Jump to content
The World News Media

‘Begin Again’ Director Vows to ‘Never Make a Film With Supermodels Again,’ Slams Actress Keira Knightley in Brutally Honest Interview


TheWorldNewsOrg

Recommended Posts

  • Member

John Carney, the Irish director and musician best known for his award-winning film-turned-Broadway-musical, “Once,” recently did in an in-depth interview with the Independent U.K. in which he slammed actress Keira Knightley. Knightley played the lead role in Carney’s 2013 film, “Begin Again,” which featured Hollywood A-listers Adam Levine of Maroon Five and Oscar-nominated actor Mark Ruffalo.

Singer/actor Adam Levine, actor Mark Ruffalo, actress Keira Knightley, and writer/director John Carney attend the 'Begin Again' press conference at Crosby Street Hotel on June 26, 2014 in New York City. (Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images for The Weinstein Company)

Singer/actor Adam Levine, actor Mark Ruffalo, actress Keira Knightley, and writer/director John Carney attend the ‘Begin Again’ press conference at Crosby Street Hotel on June 26, 2014 in New York City. (Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images for The Weinstein Company)

Carney told the Independent that Knightley didn’t have the musical chops to play a singer in the musical romantic comedy. But that wasn’t his biggest critique. He also complained that the star’s entourage was so large that he found it difficult to “get any real work done.”

“As much as I tried to make it work I think that she didn’t quite come out as a guitar-playing singer-songwriter,” he said. “So I really wanted to work with musicians and actors that could play their instruments properly and sing and stuff like that.”

Then came the biggest blow: “I learned that I’ll never make a film with supermodels again,” he said, referring to Knightley, who models for Chanel.

Carney explained that, more than a pretty face, an the ideal actor needs to be willing to discover himself or herself “when the camera’s rolling.” The director applauded Levine and Ruffalo for having this quality.

“Mark Ruffalo is a fantastic actor and Adam Levine is a joy to work with and actually quite unpretentious and not a bit scared of exposing himself on camera and exploring who he is as an individual,” he said.

“Keira’s thing is to hide who you are and I don’t think you can be an actor and do that,” he continued, making the distinction between “proper film actors as opposed to movie stars.”

Carney added later on that he didn’t want to “rubbish Keira,” but explained that “it’s hard being a film actor and it requires a certain level of honesty and self-analysis that I don’t think she’s ready for yet … .”

Carney said that he was “a bit disenchanted” after “Begin Again” and “wanted a break” after making the film in the U.S.

“I was very ready to come back to Ireland and make films that nobody cared about who was in it or any of that crap,” he said.

The filmmaker’s latest work, “Sing Street,” is another musical, staged in his native Ireland. He referred to the musical film, now playing in theaters, as “a small personal movie with no Keira Knightleys in it.”

Read more stories from TheBlaze

Libertarians Select 2016 Ticket on Wild Convention Day, Party Chairman Candidate Strips on Stage (Seriously)

Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski Offers Bizarre Response When Asked if Trump Offices Are Being Bugged

‘So Sickening’: What Vandals Have Done to Calif. Vietnam War Memorial to the Missing Is a Painful Sight

‘Unfair’: Listen to Dem Lawmaker Explain Why Students Shouldn’t Be Forced to Learn Declaration of Independence

‘Enough is Enough’: Feinstein Unequivocally Defends Clinton, Urges Media to Drop Email Controversy

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 315
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • … and donchew forget now … the GB now allows Sisters to come to meetings and go out in field service in slacks or Mumus.  Or slacks AND Mumus, if poundage appropriate. Did I ever mention I once dated a Sister that made Mumus out of parachutes? She was an Opera singer, and had a UN diplomatic passport. She was on “speed”, couldn’t blink, and typed 600 words a minute with 100% errors. Occasionally she would get lipstick in her eyebrows.  
    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
  • Members

    • rosalyn demouchet

      rosalyn demouchet 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BGR

      BGR 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • misette

      misette 213

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,680
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.