Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Kids Are Alright: 'Twelve and Holding' Bows at IFC Center


The Reeler braved the rain Monday night to check out the premiere and party for L.I.E. director Michael Cuesta’s latest film Twelve and Holding at IFC Center. The usual IFC gang was all there, including unofficial IFC Films mascot Michael Stipe (right, with Cuesta*), who followed March’s Lonesome Jim party-crash with last night’s late arrival. (Not coincidentally, I guess, REM also contributed to the film’s soundtrack.) The lovely Annabella Sciorra held court in a far corner of the room, while word of a few Willem Dafoe sightings preceded the film. I never saw him myself; he seemed to have fled the scene before a biblical-style storm besieged the white tent under which partygoers feasted on wine and cheese and–wait for it–chips, salsa and guacamole.
Anyway, the event was a rollicking success even if the film is a tad disappointing. In telling the story of three New Jersey adolescents facing a set of peculiarly traumatic growing pains, Cuesta coaxes excellent performances (including one astonishing turn by Zoe Weizenbaum) from a cast that had not a whole bunch to work with script-wise. The film is essentially melodrama refracted through the more harrowing challenges of youth: obese Leonard (Jesse Camacho) whose sudden obsession with healthy living verges on neurosis; Malee (Weizenbaum), an Asian girl whose budding sexuality homes in on one of her psychiatrist mother’s patients (Jeremy Renner); and Jacob (Conor Donovan), born with a facial birth mark, haunted by his twin brother’s death.
Everybody looks different here and is treated as such, and they take increasingly drastic measures to fill emotional gulfs widened by their parents and their peers. But a first act portending hard realities gives way to second and third acts that are more troubling for their contrivances than for their characters’ predicaments; only Malee, unable to reconcile sexual and paternal alienation, resonates with any lingering influence. “She’s a lonely girl,” the patient tells her mother, defining a simple reality less abstract than those that screenwriter Anthony Cipriano saddles Leonard and Jacob with. Cipriano’s determination to save his characters achieves full-blown pathology in Twelve and Holding‘s final 10 minutes, and you really cannot help but feel for Cuesta and his cast, whose restraint is no match for a particularly fearsome deus ex machina.

But enough of that. Cuesta, whose son attends the same Locust Alley school as IFC Films boss Jonathan Sehring’s son (Sehring evidently asked the 10-year-old to “please tell your father we want to buy his film” at a school fair), absolutely has a way with young actors; it was abundantly clear with L.I.E.‘s Paul Franklin Dano and it carries over to his Twelve and Holding trio. “Everybody asks about that, but it’s not as hard as you think,” he told me, referring to the process of working through such tough material with kids. “They read the script. Their parents read the script. They had a discussion with their parents beforehand. These kids came in prepped by their parents; it was clear that their parents were really involved and were really great. Then I think they saw in me–and maybe in the way I handled difficult material in my first film–that I was going to kind of look out for their kids. I wasn’t going to be exploitive or sensationalize it in any way. And with all that, it’s basically just letting the kids be who they are. They don’t have a lot of acting training. You capture that and guide that.”
I also caught up with Weizenbaum, whose precocity and chops dazzled Cuesta within 20 seconds of him watching her audition tape. Now 14 years old, she told me she left camp suddenly (“Farm and wilderness,” she said. “It was a Quaker camp.”) to lock down the role. “People ask me what I draw upon when I’m doing something like what I did,” she said. “It’s a hard question to answer. I think that all the issues that come up in the film, someone can relate to out there: Body image, sexuality, violent feelings–it’s what every teenager kind of goes through. And I think that being a teenager, that’s what I drew from. Those emotions. Just not necessarily to that extreme.” She also praised her director. “Michael is amazing,” she told me. “For some reason he can do teenage angst really well. I don’t know. He really understood all the characters and he said where things were going. He was very focused and serious.”
And once again, it shows–at least as much as it can before the story sabotages him. But that is OK; revelations are few and far between, and I will take them where I can get them.
* Pardon the fuzzy resolution, but my camera decided to stop working before the event and I fell back on the trusty cell phone camera. Embarrassing, yes, but we do what we have to do.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon