The Dark Knight

Release Date: July 18, 2008
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy
Directed by: Christopher Nolan

People want to see it!"

That was Stan Lee's ebullient response when I had the chance to ask him, at a comic book convention in 2007, about the modern rush of superhero victories at the box office. It's a sentiment uniformly applicable to Spider-Man and Ghost Rider alike, but Batman creators Bob Kane and Bill Finger would surely disagree. The late Kane described the original vision for Gotham City's hooded guarded as "dark," "brooding," and "Dracula-like," not the terms generally applicable to jubilant spectacles like Superman. With Batman Begins and now The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan's tightly assembled Batman dramas apply that initial outlook to correct the wrongs of Joel Schumacher's dopey bat-nipple revelries from the late '90s.

To that end, Nolan's productions work in much the same way that Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns created a metropolitan horror show, although The Dark Knight puts more concerted effort into grounding the character in reality. Nolan's strong suits are maniacal schemers and moody character-driven intrigue, both of which make The Dark Knight a sleek (if, at close to three hours, somewhat distended) detective story. The action, however, mostly fails to attain the same caliber of engagement. One more flipped car or exploding building, and Nolan could cut together another sequel. Fortunately, there's IMAX, the ideal format for The Dark Knight — some scenes were filmed with the medium in mind.

The gargantuan IMAX screen might appear to contradict Batman's intentionally murky presence, but at times it heightens the subtleties of the menacing atmosphere. Basic aerial shots swooping through the skyscrapers create the invigorating sensation of falling through urban landscapes. That visceral appeal fits the setting: The city itself is an uncontainable monster, where gangsters dictate the law and only Batman dares to rebuff their pervasive corruption.

In Batman Begins, he found his only accomplice in the company of timid Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman). The community grows in The Dark Knight, with the arrival of Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), Gotham's newly minted district attorney and one of the first truly sincere guys Batman has met; the town gets an emboldened (but short-lived) Holy Trinity of protectors. As Batman alter-ego Bruce Wayne, Christian Bale delivers passionate monologues about fixing the broken judicial system, and the script (co-written by Nolan and his brother Jonathan) lets Wayne see promise in Dent's upright activism — enough to believe that Batman might have a shot at early retirement. Fancy chance at that, of course, but Eckhart's golden boy performance makes you believe in his ill-fated ambition, even though the character's predetermined fate of morphing into the conniving Two-Face means tragedy lurks in the shadows along with the rest of the plot. (Two-Face is a delectably gross miracle of make-up and CGI, but how does he talk so clearly with half his head burnt off?)

These actors bring more realism to The Dark Knight than any other element, especially the most obvious one. Much has been made about the late Heath Ledger's frightening turn as the mysterious Joker, and it is truly impressive to watch this scar-faced psychopath with the knife-chiseled grin face down conventional criminals and hardened cops alike with cackling glee. But Bale and Eckhart centralize the movie's thematic concerns, causing the Joker's outrageousness to stand out. The rest of the cast just hit their marks: Michael Caine, as devout butler Alfred, inspires Wayne with incessant nuggets of wisdom; weapons designer Fox (Morgan Freeman) helps the hero with a handy bit of high-falutin wiretapping technology; Maggie Gyllenhaal (replacing the apparently detained Katie Holmes) portrays Wayne's former flame Rachel by grinning and grimacing on cue. She's the sole female presence in a movie that doesn't know what to do with her until it puts her in distress.

Nolan has crafted a conventional caper, but an elusive one. Whispery understatement allows The Dark Knight to seem like the landmark achievement it never becomes. This explains Warner Bros.' ingenious viral marketing scheme and the subsequent viewer frenzy. Spider-Man was huge, too, but still simply showcased a geeky guy in latex. By contrast, The Dark Knight is big, but it also feels important. An overextended climax prevents me from validating that feeling, but there's no denying the bold intellectualism of the script. "I don't get political points for being an idealist," complains Gordon, whose jaded conclusion isn't all that different from a know-nothing bad guy witnessing the Joker's queer antics and sighing, "Criminals in this town used to believe in things."

Ledger does indeed deserve posthumous kudos, but the decision to make Dent's transformation into Two-Face part of the Joker's grand scheme denigrates the terrifying potential of Eckhart's disfigured malefactor. In Jeph Loeb's The Long Halloween series from the Batman comic books (an aesthetic inspiration for the film), Two-Face leads the evil "freaks" of the city, including the Joker, to take down the regular mob sorts. Here, he's just a pathetic evildoer driven by revenge in the final act. The Joker, on the hand, behaves with precisely the calculated anarchy of the comics. He emerged there as the only dynamic villain to truly enjoy grappling with Batman while conveying an eerie understanding of him.

Peter Travers' overly ecstatic review of the movie in Rolling Stone quotes the fake-serious "You complete me" line the Joker drops as demonstrative of the pair's unlikely kinship, but that's just a throwaway gag. It's the Joker's apparent disdain for the establishment that the madman sees echoed in Batman's harsh brand of vigilance. "Don't talk like one of them; you're not!" he yelps when the caped do-gooder decries the Joker's misconduct. He sees cops as "schemers trying to control their little world," and holds fast to the conviction that no rules are the only rules worth following.

The Joker's ultimate evil comes from his ability to make others function on his level of insanity. The climax of the film nearly gets that right, but it halts with a weirdly cheery climax, a spirited "kumbaya" moment that implies the Joker could be foiled by objective morality. No way. In The Killing Joke, Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's concise 1988 comic that has been reported as the inspiration for Ledger's wild-eyed interpretation of the character, the Joker essentially demonstrates how he remains innately undefeated even in captivity. In the final frames, he forces us to see an aspect of Batman that no fancy camera tricks could possibly convey, and Nolan lacks the audacity to probe: The Joker tells a joke, and Batman can't stop laughing.

— Eric Kohn

Kristen Stewart: Bella in 'Twilight'

Premiere's intrepid reporters snagged an exclusive one-on-one with the star of 'Twilight,' Kristen Stewart. Get the scoop from Comic-Con 2008!

This is your first big lead in a movie. How does that feel?
It feels good. I feel like I started somewhere huge, and there's sort of nowhere to go from here... I feel like it was a big responsibility and I was really intimidated for a while, but now that it's done and I've had some breathing time to step away from the project and I'm not living it anymore, I feel good. I'm really proud. I've never worked so hard on another movie and you wouldn't expect that.. It's a big studio movie, but...

Well, it was a pretty emotionally intense experience for you.
Yes, it was.

How long did it take to shake off the character of Bella?
I bought a truck, the truck that Charlie [Bella's dad] has in the movie, and I drove it home from Portland, and it was like driving away... Not that it was something I had to get away from. It was just, it was such a complete experience. I got over it. I drove all the way home. I mean, it was okay. [laughs] It didn't take that long. Just the drive home, I guess.

