well as in a corporate drug store which typically sucks the life out of everyone who shops at one. In many ways, Kurylenko is the best thing about this film as she takes us through Marina’s transcendent highs and her emotionally draining lows with complete conviction throughout.

Back in 20123, people had serious issues with Affleck as an actor, and this is even after his film “Argo” won the Academy Award for Best Picture. I myself have never had any issues with his acting abilities, and he gives a strong, understated performance as Neil, and it is never his fault we come to know less about this character than the others we are introduced to here. I really wish Malick had given Neil as much attention as he did to Marina as this would have made Neil’s journey in this story all the more illuminating. Nonetheless, Affleck is still very good in here.

Rachel McAdams is inescapably luminous as Jane; a childhood sweetheart of Neil’s who shows up after Marina has gone away. Malick makes Jane look beyond beautiful as he frames her against fields of wheat, and it is emotionally draining to watch Jane bear her soul to Neil and try to melt his heart in the process. McAdams ends up disappearing from “To the Wonder” a little bit too soon, but she is a vision to watch throughout.

Bardem’s character of Father Quintana at first feels a little out of place as much of the focus seems to be on the relationship between Marina and Neil, but his presence makes more sense as this film goes on. With this character, Malick seems to be saying how our loss of love for one another may have to do with our relationship to God, or lack thereof. Bardem does some of his subtlest work as he portrays a man struggling to hold onto whatever faith he has left, and it results in some of this film’s most emotionally draining scenes.

When we watch Quintana visit the sick, the elderly and the dying, I found myself being reduced to tears as these moments ring so emotionally true in a way I would rather not realize as death is becoming all too common for me to deal with. Plus, Malick just had to use Henryk Górecki’s third symphony entitled the “Symphony of Sorrowful Songs” which Peter Weir used to such great effect in “Fearless.” It remains a piece of music which is as beautiful as it is infinitely sad, and it always reduces me to a weeping wreck whenever I listen to it. I also have to admit I was very angry at Malick for using this piece of music here as it felt so unfair that he reduced me to a complete wreck in an inescapably manipulative way. Then again, I was in the midst of a very deep depression at the time, so that did not help matters.

But as mournful as “To the Wonder” is, there are still many beautiful moments to watch for as Malick remains a master of capturing the unpredictability of nature and animals on film. This includes moments like when Affleck and McAdams are suddenly surrounded by more buffalo than Kevin Costner dealt with in “Dances with Wolves,” the sunlight piercing through the colored glass in a church, or watching Kurylenko walking across the beach as the water covers the sand. These are moments which still will not fade away from my memory anytime soon. Working again with his “Tree of Life” cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, Malick still captures moments of visual poetry in ways few other filmmakers can ever hope to equal.

It is those incredible visual moments which make me want to forgive how meandering “To the Wonder” is as it unfolds before us. I have learned Malick actually shot this movie without a screenplay, and this made me wonder how the actors dealt with this style of filmmaking. Considering that Jessica Chastain, Rachel Weisz, Amanda Peet, Barry Pepper and Michael Sheen all had roles in this film which were eventually removed from the final cut has me believing there was a whole lot more to this film than what ended up onscreen. While “The Tree of Life” had several different story lines going on, Malick was able to rein them all in to where everything seemed to fit perfectly. With “To the Wonder,” he has a little too much going on, and the film ends up losing focus more often than it does not.

Still, if you are willing to tolerate those flaws, “To the Wonder” is still a profound experience filled with great performances and beautiful images which will stay with you long after this film has concluded. I really wish the audience I saw it with all those years ago felt the same way I did. I bring this up as one audience member remarked at how the lives of these characters proved to be far more boring than anyone else’s. Well hell, some people enjoy the simple pleasures in life more than others, but many are still insistent about how theirs are better than the average human being, and that is even though there is plenty of evidence to prove otherwise.

