While Herzog is endlessly imaginative about getting his films before the public in various forms, he has almost no interest in Hollywood or its internal machineries, and also isn't much of a cinephile. When I asked him whether his grimy and delirious new cop drama "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" was inspired by the nihilistic American crime films of the '70s, he insisted that he's never seen most of those films. I mentioned "Taxi Driver" and "Chinatown," and suggested that they were relatively well known pictures, and might strike some viewers as morally, tonally and visually influential on "Bad Lieutenant."

You could pretty much hear Herzog scratching his head on the other end of the line. It emerged that he wasn't sure what "Taxi Driver" was or who had made it. "Chinatown" rang more of a bell, and I reminded him that it was directed by a European auteur even more notorious than Herzog himself. He admitted he'd probably seen that one, but didn't really remember it. American crime films from the '40s and '50s, though? Sure, he had seen them while growing up in postwar Germany.

Given that background, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Herzog has never seen Abel Ferrara's 1992 "Bad Lieutenant," which is nominally the basis for this film but has very little to do with William Finkelstein's screenplay and almost nothing to do with Herzog's finished product. For Herzog, making movies is about exploring the world and adventuring into unknown philosophical and artistic terrain. His relationship to film genres or cinema history or the other things critics love to talk about is minimal. So "Bad Lieutenant," with its memorable lead performance by Nicolas Cage as a charismatic, agonized, drug-addicted and possibly schizophrenic New Orleans homicide detective, is, as Herzog puts it, a crime movie refracted through a demented prism.

Although the story of Cage's character, Lt. Terry McDonagh, as he rises, falls and is improbably redeemed while trying to solve a gruesome drug-related massacre, is straightforward enough, Herzog leaves the genre's dispassionate objectivity behind and shows us at least some of what happens in McDonagh's mind. Hence the iguanas in his apartment (not visible to any other character), or the dead soul break-dancing on a drug dealer's carpet. Or the shot from the point of view of a bereaved alligator. (Could I make something like that up?) It's often difficult to decide which of McDonagh's failings is the worst: When he makes a date with an incredibly hot highway patrol officer (Fairuza Balk), he's cheating on his hooker girlfriend (Eva Mendes) -- and then it turns out he's only interested in the jackbooted tootsie for her access to confiscated narcotics.

When I spoke to Herzog on the phone, I hadn't yet seen his other new release this season, the still more demented cop drama "My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?," in which Willem Dafoe plays the San Diego cop trying to unravel the reasons why a messianic murder suspect (Michael Shannon) is holed up in his house with a pair of flamingos. If "Bad Lieutenant" is something close to a work of dirty, profane genius, "My Son, My Son" is a mixed bag, with patches of dark-comic brilliance and an uneven plot that flirts with shaggy-dog obscurantism. (It's getting a small-scale theatrical release, beginning in December, from Absurda, David Lynch's company.)

Both pictures are unmistakably the work of one of the strangest and bravest of contemporary filmmakers, a man who has combined a wire walker's level of artistic daring with a work ethic that would have made his Bavarian grandparents proud. Werner Herzog called me from his home in Los Angeles, a few days before the theatrical opening of "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans."

Werner, I know you've had some difficulty getting narrative feature projects off the ground in recent years. And you've made so many great documentaries -- I pretty much assumed you'd do that for the rest of your career. But with "Rescue Dawn" and now "Bad Lieutenant" and "My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?" you're a narrative filmmaker again, which must be gratifying.

Look, let's face it, in the last 10 years I made four feature films, which is quite a lot, according to Hollywood standards. But in fact I've made 15 or so [total films] in the last 10 years. It's not being back, because I was never away from it, and the next four or five projects are all feature films too. Of course there's some documentary stuff as well. Those are like home invasions: uninvited guests that I have to wrestle somehow!

You've never made a film before that felt as specifically American, in setting and tone, as this one does.

Well, no. I'm now completely comfortable making a film in English. If you look at this film or at "My Son, My Son," you would never guess that somebody made it whose first language is not English. I've settled in very comfortably, and you see I've never stood still. I've been out here looking for new horizons, new projects, new alliances with production companies, new forms of distribution, new actors. You just name it, it just can't get any better!

"Bad Lieutenant" is also an American film in the sense that it belongs to such a familiar genre. Are you a fan of American crime films ?

No. I must confess I hardly ever have seen any of them, neither on TV or in the theaters. Some of the film noirs of the early '50s and late '40s, but that's about it. I suppose this is a genre film, in a way. But you see, there's a clear stamp on it. There are things that are not in the screenplay that came into it, which I kept inventing en route, like the demented iguana or the dancing soul. I had the feeling, "Yeah, there is a certain genre here, but I shouldn't be completely docile. Just be imaginative and go wild!"

You have the iguanas and you have an alligator point-of-view shot. Do reptiles have some symbolic importance in this movie?

No, I think it's just -- these reptiles are not even visible to anyone else. When the bad lieutenant says, "What are these iguanas doing on my coffee table?" the other guys say, "There ain't no iguana!" It's just a demented sort of vision under drugs.