Edward, whom Bella falls for, is a vampire, but it seems like he could be the equivalent of the sensitive bad boy in real life, too.
Well, yes. There are a million guys like that, and most girls have the same feelings for them. Yeah, there are a bunch of little themes like that. I mean, yes, it's a fantasy, and we're at Comic-Con [so it's in the] comic book genre, but it's very close to home. It's about real human beings, even though the vampires aren't human. He is. That's what differentiates him between the good and the bad vampires, is that he still has a connection to his human self. He's not just given to the animalistic side.

What appeals to you about Bella?
Bella is a very honest... I mean, I could relate to her because she's just a very straight-up, good-natured girl who found herself in an insane position... [She's] seemingly logical, and then all of the sudden she's thinking of herself as a psychotic person and [she's] just swept away by something more powerful than her. Every girl wants to lose herself. And Bella started out hard and just lost it, and that's what I really loved about it.

By Pamela Chelin

Step Brothers

Release Date: July 24, 2008
Starring: Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly, Mary Steenburgen, Richard Jenkins, Adam Scott, Kathryn Hahn, Rob Riggle
Directed by: Adam McKay


It's been two years since director Adam McKay teamed up with Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly for Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. In this tale penned by Ferrell and McKay, Will and John star as Brennan Huff and Dale Doback, unwitting step sibs whose parents meet at a convention and bond over their still-full nests. Talladega had a semblance of a NASCAR-driven plot that was held together by hilarious riffing by Ferrell and Reilly. Step Brothers, however, is like the guys were just let loose to run around in brightly colored briefs and vintage tee-shirts. Depending on how you feel about their brand of comedy, this could be a very, very good thing — or your worst nightmare.

While the movie's ad campaign focuses on Ferrell and Reilly, Step Brothers is really more of an ensemble comedy. As Nancy Huff, Brennan's long suffering (and somewhat enabling) mother, Mary Steenburgen is hilarious and sweet; if you've ever wanted to see her yell, "What the f*cking f*ck!" while covered in mud, here's your chance. And Richard Jenkins, known for his role as the dead father in "Six Feet Under" and numerous big-screen appearances, is fantastic as the frustrated father who retreats to Applebee's when he needs to get away from his insane family. Kathryn Hahn, who plays Derek's put upon and horny wife Alice, steals each scene she's in.

Step Brothers is a hard R, for good reason. While it's somewhat sweeter, if you will, than a typical Apatow flick, the ludicrous situations call for equally ludicrous behavior and statements. It wouldn't be nearly as funny for Dale and Brennan to get grounded if Brennan didn't yell, "Are you f*cking high?!"

Movie-goers like to peg actors or collaborators to certain trends. They sigh and say, "Oh, not those guys again! Not another Will Ferrell sports movie!" (Okay, the latter is kind of true.) But I, for one, will not say that when the next McKay/Ferrell/Reilly flick hits the big screen. Or when Step Brothers comes out on DVD.

— Jenni Miller

Exclusive: Matthew Goode on 'Brideshead' and 'Watchmen'

The star of 'Brideshead Revisited' discusses going toe-to-toe with Emma Thompson and reveals some very juicy 'Watchmen' details.

Matthew Goode gets up and strides over to the window and opens it. It is one of those oppressively hot and humid summer afternoons in New York City, and the warm air rushes in, diluting the cool of the air-conditioned room. He searches his jeans pockets and then the room for a lighter he has misplaced somewhere, but his train of thought remains unbroken and he continues to talk in a deep English-accented baritone. The timbre of his posh voice is that of a much older man and seems a little at odds with his tall lean, rangy figure clad in t-shirt and black woolen skater-boy cap. Leaning out the window, he lights up and takes a drag.
"It's hard to read!" he exclaims in reference to the Watchmen graphic novels by Alan Moore. Goode stars as superhero Ozymandias (a.k.a. Adrian Veidt) in the big screen adaptation of the series directed by 300's Zack Snyder. Even though it's not slated to open until March 2009, comic book fans are rabid for any details about the film, and luckily Goode is happy to oblige.
Perhaps even more taxing to read is Evelyn Waugh's classic pre-World War II novel about the decline of the British aristocracy, Brideshead Revisited. This was required reading for Goode's role as middle-class Charles Ryder, the narrator who is seduced not only by his Oxford friend Sebastian Flyte (Perfume's Ben Whishaw) but also by his opulent lifestyle and the grandeur of his ancestral home, Brideshead.

Here the star of Woody Allen's Match Point and the hunk in Chasing Liberty deconstructs his character's motivations in Brideshead Revisited and discusses the pressures of going toe-to-toe with Oscar-winner Emma Thompson. Goode also lets slip some juicy Watchmen details about Adrian Veidt's Nazi past (seriously!) and talks about bulking up to play Veidt's alter ego, Ozymandias.

In Brideshead Revisited, you worked with Michael Gambon and Emma Thompson, two tremendous actors, legends of British cinema. While Emma Thompson has only five scenes in Brideshead, I think, you were in most of them. Did you feel like you need to step up your game in some way?
Absolutely! It is quite fearful. I had Michael whom I had looked up to and was one the reasons that made me decide that finally [acting] was an avenue worth pursuing... Particularly for me, I don't have any friends in the industry and [I said to myself], "Wow, I have done all right. I am at an extraordinary level now." Which I never thought I would be and maybe this will be the only time [that I am]. It is what you get from Woody Allen. It is a self-confidence... that you are doing the right things and making interesting choices. I always feel incredibly intellectually inferior so this is a nightmare, really, sitting down and talking about why the film is thematically rich. I always think, "Oh God!" [hands clasped to the top of his bowed head]. Talking through how these scenes are going to work with someone like Emma, they come into the room with all this canon of work and you say to yourself, "Fucking hell! I have got to really step up. And I don't even know what that means." And that is all dispelled the moment they walk in. You don't see them as normal people [but] they are so down to earth. Emma is just so much fun! And I suspect that she doesn't suffer fools gladly. I think they know what they walk into a room with, and it is as uncomfortable for them as anybody else. So there is almost an effort to be more normal. Those dinners that we had with Emma, spending time with someone in their own environment is [like in Charles in Brideshead]; you are let into a different world and you get to see them be "normal." Once you start cracking jokes and making those kind of people laugh, they become friends quite quickly.

In the same way that Brideshead is a sprawling novel or 11-part TV series, Watchmen is based on a 12-issue graphic novel.
I saw the trailer the other day, and I am now very excited about it. I was quite insular because I do a lot of scenes without the other actors, and also I made my life difficult by... giving Adrian Veidt a sort of personal and private [world] on top of the fact that he has this alter ego as well. What is his past? Was he possibly born in Germany, given that was his name? So we decided to go there.

