Carey Mulligan is the breakout star of your film. She was also in Pride & Prejudice (2005), but how did you discover her?
Director Lone Scherfig: She was just in a pile of casting tapes. She had done very little, so it was chance. I knew that we probably had to find someone unknown because [her character] Jenny is so young. She was always my first choice — but we saw her again and again, and now I feel really bad that we took so long to make the decision. It’s been going so well, so maybe she doesn’t have to go through all that again.

I hope so, too! An Education is set in 1961. How did that particular time period play into the film? What did that mean for Jenny?
I think it’s really important. The way London was changing at that time is so in sync with how she’s changing. The way she’s bursting with energy for a future she can’t describe because she doesn’t know what it is yet is the way London was shaking the war off its shoulders, wanting to do things for fun and to have much more appetite for life, for art and for literature — and music in particular. That became so much more dominant straight after she [would have] entered Oxford.

I known here in the U.S. right now, that time period is really resonating with our culture — if you look at Mad Men, for example.
It’s a bit different. Maybe what is so attractive with Mad Men is that it’s a period where they, in some ways, were more liberated and also more innocent than it’s the case now. It’s a bit different in England because Jenny, she’s among the last generation of women who had that little future and so few possibilities. It’s almost as if Lynn Barber, who wrote this story, had been fighting at that. What that means is that women since Lynn could relax and take for granted that they had the right to do the things that they like to do, to try and to find individual futures for themselves and to live that future, or live that adult life, at least, if you have an education.

But my guess is about America is that it’s this combination of innocence and freedom that attracts you. Here in Denmark, as well, it was more liberated than it is now, and was definitely more innocent and less dangerous. I mean, when I was a teenager, the world was a lot safer than it is now for my daughter as a teenager, which meant that I could have a lot more fun. It wasn’t risky the way it is now.

Were you familiar with Lynn Barber’s story before you started this project?
It was just a 10-page article in a literary magazine. Later on, I think Penguin commissioned some more chapters, and she oddly became a journalist for Penthouse. She almost went too far because I know her, and I think she’s a woman who’s had a very rich, varied and happy life that is right for her. Her only regret seems to be that she now thinks that she should have been a better wife to her husband, whom she met in Oxford. But apart from that, she has fulfilled a lot of her dreams, and she’s a brilliant writer.

But no, I wasn’t familiar with her or her work, but obviously I started reading it when I got the job, to get to know her better and to portray her better. But Jenny is different. Lynn is more sarcastic, more of a fighter, and her piece has much more self-irony. Because Nick Hornby and I are not her, we could describe her with some warmth that’s not in her piece.

Speaking of Nick, what did he bring to the screenplay? Did he make any significant changes to Lynn’s story?
The story is short, so he fleshed it out. There are a couple of characters that are his, especially the teachers, but the structure and a lot of the details are actually in her original piece. I think he’s given it a tone that’s definitely Nick Hornby — and jokes, too. He’s really humorous. [Lynn] says that Alfred Molina’s role (as Jenny’s dad) is a lot more sympathetic than she had imagined. I hope we have added something as well. It’s just layer upon layer, and as long as we’re telling the same story — a group portrait of a girl and the people her surrounding her, particularly David … the more time we spent on it, the more time [it was] in this development situation, the more detail you see, the more contrast and the more integrity. But it’s the same piece that we’re all working on, and that was really important to me as a director that everyone was making the same film, that everyone contributed to the package and tried to strengthen it and get as many facets as possible but not be over-inventive, just tell the story as well as we possibly could.

I really enjoyed Alfred Molina’s performance. Can you tell us what he brought to his character?
He has really good timing. He’s very musical, and so is Nick. That means that lines are something where Alfred Molina feels immediately at ease and pitches them very well from the beginning. Also, [Alfred] felt that he knew that world very well — he grew up in Notting Hill and he thought that Jack who he portrays was definitely someone that he knows, and that Jack and England have a lot in common at the time, the xenophobia and the fear of everything: the fear of food, the fear of excess of any kind, and also the insecurity because he didn’t have an education, so that’s one of the reasons why they would let someone like David into their home. He seems worldly, and they’re afraid to be prejudiced as well. So they let him in and let him run off with their little girl.

I wanted to ask you about the clothes. I loved the costumes in this film, particularly Helen’s [a friend of David's who takes Jenny under her wing], but also Jenny’s as well. I read that you brought mood boards to your meetings with Odille Dicks-Mireaux, the costume designer…
That was about Paris, though, it wasn’t about clothes. But I did a board for each of the characters because it is a character-based film. I thought that’s a good place to start, to ensure that if I have a language problem, that’s not going to be our problem, that we’re all speaking the same language. A lot of film people, it’s helpful to have visual examples rather than to explain. So it was clothes, but it was also photos of real people at the time and props. Because a lot of people on the crew and in the cast had not experienced that period, it was also about communicating that London was not that “swinging” yet, and it wasn’t that long ago. It may be a period film, but a lot of the things are the same still.