Nicolas Cage's performance in this movie is amazing. The character is both irresistible and thoroughly despicable. I wasn't sure whether I loved him or hated him, which may be exactly what you guys were going for.

You can see the film the way you want to see it, I do not want to dictate that. But one thing is obvious: He is absolutely formidable. Hold on, please, that's the door. A double espresso is coming to keep me awake! I'm sorry, I lost your last question.

We were talking about Nic and his character. You said he was "formidable."

Yes, you see, there's something which was guiding us. I told Nicolas that there's such a thing as, like, the bliss of evil. Let's go for it! Enjoy yourself! The more vile and the more debased you get, the more you have to enjoy it. That creates this very strange and very subversive humor.

This is another frame of reference, but you may appreciate it. He reminded me of the demons in Hieronymus Bosch's paintings of hell: He's hunchbacked, leering, with this insane gleam in his eye.

Yeah, yeah, yeah! You are the first one to mention that, but I think it's not completely far-fetched. I think there was a basic pose or physical appearance for him. We talked about it quickly, and Nicolas asked me what he should look like. The character has a back injury, and I told him, "I would like to see you with a slanted shoulder line, preceded by your gaze." Which is exactly what he does! Sometimes I give very laconic, condensed instructions, which you see throughout the film.

So I gather that when I say this film reminds me of certain of the nihilistic American crime films of the '70s, that doesn't mean much to you?

No, I don't know those films. I can tell you where it comes from, it comes from the screenplay. Billy Finkelstein, who wrote the screenplay -- wonderful dialogue and a very intense story -- has profound knowledge of this genre. He has written a lot for television -- I don't even remember the series ["Law & Order" and "NYPD Blue," among others] -- but he's a very experienced man in this field, and brought this knowledge into the film.

Tell me about the way you and Peter Zeitlinger, your cinematographer, envisioned the film. We're not exactly seeing the world from the Cage character's point of view, because he's in almost every shot. But nonetheless we're seeing the world as he sees it.

Not in all instances, but of course there's a tendency toward that. Sometimes it's a demented view. He's the only one who sees those iguanas, for instance, and of course the secret conspiracy is that we, the audience, see them as well.

I don't want to give too much of the plot away, but maybe we can talk about the strange scene near the end of the film where everything that has gone wrong in McDonagh's story suddenly goes right. All the narrative obstacles suddenly melt away, in about 15 seconds. It seems like a fantasy, it seems as if it can't be real. Is that what you intend?

Yes, exactly. That's very well observed. Besides, it gives the feeling and hope of a false ending, a happy ending that does not really occur. It goes into overdrive, in a way. It was clearly scripted, and it was a very good idea. We almost have a deus ex machina, which floats down from the sky and settles everything for the good. Except that it does not!

You have such a tremendous cast here. I loved all these actors: Nic Cage and Eva Mendes, of course, but also Brad Dourif, whom you work with a lot, as a bookie; Vondie Curtis-Hall, as Nic's superior officer; Jennifer Coolidge, as his alcoholic stepmother. And the rapper Xzibit [Alvin Joiner], who is just terrific as the drug lord.

I'm always very careful and cautious about casting. It's not just about putting names together. There has to be a texture, and what you probably have seen is that every single actor in this film, including the smallest speaking parts, is always at their very best. There's absolutely no doubt in my heart. And don't forget the writer, Billy Finkelstein, who plays a gangster, the one in the pink jacket whose soul is dancing. The writer turned out to be a very fine actor.

Again, without giving anything away your ending really defies expectations. I'm not quite sure what to think about it, in fact. We expect one of two possible endings -- the bad lieutenant triumphs, or he is punished for his misdeeds. And you really don't give us either one.

In my opinion, it's a very beautiful and very mysterious ending. You see, according to the screenplay, it ended with a false happy ending that became a real abyss of darkness. And I thought, no, we should not dismiss the audience like that, out into the street. There should be something vague, something poetic, something mysterious.

That's yet another way this film reminds me of both "Chinatown" and "Taxi Driver." I'm sure other journalists have brought those films up.

Actually, nobody has asked me that. People sometimes ask me about Abel Ferrara, and I've never seen his film. Now that my film is out, people can see that it's nothing like a remake. What can I say? Now, as to "Taxi Driver," I've never seen it. "Chinatown" I believe I saw, but that was a long time ago. I've forgotten that film.

"Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" is now playing in New York, Los Angeles and other major cities, with wider release to follow. 

Woo's move to Hollywood suggested that Chinese authorities might have trouble convincing the best talents in Hong Kong's film industry to stay home, under what was presumably going to be a censorious and intrusive regime. It also suggested that however corporatized mainstream American film had become, it could still attract exciting directors from overseas. Indeed, while Hong Kong studios struggled with budgets and distribution problems over the next few years, Woo became a certified Hollywood hitmaker, directing the cult faves "Broken Arrow" and "Face/Off," along with the Tom Cruise vehicle "Mission: Impossible II," which grossed $565 million worldwide.

But you can go home again, it appears. When I caught up with Woo for a few minutes on the phone recently, the 63-year-old action legend was partway through a whirlwind American tour to promote a film he calls the biggest and most ambitious he's ever done -- a massively-scaled, visually spectacular historical epic called "Red Cliff" that was entirely conceived, financed and made in China. He was also serving as a de facto spokesman for China's burgeoning campaign to build a new global film industry that can compete on equal terms with both Hollywood and Bollywood. Yeah, if the suits in west L.A. haven't made the logical deduction yet, they might make it now: Chinawood is coming, and it's going to be a very big deal.

This isn't an entirely new phenomenon, of course. From "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" to "Hero" to "Curse of the Golden Flower," productions financed or co-financed by China's film industry have occasionally combined big budgets with artistic vision and become hits on a global scale. But "Red Cliff" has definitely kicked the game up a notch, and you have to wonder whether veteran Chinese filmmakers like Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou are feeling disrespected. Woo spends a dozen years in L.A. living the high life with Tom Cruise and Nic Cage while they're making serious films, and then he gets to come back and become a huge national hero. 

After protracted discussions with Chinese authorities, Woo got near-total carte blanche to come home and make this long-contemplated dream project, one for which Hollywood producers had displayed little enthusiasm. In the process, Woo -- a devout Christian who is widely assumed to be anti-Communist -- has clearly been tasked with driving Chinese cinema in a more commercial direction. "I have learned so much from Hollywood," Woo told me, "and I thought it was about time to bring what I have learned in Hollywood back to Asia. There are so many young and talented filmmakers in China. I think it's great for them to have the chance to work on a big-budget, Hollywood-type movie. To learn some new spirit, you might say."

Whether Chinese film really needs an injection of Hollywood's spirit is very much open to debate, but the Chinese authorities, like Woo himself, are thinking big. Woo's grandiose retelling of the 208 A.D. Battle of Red Cliffs, between Han Empire forces and the rebellious kingdoms to the west and south -- a legendary conflict as well-known to Asians as the Trojan War is to Westerners -- veers, like most of his films, from the portentous to the breathtaking (and is often both at the same time). It combines Asian action cinema and Hollywood-style CGI effects in truly dazzling fashion and on a scale never seen before. And it's become the biggest-grossing release in Chinese history (breaking the record previously held by "Titanic"), and a record-breaker in several other Asian countries as well.

Unfortunately, American moviegoers will only see a sliced-'n'-diced version of "Red Cliff," edited down from the two-part, five-hour opus that played in Asian markets to a single, 148-minute release stitched together with voiceover narration and explanatory on-screen titles. This only drives home the point that "Red Cliff" wasn't made for Americans; its release here by Magnet, a genre-oriented offshoot of Magnolia Pictures, is almost an afterthought by comparison. (Woo says the full-length Asian version will eventually be released here on DVD; you can probably find it now, if you know where to look.)

Despite the occasional clunkiness of the foreshortened "Red Cliff" and its ancient-world setting, it's unmistakably a John Woo movie. (I haven't seen the full-length version.) It's built around patterns of male friendship and enmity, a deadly feud over a beautiful woman who represents the domestic bliss Woo's violent heroes always yearn for, and three or four of the most elaborate action sequences ever filmed. (Yes, Woo devotees, there are still doves. Lots and lots of doves!)

Woo says the climactic, three-stage naval battle that lends the movie its name involved building two dozen or so full-size wooden warships, creating many more digitally, and shooting with four different filmmaking crews: a first unit to capture the principal action, a second unit, a stunt unit and a special-effects unit. "We had to shoot all kinds of live-action scenes while the ships were actually on fire," he laughed. "We CG'd the rest of the ships and the rest of the fire, but a lot of it is real. And we were shooting against bad weather. It was extremely cold and we were facing high winds. We had to get creative in every shot. This was definitely the biggest movie, and the toughest movie, I've ever tried to do."

Given that the historical battle of Red Cliffs took place 1,800 years ago, and the best-known account is a fictionalized version written in the 13th century, more than a millennium later, Woo and his writing team felt free to simplify and amplify the story as they see fit. Three of Asia's biggest male stars play the principal roles: Tony Leung plays Zhou Yu, the rebel hero who joins forces with Zhuge Liang (Takeshi Kaneshiro), a rival kingdom's military strategist, to confront the massively superior forces of Prime Minister Cao Cao (Zhang Fengyi), a nefarious schemer who has convinced the Han Emperor to go to war.

There are dozens of other characters in the mix, but none are as memorable as the ethereal Xiao Qiao (Taiwanese supermodel Chiling Lin), who is married to Zhou Yu but, of course, coveted by the evil Cao Cao, whose uncontrollable desire for her will prove to be a near-fatal failing. (No one is ever likely to accuse Woo of being a feminist filmmaker. His women come in two flavors: lovely and mysterious or tomboyish and spunky.)

Despite the wide variety of fantastical violence depicted in "Red Cliff," Woo insists he has stayed true to his code of never glorifying killing in the service of entertainment. "It's very much an entertaining film, but I think there's a human story in there too, that's important for me to tell," he said. "It's a war movie, and I like to stress that in war there are no winners. I think we have an antiwar message in there. As I'm sure you can see, I emphasize that when people get shot, there is death and tears. I think that's the way to send the right message."

Woo was able to borrow up to 1,500 soldiers from the Chinese army to serve as extras in the battle scenes and work on building sets, which gives you some idea how much national pride became officially invested in this prodigal son's homecoming. For his part, Woo describes working in his native country after all these years as "a dream come true." (He was born in Guangzhou, in southern China, and moved to Hong Kong as a child around the time the Communists came to power.)

 "I've wanted to make this movie for more than 20 years," he said. "I always dreamed about making a movie like 'Lawrence of Arabia' or 'Spartacus' or 'Seven Samurai' -- that scale of movie. And I really love this part of history. This is the most famous battle in Chinese history. Anybody who grew up in China knows this story. The Japanese know it, the Koreans know it, all the other Asian countries know this story."

Seeing the audience reaction in China and other East Asian countries, says Woo, made him see the potential of a Hollywood-scale Chinese film industry. "The movie was so successful in China and Japan and that was very, very gratifying," he said. "The audience really felt so much excitement about the movie. Most Asian audiences are used to watching big Hollywood movies, which honestly are much higher quality, with the heroes and the big stars. But a movie like 'Red Cliff' has really changed their minds. It's a movie on the Hollywood scale that has so much of the Asian spirit. It has drawn the Asian audience back to the movie theater. We will have to see what happens, but I think the film industry in China will grow very fast, very fast. People in China really want to watch this kind of movie."

"Red Cliff" is now playing in New York, and opens Nov. 25 in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Nashville, Philadelphia, Portland, Ore., San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Calif., Seattle and Washington; Dec. 4 in Honolulu, Monterey, Calif., Sacramento, Calif., and Santa Cruz, Calif.; and Dec. 11 in Baltimore, Cleveland, Hartford, Conn., Indianapolis, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Memphis St. Louis, San Antonio, Texas, and Santa Fe, N.M., with more cities to follow. Also available on-demand via many cable-TV systems.

 

 

Gordon-Levitt's movies since his "Brick" breakout have quite frankly been hit and miss, with an accent on miss. Scott Frank's intriguing neo-noir "The Lookout" generated a cult following, but highly anticipated films like Kimberly Peirce's "Stop-Loss" and Spike Lee's "Miracle at St. Anna" wound up impressing neither audiences nor critics. Frankly, I think Gordon-Levitt is a difficult actor to cast correctly. He's handsome, intelligent and funny, but his demeanor always seems a little aloof, as if he's hiding a secret or smiling at a private joke. He's too charismatic to play the second banana in most movies, but doesn't seem perfectly suited as the romantic lead either.

At least, he didn't -- not until busting out his Hall & Oates dance moves in this summer's chronologically challenged rom-com "(500) Days of Summer," which became a modest hit. This year he has also established himself as a viable action-spectacle supporting character in "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" (he's in both the film and the video game), before returning to home turf with the low-budget New York indie "Uncertainty," a tricky narrative experiment from the writing-directing duo of Scott McGehee and David Siegel ("The Deep End" and "Suture").

"Uncertainty" is a carefully structured but largely improvised film -- that's actually not a contradiction -- which is two different movies at once, both of them about Kate (Lynn Collins) and Bobby (Gordon-Levitt), a semi-hip young urban couple facing an unexpected pregnancy and all the Big Life Questions that come with it. In the opening of the film, they flip a coin on the Brooklyn Bridge, and then sprint away on foot into two parallel but separate story lines: "Yellow," a Manhattan thriller involving a lost cellphone, armed assassins and mysteriously large sums of money; and "Green," a low-key domestic drama, mostly set at the Queens home of Kate's South American immigrant parents.

I can't explain it a whole lot better than that, except to say that both actors are tremendous and that there's a lot of poetry and ambition to McGehee and Siegel's project. Even though the stories are so disparate, and the characters themselves come to seem like different people, there are areas of near-intersection: The doubled twosomes drink coffee at the same time, have sex at the same time and go (or do not go) to the same downtown party. The Green couple pick up a stray dog on the street; the Yellow couple kill some time, during their ill-advised extortion scheme, by going to see "Stray Dog," the 1949 Kurosawa noir.

I'm not quite sure that "Uncertainty" hangs together as well as it might -- if anything, the Yellow story is too outrageous, and the Green story too muted -- but the unshowy, street-level cinematography by Kathy Li is wonderful and, as I told Gordon-Levitt when he called me last week, it's great to see a film supposedly set in New York that was actually 100 percent shot there.

"Shooting on the street like that -- I mean, it was explosive," he said. "Maybe that's a bad word for it. There's so much energy pulsing through New York City, and film sets are already very high-energy places. When you put that in the middle of New York, it gets pretty intense."

As ever, Gordon-Levitt was among the most pleasant and personable conversationalists in the business. He claimed to remember an interview we did two and a half years ago in Austin, Texas, and signed off (as he did the last time) by urging me to plug his "collaborative online art project," which gives him a way to engage with the public that's distinct from his movie-actor persona. As far as his reported role goes in Christopher Nolan's upcoming -- and much blog-drooled -- "Inception," Gordon-Levitt would only say that yes, he's in it, and he's promised not to talk about it. Like I say, an old showbiz pro, in a 28-year-old body.

I guess one of the things that's nice about shooting on the streets of New York is that people just aren't that impressed, right? They're like, "Ah, another film shoot? Who cares?"

True enough. They just want to get where they're going. It's hard to shoot a scene when you have to watch out for bike riders on the Brooklyn Bridge. Staying in character, and making sure you don't get hit. Acting is a challenge, man.

With "(500) Days of Summer," "G.I. Joe" and now "Uncertainty," you seem devoted to appearing in every possible kind of movie within a single year.

Well, thank you. I guess I have an eclectic taste, I don't just like one thing. Contrast is key. What do they say? Variety is the spice of life. My favorite actors are the chameleons, guys like Daniel Day-Lewis, Billy Bob Thornton, Meryl Streep, people who are always different.

But do you concentrate on that? I mean, are you thinking, "I want to do something totally different from the role I just did?" Or did things just fall out that way?

To be honest, that's not really what I think about. Here's the way it works: I just see a lot of scripts, and if I like one of them, then I try to get the part. A lot of the scripts I see I don't particularly like, so I don't try to get those parts. And then some of the ones I do like, I don't get the part. But somewhere in there there's a decision, whether or not I want to pursue a given piece of material. I wouldn't say I think that much about what I just did, so much as I think about how I feel about the piece that's in front of me right now.

This particular movie, "Uncertainty," was created in a highly unusual fashion. Have you ever done anything before with this much improvisation to it?

No, no. This was a unique creative process that the filmmakers, David and Scott, pretty much innovated. I don't know, maybe other people have done it this way before, but I certainly haven't done it this way before. They wrote a script, it just didn't have any dialogue. The story was all very meticulously and thoroughly thought through. It's not one of those improvisational movies that sort of meander along the way real life does.

And, by the way, I love some of those movies, like Cassavetes, you know, "A Woman Under the Influence," something like that. I love that movie, and I don't exactly know what their creative process was on those Cassavetes movies. But "Uncertainty" is different. It's not so much a slice of life. It's a highly structured, precisely told story. It's just that any given moment was left up to that actual moment.

So the movie diverges, right at the beginning, into these two stories, the Yellow story, which is a thriller, and the Green story, which is more like a quiet, indie-film-type family drama. Did you shoot them separately?

Yeah. We shot all of the Yellow story first, and then we shot all of the Green story.

And when you shot them, were you aware of the parallels, or the areas where the stories kind of imitate each other or brush up against each other? Was all of that in the script?

Yeah, we were really aware of that. Those were things that Scott and David were very precisely orchestrating. It's all there in the script. It's not like we just shot two different stories and then mingled them together in the editing room. That's, I think, where a lot of the most beautiful and telling parts of the movie are, in the juxtapositions between what's happening in one world and what's happening right at the same time in the other world. Which is a construct that definitely doesn't exist in your more conventional movie, and I think it's one of the most stimulating aspects of this one.

Since you shot the Yellow story first, that must have affected the experience of shooting the Green story.

Yeah, definitely. I think it raised the stakes. And I think we weren't forced to make those Green scenes real dramatic, you know what I mean? The stakes were already so high, the tension and intensity of the movie were there already. We'd done that, we'd been yelling and running and shit. I think that gave us the freedom and confidence to let the Green scenes be very organic and natural, not force them. Often what happens in drama is that people don't want them to be boring, you know? So they try real hard to make it really intense. The truth is, that's not how a lot of those conversations really go.

I understand you and Lynn Collins and the directors did an unusual amount of rehearsal before the shoot.

Yeah, we did a lot of rehearsal. We spent a solid month hanging out, walking around New York, going to different places, talking about the characters and playing some of the scenes. We also played out a lot of scenes that weren't in the story, stuff that happened before the story takes place: How the characters met, how they fell in love, what it was like the first time they had sex, when they first started getting serious. We had all that under our belts by the time we started shooting.

And wasn't there some kismet at work in the casting too? You and Lynn are so great together, and I've heard that you auditioned together, even though you hadn't even met each other before.

Pretty much. I think we had met before, but we didn't really know each other at all. We auditioned together, and that audition was one of the favorite audition experiences of my life. I've been on a lot of fucking auditions, and to be honest auditions are generally devoid of any creative spark. [Laughter.] Everyone understands that it's a process you have to do, but it's not ideal. You're in some office and you're reading some scene in the wrong place or whatever. This audition was just Scott and David and me and Lynn -- and I still feel like it was some of my favorite acting I've ever done. It was just really immediate and resonant. I loved it. As soon as we were done with that, I was like, "I really want to do this. I hope they let me do this. I hope they let me do this with her."

Filmmaking is so mysterious in that way. Some directors rehearse and rehearse and rehearse, and some don't want to rehearse at all -- show up, do the scene in a take or two, and go home.

Yeah, in "Mysterious Skin" we didn't rehearse, almost at all, and I think it was a wise choice for that movie. Filmmaking is like catching lightning in a bottle. You only have to capture that thing once, and then you have it. So you do whatever needs doing to try to ramp up to it happening right then and there. You don't want it to happen before the cameras are rolling.

"Uncertainty" was different from a normal rehearsal process because "Uncertainty" is different from a normal filmmaking process. The scenes weren't written, so you could almost classify the rehearsing as writing. Not that we were writing anything, but we were creating what the movie was going to be, not just practicing what we already knew it was going to be.

"Uncertainty" is now playing at the IFC Center in New York, with more cities to follow. It's also available on-demand via IFC In Theaters, on many cable-TV systems. 

Having reached the implausible age of 60, Almodóvar today is no longer the hedonistic queer-cinema rebel who exploded out of Madrid's underground art scene with such mixtures of high camp, wrenching emotion and frank sexuality as "What Have I Done to Deserve This?," "Law of Desire" and "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown." Both the filmmaker and the world around him have changed immensely during the intervening decades, and with his new film, "Broken Embraces," Almodóvar reveals himself as one of the last great champions and defenders of classic European cinema.

Mind you, even as "Broken Embraces" openly channels such influences as Fellini's "8 1/2," Michael Powell's "Peeping Tom" and Billy Wilder's "Double Indemnity," it's very far from a dry film-school exercise. This is Almodóvar, after all, in whose hands the most extreme forms of melodrama become high art. "Broken Embraces" features a blind movie director with a double identity, a beautiful woman shoved down a spiral staircase by her scheming husband, hidden secrets within films and photographs, two different films-within-the-film (one of them a hilarious tribute to "Women on the Verge," Almodóvar's first international hit) and a self-loathing gay character so unappealing that only a gay filmmaker could get away with having created him.

Once again Almodóvar has cast Penélope Cruz, the star of his worldwide smash "Volver," in a principal role. In becoming the muse of Almodóvar's late career, Cruz seems to have discovered new range as an actress, while suddenly lending global star power to his pictures. Lena, Cruz's character in "Broken Embraces," is a more cryptic figure, the lost love of a middle-aged director and screenwriter who used to be called Mateo Blanco but has renamed himself Harry Caine (played by the suave Catalan actor Lluís Homar). While that name sounds like a figure from American pop culture -- a mixture of Harry Lime, the Orson Welles character in "The Third Man," and crime novelist James M. Cain, perhaps? -- it's partly just a puckish Almodóvar joke. (Say it fast.)

When the story begins in 21st-century Madrid, all we know is that Harry is blind and Lena is dead, and that Harry's assistant Judit (Almodóvar regular Blanca Portillo) burns with long-unrequited love for him -- and may know more about the byzantine back story to the tragedy than she's letting on. Piece by piece and outrageous detail by outrageous detail, Almodóvar puts the scrambled chronology and gorgeous scenery of this story together, in a visually spectacular, sweepingly romantic and thematically ambitious film that is also, as he says, a "declaration of love" for cinema, which he describes as "not only a profession but also an irrational passion."

I got the chance to discuss that passion with Almodóvar over coffee during his recent visit for the New York Film Festival premiere of "Broken Embraces." Warm, expansive and utterly charming, he jumped back and forth between Spanish and English in a way I wish I could replicate on the page, leaving me and his interpreter scrambling to catch up.

Visiting New York always makes him think of his youth under the dictatorship, he said. "You know, all the biggest influences for young people at that moment were happening in New York and London. So for me New York has this romantic idea, it's where the ideas come from. We were hooked on John Waters -- well, John Waters is not New York. But Andy Warhol and the Factory, all the underground directors.

"And you can't imagine how important the music was to us. I had a group at that time, but it was no big deal, there were lots of other groups who were better. A group like the New York Dolls, or the English New Wave -- you can't imagine how important that was to us. I don't get the same feeling when I go to London today. For a Spanish boy in the '70s, London meant freedom. But I don't have that feeling in London anymore. London is just another place to visit. New York for me still feels like a place of fantasy."

How much culture from outside, from New York or London, reached you during those years? Were people able to smuggle in records and books and films?

It came in a very surreptitious way. One found a way, especially during those last five years. When the dictator was older, it started seeping in, from Paris and London. Andy Warhol's Factory films came to us from London. During the last five years of the dictator's life, we started to be a part of Europe. I remember that in the Spanish Cinematheque, for example, we could see films that were forbidden to run commercially.

You know, it seems as if "Volver" was about the places that shaped you -- La Mancha in Castile, where you were born, and Madrid, where you grew up. And this movie seems to be about the culture, and especially the films, that made you who you are.

It's true that "Volver" is very much tied to my childhood memories of the region, of my mother, of the neighbors, of the place. Those stories in the film were all stories that I heard. I heard ghost stories, I heard stories about rape. I got to feel the female solidarity that was all around me.

In this particular film, yes, it's very much about my relationship to cinema, my love for cinema. It's about cinema's capacity to be healing, in many ways, and to present a world that is a little less imperfect. If life is imperfect, cinema makes it just a little less imperfect. Given the fact that the main character [Caine/Blanco] is a film director, through him I'm expressing my admiration for film and filmmakers. For example, when the character says, "I want to hear Jeanne Moreau's voice," I'm speaking for myself. On the one hand he's blind, but of course hers is one of the greatest voices in cinema.