So you have been developing with director Zack Snyder pieces that might fill in the gaps of his past? You know there is a rabid fan base that will be analyzing every single aspect.
I know, which has got me very scared now. But I thought, "Why did he give his wealth away?" Particularly with all the stuff that is under the hood with Hollis Mason [Night Owl] saying, "Yeah, we were Nazis back then." I thought that, actually considering [Adrian's] moral ambiguity, might it not be interesting [if] he gave his parent's wealth away — as I say, no one is going to know this [for sure] — because they were Nazis, as well as wanting to start again and build himself up? So we thought, "Okay. Wouldn't it be interesting, therefore, if he did move to America and in his public scenes he has got a clear-cut American accent but actually with the Watchmen he is allowed to be himself, so he has a slightly North American-Germanic accent which, when he gets slightly more stressed throughout the film, gets a little bit stronger?"

His story or plotline is complicated and I was wondering if we are supposed to pinpoint him as a bastard or a savior or as someone who has sold out. There are so many interpretations.
Well, I think, again it is those gray areas and the fact that you see Rorschach in the beginning as a hero and... we see [Ozymandias] as a sellout at the beginning... that is his kind of a masterstroke in a way. And it is the kind of practicality in a similar way as Charles [Ryder in Brideshead] using [his] paintings to get what is necessary. People think he is a [bleep], but he is not in it for the glory. He is in it absolutely to save the world because it is about to go off. He has the practicality of going, "Okay, I will kill 15 million people to save billions." But it is not for his own personal glory. It is just to get it done. It is obviously awful what he does, but if he hadn't done it, what would have happened?

Zack Snyder has said that he chose younger actors, even though a lot of older Hollywood actors had been hankering for parts in Watchmen, because it is easier to age younger actors.
Yes! I know. It also makes it cheaper so you can spend more on the film and less on us.

Did that mean that you had spent a lot of time in make-up and having prosthetics applied? Well, luckily my character is meant to be in incredibly good nick [shape] anyway, so having a thirty-year-old play a 40-year-old is not so out of the realms of possibility, whereas Jeff Dean Morgan [Edward Blake/The Comedian] had to go through three eras: his 20s, and then his 40s, and he ends up being up 60-odd so he had some agonizing prosthetic work done. He would be in the [make-up] chair for eight hours and would have watched however many episodes of whatever he was watching on his DVD player and be exhausted before he had even started the day.

Adrian Veidt is supposed to be the pinnacle of human physical ability...
Suspend your disbelief, I know. [glancing down at his thin frame]

I gather that the costume is a bit like the Clooney Batman costume, complete with nipples and muscles. Does that mean that you had to do any working out, or was the muscle part of the costume?
As opposed to where I am now, my thin as piss look, I put on [weight]. I had a two day break between Brideshead and Watchmen: I finished in Morocco on the 19th of August and on the 21st I was in Vancouver starting rehearsal... In that first month I put on eating beef and chicken breasts. And I thought that, although it is nice to be in good nick and I lost a bit of weight around the face just from working out and it was nice to have those slightly Germanic, angular things going on, it wasn't so necessary... Actually, when you look at Christian Bale and anyone else [who portrays a superhero] and they are wearing a normal suit, you realize, "Well, actually, you are not that big!" It does most of the work for you, I suppose.

Tell us about Veidt's love of all things Ancient Egyptian.
It is based on Rameses II. [Veidt] takes this year off and has a vision when he swallows a ball of hash, and suddenly it is all about Alexander and his conquering of the world and all that sort of stuff. I should better read it up again before I go to Comic-Con. Karnak [Veidt's Antarctic fortress] is where all the artifacts are. Also, he has his one outfit. He has a sphinx-like thing and, like, a pyramid.

Have you seen your action figure yet?
I saw it on set. Because [Adrian Veidt] is a bit of a sellout, it is one of the things that people have been buying. It was there from the beginning in one of the first scenes we shot. I was like, "Fucking hell!" It was actually weird. They did such a good job of it. It looks like [me], as opposed to most of the time when it doesn't really.

In Brideshead, what was it like to play someone who was basically just an observer and reactor to the other characters and events in the film? And yet you must have felt pressured to carry the film as you are in the vast majority of scenes...
First of all, it gets exhausting because it is six days a week, 17 hours a day, and that can be quite tiring but fulfilling. I struggled a little at the beginning with Charles because he is so vocal as he is the narrator in the book. So you have all that taken away and so when I first read it, I thought, "What is my way in?" I don't really like all the reactionary bullshit. I don't generally talk about what I do for my homework because that is my stuff so it doesn't really need to be spoken about, but I think he seemed very cold. But I think that [changes] once he has been thrown out by the Marchmain family and he is left to get on with his own devices. He is still trying to find out who he is and what he wants to do in life. There is so much sympathy that goes with Sebastian whereas actually he is a petulant drunk, really. Obviously he is dealing with all that shit [with his family], but he still throws out the most important person in his life. People forget that Charles does go back to try and get Sebastian. He honors what he says. Sebastian says that he is not going back so you can't drag him. I think that is one of the reasons [Charles] feels so much guilt at the end. My way [into] Charles was [through his childhood]. There is so much about those formative years that shape your personality. He has no mother, no one to look up to, no friends. I just thought he must be one of the loneliest people. At least Sebastian had a family. At least he had Julia. But Charles has no one! And no love in his life. I think that people don't necessarily get that. Or they do, but I certainly didn't get that at the beginning.

So did you interpret him as someone flattered by Sebastian, enamored of Julia, or simply driven by ambition to take possession of both of them and Brideshead?
I think it was about loneliness. I think he was put in a slightly awkward spot. He [thought], "I have found someone so extraordinary and charming, although I also like the fact he isn't so necessarily charming and there is a petulance to him." But he is the only person that Charles has. I like the fact that the integrity of the novel is upheld in those ambiguities because you still don't want to demonstrate stuff to the audience. You want them to be asking these questions at the end. If you are not from that society, it is difficult when you are in the middle. We all want to better ourselves in the situation we come from, so if you get shown that world, why any one of us would [turn away from it]? Although saying that, the world shown is not all fine and dandy. It is not. Everyone seems pretty fucking miserable in that world, are not real and not particularly nice. So he is fighting a slightly losing battle. I never saw him as this huge social climber. It is not quite as black and white as that.