She and I had a really good collaboration, and all of the costumes are just real clothes that have been saved. We only made one single dress, which was the nightclub singer’s dress. It was a copy of my Barbie doll’s ’60s dress. Because the singer is so small, she didn’t fit into any of the clothes that they had at the prop house. But it was so easy, and they have so much stuff in England, it’s probably the biggest place in the world for that kind of thing, and because the actresses are so beautiful, they just jump into anything, everything just fits. It was a good way for me to go and talk to the cast about the characters and to be at the costume fittings because then you get to express the character’s style and what would be in his pockets. I do the same thing with the props department, which kind of wristwatch would she have, who gave it to her, it’s a very concrete and specific way of building characters. It’s a good place to start dialogue with the actors, rather than sitting at reading tables.

Thanks, Lone, for speaking to us about the film. An Education is in theaters now.

The movie was The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. And from the iconographic opening credits to the tense final showdown, the movie proved to live up to its title. And yet despite its name, this Western had no clearly defined “good guy” or “bad guy”. There was no cavalry riding in to save the day, no Indian enemies, no settlers to save. Just three men, hardened by the day to day in a rugged west, trying to make a few dollars and the best of several rapidly deteriorating situations.

Even watching this now, I’m still amazed at the long stretches between dialogue, which really gives you the sense of the barren loneliness in the early western desert when often only your horse, canteen and a revolver stood between you and death.

I was hooked. It was a few years later that I learned it was actually the third in a series of westerns starring the enigmatic Clint Eastwood as “the Man with No Name”.

The first movie, A Fistful of Dollars, is still is one of my favorites. While new to most of the American audience at the time, it is actually a credited remake of an Akira Kurosawa movie, Yojimbo (starring Toshiro Mifune) and was later remade as Last Man Standing (starring Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken). One of my favorite things about Fistful movie is how easily a classic story has been translated from and mimicked in these other periods.

Far grittier than other Westerns that had preceded it, A Fistful of Dollars introduced Eastwood as the new Western hero, or more appropriately, the anti-hero. Establishing Eastwood’s character from the opening scene, director Sergio Leone follows the enigmatic traveler to a well, where he stops for a drink of water, and is then begrudgingly dragged into a small-town gang war. Playing on the gangster’s fear and greed, Eastwood quickly manages to turn the tables on them by playing both sides against each other. Besides the classic storytelling, Eastwood’s cool character is a deadly shot and you can’t help but cheer him on against the gangs.

For a Few Dollars More introduces Lee van Cleef’s tough-as-nails character Mortimer while he’s on a bounty hunt. Through clever flashbacks, we learn that Mortimer’s sister had been killed by the fugitive El Indio and Mortimer is tracking him for the reward. Enter Eastwood’s character, who is also tracking El Indio, but for far less than revenge. Eventually, Eastwood’s character orchestrates a duel between Mortimer and El Indio, and surprisingly in character, makes sure it’s a fair fight. Although this was another atypical western for the 1960’s, Eastwood’s character eventually rides off into the sunset with his questionable moral standing intact.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is the most brutal of the three. Looking for buried Confederate gold, it juxtaposes three hardened men against each other with a backdrop of greed and loose, shifting alliances between our anti-heroes. This is an emotional movie where you’re meant to identify with each of the characters, even though you may not like what you see. If you haven’t seen it yet, the Mexican standoff at the end is worth it alone.

The greatest thing about these movies is that they’re not a typical trilogy – you can watch one movie without feeling like you’re missing something from the other two. But fortunately for you, Hulu is able to provide all three of these classic westerns for the month of November. So throw on your poncho, strap on a six-shooter and get ready for a wild ride.

Mark
Hulu’s Content Gun For Hire

Hulu: You attended Columbine High and were at school the day of the shootings, so you clearly bring an insider’s perspective to April Showers. Can you talk about that? Where were you when the shooting began?
Robinson: Well, I was in school and a senior at Columbine on that day. We broke for lunch and, instead of going to the cafeteria for lunch, which I rarely ever did, I went up to the computer lab, which is kind of dead-center in the building. It’s kind of a study hall thing, and I was hanging out with a couple of my friends. They were editing some video projects that they had and I was just there for a second opinion. Apparently the shooting had begun outside in the student parking lot, which is behind several layers of concrete from where we were, so we didn’t hear it. The fire alarm was pulled and you immediately think “We’re two weeks from graduation, it has to be a student prank.” We walked out into the main hallway, which was empty, and within a few moments a whole horde of students came running up the hallway towards us, screaming and yelling “There’s a gun, there’s a gun!” and “They’re shooting people,” stuff like that. So we ducked back into the computer lab and kids were putting themselves into closets and cabinets and hiding under desks. My friends and I just didn’t feel comfortable there. We didn’t want to be in a room if whatever was out there came in there. We were going to be in real trouble, so we left the computer lab and found a way out of the building without encountering any direct gunfire or anything like that.

