Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Reeler Podcast: 'Great New Wonderful' Director Danny Leiner

I cannot remember exactly what I said in my introduction to my podcast interview with The Great New Wonderful‘s director Danny Leiner, but I vaguely recall intoning something about its alchemy of mourning and irony as well as the more conspicuous chemistry of an ensemble cast fusing the film’s five story threads. Which is totally abstract, I know, but so is Wonderful, which follows its storylines through the emo-cultural haze of post-9/11 New York–mostly without specific reference to the date and its tragedy.

Piece of cake: Danny Leiner coaching Maggie Gyllenhaal on the set of The Great New Wonderful (Photo: Juliana Thomas / First Independent Pictures)

Instead, Leiner and screenwriter Sam Catlin posit the attacks’ first anniversary as a barometer of middle-class anxiety. Beyond an unspoken dread of the calendar once again reading Sept. 11, the characters in Wonderful seem stunned by the reality that the day changed everything and nothing. “Are we happier?” Olympia Dukakis’s reticent, routinized hausfrau seems to wonder. “Are we safer?” wonder a pair of Indian bodyguards whose own emotions represent their worst enemies. “Have we grown?” asks an ambitious pastry chef (Maggie Gyllenhaal) desperately scaling the professional ranks. “Do we still know each other?” is the question that plagues a 30-something married couple struggling with their violent, asthmatic 10-year-old son, while Tony Shalhoub’s droll therapist confronts his patient with the query 9/11 provoked in all of us: “Do you even know yourself?”
All important questions, of course, even if, in the end, Wonderful‘s implications are a bit too fragile to effectively spread this thin (you almost sense that were it not for the priceless Stephen Colbert cameos at its center, Leiner might have cut the frazzled-parents storyline). Shalhoub and Gyllenhaal’s sangfroid case studies generate much of the film’s momentum; in particular, the latter’s exchange with cake competitor Edie Falco exquisitely frames the New Yorker’s immediate post-9/11 dilemma of balancing hard-driving nature with banal, disingenuous unity. In Dukakis’s case, her loveless marriage and discreetly roving eye seem too easy a metaphor for life’s brevity; it is not until her heartbreak provokes her to rage that Leiner calculates the opportunity cost our institutions (brick-and-mortar and otherwise) impose on individuals.
It might have taken 9/11 and its aftermath to get Leiner and Catlin to evaluate such phenomena, but their emphasis on character effectively sidesteps exploitation and gimmickry. It also lightens the viewer’s emotional load: They probably could just as easily remove the sporadic shots of a WTC-less Lower Manhattan and title cards featuring the anniverary date, and the film would still present an essentially engaging, bittersweet model of New Yorker malaise. Yet with the attacks and their subsequent wars so heavily anchoring the 21st-century experience, their inclusion–however allusive, abstract or flawed–reflects a risk worth taking. And, for that matter, worth viewing.
Anyway, I guess this is an exceedingly long-winded, inefficient way of saying that Leiner has his own ideas about all of this, and he talks about them with me right here. Thank you for listening.
RELATED: Great New Wonderful Premiere Has its Cake and Eats it Too (June 21, 2006)

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