Argo - Affleck Flaunting Directorial Superpowers

Ben Affleck has returned victorious from a symbolic quest to collect his own golden fleece, definitively cementing his legitimacy in film directing. After springing a leak about a decade ago, his acting reservoir was almost completely drained of all mojo. To come back, he switched to the directors chair in "Gone Baby Gone," which grabbed everyone's attention. As he told the NYTimes, “I knew how the sausage was made. Whether I could make a good sausage, I didn’t know. But I knew how to get into the sausage factory and stuff intestines.” He followed up with "The Town," which also unclogged the congealed heart of critics. Both movies have 94% on rottentomatoes, but other than supporting actor nominations, the Academy Award was out of reach. With his new film he has probably confirmed a parking spot next to the constellation Aries in the Hollywood firmament.

"Argo" is loosely based on a nail-biting Wired article published in 2007 using recently declassified CIA docs which detail an actual screwball rescue operation that took place during the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979. Affleck plays CIA officer Tony Mendez, known within the CIA for rigging Fidel Castro's Cohibas to blow up in his face, disguising black and asian officers as white businessmen, and outfitting cats with microphones to record conversations. Mendez, who at one point was head of the CIA's Disguise Section and later of the Authentication Division, wrote a memoir called 'The Master of Disguise' which details his adventures over a career in the clandestine service. John Goodman plays John Chambers, a real character who won an honorary Oscar for his costumes in "Planet of the Apes." Alan Arkin plays a fictional Hollywood producer who he based on Jack Warner. Bryan Cranston effectively delivers the angry lines of a CIA boss. The story can't get any crazier if it was made up: they falsely set up Studio Six Productions (named after the six Americans they would rescue) to use the cover of a fake production to get some Americans out of Iran. The film could not have been better timed, with the current state of relations with the Persians.

Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto used several techniques to increase the emotional tension in the film. He made experiments with every type of film he could get his hands on, and allocated different formats for the scenes according to their location. For the CIA buildings and other scenes in Washington, Prieto used anamorphic 35 mm film and got some inspiration from "All the President's Men" for the angles, camera movements, and the general layout of the office. For the sequences in Los Angeles, Prieto approximated the color and contrast of 1970's reversal film by using EFILM, and he replicated the feel of the era by studying the 1976 film "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie." In the Tehran scenes, Prieto used 2-perf 35 mm, (two perforations out of the common four) which means he only uses half of every frame, and then doubles the size of the image, which adds a grainy quality which enhances the feeling of authenticity.

As a film, it will hold up as one of the best of the year; as a historical documentary, not so much. It's important to understand that Ben Affleck had to take some liberties in the narrative to make it a little bit more engaging. For example, in the prologue we get a sense of the dangers of meddling with the internal affairs of foreign countries, but one minor fabrication is when he mentions that Prime Minister Mossadegh was "overwhelmingly elected by the people," but we know that in parliamentary democracies people elect governments, not prime ministers. It is the parliament that appoints a Prime Minister, and his position has to be confirmed by the Shah. Another oversight is that in the flyover scenes of Hollywood, we can see a dilapidated and broken Hollywood sign, but in reality the sign was rebuilt in 1978, a year before the hostage crisis. Also, Mendez did not go alone to Iran, he was accompanied by some colleagues, and he obtained a visa in the Iranian consulate in Bonn, Germany, not in Istanbul. As you can see in this NYTimes video, Mendez supposedly finds the script for "Argo" in a stack of screenplays. In reality, the script was called "Lord of Light," and Mendez was the one who changed the name to "Argo." Furthermore, the portrayal of the minimal involvement of the Canadian government was criticized in the Toronto International Film Festival, but Affleck gladly added a postscript after that screening. Among other things, it mentions that "the affair has become an admirable example of international cooperation," which gives some more well-deserved credit to the Canadians.

I don't want to rain on Affleck's parade. Although I can't see it winning the Oscar for best film, it is an excellent movie, and the historical transgressions are minor. He exercised a lot of discipline to hold back from over-directing the film, letting the events speak for themselves. To finish up, take a look at an example of brass balls: the incredible 60 minutes interview Mike Wallace managed to get from the Ayatollah during the crisis.