At one point, Julia says to Charles, "According to you, I am worth two pictures. What does Charles Ryder really want?" Did he want too much? Did he covet too much? Was it greed?
Well, he made a mistake [by marrying] Celia — that was a really ambitious thing to do. He married her and she is Boy Mulcaster's sister and we know what he is like! So, we know that that was a big mistake, and [in the book] she was having affairs and possibly had a child with somebody else because he doesn't seem to want to go back and be with his children. So, I think that maybe [the first child was his] and then she had somebody else's. But that is, again, a gray area. When you don't understand the complexities of love or have never [experienced] it yourself, it is the idea of possessing her [that attracted him]. I don't think he was ever fully in love with her. I think that is what is wrapped up with the guilt at the end and the loneliness and possible conversion to Catholicism. So at least he has someone. So, yes, greed, in a sense, but it is not really about monetary value. I always thought that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't with the selling of the paintings [in exchange for Julia]. It is a very male practical thing to do. And if anybody, she is the rude one: she's outside the door listening in — although [laughs] that is slightly facetious, obviously. But it is the only thing he has got. It is the only thing he has to offer.

By Karl Rozemeyer

The 'Twilight' Phenomenon: The Director and Author at Comic-Con 2008

Director Catherine Hardwicke and series author Stephenie Meyer discuss the 'surreal' phenomenon surrounding 'Twilight' and staying true to Meyer's vision.

The fans of Stephenie Meyer's Twilight books are fierce. The Internet is swarming with fan sites, blogs, Facebook pages, and forums devoted to the sweet story of Bella Swan and her vegetarian vampire boyfriend, Edward Cullen. The anticipation for the movie, which won't be out until almost Christmas, is already deafening — literally. The fans at Comic-Con 2008 who attended the Twilight panel shrieked like the cast, director, and author were The Beatles' second coming.

Premiere was lucky enough to meet with some of the stars of Twilight, director Catherine Hardwicke, and bestselling author Stephenie Meyer to discuss staying true to Meyer's visions, good vampires versus bad vampires, and much more.

How do you feel about the phenomenon that's been your work?
Stephenie Meyer: It's a very strange and surreal thing and most mornings I get up and don't think about it at all, and then I come some place like here and I'm not allowed to walk in the front door! And it's weird and it's hard for me to... You know, I have a very normal life, and so when I have to step out of that and realize that I have all these readers and all this excitement, it's weird. It's great! But, it's really strange.

How did this whole thing come to you? Where was that flash of inspiration for you?
SM: It was an actual flash. I was not planning to write. I had no aspirations to be a writer, [but] I had this really fantastic dream. I wrote it down so I wouldn't forget it, and in [that] one day I was hooked on writing.

How reticent about giving up the rights? What were you looking for when you decided to say yes?
SM: I lost a few nights of sleep over it. The two sides [of my brain] were [competing]... more adaptations than not [have] turned out badly. There are a few that are amazing, but most of the time it's not a good thing. But, then on the other side, I saw the book very visually when I was writing it, and just to see one scene of it on the big screen [was worth it]. I didn't care about anyone else going to see it. This was about me, alone, in the theater getting to see it on the screen and having it be real, and that's what swayed me.

How close of an adaptation is it?
SM: I have not seen the whole thing yet, but from the script and from the days on set, they are really working hard. I mean, the goal was to make it as close to the book as possible, given the time constraints of the film. I mean, the book was a bit long.

Catherine Hardwicke: We did have to tighten it up a little bit.

How did you end up directing the project?
CH: I read several scripts that Summit was planning to make last year and I threw away all the other ones, but this one looked really interesting. Then I went and read the book next and I thought, "Oh my God, the book is so powerful and so much better than the script." So we kind of threw that script away too and started over and got the script to really match the book the best that we could.

You look like Bella to me. How do you like the Bella that they chose for you?
SM: I think Kristen is a really great actress. When they first told me about her, I'd seen her in other things where she played more of a blond bombshell and I was like, "Hmmm...." But then when they got her in makeup and hair, and Catherine's really just great at bringing out in an actress what needs to be there, and [Kristen's] really got it down. Plus, I really love her voice. I just think she has Bella's voice.

Do you prefer the evil vampires or the nice vampires?
SM: [laughs] You know, I love them all in different ways. I can totally see Victoria's perspective and James's perspective, so I have a really hard time preferring one to the other. I mean, obviously the Cullens get the spotlight most of the time, but I really have a fondness for my bad vampires.

Do they reflect various aspects of your own personality?
SM: I think so. I think that different things come through, but they are all really distinct in my head, you know, very different people from me, but I suppose little pieces of myself fit in there.

How much creative control do you retain for the film side of things, and, Catherine, how much do you lean on her for being a source?
CH: We wanted Stephenie to like what we did, and we loved what she did. That was the whole inspiration, so we tried to spend as much time with Stephenie... to get [her] over to the set, though she was really busy at the same time, because she was writing two other books and traveling the world. She came to the set... what, three times?

SM: Three times. One of the times, I spent almost a week, which was great. That was really fun. As an author, you can't really control that kind of project. First of all, they won't let you. Secondly, it's a different medium and I don't know how to work in that medium, and so I was very much, "Summit has their way of doing things," and when they had questions for me, I was ready to answer them. I really loved to hear what was going on, but, overall, I don't know how to make a movie and I'm not going to think that I can go in there and tell them, "This is how it should be done."

CH: We'd email Stephenie, "What about this?" "What about this?" "Does this sound good?"

Did you want a cameo in the film?
SM: They wanted me to do it. They actually wanted me to have a line, but I just did not want to take away from the movie. Like, "Who is that dorky woman who can't speak a single line?" So I'm there for a brief flash.

CH: She's in one scene.

SM: I didn't say anything because I didn't want to take anybody out of the movie with me and my clunky delivery.

What is life as a bestselling author like for you?
SM: You know, I don't know how to compare it. My life is pretty much the way it was before. I'm all about my kids and that's really my whole life, so right now it's getting ready for school and all of that, and every now and again, I have to step out of my comfort zone and be "Stephenie Meyer."

Catherine, you seem to do a lot of work with younger people and to draw great performances out of them. What is special about young people to you that you work so well with them?
CH: I think it's such an exciting age, like, coming-of-age stories, like the first time you can drive a car or drink or kiss a boy, so all those emotional things are happening and it's really kind of like the greatest time, period.

What will you do next?
CH: I really don't know, because right now we're in the middle of this so much and totally thinking about it 24-7.

Will you direct another Twilight movie?
CH: Well, it's all kind of... it hasn't been exactly decided... I mean, we've all got our fingers crossed... and hope it keeps going and all of that.

Who are your own favorite vampire characters?
SM: See, here's the thing. I'm not a vampire person, so before I started writing about them, I had never seen... I mean, pieces of vampire movies, but I had never been to a vampire movie, I'd never read a book about vampires besides my own, so I'm really not into horror... I don't know the genre.