Is the film told from your perspective?
The film follows about six different points of view. You witness the event primarily through the eyes of the main character, Sean. However, with him as he’s going through the event, are two, three, four other people that, in various stages of the day, kind of get separated and branch off so they have their own unique experiences, and certain experiences that came before the shooting happened, that influence the things that they do during the day. We’ve got some other characters that don’t intertwine with the three main storylines, but you go through it through their eyes and then, at the end, how they all come out the other side — some do, some don’t. The film is not about the shooting. When we were discussing how to film it, I was very adamant that I didn’t really want to stage the shooting in the film, but I knew that I needed to, to some degree, in order for the audience to take the journey with the characters in order for them to understand the rawness of the emotion that they’re going to see onscreen, because that’s one thing the general public doesn’t really see in real life when the news media sweeps in and covers these things. They tend to cover the live pictures of it unfolding, or just after it’s unfolded with a couple of sound bites. Then they bring in experts, but you don’t really see the two dozen, three dozen kids having impromptu gatherings in basements trying to figure out where their lives go from here, or some people having backlash against others, that whole thing. I needed them to see just enough, just enough of the horror to be in the position where our characters and the audience go through the same kind of journey. What you get out of it and how it affects you and how you look to tomorrow is different to each individual, just like in the film.

Was it hard for you to revisit these scenarios? How did this project affect you?
I couldn’t have done this project three years ago, four years ago, five years ago. I’m in a really good place now, emotionally, mentally, everything with regards to that day. I harbor no ill will about the shooting. It is that day, and I’ve come to grips with it.

What was really difficult for me was having to put other people through it, even in a make-believe film sense. But we used 1,500 real high school students. Having to stage these events and talk them through them and get them into that mindset, to put them there and to watch their reaction… after a while, people on the crew were saying “These extras are really good actors,” but I said “I don’t think they’re acting. I think they’re feeling it. What you’re seeing is genuine.” It was hard to all of a sudden be a spectator to this because I went through it and wasn’t able to see it. Now I’m orchestrating it and being a spectator, watching people as it plays out this thing in my life. That was difficult because, I know when we came to town and were looking for extras, everyone was like, “Oh, I’m gonna be in a movie.” But it’s not a Zac Efron movie. A lot of kids, the first day they’re on the set were like, “Oh, we’re in a basement… it looks like a house party scene!” Meanwhile, I’m telling them “No one’s talking. You’re all fixated on the TV.” Then I start describing the images that are on the TV, which the audience never sees because their faces tell you the whole story. Just watching them go there and imagine all of this… It was difficult to have to do that to kids. At the same time, as we kept filming, you could see a bond growing. You could see people reaching out to one another. We had several different schools participate and so it was just really cool at the end of it. You saw these kids go through a transformation without having to lose friends to do it.

The Road is a post-apocalyptic story of a man (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) heading south in an attempt to avoid the impending winter as they struggle against the deteriorating environment, gangs of brutal men, starvation, and their own haunting fears and memories.

In a culture that seems to use apocalypse-scenarios as vehicles for completely action flicks (Escape from New York, Terminator: Salvation) or as fodder for laughs ( Dr. Strangelove, Zombieland), The Road introduces realism. Every detail rings true, from the fleeting surge of electricity in a discovered bomb shelter to the makeshift braces and bandages taped across their bodies. Every interaction is meaningful. Every endeavor bears the burdensome weight of maintaining a dimming morality. Joe Penhall’s screenplay does not shy away from the atrocious, nor does it manipulate the audience for simple shock value.

For those diehard fans of the book, the trailer may have you wondering about the role of The Wife (Charlize Theron). Let me assure you, every liberty screenwriter Penhall took in this regard only works to deepen the connection I felt towards Mortensen’s character while adding highly dramatic moments I hadn’t imagined as I read the book.

As a member of the first generation born into a world bearing technologies capable of annihilating all of it in a moment’s notice, The Road is a story that needed be told and must be watched. It is simply a wake-up call to the fragility of our Earth. And by imagining a world stripped to its core, we see humanity stripped to its bare elements, as well. The Road shows us the worst in people, but ultimately, it is a film about our best. It is not only a story of the bonds between father and son, it is a story about the timeless responsibilities of a man and mankind.

Jordan Bonitatis (jordan.bonitatis@hulu.com)
Hulu’s Film Fanatic

There’s a bit of an announcement we’re hoping you can make about Brief Interviews with Hideous Men. Can you tell us about that?
John Krasinski: Hulu’s premiering the movie first on the Internet [after it finishes its run in theaters], so we’re a part of that, and that’s fantastic. I think anybody in this business would be incredibly fortunate to be a part of anything having to do with Hulu, to be honest. Hulu is one of those ideas that is so cutting edge, that you just know it’s going to be a huge, huge part of people’s lives from now on. Not only for what it is doing and is capable of doing now as an interactive site, but also for what it has potential to grow into, which I think is nothing short of world domination. [Laughs] So we have that to look forward to, that our president will be Hulu.

To have Hulu support you in any way and display the ads for the movie and things like that is incredibly exciting, but then to have the movie be premiered on Hulu after its first run in the theaters is incredible. I think that Hulu’s done an incredible amount for The Office, and we are indebted to [Hulu] in a huge way. I think that it’s a massive part of our popularity, and why people have continued to watch us. We’re really, really lucky to be part of it — I have had experience with being part of a project [The Office] that benefits from being on site like Hulu, so to have our movie on Hulu and accessible to anyone at anytime, it’s really an honor, to be honest.

Well, thanks! And of course, I would say we wouldn’t be Hulu without The Office.
Awww, that’s nice.

Now you lined up some really incredible people for this project. Did you have some of the actors in mind from the start?
Absolutely. When I got the pilot to The Office, I used that money to buy the rights [to the book], but I had actually started writing the script a little bit before I got the rights, which was incredibly — in a negative way — ambitious. I’m sure it’s what more people would call stupid. In doing so, I started writing the script and knew exactly who I was going to cast. At the time, I was waiting tables in New York, and though I was having a great time, I wasn’t necessarily creatively stimulated, so I was constantly looking for inspiration anywhere I could find it. I definitely found it all the time in the theaters, by going to the theater, and by going to independent movies. I just consistently did that as often as I could. The people who I saw have these awe-inspiring performances were the people that I knew I wanted to be in this movie. And all these incredible New York actors who were just so brilliant on stage and in these small, independent movies, where a lot of them were coming out in New York, I just knew that those were the people I wanted in it, and I was just lucky enough to get them.

This being tied to David Foster Wallace, did that make it easier to get these actors?
Yeah, I’m sure it did. I think that being part of a project that is not only based on but also very much his actual writing … The movie’s not at all based on the book. It is completely the material itself. In doing this movie, my only intention was to bring his material to a wider audience in a different medium, but in no way to take the movie and change it in some drastic way. My being involved in the movie and so connected to the book was because of his writing, so I just wanted to do him justice and sort of show more people how incredible this author is and show what an impact he could have on you. I think that, truly, without him knowing it, I think David Foster Wallace wrote near-perfect acting material in these characters. So I didn’t have to pitch the movie very hard to these actors who I said had to come in a day, maybe two for some of them, and have these interviews that they could basically act in one day and really sink their teeth into. They very much appreciated it.

As a writer, how do you approach such a revered author’s work? I would have been intimidated!
Yeah, it’s funny, because to be really honest, Brief Interviews is the anomaly, I think. I can totally see why he hasn’t been adapted before, because his work is incredibly intimidating in that respect. It’s intimidating because you’re so admiring of it as a reader. When you’re a reader of his books, it’s a unique experience that you’ll never have with anyone else. I think he’s bar none one of the best writers ever to have lived, and he’s right up there on the pedestal with all the greats, in my opinion. And the real truth is, there’ll ever be anyone who writes like him again. For me, this book is the anomaly because he actually wrote these characters speaking dialogue, so there are actual words being said that were actually written as characters representing themselves. To me, it was almost near-perfect dialogue and the biggest challenge was editing it down to a piece that could actually fit into a watchable movie rather than an epic miniseries or something. And then also, he was also an incredibly literary guy, and so there were moments where I chose to leave some of the literary vibe into the dialogue, and some where I had to tone it down in order to allow the guys to be a little more accessible. But other than that, really, the script in the movie is all David’s work. I can’t take much credit for it, because the work he did as a writer in this story is what brings such incredible life to these characters.

I understand that he actually called you to give you his blessing. How did that call go?
It was thrilling, for lack of a better word, it was just fantastic. He was incredibly kind, and incredibly generous. I remember him being so soft-spoken and so nice. He put me at ease right away. I remember him being flattered that someone had taken up this book and tried to run it up the hill. He told me that his intention for Brief Interviews was to write a story about a character that you never see or hear from, but by using all the characters around that person, you find out all you need to know about them. And that’s exactly what I’d done. I’d already written the script when I talked to him, and I’d done just that in the script, because all the signs were there. It was just incredible to have that connection with him; that I was not only on the right path, but charging down the right way. It was so inspiring and such a pick-me-up that it was a great way to go into the actual shooting of the movie, knowing that we were on the right path and that we were representing him in the correct way.