Seriously, it seems very fitting that “To the Wonder” was the last film Roger Ebert reviewed and gave to the Chicago Sun Times before he passed away in April of 2013. Rest in peace, Roger.

* * * out of * * * *

‘The House That Jack Built: Director’s Cut’ is More Subversive Than Shocking

The House That Jack Built poster

“Wanting people to listen, you can’t just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you’ll notice you’ve got their strict attention.”

-John Doe from “Seven”

Lars Von Trier loves getting our strict attention too, and he does this yet again with “The House That Jack Built” which stars Matt Dillon as a serial killer. On November 28, 2018, IFC Films presented his director’s cut for one night only, and the advertisements boasted of how over 100 people walked out of it at Cannes, and that those who stayed gave it a 10-minute standing ovation. Give IFC some credit as they have seized upon the film’s controversy to great effect. they are showing Von Trier’s cut before releasing an R-rated version in December, and the advertisements make it clear how this version may not be your cup of tea. As for us proud Von Trier veterans, we know exactly what we are in for. Or do we?

What surprised me most about this cut of “The House That Jack Built,” is that it is nowhere as shocking as I was led to believe. In fact, I found the violence at times rather tame especially compared to the scenes of mutilation in “Antichrist.” This is in many ways the result of many people writing about the movie’s most graphic scenes in scorching detail from one article to the next, but we are also living through a tumultuous time where few things can shock us the way they used to. Or perhaps the images our minds generate will always come across as more shocking than what any filmmaker can put on the silver screen.

The violence shown is extremely brutal and very bloody, and what Jack does with the bodies is just as disturbing. But Von Trier keeps us at a distance from the action to where we are fully in Jack’s mindset, treating his soon to be murdered victims as parts of major work of art. Many may cringe at the images Von Trier thrusts upon us with a twisted glee, but in the end, this is only a movie, not real life.

The movie is constructed of five episodes, each of which shows Jack murdering one or more people and it takes place over 12 years in Washington State. Each murder serves to illustrate Jack’s development as a serial killer, one with a serious case of OCD. And throughout we hear him having a conversation with a man named Verge (played by Bruno Ganz) about the murders he has gotten away with, and their talks take many twist and turns as it leads to a grand finale in one of the darkest places on earth.

The first chapter entitled “1st Incident” has Jack picking up a stranded motorist (played by Uma Thurman) who proceeds to taunt him by saying he might be a serial killer, and it serves to set up an ironic tone which will dominate much of the movie. It’s almost impossible to take things seriously as Von Trier is practically begging us to root for Jack to kill her as she cannot shut her mouth and even goes as far to say where he can bury her body.

Another surprising thing about Von Trier’s serial killer film is that it’s actually quite funny. This is clearly the case in the “2nd Incident” in which Jack attempts to con his way into the home of another woman (played by Siobhan Fallon Hogan, whose expressions are priceless) in a pathetic fashion. He first tries to pass himself off as a policeman, but his explanations for why he doesn’t have a badge on him are just hopeless, and yet he does not give up easily. And thanks to his OCD, he is convinced he has left evidence of her murder to where he keeps going in and out of the house several times.

The violence does become even more brutal and nihilistic as “The House That Jack Built” goes on, and men, women, children and animals are never spared from this wrath. I’m not going to bother going into specific descriptions as, again, the gory details have already been written about in various articles, but I will say this movie is not shock for shock’s sake. If you want that, check out the god-awful “Human Centipede 3.”

Von Trier has said in interviews how he was inspired by “the idea that life is evil and soulless” as well as the rise of Donald Trump. Indeed, many live in anxious uncertainty as the former reality television show host never ceases to give us one headache after another, and seeing him and his cronies (several of whom have since been indicted) threatens to make us apathetic to his inescapable crimes. Jack exists in a world too apathetic to realize the horrible things he is doing to others, and he keeps getting away with murder as a result.