Do you think that is why your books resonate with a wider audience?
SM: I think it's why they're different, because it's not a genre I am stuck in where I would know what walls I break through, because I don't know they're there. I think it's more about just Bella being an ordinary person that people can relate to. When I was writing this, I was not writing this, at the time, for anyone else ever, ever to see... Even my husband didn't know what I was doing. I was just having fun, so if you could sit there and create your own little world... it was like, "What if she could see the future?" Well, that would rock. "What would happen if they played baseball?" Oooh... it was just pure fun.

What inspired the diamond skin?
SM: That was part of the first dream that I had, so that was sort of a gift from that dream. It's one of the really, I think, pretty things about it that's different from a lot of vampire stories.

Have you seen the footage?
SM: No. I have seen probably 15 minutes total.

Was it what you imagined in your dream?
SM: Some of it. You know, I mean, obviously there are going to be little differences, but some of it was nailed.

By Pamela Chelin

'Twilight's Bad Boy Vampire: Cam Gigandet

Cam Gigandet talks about being the most bad-ass vampire on the block and why his character is out to get 'Twilight's young lovers.

Tell us about your role in the film Twilight.
I am James. I am one of three of the bad vampires. I am a bad, bad vampire. Well, so everyone else thinks. I think I'm just misunderstood! My sole goal is to basically kill Bella, I guess, and revel in Edward's pain as he watches it. It's definitely related to Edward. I see what Edward has with her. He has love. He is everything that I am not and [has everything I] do not have, and Bella is directly related to that. And Bella, alone, even has something I don't understand. It's something that draws everyone to her. She has that something, so being that I don't understand it, I want to squash it.

So, you're a jealous vampire?
Jealous? In a way, yeah.

Jealous or obsessed?
I think obsessed is actually a better word. You know, it's something that he doesn't have and doesn't understand, and once he makes that commitment to do what he sets out to do, it is an obsession.

Is it fun being bad? Being the villain?
Yeah, you know, I have done it a few times, now. I kind of love it.

You are always the bad-ass.
I kind of am.

Why do you love it so much? Why are you always cast that way?
I don't know why, really. It's not like I'm a terrible person. I might be. I don't know. It's something that... I don't know... It just kind of connects. I understand where they could be coming from. Not that I personally make the choices that they make, but you know, if you break it down a little further, they are all good guys/bad guys. They're still having the same issues; it's just how they deal with them. I think breaking a bad guy down to, "He had his heart broken," he can deal with it one of two ways, and [sometimes] he just goes the other way.

What makes it still a vampire, physically, since these are not conventional vampires?
I was going to say that they are all stunning-looking, but that is mostly with regards to the Cullen family, the good family of vampires. They are all stunning... They walk into a room and everyone stops and stares, but, aside from that, the trackers — the bad ones — they look like bums. But there isn't that noticeable [of a] difference. They are all very pale. They don't really go out into the sun, although they can be in the daylight. It's kind of just how they move and how they walk, and they have extra strength and they are super fast and suck blood instead of salads, I guess.

Did you work on your physicality?
Yeah, once we got there, we actually watched numerous cat videos, like tigers and lions and all sorts of things, because they move with such a grace and speed and power and make it look so easy. Not that we're running around like cats, but there's that movement. It's very fluid, so we worked on that as much as we possibly could. And we even worked with a dance choreographer to get in touch with our bodies.

Had you read the books?
Yeah, actually, last summer I was away filming and my girlfriend at the time actually got the book from someone on the airplane when she was coming to visit, and she read it and said, "You've got to read this book. It should be a movie." So I read it and said, "Let's get all the information we can. We're going to make it ourselves." Then, two months later, I found out that it was being made by the same people who were producing the movie I was actually in [Never Back Down]. It was pretty wild.

Was it difficult doing the stunts?
It was very difficult. What added to the difficulty was that, for scheduling reasons, we had to put our biggest fight, the one in the ballet studio, in the very first week of shooting, and that was our major stunt that we had and there was no CGI. It was all wire work and tons of choreography, but the biggest thing was the amount of wire work. Having two vampires who have super speed and extra strength... Some of the things, like the one where he goes into the wood floor, that was a little too much for me and I opted not to do it, but I did as much as I thought I could do without not dying.

Did you get bruises along the way?
Yeah, I got some bruises. Nothing too bad. Just bumps and bruises.

What are you doing next?
Next, I am doing a movie called Pandorum. It shoots in Berlin [and also stars] Dennis Quaid and Ben Foster.

Who do you play?
I actually play... I can't tell you. Well, I play... This is how I've been explaining it to everyone else... I'm actually a soldier on a spaceship.

Are you a good guy or a bad guy?
Good!

So, you do get to play a good guy.
In The Unborn, which comes out after Twilight, I'm actually a good guy as well.

What about the movie you are supposed to do with Oliver Stone [Pinkville]?
We were supposed to leave on the 31st of November and it got postponed four days before we were supposed to leave, which was a bummer. I mean, we were in rehearsals.

Why did it get postponed?
I think because of the strike and everything.

By Pamela Chelin

Behind the Scenes on Hollywood's Biggest Movies

In the entire history of Hollywood photography, no photographer has ever documented the craft of filmmaking the way David Strick has.

There have been many notable celebrity portraitists, from George Hurrell to Herb Ritts, who have captured the glamour of movie stars. There also have been many photojournalists, from Henri Cartier-Bresson to Douglas Kirkland, who have documented movie making. But no one has done it the way Strick has been doing it for the past 30 years or so.

Strick's images capture the often funny and sometimes poignant interplay between the reality of the filmmaking process and the fantasy of the movies themselves. These are the moments when the actuality of craft and creativity are transformed into what Strick calls Hollywood's "industrial magic."

"The end product of this process affects all of us so deeply, but no one ever really has paid much attention to the work itself," he notes.

Strick published his first collection of images in the 1987 book Our Hollywood, and for many years his work was seen regularly in Premiere magazine. Beginning this summer he became a contributor to the Los Angeles Times with a weekly feature called "David Strick's Hollywood Backlot" that can be seen both online and in the Thursday edition of the newspaper.

This publishing arrangement gives Strick a unique platform for his visual ideas and has reignited his career. He talked with American Photo recently about working in two media at once, as well as his singular vision of Hollywood.

An Angsty Leading Man Who Caught the Spirit of His Times

At the busy height of his unlikely career Elliott Gould was as much an embodiment of the times as a movie star. As the 1960s faded into the ’70s, Mr. Gould appeared in role after role that seemed to crystallize the ideals and anxieties of the era.

He played a reluctant swinger and an avid philanderer in the free-love comedies “Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice” (1969) and “I Love My Wife” (1970). With opposition to the Vietnam War cresting, his character in “MASH” (1970), the irreverent Army medic Trapper John, became an instant anti-establishment hero. Within days of the Kent State shootings he was on screens as a radicalized graduate student in “Getting Straight” (1970).