You know, the big cinematic move that I did and probably the biggest part of the adaptation that I did is that [the female lead, played by Julianne Nicholson] connected to one of the characters, and I remember he was incredibly excited about that. He said that he had seen Brief Interviews as sort of an incomplete project because it hadn’t fully tied into itself, and there was nothing that could tie them all together. So when I sort of brought one of the characters in the book and connected it to her personally, all of a sudden there was a linear aspect to the movie. I had written one draft that was extremely linear and had all these incredible arcs that were fitting in pretty well, but at the end, when you re-read it, you realized that it just didn’t feel right, that it was feeling forced and fake. And so I realized that the best way to adapt the book was to go back and allow it to be what it wanted to be, which was spontaneous and slightly erratic and something that basically presented itself when it wanted to present itself.

You end up appearing in the film, but that wasn’t always your intention.
It wasn’t at all. My intention was solely to direct. I was pretty sure that these actors could do any of these characters way better than I could, but then we had an actor pull out at the last minute. There was this scheduling conflict, just one of those things that happens. We only had two weeks until we shot the scene. Normally that would be fine, but unfortunately that is such a big monologue and, as such, a huge part of the movie. I had shot all of the other interviews, so it was the last one and it needed to fit in just right. It would be a very stressful situation for any actor to just come in and sort of take on that much dialogue and that much intricate storytelling without knowing any of the other pieces, and I was the only one who knew the pieces. So the producers and I sat down and we decided that I’d be the best person to do it, solely because I’d read it 100 times, for no other reason than I knew what I was talking about when I was sort of relating the story to her and how it would connect to everything else.

Because this was a passion project for you, was the acting easier for you?
It was by far the scariest performance I have ever given; rather, it was the most scared performance I’ve ever given. It has solely to do with the fact that I was the director, and not because it hard to direct myself or anything like that — that’s not at all what happened. The reason why it was so scary was that I had sat behind the monitor and watched all these incredible actors turn in performances that were nothing short of awe-inspiring. The day before, we had shot the bathroom scene, which is one of my favorite scenes in the movie, and so to literally be the last person to go and to be the last piece of the puzzle, and to know that if this didn’t work, the movie wouldn’t work, was probably the worst position I could have put myself in. But I really didn’t want to fail everybody else. Hopefully it works out.

I can imagine how challenging this must have been for you, but I think it worked, I really do. But I have to ask — on behalf of all of the fans of The Office — can you tell us what we’re going to see in the new season? A little teaser, perhaps?
It’s funny, the season premiere is just sort of an old-time structure of The Office — it’s just a really funny episode of The Office. There aren’t necessarily any incredible spoilers; it’s sort of getting back to the season in a way that I think is a really smart way to do it, which is just getting everyone back in the office. But then definitely the wedding episode is coming up and it is fantastic. I think that — and I think I can speak on behalf of the entire cast when I say this — we’re all just huge fans of the show and we love it so much. To get those scripts, we’re as excited as any fan would be to see what’s going to happen next, the way they deal with the wedding and how [Pam and Jim] get together. It’s a scary thing to get married on a show, because it’s always a tough conundrum of whether it’s good for the show or bad for the show. Of course the writers are so fantastic that they did it perfectly.

Last season was such a great season that I really can’t wait to see what’s in store now. Well, thanks, John for your time – we really appreciate it.
Absolutely. Thank you.

Hulu: How did you find out about this story and what made you interested in following it on camera?
Kesten: Well, it starts from a New York Times article, I believe it was around June of 2006. Murray Chass wrote the article, and it showed essentially the group of middle-aged guys who were attempting to start a professional baseball league in Israel. The only problem being that they didn’t have any players, they didn’t have any fields, and they didn’t have any uniforms. They looked like basically just a bunch of guys hoping to start a league. But being Jewish and being baseball fans certainly intrigued us on that level, but if you’re going to start filming something for over a year and promote it for longer than that, you know, it’s got to be something that’s a little bit stronger. For me, personally, it was just sort of the comedic level of the premise. You’ve got a guy who essentially made bagels for a living with no sports management experience, who was basically heading up this dream of baseball in Israel. It always seemed as if they pulled it off, it’d be this tremendous story, but even if they failed, it would still be a tremendous story, but maybe on more of a comedic level. I think the instinct that we both had was that, no matter what the end result was, the journey was just as important and intriguing. We just went ahead, picked up our cameras, and followed them around for a year to see what happened.