Holy Motors - Q&A with Director Leos Carax

Yesterday FilmFAC attended the opening night of "Holy Motors" at the Film Society in Lincoln Center. Let me start by saying that you will not understand this movie. I'm just putting it out there: this is just that kind of film, a nightmarish masterpiece that reminds me of David Lynch's "Mullholand Drive." And you're not meant to understand it. Demented French director Leos Carax brings us a supernatural, confusing, and gratifying vision of life with his first film in over a decade, a collection of episodes that don't necessarily tie in together.

He warns the audience about the non-linear nature of his film by starting it with the experimental Muybridge footage of the 19th century: a naked man doing exercises in early attempts at making motion pictures before they were used to tell stories. And that's what this is: a grand experiment in what film is supposed to say, a step back from the traditional narrative that audiences have been trained to expect over the past hundred years.

There is some semblance to a story.
The actor rides through Paris for a day in a white limousine, changing makeup for 'appointments' embodying all of the main characters; different avatars that resemble a few recognizable and some more unusual archetypes. A banker transforms into an old lady begging on the streets of Paris. There is the reprisal of the hilarious impish devil 'Merde' from Carax's segment in the collaborative film "Tokyo!" kidnapping Eva Mendez. You see the actor in a green room performing sex acts for a motion capture system. Another segment is a conversation of a man in his deathbed (taken from 'The Portrait of a Lady' by Henry James) in the Hotel Raphael (the same hotel in the short film 'Hotel Chevalier,' the prologue to "The Darjeeling Limited"). There is a musical segment with Kylie Minogue. There is another where the actor kills a similar version of himself. And all the time it forces you to escape from the confines of everything you have learned in film semiotics, to abandon our basic human need to give meaning to everything, while in the process we end up enjoying a new version of the first forms of cinema, what audiences in the 1870's discovered as the awe-inspiring experience of the moving picture. Critics have almost unanimously praised it for its refreshing outlook and its original script as one of the best movies of the year. Carax had to shoot digitally for the first time (on the Red EPIC) because his former cinematographer Jean-Yves Escoffier passed away in 2003.

Taciturn director Leos Carax is notoriously allergic to interviews, but he stuck around to answer some questions. As you will barely hear, the director doesn't understand the film himself. "I feel very alive when I make a film and I feel dead when I talk about films." Take a look at this mysterious Q&A session below:


Director Spotlight: Jason Figgis Interview

Are you a girl-next-door type who took the greyhound bus from Oklahoma and just arrived in Tinseltown with big dreams and no money? Do you want to avoid the pitfalls of getting ensnared by unscrupulous studio executives who will promise you the world as long as you sleep your way to the top? As always, FilmFAC has your best interest at heart, like Rick spoiling Captain Renaud's sleazy conquests in "Casablanca." Today we start a new series called Director Spotlight, where we showcase up-and-coming directors that have already been recognized for their talent, who will give you some technical advice and general tips to get ahead in the world of movies.

In today's edition, we take a look at promising young director Jason Figgis, who we interviewed via Google Hangouts in Dublin, Ireland. Jason has worked on numerous award-winning documentaries with Hollywood royalty such as Alan Rickman, John Hurt, and Steven Spielberg. After successful run in documentaries he completed "3 Crosses," a feature film nominated for Best Independent Feature Film at the 2011 Underground Film Festival in Ireland. He has recently completed a re-imagining of "A Christmas Carol" which is less Disneyfied than most film and TV versions and more faithful to the original written by Charles Dickens.

Check out our interview with Jason where he discusses his experience and his exciting new projects here:





Long Tracking Shots - Great Complex Scenes

Tracking shots are when the camera moves on a dolly (those tracks on the floor where a camera is mounted over a little cart) or someone with a steadycam vest follows the action. Sometimes the action goes on for a while WITHOUT CUTTING, which means that everyone involved (director, actors, camera operators, extras, etc.) has to bring their A-game to the scene. I think a large segment of the moviegoing public sometimes doesn't appreciate the incredible choreography that goes into putting a long scene like that together while having everything fall into place like a Rube Goldberg machine. Here are a couple of pictures of myself wearing a steadycam with a digital camera, which due to the high inertial mass of the rig, allows the operator to move without translating that movement to the camera, keeping the images steady. Let's start with one of the coolest tracking shots, which most people actually noticed. In "Goodfellas" the now legendary scene where Ray Liotta and Loraine Bracco enter the Copacabana club through a back door followed by a steadycam. What you might not know about this scene is that the reason they shot it that way is because director Martin Scorsese didn't get permission to go in through the main entrance of the club during the shooting of the film, thus forcing them to shoot it this way:


Paul Thomas Anderson always includes some complex tracking shot in his films. I could discuss his films for hours, but to keep it short my favorite scenes are the ones he put together for "Boogie Nights." The first scene of the film is a staggering 165 seconds - the longest shot in his career. However, there are two other scenes that are even better. The first one is the pool party scene, where the camera even follows the action into the water (a tribute to another tracking shot in the soviet masterpiece "I am Cuba" which has some even more ridiculous tracking shots). This scene is incredible once you realize all the effort it took to keep everyone's timing right:


The second one is even better. At a New Year's Eve party, William H. Macy goes into the house while someone mentions that they have 2 minutes left for the new year countdown (the shot is about 2 minutes long). He finds his wife cheating on him again, he walks back to a car, gets a gun, and goes back in the house, and as the countdown begins... (WARNING: VERY VIOLENT)


Tarantino has used some great tracking shots in "Kill Bill" (this publication considers it one film). One of them is the 'Massacre at Two Pines' scene, which has some symbolism as it feels like God is exiting the church while the assassins are revealed when Tarantino pulls the camera outside in reverse and up to the steeple when the shots are fired. Below is another one where Uma Thurman walks into the lair of Japanese mobster Lucy Liu:


Alfonso Cuaron is also a master of the long take. I will let the featurette on the DVD of the Oscar-nominated "Children of Men" speak for itself and explain how they achieved those unbelievable 360 degree long shots inside the car, as well as the explosion in London at the beginning of the film:


Among all of the things we inherited from our rich old uncle Alfred Hitchcock, two relatable examples are of note. The first one is the movie "Rope" itself. Now, legend has it that the film was shot in one take, which is impossible due to the time restrictions of film cameras which can only shoot 10 minutes at a time. However the entire film was done in only ten segments. Out of the 9 cuts, only 4 are unmasked, which means that you can see where the cut was made, and this was for when the projectionist would change the reel after 20 minutes. The remaining cuts are seamlessly put together by blocking the master shot with someone's back and continuing the next shot from there:

Length Time-Code Start Finish
1 9:34 0:02:30 CU (Close-Up), strangulation Blackout on Brandon's back
2 7:51 0:11:59 Black, pan off Brandon's back CU Kenneth: "What do you mean?"
3 7:18 0:19:45 Unmasked cut, men crossing to Janet Blackout on Kenneth's back
4 7:08 0:27:15 Black, pan off Kenneth's back CU Phillip: "That's a lie."
5 9:57 0:34:34 Unmasked cut, CU Rupert Blackout on Brandon's back
6 7:33 0:44:21 Black, pan off Brandon's back Three shot
7 7:46 0:51:56 Unmasked cut "Excuse me, sir." Blackout on Brandon
8 10:06 0:59:44 Black, pan off Brandon CU Brandon's hand in gun pocket
9 4:37 1:09:51 Unmasked cut, CU Rupert Blackout on lid of chest
10 5:38 1:14:35 Black, pan up from lid of chest End of film

Another innovation is the Hitchcock zoom or the "Vertigo" shot, which is just a tracking shot with the added dimension of zooming in or out. This confuses your brain's perception of depth, creating a sense of uneasiness. Here is a cool example that Spielberg used in "Jaws:"


If you're still hooked on this topic, click here for a great compilation of some amazing tracking shots from older films which are worth checking out.