When a younger character starts to list the names of all the DVDs on Harry's shelves -- Fellini, Bergman, Fritz Lang, Jules Dassin -- well, of course there are many more directors that I love, but those are the ones that mean the most, those are the ones I've been watching on DVD.

This movie also feels sometimes like one of those symbolic American melodramas from the '40s or '50s. Like a Douglas Sirk movie, maybe. You've got a main character who is blind, a beautiful woman who's in a wheelchair, a spiral staircase, all these elements.

Douglas Sirk is a director I very much admire, and I love that period of American drama. But I think a film like "High Heels" is more in line with the spectacular and lavish drama of Douglas Sirk. In this film the pain is much more palpable, and it's a film that is less welcoming of tears, because of its hardness.

Now, there's this puzzling fact that the main character has two names. He's Mateo Blanco and he's Harry Caine. One of the simplest ways of looking at that is he's got a Spanish name and an American name. And as a filmmaker, maybe you've got a European side and an American side.

[Laughter.] I don't know, it's curious to discover that. I like the name Harry Caine. If you just pronounce it all together, it means huracán. I like that, for a director's name. It was more, maybe, about creating this kind of Orson Welles character, even though the rich guy, Martel [husband of the Penélope Cruz character], is more like a Welles character. But there's some sense there, some flavor, that that's the way Orson Welles worked.

You know, there have been lots of films about filmmaking, films about directors. You definitely refer to several of them! But I'm not sure anyone's ever used the making-of -- the documentary about the film, that shows up later on the DVD -- as a major plot device before.

Yeah, I've fantasized about this for years, about making a film that would just be the making-of, a fiction about a fiction. If you push the genre of the making-of a little further, you enter the terrain of voyeurism, of stealing images and stealing a particular intimacy. It enters a very secretive terrain. I've always fantasized that it would be through the making-of that you would discover some other story, the real story that is being told. That's what I pulled into this movie, that motif.

Then there's the damaged young gay man who shoots the making-of, and who becomes an important figure in the plot in several different ways. He bears a strong resemblance to the main character in Michael Powell's "Peeping Tom," which is like the voyeur-thriller of all time.

Yes, they talk about that in the movie, in fact. The difference is that he doesn't want to hurt the director. He just wants to know more, to see more, to be present in his life. He likes the director very much, I'm talking about, he physically likes him.

Yes! I think you made that clear.

If I look back to my films and all the different references I have to other films, it is true that Michael Powell's "Peeping Tom" comes up with some frequency. It's not always very explicit, sometimes I only realize it in retrospect. What it is about "Peeping Tom" is this desire to capture an extreme sensation. In my film that is actually death itself, but it doesn't have to be that. The desire to steal, to capture, an extremely strong sensation. In "Kika" you have it maybe even more explicitly. All reality shows have a little "Peeping Tom" in them, and those were what I wanted to denounce in "Kika."

There's a case in Brazil -- maybe you've heard about this -- about a man, a politician, who had a news show. It was known for always arriving before anyone else at the scene of a crime. Of course it turned out that he was actually organizing the crimes, organizing murders. That's why he was always the first one there!

Another film that influenced me very much is Antonioni's "Blow-Up." That idea that a photograph -- not necessarily a moving image -- can reveal particular kinds of secrets, things that the naked eye cannot see.

I can only hope we're going to see more of "Chicas y maletas" ("Girls and Suitcases"), the unfinished film that Harry and Lena were making. It's really fun!

There is a lot more of "Chicas y maletas"! I could not refuse it. It was so funny when we were doing it, and I kept writing more and more things. At the end, I knew I couldn't put so much footage into the real movie, because, you know, it was unbalanced. There's at least 10 minutes more, and it's a very funny piece.

Those will be on the DVD, and there were two or three sequences that I cut from the main film that were very good too. There's one scene I really like that's in a restaurant for blind people, where everything happens in the most incredible blackness or darkness that you can imagine. Have you heard about this? They started in Berlin. I've never experienced that kind of darkness, there's no light that comes through. It's as if you were in a void.

These restaurants were actually started by blind people, partly to educate their family members about their experiences. Now there's one in Paris and it's become a hot place to go. It's not just for blind people, it's for regular people who want to have a new experience. The theory is that all your other senses become more acute when you have no vision. So there's a take -- you can hardly see it -- where a girl is giving a man a blow job in this restaurant.

You know, the one film by another director that we actually see in "Broken Embraces" is clearly important, and it could hardly be more different from your own film. On their last night together, Mateo and Lena are watching Rossellini's "Journey to Italy" on television, a very spare and restrained film, shot in black-and-white.

Well, there's an emotional relationship between the two films. You know, I don't only like directors who are as flamboyant as I am, or as my films can sometimes be. "Journey to Italy" is a film I love, and the scene I show is a scene that always moves me very much, and in my film it moves Lena, my character, in the same way.