Mr. Gould, who turns 70 on Aug. 29, is being honored in his native borough, Brooklyn, with a series at BAMcinématek that takes its title, “Elliott Gould: Star for an Uptight Age,” from a September 1970 Time magazine cover. Mr. Gould will appear for two question-and-answer sessions as part of the tribute, which runs from Friday through Aug. 21 and features 10 films, all made between 1969 and 1976.

This was a tumultuous period for Mr. Gould, beginning with his swift rise from the Broadway minor leagues to the studio A-list, a vanguard figure of what the critic J. Hoberman has called “Hollywood’s Jew Wave,” the “leading man as schlemiel.” But after an intense experience working with Ingmar Bergman, Mr. Gould went on an existential walkabout, eventually returning from the wilderness with the help of his friend Robert Altman.

On the phone from his home in Los Angeles, Mr. Gould spoke warmly of the movies in the series. “The films hold up as social comments in relation to what seemed to be a changing world,” he said. On the matter of being a generational symbol, though, he was more tentative. “For an awkward audience that didn’t necessarily understand the order of things,” he said, “I would perhaps say I was someone to identify with. One of the things about me is that I’m vulnerable. You can see through me.”

That touching transparency is central to Mr. Gould’s appeal both on and off screen. He has long been prone to bouts of public introspection. The 1970 Time profile pins its subject to the psychoanalytic couch, coaxing out details of his childhood in Bensonhurst, the only son of immigrant parents who had high hopes for his showbiz career, and his failed marriage to Barbra Streisand, whose early stardom saddled him with the nickname Mr. Streisand.

“I’m a little embarrassed about all that now,” he said. “I let myself be known before I understood myself. But had I understood what I was doing, I couldn’t have accomplished it.”

There was certainly an element of bravado in some of his early career decisions. For “Little Murders” (1971), a dark farce based on a Jules Feiffer play, Mr. Gould approached — and briefly secured — Jean-Luc Godard to direct. “I wanted someone really avant-garde,” he said. But the relationship with the irascible Mr. Godard soon foundered.

Mr. Gould said, “I told him: ‘Look, the establishment here does not want to work with you. I want to work with you, and the establishment wants to work with me.’ ” (Mr. Godard’s response, as Mr. Gould tells it, is not printable.)

The studio ended up installing the actor Alan Arkin as director. “Elliott was a dream as an actor and a producer,” said Mr. Arkin, who added that the characterization of Mr. Gould as an emblem of uptightness was misleading. “I’ve always thought he had a looseness about him.”

That easygoing quality is perhaps best showcased in the films Mr. Gould made with Mr. Altman. The partnership did not begin smoothly. Mr. Gould and his “MASH” co-star Donald Sutherland found Mr. Altman’s improvisatory method off-putting and wanted him fired. “Sutherland and I both took ourselves a little too seriously,” Mr. Gould said. “But luckily I came around. Bob opened everything up for me.”

Mr. Gould and Mr. Altman teamed up for four more films, including “California Split” (1974), in which Mr. Gould and George Segal play compulsive gamblers, and “The Long Goodbye” (1973), a revisionist update of Raymond Chandler with Mr. Gould’s indelibly mournful take on Philip Marlowe. It was perhaps his definitive performance. He has recorded numerous Chandler books on tape since and said he hoped to play Marlowe again, in an adaptation of “The Curtain,” one of the stories that inspired “The Big Sleep.”

Listening to Mr. Gould talk, it is hard not to hear traces of Marlowe’s gently rambling voice-over in “The Long Goodbye.” He speaks almost in a stream of consciousness, interrupting himself to remind his interviewer that he hasn’t forgotten the question and breaking off anecdotes to ask, “Have you read this somewhere before?”

The film from the BAMcinématek series that he was most eager to discuss was “The Touch,” Bergman’s first English-language movie, which Mr. Gould flew to Sweden to shoot right after landing that Time cover. “I remember just about everything about it,” he said, starting with the dread that overcame him when he read the script and came to a sex scene that required him to strike his co-star Bibi Andersson. “I immediately got a migraine.”

Mr. Gould said he relished playing an atypical role — an alienated Jewish-American academic who wrecks the marriage of a Swedish couple — but was emotionally ill-equipped to handle the shoot, and realized that Bergman might have cast him precisely for that reason: “Ingmar came laughing to me one day with a picture of my character, who’s an archaeologist, dusting off a skull. He said, ‘Bring this to your analyst in New York and tell him it’s Elliott finding himself.’ ”

Whether or not Mr. Gould found himself, he came home with his perspective altered. He withdrew from an expensive Warner Brothers project, his production company folded, and he went for more than a year without work, eventually resurfacing with “The Long Goodbye.” (The studio, United Artists, insisted he first take a sanity test.) Bergman later dismissed “The Touch” as a low point of his career, but the film has special resonance for Mr. Gould. (It has been out of circulation for years, and BAMcinématek will be screening Mr. Gould’s own print.)

As the memory of his ’70s heyday receded, Mr. Gould matured into an inventive character actor, staying visible in recent years with recurring roles on “Friends” and in Steven Soderbergh’s “Ocean’s” series. He had successful hip replacement surgery and is, he pointed out more than once, a proud grandfather.

“I’ve always been interested in participating and functioning as an older person,” he said. “The idea is to continue to work. The work is the life. It’s how I learned about the world.”

Hey, America, This Guy’s for You

A pleasant muddle about life, liberty and the pursuit of Budweiser, among other noble and base causes, “Swing Vote” is also one of the most surprising, politically suggestive movies to come out of Hollywood this year. Topped by a gruffly appealing Kevin Costner as a good ole drunk whose vote will decide the American presidency, it takes place in the kind of New Mexico town that might once have been thought of as Capraesque, but in depressed spirit and hard-times veneer comes across like a Dust Bowl Hooverville. The film has a Red State setup — the Nascar champ Richard Petty zooms by — and a serious case of the blues.

Directed by the relative newcomer Joshua Michael Stern (“Neverwas”), who wrote the screenplay with Jason Richman after, it appears, watching Garson Kanin’s 1939 movie “The Great Man Votes” (in which John Barrymore’s boozer has a decisive vote), the film takes its sweet time getting going. Mr. Costner’s entrance as the resident everyman, Bud Johnson, couldn’t be less heroic or more symbolic: he’s passed out and snoring, stretched out in last night’s jeans, when his 12-year-old daughter, Molly (Madeline Carroll), disgustedly shakes him awake. A former cover-band musician whose life has become a blur of benders, Bud has turned his beery nickname into a lifestyle. This drink’s for him, and so are the next 11.