Lincoln - Sneak Peek, Spielberg Q&A @ NYFF

Last night we were treated to a heart-stopping surprise at the Secret Screening of this year's New York Film Festival; the first screening of Steven Spielberg's unfinished new movie "Lincoln," starring Daniel Day-Lewis, to anyone, anywhere in the world. After waiting in our seats for almost an hour after the scheduled start time due to extreme security measures, the film was announced and introduced unexpectedly by Spielberg himself. There he was, the most successful director of all time thanking us for being there; the room shaking in applause. The film has been in development for over a decade, with multiple screenwriters and actors attached to the project. The screenplay was finally completed in 2009 by critically-acclaimed writer Tony Kushner (of "Angels in America" fame) based on the last chapters of the book 'Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln' (Google Affiliate Ad) by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

There is a painting on the rotunda of the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. called 'The Apotheosis of Washington,' where America's first president is portrayed as turning into a god. What Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis have achieved in this film is the polar opposite of what was intended in that painting: they have created a very intimate and human portrait of a larger-than-life historical figure, one of the most influential characters of the 19th century. What struck me most about the film is that it shies away from showing some of the most important episodes in his life such as the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation, which are only mentioned in passing. It zooms in on the final two years of his presidency, focusing on the machinations involved in the passage of the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery. At first I thought that a film that was mostly propped up on legislative dialogue would put me to sleep after half an hour, but the film is so involving that I forgot to get bored. This film will rekindle your love of the democratic process after this year's election season in America. Take a look at the film's trailer here:


Spielberg and Kushner got a standing ovation from the audience at the start of the Q&A session after the film; but the theater really exploded when a spotlight shone on the director's box to introduce Day-Lewis and cast members Sally Field, David Strathairn, Tim Blake Nelson, and Spielberg's long-time producer Kathleen Kennedy.

The director mentioned that he purposely didn't include any battle scenes because of his experience in "Saving Private Ryan." He wanted to concentrate his efforts on creating a believable White House during the 1860's, something that was achieved by building sets which are lush, faithful reproductions of the government buildings of the era. Set designer Rick Carter pored over black-and-white photographs of the White House, and complemented his research with historical documents which describe the colors used in every room, down to the last detail. Spielberg mentioned that they were even able to use Lincoln's real pocket watch in the film, which was lent to the production by a museum and was wound up for the first time in over 50 years to record its distinct ticking sound.

He also discussed how they settled on the timbre of Lincoln's voice, since there are no recordings of the 16th president. The unusual choice of a high-pitched voice was actually made by Daniel Day-Lewis after they discovered some indications that he had a shrill voice. Spielberg got a laugh from the audience when he mentioned that he wouldn't have gotten away with giving Lincoln the same deep voice as the animatronic Lincoln in Disneyland. As always, Daniel Day-Lewis easily brushes away any preconceived notion you might have about what is achievable by an actor; he towers over the profundity of the historical events described in the film, in what might become one of the most memorable performances of his career.

Mary Lincoln got an unusually favorable treatment by minimizing the mental illnesses that have plagued her legacy. Kushner discussed how he was sympathetic to the plight of a mother who lost two sons and a husband, and wanted to paint a more compassionate portrait of the first lady. He also gave credit to Sally Field for delivering a nuanced performance with only a subtle reminder of her insanity.

Kushner also touched upon the development of the screenplay as seen through the eyes of someone who has experienced the gridlock in Washington over the past four years. He recalled re-writing a draft while sitting at home watching President Obama get elected. The conversations have a very contemporary feel to it, as if the characters are speaking to us through the ages to give us hope that even though we have tough decisions for the country today, we should trust our institutions. The universe, in all its grand complexity, leans slowly but surely toward justice. While Spielberg mentioned that he preferred the film to premiere after the election to evade being blamed of meddling in partisanship, Kushner welcomed the opportunity to participate in the process. "Working on the screenplay has really changed my politics and made me think much more seriously about the process of electoral democracy" said Kushner, "and I recognize that radical change can happen through true democratic means."

While the film was mostly shot in Petersburg, Virginia to take advantage of the historical buildings in the town, most of the scenes take place indoors. The profiles of the actors are dimly lit by cinematographer Janusz Kaminski with only a half-pulled back curtain or the glow of a fireplace, creating the mood that the weight of history is on the shoulders of these characters. It might not have the action sequences necessary for mass market appeal, but this will likely become mandatory viewing in elementary school classrooms across the U.S. If you are a fan of American history and politics, you will likely savor the lessons of this film. Opens wide November 16.