A key scene for me was when Jack corners his girlfriend (played by Riley Keough) who slowly realizes who he really is. She screams for help, and Jack does the same in a mocking fashion. When he opens a window and cries to anyone who can hear how “nobody wants to help,” this helps illustrate just how apathetic the world is to the cries of someone in danger. If there are people willing to help someone, none of them are in a close enough vicinity to do so. If they are, they must have their own problems to deal with.

Another key subject involves art and what constitutes the greatest works of it. Neither Jack or Verge can come to a consensus of what makes great art as Verge believes you cannot have any without love as love, like intimacy, is an art unto itself. Jack, however, sees violence as playing a huge part in art and, he sees the murders he has committed as being more creatively stimulating for him than building a house.

David Bowie’s song “Fame” is played many times throughout, and I kept wondering why. Well, let’s look at the first set of lyrics:

“Fame makes a man take things over

Fame lets him loose, hard to swallow

Fame puts you there where things are hollow (fame)

Fame, it’s not your brain, it’s just the flame

That burns your change to keep you insane (fame).”

Is Von Trier attempting to say something about fame? Perhaps. Jack looks to gain infamy by sending photographs of his corpses to the local newspaper under the name of “Mr. Sophistication,” and they do not go unrecognized by the general public. But whether Jack is a serial killer or a singing star, his life is so cut off from others, and his existence will always be a hollow one. Regardless of how things end up for Jack, any fame he could hope to have will not succeed in making his life different.

There is also a moment where Von Trier features clips of his past movies like “Breaking the Waves,” “Dancer in the Dark,” “Antichrist” and “Melancholia” among others as Jack says the following:

“Some people claim that the atrocities we commit in our fiction are those inner desires which we cannot commit in our controlled civilization, so they’re expressed instead through our art. I don’t agree. I believe Heaven and Hell are one and the same. The soul belongs to Heaven and the body to Hell.”

Is Von Trier explaining how he works or apologizing for the crazy things he has brought to the silver screen? Indeed, the realm of art and fiction are places where we can exorcise our darkest thoughts and angriest emotions, and I for one will always be thankful for this. For the Danish filmmaker, it’s a must as he continues to deal with endless phobias and clinical depression, and he always looks to be exorcising some malady he could do without. But with Jack, he is dealing with a character who is a soulless vessel who can no longer see the line between right and wrong or fact and fiction, so maybe the filmmaker is wondering if he truly has gone too far.

How long have we been watching Matt Dillon onscreen? Have we seen him play a role like this before? If so, none quickly comes to mind. He is in just about every frame of this 155-minute movie, and he gives a frighteningly authentic portrayal of a serial killer at their most banal. Dillon makes Jack into the same kind of killer John Doe described himself as in “Seven” in that he is not special and has never been extraordinary, and it’s fascinating to see the actor refusing any opportunity to chew the scenery as many others would. He mines the role for all its pathos and morbid black humor, and it’s one of the best performances I have seen in a movie this year. Having said that, it is highly unlikely will receive an Oscar nomination. Need I say why?

“The House That Jack Built” will not go down as one of my most favorite Von Trier movies as it does drag on for far too long, but it is as fascinating as any he has previously made. There is much more to this cinematic experience than you will see at its gory surface, and you will ponder the many things Von Trier has dared you to explore on a deeper level.

I am glad Von Trier is still making movies as we need filmmakers willing to push the envelope and unsettle us in an effort to get us to see a bigger truth we too often turn away from. Say what you will of him as a person, but I always look forward to what his movies. As much as he may shock you, he also gets you to think. Right now, there are only so many filmmakers who can do that.

Still, I have a feeling the upcoming R-rated version will be far more shocking. The MPAA will most likely censor the movie’s most graphic moments to where our imaginations may have to spell out what we think we saw. In the process of trying to protect American audiences, this archaic body usually, and thoughtlessly, makes a movie more traumatic than anyone intended it to be. I guess I’ll have to wait and see.

* * * ½ out of * * * *