We see a moment where Rossellini captures a couple that was petrified at Pompeii, in the lava of Vesuvius. And the tour guide says, "This is a love that has been immortalized for eternity." This affects Ingrid Bergman's character very much because she recognizes that her relationship with the George Sanders character is not like that. It's awful, it's the opposite. She's overcome with emotion and she turns away. On the other side of the screen, Penélope's character is also very much moved by this scene, and wonders whether the love she shares with Lluís Homar's character will survive through eternity. This is something that is inside her, but obviously she doesn't say it. For me it was a voice-over that we don't hear.

She does the opposite, holds on to her lover, and Lluis Homar does yet another thing. He stands up and takes a photograph of their embrace. He's trying to immortalize their embrace in his own way.

You know, it's delightful to sit here and talk about film with you. But you and I are old enough to remember when a new film by Bergman or Fellini -- or maybe an early film by Almodóvar -- was a major cultural event. People had to go see it, discuss it, argue about it. But there are so many other distractions these days, and I wonder whether cinema still matters in the same way.

I do get the sense that it's not as important as it used to be. I think there are of course people like ourselves who are very much excited and moved by the discovery of new film. But in general, and speaking especially about younger audiences, I don't think that film really has the same kind of significance.

If you think of Antonioni's films, like "La Notte" or "L'Eclisse" -- if they were released today, would they even find a market? Would they find an audience? It would be impossible to find that kind of reception and reaction. I just don't know, we'll have to see. As long as there's a cinephile that is still willing to see those kinds of films, then those films will still mean something.

"Broken Embraces" opens Nov. 20 in New York and Dec. 11 in Los Angeles, with wider national release to follow. 

It would be easy, and not entirely unfair, to classify Diaz's film as part of the ongoing effort among certain elements of the global left to rehabilitate Marxism, now that memories of the Soviet nightmare have faded. (In fact, Diaz is planning a film about Marx's "Capital," arguably still the most astute study of capitalism ever written.) But that label suggests a dogmatism that is totally absent from "The End of Poverty?" Diaz's interviewees include the Nobel-winning economists Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz, along with such other leading academics as economist William Easterly and political scientists Susan George and Chalmers Johnson. Those people represent a wide range of views (Easterly might even be described as a libertarian conservative), and none of them is likely to start ranting about the abolition of private property or the inevitable triumph of socialism.

"The End of Poverty?" seeks to remind us that the global victory of capitalism over the last 30 years has only brought its flaws into sharper focus. We now live in a world where 20 percent of the population -- that's you and me, bub -- use 80 percent of its resources, where upward of 1 billion people live on $1 a day or less, where 16,000 children die daily from malnutrition and where the people of sub-Saharan Africa, the globe's poorest region, spend $25,000 every minute servicing their massive debt to the rich countries of the North. All those markers of extreme poverty have gotten dramatically worse since the '80s; despite rapid technological and agricultural progress in the developed world, the number of people suffering from chronic malnutrition has roughly doubled in the past 40 years.

Diaz doesn't spend much time addressing the responses of mainstream or neoliberal economists to these phenomena -- essentially: gee, that's too bad! But deregulation, innovation and privatization will fix it all eventually -- and his impressive film would be stronger if he had. Presumably his title is meant to challenge or rebut Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs, the rock-star economist whose book "The End of Poverty" (with no question mark) argues that a program of massive international aid, mixed with marginal, incremental reforms in poor countries -- can curtail extreme poverty within 20 or 30 years.

It's become conventional to blame the culture and climate of poor countries and poor people, at least in part, for their own plight, as if corrupt dictatorships, ethnic warfare and raw-material economies were somehow intrinsic to Africa and Latin America. In depressing but largely convincing fashion, Diaz's film argues that all those things were the result of a lengthy historical process. Africa's dysfunctional and often anti-democratic regimes definitely aren't helping matters, for example, but they themselves -- along with the dire poverty they can't manage -- were produced by the European and North American powers' relationship to the global South, from 16th-century colonization right through 21st-century globalization.

What's most profound, and also most controversial, in this analysis is the question of how much this pattern of exploitation continues today. Between 1503 and 1660, the precious metals looted from the Americas by the Spanish crown increased the European silver reserves fourfold, funding a massive expansion of imperialism. Today, the World Bank estimates that the developing world spends $13 in debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants. Exactly how different are these scenarios? Is our affluent, consumer-democracy Western lifestyle only possible because we are, in effect, still stealing from the poorest people in the world?

Of course "The End of Poverty?" can't answer these questions in any adequate or complete fashion. Where it intersects with other drumbeat-of-doom documentaries like "Food Inc." or "An Inconvenient Truth" is in arguing that systematic problems require systematic solutions, and that the basic conceptual model of capitalist economics -- endless and unlimited growth -- is a dangerous fantasy that can only end in disaster. Can this one documentary, with its distinct atmosphere of preaching to the choir, cut through the obscurantist haze that still prohibits frank discussion of this question? That's highly doubtful, but every little step helps.

"The End of Poverty?" is now playing at the Village East Cinema in New York. It opens Nov. 25 in Los Angeles; Dec. 4 in Portland, Ore., San Francisco and Seattle; Dec. 18 in Austin, Texas; and Dec. 30 in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Philadelphia and Washington, with more cities and DVD release to follow.