Bud isn’t bad, of course, just one of those good-time guys who has reached a dead end after too many wrong turns. He and Molly live alone in a tumbledown trailer (the girl’s mother went AWOL long ago) with stained walls and no telephone or hot water. He barely makes it to his factory job and when he gets there, you understand why. With his friends Walter (Judge Reinhold) and Lewis (Charles Esten), he packs chicken eggs in a swirl of feathers. It’s a living, if not anything like the high-flying kind that often shows up in modern Hollywood, where leading men tend to play cops and robbers or white-collar variations on doctor, lawyer and corporate chief. Factories belong in other countries (China), other movies (documentaries) too.

The story kicks in after Bud, having promised Molly he would vote in the presidential election, ends up zonked out in his truck. One thing leads to another flatly outlandish thing, and before you can grumble high-concept hooey, both the conservative presidential incumbent, Andrew Boone (Kelsey Grammer, all smiles), and his liberal opponent, Donald Greenleaf (a tamped-down Dennis Hopper), have descended on Bud’s town. Accompanied by the usual fast-talking handlers, stone-faced Secret Service men, news twerps and gadflies, the candidates take sneaky, then obvious turns pulling Bud this way and that — his choices come down to either nuclear annihilation or the rainbow White House — until they themselves have been bent so far out of shape, so contorted by politicking, that they’re almost unrecognizable.

As a message movie, “Swing Vote” couldn’t be louder, even if it can be difficult at first to know which message it wants to send. Molly, a walking, talking megaphone, delivers a speech during a class presentation — a left-leaning warning about voter complacency leading to enslavement — that attracts the notice of a local television reporter, Kate Madison (Paula Patton), a looker with major-network dreams. Her boss, played by George Lopez at full volume, can’t wait to escape, either, which broadcasts another message. Namely that the small town as it was idealized by Hollywood is no longer just a potential trap, the way it seems to James Stewart in Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life.” It’s a dying and dead zone.

If that doesn’t sound riotously funny, it isn’t. But neither is “Swing Vote,” despite Bud’s crinkly grin, some slapstick, a few comic faces (Nathan Lane’s included) and a handful of belly laughs, the biggest of which skewer anti-abortion and anti-immigration rhetoric. This being Hollywoodland, the movie refuses to take sides — actually, it takes them, it just doesn’t admit that it does. There’s no doubt who’s right and who’s not. The candidates aren’t party ideologues, though; they’re decent men led astray by fear and ambition. Bud himself has been sidelined by drink, apathy and bad luck, but also by forces beyond his control, and the movie doesn’t pin his woes exclusively on him. His American dream was as much stolen as squandered.

As it swerves from comedy to drama, from light laughs to dark thoughts — an emotionally brutal scene with a fantastic Mare Winningham as Molly’s mother nearly tears a hole in the film — “Swing Vote” becomes less cohesive and more interesting than it was when Bud crawled out of his first hangover. Unlike classic Capra heroes, those readymade saviors of the people, Bud has been gripped by indifference for far too long to take much notice of anyone beyond his daughter and a few friends. Though the intrusive wall-to-wall music tries to lighten (and direct) the mood at every interval, melancholy clings to this film. Mr. Costner, who eases into his role gracefully, isn’t playing the hero, just a guy who has to save himself.

In this he certainly isn’t alone, as the plump public in “Wall-E” and some Gotham citizens in “The Dark Knight” in turn discover. Though Bud’s initial indifference brings to mind those two films and their suddenly awakened populations, “Swing Vote” is a mainstream, eager-to-please, relatively generic endeavor, not an auteurist showcase. Mr. Stern does nice work with the actors, even the weak ones. But it’s difficult to pick out a distinctive voice amid the loud music and equally blaring commercial imperatives that mandate that even the sharpest political jabs be delivered with smiles. In Hollywood every cloud has a silver lining, and this one also comes with Willie Nelson.


“Swing Vote” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). The expletives are undeleted.


SWING VOTE

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Joshua Michael Stern; written by Jason Richman and Mr. Stern; director of photography, Shane Hurlbut; edited by Jeff McEvoy; music by John Debney; production designer, Steve Saklad; produced by Jim Wilson and Kevin Costner; released by Touchstone Pictures. Running time: 2 hours.

WITH: Kevin Costner (Bud Johnson), Madeline Carroll (Molly Johnson), Paula Patton (Kate Madison), Kelsey Grammer (President Andrew Boone), Dennis Hopper (Donald Greenleaf), Nathan Lane (Art Crumb), Stanley Tucci (Martin Fox), George Lopez (John Sweeney), Judge Reinhold (Walter), Charles Esten (Lewis), Mare Winningham (Larissa Johnson), Richard Petty (Himself) and Willie Nelson (Himself).

No Film Distributor? Then D.I.Y.

When “Bottle Shock” played at the Sundance Film Festival in January, it appeared to possess that mix so tantalizing to well-heeled indie distributors.

But “Bottle Shock” found no love among distributors in Park City, Utah. So the director, Randall Miller, is opening the film himself next week in 12 cities. With their hopes for conventional movie deals increasingly dead on arrival, more and more indie filmmakers are opting for a do-it-yourself model: self-distribution, once the route of the desperate, reckless or defiant, has become an increasingly attractive option for movies otherwise deprived of theatrical exhibition. “Ballast,” “Wicked Lake,” “The Singing Revolution” and “Last Stop for Paul” are among the indies currently or recently taking the maverick route.

The motivations can be complicated. For example, John Turturro’s “Romance & Cigarettes” was self-distributed late last year, having been left to languish after its producer, United Artists, was sold. In other cases it’s simply a matter of distributors’ tastes differing from those of the filmmakers.

But increasingly, indie filmmakers find themselves caught in a glutted marketplace with too few theaters to handle all the movies, and the basic laws of supply and demand have depressed the prices they can fetch. In 2007, even with the big Hollywood studios trimming their offerings, about 600 films were released in the United States; five years earlier that number was nearly 450, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.

While the orphan-indie route may not be the way a moviemaker dreams it will happen, do-it-yourself is better than a straight-to-DVD release — and certainly better than outright oblivion.

By going their own way, Mr. Miller (whose directing credits include “Marilyn Hotchkiss Ballroom Dancing & Charm School” and the upcoming “Nobel Son”) and his wife and co-writer, Jody Savin, retain the DVD and other rights to their dramatic comedy. They also get to control how their movie is rolled out and marketed.

The downside? “An enormous amount of work, an enormous amount of stress, no sleep and lots of people I’ve come to know and love who have given me millions of dollars,” Mr. Miller said.

But Mr. Miller and Ms. Savin said they felt they had little choice. With the rash of prominent distribution houses recently shuttered or placed in figurative foreclosure — including Paramount Vantage, Picturehouse, Warner Independent and ThinkFilm — options for the indie filmmaker are evaporating.

What remains is the slim chance of being picked up by one of the surviving “mini-majors” like Sony Classics, Fox Searchlight or the Universal-owned Focus Features, or finding themselves at the mercy of smaller distributors. While many are well regarded, most offer small cash advances (if any) in exchange for most of the rights (DVD, TV, international release), but don’t usually spend the kind of money necessary to assure public awareness and ticket sales. This, in turn, virtually precludes entree to the racks at Wal-Mart or Blockbuster, outlets without which a film’s post-theatrical existence will be one of obscurity.

“You‘ve got to have the phone numbers,” said Tom Bernard, the longtime co-president of Sony Pictures Classics. “Self-distribution is good, it can work, but filmmakers who are so innovative in making movies have to channel some of that into learning how the marketplace works.” He said major pitfalls were “carpetbaggers” and “middlemen” who may agree to represent a movie at a place like Sundance, but gravitate to the easy sale and leave their less fortunate filmmakers high and dry.

“We’re in the business of discouraging people from self-distributing,” said Gary Palmucci, general manager of the venerable Kino International, which will be releasing “Momma’s Man” on Aug. 22. That film, by Azazel Jacobs, came out of Sundance this year with the all-important buzz, and had a deal with ThinkFilm until that company’s money problems scotched it. Mr. Palmucci said Mr. Jacobs might have chosen self-distribution, but wisely didn’t because the cards are stacked: the enormous expense of opening a film in major markets like New York, the average filmmaker’s unfamiliarity with the logistics of booking a movie, the hassles in collecting money from exhibitors on time.

To help navigate the sometimes treacherous world of film distribution, Mr. Miller and Ms. Savin hired Dennis O’Connor, a former top marketing executive at Picturehouse, to serve as a consultant. Freestyle Releasing of Los Angeles has been engaged, for an upfront fee and a small percentage of the gross, to handle the physical distribution of the movie (moving prints, booking theaters, etc.). And the publicity on the film is being orchestrated by Mr. Miller, Ms. Savin and Mr. O’Connor, with others enlisted by Mr. O’Connor from among the ranks of distribution veterans.

For the possibly lucrative DVD market, “Bottle Shock” has separate deals with Fox Home Entertainment and the all-important Netflix, both of which have helped in the marketing (which ensures them a better return later). Mr. Miller also negotiated his own deals with airlines and with advertising outlets, and has worked out his own price for prints. Most significant, he raised most of the money for filmmaking and prints and advertising through private investors.

“Wealthy people are really into wine,” Miller said, laughing. “You couldn’t do this with a horror movie.”

But most indie filmmakers won’t be able to raise the $10 million Mr. Miller raised for “Bottle Shock.” Instead they will have to use more cost-effective ingenuity.

The established distributors have regular circuits in which they play their films, media outlets through which they advertise and audiences they court religiously. A self-distributed movie like “Ballast,” which is cast with African-American nonactors and is about down-and-out characters (and opens at Film Forum in October), is compelling its champions to think outside the art-house box and explore new frontiers and demographics, like black churches and Southern audiences. (The movie, which won cinematography and directing prizes at this year’s Sundance festival, had a tentative deal with IFC Films before the director Lance Hammer decided to release the film through his own Alluvial Film Company.)

“At one time distributors were paying so much money they could do anything they wanted, maybe consult respectfully with the filmmakers but essentially do what they wanted,” said Steven Raphael, a consultant on the movie. “But now there’s no money and filmmakers get resentful, so they’re taking back control.”

Neil Mandt, the director, producer and star of “Last Stop for Paul,” a comedy about two men traveling around the world sprinkling the ashes of their dead friend, had a prospective deal with Magnolia Pictures. But the distributor was interested only in a DVD release. Mr. Mandt passed.

“I will be the first to admit that I never imagined that the movie would connect as well as it did when it won a prize at 45 festivals,” Mr. Mandt said. “That’s a crazy number. Despite that, we never were approached by another company for a domestic distribution deal again.”

“Last Stop for Paul” opens next week in New York, and Mr. Mandt hopes a successful opening will lead to a larger rollout. “If all of this goes as planned,” he said, “maybe in another year we will make our money back.”

‘Dark Knight’ Wins Again at Box Office

LOS ANGELES — Batman fever continued over the weekend, with ticket sales for “The Dark Knight” far outpacing the competition and breaking a fresh batch of box-office records.

“The Dark Knight” sold an estimated $75.6 million in tickets at North American theaters from Friday to Sunday, according to Warner Brothers. Among other records it delivered the best second-weekend gross in recent Hollywood history.

“This picture has really taken on a life of its own,” said Dan Fellman, Warner’s president for domestic distribution.

The success of “The Dark Knight” is an example of what can happen when an array of factors coincide very much by accident, industry analysts and studio executives said.

An expertly executed promotional campaign from the studio’s marketing chief, Sue Kroll, helped build anticipation for the performance as the Joker by Heath Ledger, who died in January. The brooding film, directed by Christopher Nolan, also fits the nation’s mood, Warner Brothers executives said. The sour economy is probably helping, as movies are still a relatively affordable form of entertainment.

“We are starting to see a lot of repeat business,” Mr. Fellman said. “Older audiences are also starting to turn out in big numbers.”

Going into its second weekend “The Dark Knight” may also have benefited from a storm of publicity that came when its star, Christian Bale, was questioned by the police in London after his mother and sister accused him of assault. Mr. Bale denied the accusations and was released without being charged.

“The Dark Knight” has sold $314.2 million in tickets domestically in its first 10 days of release, a record. The film is still rolling out internationally.

The weekend was not as kind to 20th Century Fox. The studio’s “X-Files: I Want to Believe,” a big-screen revival of the hit television series, sold an estimated $10.2 million in tickets in North America. It landed in fourth place, narrowly ahead of “Journey to the Center of the Earth,” which sold $9.5 million in tickets — $72 million total since its July 11 release. Chris Aronson, Fox’s senior vice president for distribution, said that “X-Files” had also sold $9.3 million in tickets in its limited overseas release, and as a result, the $30 million movie “will be more than profitable at the end of the day.”

“Step Brothers,” starring Will Ferrell and distributed by Sony’s Columbia Pictures, opened in second place with an estimated $30 million in domestic ticket sales, demonstrating continuing demand among younger moviegoers for sophomoric comedies.

In third place was “Mamma Mia!” with an estimated “$17.8 million in sales ($135.3 million total). The second-weekend performance of the musical, distributed by Universal Pictures, was strong, dropping just 35 percent, one of the lowest dips of the summer among wide releases.

By BROOKS BARNES