You’ve said that this film ends up being less about bringing baseball to Israel and more about following one’s voice. Can you tell us what you mean by that?
Rapkin: I’m always attracted to characters that are outliers, because that’s where I think life gets interesting. This guy, Larry [Baras], despite incredible odds, tried to introduce a sport to a country that really had very little interest in it. It required raising money, a lot of money, millions of dollars. It required just rallying people. It’s almost like trying to make a film. For me, it was a metaphor for trying to make a film, because you have to rally so many people to motivate them between financing and all the resources you need. I immediately felt drawn to Larry in particular and his quest.

How did he end up funding this league? How did he get investors?
Rapkin: Well, Larry put together a really impressive executive board, the most notable name being Dan Duquette, the former Red Sox general manager. He really shook the trees, went out to the community, Jewish or not, and just had this passion and vision. He was able to inspire people who were both sports fans and fans of Israel and liked the idea. One at a time, they started stepping up to the plate, to use a baseball metaphor.

One of the people you feature in the film calls baseball a very Jewish game. What did he mean?
Kesten: [Laughs]That was the one man’s opinion, and I’m not sure I could replicate that, but what he was saying was that it is a very Jewish game because there are a lot of rules — which is the difficulty the league had in attracting a fan base in Israel. For starters, Israel is, I guess, a little more of an aggressive culture than a lot of baseball fans would be used to. And you can understand why. Basketball and soccer are popular; with baseball, you just have to be patient. You have to know a lot of rules. It’s just a difficult game to pick up unless you’ve been playing it your whole life. In that respect, I guess you could call it a Jewish game.

Rapkin: The quote you’re talking about is this guy who said baseball reminded him of the Talmud. What I think he was suggesting was that baseball is very meditational and has a lot of depth to it. It has layers; it’s something you can study for your entire lifetime, and that’s why I think a lot of intellectuals have been attracted to baseball, because of its textured quality. So I think these guys that have studied different religious texts — whether it’s the Bible, the Talmud or the Bhagavad Gita — there’s a similar quality there.

Kesten: And baseball, as far as American Jews are concerned, certainly in the 40s or 50s and 60s, was an assimilating tool, and I think that’s one of the reasons a lot of people did jump on board in terms of this league and that’s why there was this hope for the league’s success. The league captured a lot of those passions that a lot of American Jews have: baseball and Israel.

What kind of turnout did you see at the tryouts?
Rapkin: A very wide range, first off. The league players ranged in age from 17 to 51. Only about 40 percent of the league was Jewish, which surprises a lot of people. There were a dozen Dominicans, like a dozen Canadians, maybe eight or nine from Australia; there was a guy from Japan, and a couple of other countries were represented. The league was extremely diverse, and that not only went for demographics of the league, but also the level of play, the quality of the talent. When they first started out, they had no idea whether or not that would be the only tryout. So they ended up signing some guys that perhaps would not have made the league or been signed if they had known they’d be going to the Dominican Republic to recruit players, or to Miami, which is a hotbed of young talent. So as the tryouts went on, the talent got better, but there was actually a very wide range. It was very much a ragtag league, really, from top to bottom.

What drew these athletes to try out for the team, especially some of the more talented players who came on board later on?
Rapkin: I think every one of these guys is a dreamer in some way. I mean, to take time out of your life to go to an open tryout for a baseball league that hasn’t even formed yet that’s, like, halfway across the Earth — maybe more than halfway — you’ve got to be somewhat of a dreamer. Every one of these guys had a dream to play professional baseball, whether they were from any of the nine countries that were represented in the league. That’s one of the biggest misconceptions about the story. I think people assume it was a bunch Jewish guys, or a bunch of Israeli kids. In a lot of ways, that couldn’t be further from the truth. I think one of the things we’re most proud of in the story and the way that we told it is the diversity of the ballplayers, especially.

What are some of your favorite moments from filming this?
Rapkin: There’s a lot. I mean, obviously, when you’re making something like this, there’s a whole journey that goes on behind the camera that unfortunately you can’t show. We did get to do a commentary track for the DVD, which has some stories on there.

Kesten: I mean it was all incredibly memorable. I think the second trip to Israel where we stayed in the same sort of dorms as the players were staying was pretty incredible. To arrive with them, be on the ground with them, see their excitement and surprise at the living conditions.

Rapkin: One moment that was really special was when we were in Israel, the lead-up to opening day, a couple of players, main characters in the film, went over to Jerusalem. It was two Jews and two pretty devout Christians who were all interested in the league because Israel is the founding place of their religion. So it was really interesting to see those four players going through the Jewish corridor, the Christian corridor and the Muslim corridor and pointing things out to one another. We have one of the Christian characters, Willis Bumphus, putting on a yarmulke to go to the Wailing Wall. One of the Jewish characters, Dan Rootenberg, wondered where the tomb of Jesus is, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. So that was a really special moment, especially because it was actually the first time I had been to Jerusalem. There was a lot going on during that trip.

What’s in store for the film now?
Kesten: There seems to be an endless flow of festivals requesting to show the film. We are going to be releasing the DVD on September 15. [Available through holylandhardball.com.] We’re working on a TV deal.

And what are you guys working on these days?
Kesten: Brett and I both have a television background, mainly sports. We’re both looking to branch out a little bit into some other things. I’m actually working on producing a Travel Channel series right now. We’re always looking, keeping our eyes open for new projects.

Rapkin: I’m just getting started on a film for ESPN about Marion Jones, the track star. And I’m writing my first screenplay, which is based on the winter I spent
with the U.S. ski team doing a documentary series with Bode Miller.

Kesten: I am going to be writing a documentary for HBO Sports on the Broad Street Bullies, which is the Philadelphia Flyers hockey team of the 1970s. It’ll be on early next year.

Sure, we had glimpses of what was to come through appearances on The Tonight Show, The Today Show and the MTV Movie Awards (a moment Eminem will surely never forget), as well as the trailer. But those clips don’t give it all away — there are dozens of moments meant to offend, shock and poke fun at society as Bruno travels the world in search of fame. We’ll just let the fashionista speak for himself:

Rebecca (rebecca.harper@hulu.com)
Editor

We have more titles coming your way this week: more movies, classic TV and a cult-favorite series that offers a creative take on the afterlife. We’ll be revealing clues each weekday afternoon on Twitter and Facebook; follow us or become a fan to see if you can guess what’s in store.

Rebecca (rebecca.harper@hulu.com)
Editor

You’ll also find Whit Stillman’s The Last Days of Disco, with Chloe Sevigny and Kate Beckinsale dancing away the end of an era (and a bit of Jennifer Beals and Robert Sean Leonard, too); the original The Blue Lagoon starring a teenage Brooke Shields; and the movie that made all of us wary about finding a roommate through the newspaper, Single White Female.

Meanwhile, the late great John Candy is a daft private eye searching for a kidnapper in Who’s Harry Crumb?, and Kevin Costner tries his hand as a naval officer/CIA agent in the 1987 thriller No Way Out.

For your consideration tomorrow: A lineup of Saturday morning-worthy animation. Check the Fan Appreciation page tomorrow for all the titles.

Rebecca (rebecca.harper@hulu.com),
Editor

We asked the director of We Are Wizards, Josh Koury, a few questions about his documentary, which covers this fringe group with humor and respect. It’s not just about fanatics — in fact, animator Brad Neely wasn’t a fan when he conjured up an alternate Potter-verse that started a controversy — but about creative people (writers, musicians, artists and parents) who use Harry Potter as an outlet, with some coverage of the so-called “Potter War” that began when film studios stepped in. “We always say the film is about Harry Potter, but it’s not really about Harry Potter,” Koury says. “It’s about creativity and doing creative things and being inspired.”

Personally, I loved the coverage of the Wizard Rock bands, from Harry and the Potters to the Hungarian Horntails (led by a 7-year-old guitar player and his 4-year-old brother, no less). You can read our interview with Koury from the discussions tab on the We Are Wizards video page, or just follow this link and share your reviews or comments with the rest of the Hulu crowd.

Rebecca (rebecca.harper@hulu.com),
Editor/proud Harry Potter fan

The tone is set when Kate, dressed up as Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz, says “There’s no place like home,” and Ellen mutters — under her breath behind mom’s back, of course — “Thank god.”

What follows is the story of a young woman discovering that her homemaker mother was stronger than anyone thought, and that her father — long idolized by Ellen — is not the man she thought he was.

Hope you enjoy the movie,

Rebecca (rebecca.harper@hulu.com),
Editor

Naomi Watts, Sean Penn and Benicio Del Toro bring Guillermo Arriaga’s (Amores Perros) screenplay to life, with Watts playing a grieving mother who’s slipping into old habits. Meanwhile Penn and Del Toro play very two different men — a critically ill mathematician and a born-again ex-con — who are brought together by Watts’ character.

Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (also from Amores Perros) spins 21 Grams into an intricate web, mixing the past and present of each character to tell their stories. But the result isn’t as confusing as it sounds. Once you stop trying to make sense of the pieces, you find that everything comes together.

Another feature film comes tomorrow, this one a Meryl Streep tear-jerker. We’ll reveal the title at hulu.com/holidays tomorrow.

Rebecca (rebecca.harper@hulu.com),
Editor

For grocery store cashiers Ronna and Simon, it will be a night unlike any other. From attempted drug busts and car wrecks to strip clubs and shootings, the kids featured in Go attract a lot trouble. Ronna (Sarah Polley) just wants some rent money, so when two guys (Party of Five’s Scott Wolf and Action’s Jay Mohr) approach her looking to score some ecstasy, she’s willing to oblige — and even use her best friend, Claire (Katie Holmes), as collateral to make the score. And from there, it’s all downhill. There’s the undercover cop (Prison Break’s William Fitchner) who’s out to make a bust, an angry drug dealer, and a little problem with a Miata at a Christmas Eve rave. Meanwhile, Simon (Desmond Askew) is having a boys-gone-wild weekend in Las Vegas, where he runs into trouble in the back room of a strip club. And while the film seems to take more than a few cues from Pulp Fiction, director Doug Liman (Swingers) ensures that it strikes a chord with a Gen X point of view.

Today’s second feature, Wimbledon, is a lighthearted look at love on and off the grassy courts. Kirsten Dunst stars as a bad-girl tennis superstar; Paul Bettany is a has-been tennis pro taking one last swing at Wimbledon. Can their romance survive the competition? Watch and see.

Hulu for the Holidays is back on Monday with a classic animation block. We’ll take you from a junkyard to Eternia and on to Frostbite Falls for some classic cartoons from our youth.

Rebecca (rebeccaharper@hulu.com),
Editor

I missed In the Name of the Father when it was first released, but there’s no mistaking that this Jim Sheridan-directed film is powerful. The soundtrack — featuring Bono, Jimi Hendrix, the Kinks, Bob Marley, Bob Dylan and Sinéad O’Connor — creates the backdrop for the true-life story of the Guildford Four, the four people who were wrongly convicted for the 1974 terrorist bombing of the Guildford pub. The movie went on to receive seven Academy Award nominations, including Best Actor (Daniel Day-Lewis), Best Supporting Actor (Pete Postlethwaite), Best Supporting Actress (Emma Thompson), Best Director (Jim Sheriden) and Best Picture. It was a big year for movies, though — 1993 also saw the release of Schindler’s List, The Fugitive, The Piano and Philadelphia, all of which beat out In the Name of the Father for Oscars.

While Daniel Day-Lewis fights a justice system in In the Name of the Father, Joe Mondragon takes on real estate developers in The Milagro Beanfield War. Directed by Robert Redford, it’s the story of this New Mexican handyman who illegally irrigates a parched beanfield using water that was meant for a major development. You’ll recognize a few faces throughout the movie: Melanie Griffith, Daniel Stern, Freddy Fender and, best of all, Christopher “Can I Get a Little More Cowbell?” Walken.

We hope you enjoy today’s double feature. We’ll be back with another pair of films tomorrow. Check back to see what’s in store!

Rebecca (rebecca.harper@hulu.com),
Editor

This thriller casts Pitt as Frankie McGuire, an IRA terrorist — you decide whether Pitt’s Irish accent is convincing — who’s dead-set on revenge, and Ford as Tom O’Meara, a New York City cop who allows the Irish émigré to stay in his home, totally unaware of his criminal background. As O’Meara begins to suspect that his houseguest has a deadly past, he finds himself torn between sympathy for McGuire’s cause and his fear of getting into trouble with the FBI and British police.

While the film glosses over the Irish conflict, choosing to focus on O’Meara’s moral dilemma instead, Pitt and Ford themselves deliver strong performances. For a more detailed look at the Protestant-Catholic conflict, check back tomorrow as the IRA takes center stage once again. Hulu for the Holidays is set to continue with a film that was based on real events, although it raised some controversy for not sticking to the facts. Even so, it received seven Oscar nominations — but Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List swept the awards that year.

Rebecca (rebecca.harper@hulu.com),
Editor

As the lead in Fatal Attraction, Michael Douglas plays Dan Gallagher, a Manhattan lawyer who seemingly has it all: a great wife, a beautiful daughter and a successful career. But one thing leads to another one night while his family is out of town, and he ends up having a dangerous liaison with an associate, Alex Forrest (Glenn Close). When Dan starts avoiding Alex’s calls, this short-lived fling takes a dangerous turn as Alex goes into stalker mode, turning up at Dan’s office and even his home. “Well, what am I supposed to do?” she demands. “You won’t answer my calls, you change your number, I’m not going to be ignored, Dan!” Alex’s obsession only grows stronger over time, and that’s when things get a little bit scary.

A combination of sex and suspense — not to mention fear — made Fatal Attraction the second-highest grossing film of 1987. (Behind Three Men and a Baby!) And those same thrills are what make its storyline so memorable today.

As for next Monday’s TV pick, we’re leaving behind the obsessed lovers and planning an imported, award-winning serial drama instead. Called a “Canadian masterpiece” by TV Guide, it focuses on a coroner who’s deemed charismatic and controversial. Check back next week to see what it is!

Rebecca (rebecca.harper@hulu.com),
Editor