Why Alcohol is Bad for Sci-fi

I've had a lot to drink in my life. Why not? Everything is more enjoyable with a great whisky. Unfortunately, there is a long term downside to abusing the nectar of the gods, as evidenced in the perceptible degradation of my cognitive horsepower. Every time you get a hangover, that proverbial wrath of grapes, your brain is mourning the loss of neurons. Once upon a time I was smart. My background is in mechanical engineering, which (before I fried half my brain cells with booze) used to place me just a notch below rocket scientist, as seen in the scientifically accurate IQ graphic below:

As the stereotype can attest to, screenwriters are an inebriated bunch. Most writers follow the maxim that Hemingway famously didn't say: 'Write drunk, edit sober.' This usually works except for one particular case: science fiction. Now, we've always allowed our Hollywood writers some leeway in following the laws of physics, especially the simple Newtonian kind. Some are obvious exaggerations; Popular Science has a great article where they perform some calculations to debunk some impossible stunts.


The problem with sci-fi is that the genre doesn't have to provide a large degree of believability for audiences to suspend disbelief, and screenwriters think that they can get away with it. They can come up with the stupidest explanation of futuristic technology in their drunken stupor, and instead of rewriting it when they are sober, they leave it in the script. The Average Joe will eat it up, inching slightly to the left in the IQ graph shown above. Well Joey, there is no need to fear, the physics police is here. I can write about this for hours because I still have a couple of those old neurons in my noggin. For now, we'll focus on five scientifically advanced concepts that are actually possible, and try to break down these sci-fi mistakes with simple explanations.

1. Space travel
From the magnificent jump into hyperspace in "Star Wars" to mysterious colorpuke tunnel at the end of "2001: A Space Oddyssey," filmmakers have attempted to tackle interstellar transportation to varying degrees of success. Moving faster than light is physically impossible unless you go through a traversable wormhole. Even though the math in relativity allows for wormholes, they have yet to be discovered. Disney's "The Black Hole" and "Event Horizon" played with the possibility of a wormhole created by a dying star. Technically, you can punch the gas in your spaceship, but with special relativity you run into the barrier of time dilation, which means that the faster you go, the faster time passes, and everyone you were supposed to meet at the other end would be dead when you got there. Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" has so many inaccuracies that I don't even know where to begin. Films such as Tarkovskiy's "Solaris" and James Cameron's "Avatar" have only vague references to the subject. The circles in "Stargate" are as unbelievable as elvish magic. My favorite fake form of intergalactic travel are the mass relays in the "Mass Effect" video games, which will likely turn into a film in the next few years.
Who got it right: In "Aliens" Ripley is found floating in space after 57 years, but she has not aged. In the "Prometheus" viral website created for the marketing of the prequel, there is a timeline where the Weyland corporation created something called a FTL drive in 2032, which would allow them to somehow game the limit of the speed of light. I guess that's as good as it gets.
UPDATE: Seems like NASA is also once step closer to the Star Trek warp drive!

2. Teleportation
I have to introduce the concept of 'Photon Entanglement' here. Think of it as twins who are telepathically linked. Instead of twins, we are talking about photons (particles of light). Scientists have successfully created couples of photons born at the same time, which makes them 'entangled;' the amazing thing is that no matter how far apart they are, when you do something to one photon it affects the other. This is the principle with which a form of teleportation has already been achieved, and possibly we will be able to communicate across the galaxy with entangled photons. Teleportation in film has been popularized with the words 'beam me up, Scotty' from "Star Trek,"a show which usually gets their physics right, but not in this case. In "The Fly," a scientist conducts an impossible teleportation experiment, but his molecular-genetic information gets mixed up with an insect that came into his telepod. Even in "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," Mike Teevee and his mom are teleported and shrunk into a screen through the magic of Wonkavision.
Who got it right: "The Prestige." SPOILER ALERT: In quantum teleportation, the teleported object gets copied, not transported. Since the film relies on the genius of Nikola Tesla, the undisputed smartest guy of all time, we can assume that Christopher Nolan had to understand this before writing his film.

