Matthew Modine is an accomplished stage and screen actor best known for his role as Private Joker in Stanley Kubrick’s 1987 war movie Full Metal Jacket. Modine’s other film credits include the 1985 film Vision Quest as well as Married to the Mob opposite Michelle Pheiffer in 1988. On the small screen, Modine was nominated for an Emmy for his performances in “And the Band Played On” and “What the Deaf Man Heard.” Most recently, he played the ruthless developer Sullivan Groff on the Showtime series “Weeds.” Modine is also an environmental activist and founder of BICYCLE FOR A DAY (BFAD), which hopes to raise awareness about reducing carbon emissions and teach us the simple ways we can all make a cleaner world–like riding a bicycle. Modine directed the BFAD film for “Young Global Leaders,” which was presented to an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. And utilizing new filmmaking technology, Modine wrote, directed, and starred in the short film, “I think I thought” in 2008. He says new technology is making filmmaking a broadly accessible art. Big Think caught up with Modine to ask him more about the way the film business is changing for the better.
This interview is part of a series on BigThink, sponsored by Dell and Digital Nomads.
Comments (9)
Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you're not currently a member, please register here.
Nomad Contributors
by John Leverett / November 12, 2008
Modine makes a pretty interesting point about the need to find filters online to get to the best content faster without limiting access to the ’sreaming’ as he calls, which is an apt way of putting it. There’s a value to the screaming he says that makes it worth accommodating, even if we avoid it, which is an interesting perspective on the whole open access argument.
by Hannah G / November 12, 2008
I remember watching “And the Band Played On” in 7th grade. The movie, together with Rent, which I must have seen around the same time, had a huge effect on me–so much so that I helped to start an AIDS education club at school, volunteered at a hospice for AIDS patients, and wrote a 10 or 20 page research paper on HIV–no small feat for a 12 or 13 year old.
But the point of all this is not to advertise my precocity–it’s to point out that whenever I think of the movie, I think, warmly, of Matthew Modine; he really carried the film. A great actor and a great guy, it sounds like.
by golden retriever / November 12, 2008
I don’t think 90% of the internet is for raging. I just think there is a lot of anger in the world today and the internet has become the venue for it par excellence. Like any mass medium, it’s a mirror on societies that use it. If anything the internet brings an immediacy to people’s screaming that we wouldn’t hear without it.
by Jess Hop / November 12, 2008
This interview was very interesting, especially in that the style in which it was presented enhanced Modine’s point about the evolution of film, and what it means now that film is more widespread and accessible due to video internet sites.
I disagree that a majority of people use the internet as a negative outlet to channel their anger. But, for those who do, it is probably a healthy way of redirecting that negativity, in some ways maybe even therapeutic, and therefore not something about which to bemoan.
by Colin / November 12, 2008
While it’s debatable that the accessibility of film production to a broader audience via compact and cheaper technology increases the quality of media delivered, it does broaden the subject matter enormously. Just last year I was able to shot an HD feature documentary carrying every piece of camera gear on a bicycle for three months. That never would have been possible in the past, my story would never have been told.
But then again, Ansel Adams, the great nature photographer used to go out with about a hundred pounds of gear, and hike for days only to be able to take a couple actual photographs. Now you can take as many photos per second with relatively cheap cameras as he took per trip, yet his art remains more striking and profound because he put so much into each shot. The same could be said for technology and film, we’re able to present many more stories from many more perspectives, but we’re also producing a lot more cheap crap.
by VCM / November 12, 2008
Modine has a point in regards to the regurgitation that is occurring with films today and how many directors in this period of time are merely retelling a story that isn’t really their own. Hollywood condones these types of films where a film is solely a money making product and there is no time for thought or depth because time is money and the general audience isn’t interested in depth anyway.
by Whitney / November 12, 2008
The mobility of modern video and such certainly offers many benefits and opens a lot of possibilities, but I can’t help thinking that sometimes it’s the limits that make things interesting. I think there is such a thing as too many options, and that with modern technology we are nearing that point all the time. And while I think 90% is an overstatement, I agree that way too much of the internet is just people sounding off their own ignorance and general negativity.
by Seamus / November 13, 2008
I don’t think limiting anything makes it interesting (except pain , stress, anxiety, unhappiness, i.e. anything negative). In the case of being able to learn, work, play, communicate on the go, every advancement possible is important. I had never heard of the concept of digital nomad before, it’s very interesting. And, I for one count myself as one. I am working at a hotel right now, and will be home for a few days, then away again next week. My office, is essentially, where my laptop, and other communications devices reside.
by Anderson Allen / November 17, 2008
The cool thing about today’s film technology is that it has become so much price-accessible for the average person, that anyone can take a camera wherever they go and be able to capture their experience and tell a story of what they’ve seen.