3. Cloning
Cloning is a harder one to screw up. Disappointingly, it seems like everyone always does. In "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" the cloning process in Kamino is said to accelerate growth of the storm troopers and make them obedient; which would not be possible. In "Moon," the same thing takes place, but it is further tweaked by the fact that the Sam Rockwells only last 3 years. In "The 6th Day," full grown clones can be procured as fast as a pizza. In "Splice" we see how the clone is made up of portions of DNA from multiple species; which actually has some basis in reality: for example, rats have been bred with a fluorescent gene from jellyfish which allows them to glow in the dark. Kinda nuts, right? Check them out in google images! Well, that's as good as transgender cloning can get; we can't go around making crazy combinations like Dren. In "Alien Resurrection" they mix up Ripley DNA with Alien DNA, same problem. In "The Fifth Element," they reproduce Leeloo with a 3D printer machine thingy. To spark your nostalgia, there's also the stupid third clone in "Multiplicity."
Who got it right: The only one I've seen is "Never Let Me Go," based on the best-selling novel by Kazuo Ishiguro.




4. Nuclear Fusion
Fusion is when you squeeze two atoms together, and the nucleus of one atom gets smooshed with the nucleus of another, and some of the matter from the nuclei gets transformed into a shitload of energy. This is the holy grail of endless free electricity. We know it's possible because the Sun is fueled with fusion, but we haven't been able to replicate sustainable fusion to generate energy yet. Incredibly, we are very close! (Not to be confused with the nuclear fission used in nuclear power plants and atomic bombs, where the opposite occurs and atoms are split up. Fusion is not a radioactive process.) I think the most visible use of hot fusion must be Doctor Octopus in "Spiderman 2," but the way it's shown, like a little sun, is nonsense. In "The Dark Knight Rises" we see a cold fusion reactor contained in some sort of ball, which also turns into a bomb, but in reality a bomb would have to have a fissile trigger (of nuclear bomb-ish quality). In "The Saint," sexy genius Elisabeth Shue supposedly has developed a fusion reactor in what appears to be a glass tube with a bendy straw. A year earlier in "Chain Reaction," another sexy genius played by Rachel Weisz mixes up cold and hot fusion and doesn't really explain how it works.
Who got it right: No one, but there are not a lot of films about fusion yet. Can someone please get this one right? Anyone?


5. Time Travel
While scientists have some proof in quantum experiments where they can see effects occuring prior to a cause (a phenomenon called 'Retrocausality') which makes sending a message back in time a theoretical possibility, the feasibility of sending a physical object back in time is absolutely impossible unless traversable wormholes are real. Therefore, there is no point in discussing any time travel film, as they are all in the realm of fantasy. That doesn't take away the fun though!
Who got it right: No one, well maybe only "Frequency."

Thanks for reading. If I revisit this topic someday, maybe I will discuss invisibility, biological outbreaks, computers, dreams and memory, and nanotechnology. Any other suggestions? In the meantime, have another drink so you can make your brain less critical of these scientific mistakes.

Here and There - Exclusive Interview @ NYFF

Every year, the cold September rain arrives in tandem with the New York Film Festival, where movie-mad manhattanites take cover from the downpour and experience a robust slate of new and noteworthy films. The 50th edition of this soggy event is well underway in Alice Tully Hall in Lincoln Center, after a full weekend of screenings and director panels.

Last Saturday we had a chance to attend the North American premiere of one the most acclaimed indie films of the year, "Aqui y Alla," (Spanish for Here and There), a tender but tough story about Pedro, a Mexican who experiences the new phenomenon of "reverse immigration;" he is forced to return to his home state of Guerrero due to the state of the economy in the U.S. and attempts to start a musical band after years of working illegally in New York. The film won the Grand Prize of the "Semaine de la Critique" at the Cannes film festival this May. As you can see in the trailer, this gentle little film blurs the line between documentary and fiction; it follows the quotidian life of Pedro, as he gets reacquainted with his wife and two daughters and tries to cope with providing for his family. First-time director Antonio Mendez Esparza mostly cast non-actors for his film, and most roles are stoically portrayed by actual residents of the Pedro's home town.


FilmFAC had a chance to catch up with Torch Films producers Ori Gratch and Tim Hobbs, who discussed with us the genesis of the film, some production details and their surprise when they found out their film won the Grand Prize at Cannes. The debate between film and digital takes center stage with the colorful opening feature at the NYFF, "Life of Pi," which was shot in 3D by director Ang Lee. As mentioned by Gratch, they used the Red One digital camera for "Aqui y Alla," which allowed them the freedom to shoot a large amount of material without breaking the bank. Take a look at the full interview below: