Connect with us

Entertainment

At Sundance, a film about wildfire recovery stirs raw emotions: 'Community is the solution'

Published

on

At Sundance, a film about wildfire recovery stirs raw emotions: 'Community is the solution'

For those of us fortunate enough to avoid evacuation, much less life-altering destruction, during the recent L.A. wildfires, the past weeks have come with a certain numbness. What level of grief is appropriate, after all, if you are experiencing it secondhand?

“Rebuilding,” from writer-director Max Walker-Silverman, provided the outlet I needed. Starring Josh O’Connor as Dusty, a rancher trying to pick up the pieces after a wildfire destroys his home, the film culminates in a moment of sorrow — and resilience — that finally brought me to tears: “You got what you got,” as one character puts it, “and it was always enough for me.”

The film, which deals with derelict FEMA trailers, bureaucratic red tape and the impossible choice between starting over or moving on, was inspired by Walker-Silverman’s own family tragedy: A wildfire destroyed his grandmother’s Colorado home, taking her beloved recipes with it and leaving her once-verdant land a blackened burn scar. Co-starring Lily LaTorre as Dusty’s daughter, Callie-Rose; Meghann Fahy as his ex, Ruby, and Kali Reis as Mila, a woman who’s lost not only her home but her husband in the fire, “Rebuilding,” with uncanny timing, relates a tale that will be told many times over the coming years in Southern California and other disaster zones.

Ahead of the film’s premiere, Walker-Silverman and the film’s cast visited The Times’ studio at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival. The conversation has been edited and condensed.

Advertisement

Max, I want to start with you, since your family’s experience of a wildfire inspired the film. How is your family doing now? What part of the rebuilding process are you all in?

Max Walker-Silveman: This story comes about from a very basic human thing, which is loving one’s home and feeling good there, and then being forced to reconcile with that home being fragile and occasionally being taken from us. And strangely, even in the face of that loss, a feeling of home remaining and, in a very surprising way, being deepened. It’s an experience that I’m familiar with and that many people are familiar with. And it’s very surprising. This movie I created [is] about not disaster, ultimately, not loss, but about the amazing things that happened afterwards, which is, time and time again, people taking care of each other and communities coming together and people being friends and neighbors in ways they never would have otherwise. And I wrote this, I think, because disaster is going to be part of our lives forever. It’s not something that will really begin or end. And if that’s the case, hopefully the communities that come together afterwards can continue to be part of our lives as well.

For the rest of you, I’m wondering if in making this film anything about the rebuilding process struck you or surprised you or maybe dismayed you about how that plays out in our country right now for people?

Josh O’Connor: As Max articulates powerfully, these disasters are becoming more frequent and affect everyone, directly or indirectly, more frequently now. So I was really interested in Max’s focus on the human side of how we respond. And community is the solution in these matters. And I think right now, as you alluded to, we’re all very aware of what’s going on in L.A. and all over the world. And our job is to look at the human impact of these things.

Advertisement

Dusty starts off being very concerned with the idea of “building back just the way it was.” And what we watch him do is sort of understand how change and adaptability might actually allow for more of that hope than exactly putting things the way that they were. What were the conversations like between you and Max that sort of helped you understand the mindset that Dusty has and how it changes over the course of the film?

O’Connor: One of the early chats we had, and something we went and explored a bit and it’s actually in the movie, is the surprising and magical moment when green comes back to the landscape. Dusty’s image of rebuilding as it was, you know, replicating what they had, it’s in a way tied in to grief. And there’s something really exceptional about accepting something different that doesn’t necessarily have to be worse or better, but is new. That’s what I really liked about this moment of the green coming through — that landscape, irrespective of him trying to get the loan or trying to build back what he had, it will never be the same. And that can be a beautiful thing.

It’s interesting that you bring up grief because what I experienced watching the film, Meghann, is when your character reads [a] letter [from her late mother], it was like the emotions that I had about the fire came out. I’m wondering if you could talk about what the atmosphere was like on set that day.

Meghann Fahy: The vibe on set, as it was every day, was sort of gentle and loving and very peaceful. And it’s a very intimate moment. We’re all just sort of seated at this table. And I think I sort of felt the support energetically just by being at that round table with those people.

Walker-Silverman: That scene that you did there, Meghann, is like really one of the most amazing performances I’ve ever seen. I remember exactly where I was. I was curled up on that little staircase in the house with my monitor and I couldn’t see properly. And realized I was just crying. And then the take ended and everyone on set was crying.

Advertisement

Fahy: But that’s the thing about grief, is that it can feel so lonely when you’re in it. But that’s such a perfect example of every single person on that set, I’m sure everyone’s life has been touched by grief. So it’s just such a beautiful representation, that moment in the film, of another deeply human experience. And it is a connective tissue, whether or not we’re always aware of it or not.

A man in a cowboy hat and his daughter sit outside the door of their trailer.

Josh O’Connor and Lily LaTorre in “Rebuilding.”

(Jesse Hope / Sundance Institute)

Kali, your character asks about staying in Colorado, “How long until it burns again?” I’m wondering how you kind of understood her fear of the fires coming back and causing destruction again, and then how she arrives at a kind of place of saying, “You know what, I do want to rebuild here instead of elsewhere.”

Reis: She says as much as she hates it here, she loves it here. And I think that’s her final connection to the loss, not only of her home, but her husband. And I think her real connection, she’ll always be there, because that’s where she lost them. So I know as much as she wanted to run away from the place that may burn again, that’s the connecting piece that she has — and this community that she built around this tragedy, this real human experience. You know, these natural disasters, they don’t have any prejudice. Everybody kind of came together in this community. So I think her final decision was, “If I have to go through it again, what better place to go through it again? What better people?”

Advertisement

One last question for the whole group. At one point, Dusty says, “It’s funny, the things you pack and the things you leave.” I wonder if the experience of making this film made any of you think of a particular heirloom or important item in your life, in your home, that you now would be like, “That’s on my list to make sure that I save.”

LaTorre: I only found out about it a few days ago, but my great-grandmother, she wrote a book — I think it was either about her life or about the university she went to. And it’s a really old book and we’ve got it at our house and watching the movie, it kind of made me think, “Well, this is my great grandmother’s. I wouldn’t want to just leave it there.” I would try my absolute hardest probably to save that antique to have the memory of my great grandmother.

Fahy: That’s a great one.

Walker-Silverman: My mom lost her mom’s recipes in the fire, handwritten recipes. So I think I have some recipes from my mom that I would treasure very much.

O’Connor: My grandmother’s ceramics would be like, I’d have an exit strategy.

Advertisement

Reis: I would definitely take my late brother’s necklace that he has. There’s five of us, and I would take his necklace with me for sure.

Fahy: I have a piece of jewelry from my grandmother that I think would be something I would want to keep.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ – Catholic Review

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – “Avatar: Fire and Ash” (20th Century), the third film in the always visually rich franchise that got its start in 2009, brings forward thematic elements that had previously been kept in the background and that viewers of faith will find it impossible to accept and difficult to dismiss. As a result, it requires careful evaluation by mature movie fans.

Against the recurring background of the fictional moon Pandora, the saga of the family whose fortunes were chronicled in the earlier chapters continues. The clan consists of dad Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and his wife Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña) as well as their three surviving children, teens Lo’ak (Britain Dalton) and Kiri (Sigourney Weaver) and tyke Tuk (Trinity Jo-Li Bliss).

Rounding out the household is Jake and Neytiri’s adolescent adopted son, Spider (Jack Champion).

As veterans of the earlier outings will know, Jake was originally a human and a Marine. But, via an avatar, he eventually embraced the identity of Neytiri’s Pandoran tribe, the Na’vi. While their biological kids are to all appearances Na’vi — a towering race with blue skins and tails — Spider is human and requires a breathing mask to survive on Pandora.

Lo’ak is guilt-ridden over his role in the death of his older brother, Neteyam (Jamie Flatters), and wants to redeem himself by proving his worth as a warrior. Kiri is frustrated that, despite her evident spiritual gifts, she’s unable to connect with Eywa, the mother goddess the Na’vi worship.

Advertisement

For his part, Jake is worried about Spider’s future — Neteyam’s death has left the still-grieving Neytiri with a hatred of the “Sky people,” as Earthlings are known on Pandora. He also has to contend with the ongoing threat posed by his potentially deadly rivalry with his former Marine comrade, Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), who is also Spider’s estranged father.

As if all that weren’t enough, a further challenge arises when the Metkayina, the sea-oriented Pandorans with whom Jake et al. have taken refuge, are attacked by the fierce fire-centric Mangkwan, led by Varang (Oona Chaplin), a malevolent sorceress. A three hour-plus running time is required to tie up these varied strands.

Along the way, the religion adhered to by the main characters becomes more prominent than in previous installments. Thus Eywa is both present on screen and active in the plot. Additionally, Kiri is revealed to have been the product of a virginal conception.

Director and co-writer (with Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver) James Cameron’s extension of his blockbuster series, accordingly, not only includes material uncomfortable at best for Christians but also seems incongruent, overall, with monotheistic belief. Even well-catechized grown-ups, therefore, should approach this sprawling addition to Cameron’s epic with caution.

The film contains nonscriptural beliefs and practices, constant stylized but often intense combat violence with brief gore, scenes of torture, narcotics use, partial nudity, a couple of mild oaths, at least one rough term, numerous crude and a handful of crass expressions and an obscene gesture. The OSV News classification is L — limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. The Motion Picture Association rating is PG-13 — parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

Advertisement

Read More Movie & TV Reviews

Copyright © 2025 OSV News

Continue Reading

Entertainment

‘It was by the kids, for the kids’: Chain Reaction’s former booker reflects on the O.C. club’s legacy

Published

on

‘It was by the kids, for the kids’: Chain Reaction’s former booker reflects on the O.C. club’s legacy

My name is Jon Halperin. I booked and managed Chain Reaction from 2000 to 2006. It started by accident while I was running a one-person record label. I went to the club to see the band Melee perform and the prior talent buyer for the club had just quit that day. I told owner Tim Hill I’d do it (having only booked three shows ever at a coffee shop). We slept on it, and I was hired the next day.

I joined Ron Martinez (of Final Conflict). He was booking the punk and hardcore shows. I booked the indie, ska, emo, screamo and pop punk stuff. We made a great team. Best work-wife ever.

Story time. My friend Ikey Owens (RIP) hit me up and told me that he and the guys from At the Drive In were going to be starting a new band. I’d booked Defacto (their dub project) before, and we agreed to throw them on a show and just bill it as “Defacto.” There were maybe 200 people there to see the first show for a band that would soon be known as the Mars Volta.

That wasn’t out of the ordinary. Chain Reaction had many artists grace that stage that went on to bigger things: Death Cab for Cutie, Avenged Sevenfold, Maroon 5, Fall Out Boy, Panic at the Disco, Taking Back Sunday, Pierce the Veil, My Morning Jacket. The list goes on and on.

Jon Halperin, who booked Chain Reaction from 2000 to 2006, stands in front of the club during its heyday.

Advertisement

(From Jon Halperin)

I used to make a deal with the kids. Buy a ticket to “X” show, and if you didn’t like the band, I’d refund you. I never had to. I knew my audience and they trusted my curation of the room. … It was by the kids, for the kids, except I was 30 at the time. I had to think like a teenager. My friend Brian once called me “Peter Pan.”

Halfway through my reign, social media became a thing. There was Friendster and a bit later MySpace. YouTube stated just a few years after. But those first few years of me at the venue, it was word of mouth. It was paper fliers dropped off at coffee shops and record stores. It was the flier in the venue window. It was Mean Street Magazine and Skratch Magazine.

I’d tease the press when they wanted to review a show. If you don’t show up with a pen and paper, you aren’t getting in (sorry, Kelli).

Advertisement

Most music industry went to the Los Angeles show, but smart industry came to us. Countless acts got signed following their shows. You’d often see the band meeting with a label in the parking lot near their tour van.

It was a dry room when I was there. No booze or weed whatsoever. We made only one exception to the weed rule. An artist in a band with Crohn’s disease who traveled with a nurse. Not saying bands didn’t drink backstage, on stage, in their vans (we rarely had buses), but what we didn’t see didn’t happen.

Touche Amoré performing at Chain Reaction in 2010.

Touche Amoré performing at Chain Reaction in 2010.

(Joe Calixto)

We were often referred to as the “CBGB’s of the West,” and for a lot of bands, locals and touring acts alike, we were just that. We were the epicenter. There were other venues of course, but for some reason, we were the venue to play. Showcase Theater in Corona was edging toward its demise. Koo’s Cafe in Santa Ana was done. Back Alley in Fullerton wasn’t active. Galaxy Theater [in Santa Ana] was still, well, the Galaxy. There was no House of Blues Anaheim. Bands would drive a thousand miles to play one show at Chain Reaction. We were where the local bands started as first of four on a bill and would be headlining us within a year. We were their jumping-off point. We were where the kids came out. The real fans, many of whom started bands themselves.

Advertisement

Thankfully, there are other smaller venues out there today fostering the all-ages scene: Programme Skate in Fullerton, the Locker Room at Garden AMP [in Garden Grove], Toxic Toast in Long Beach, the Haven Pomona, but it’s just not the same. It was a moment in time. A time that will be forgotten in a few decades, but for today, my social media is being inundated with memories of a room that was a second home for thousands of kids.

Zero regrets. It was the best and worst times of my life. Working a day gig and then heading to the venue nearly every day of the week was rough. Relationships and friendships were hard, being that I couldn’t go out at night. I couldn’t get a pet. I was constantly tired. But I wouldn’t trade those six years for the world.

RIP, Chain Reaction.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Gurram Paapi Reddy’ movie review: Naresh Agastya, Faria Abdullah’s con comedy is hilarious yet overcooked

Published

on

‘Gurram Paapi Reddy’ movie review: Naresh Agastya, Faria Abdullah’s con comedy is hilarious yet overcooked

If this week’s Telugu release Gurram Paapi Reddy were a human, it would most likely be a teenager. It bursts with energy, overflowing with ideas and wearing its unabashed enthusiasm like a badge of honour. The audience too might end up surrendering to its infectious energy. Yet, like a distracted teenager, the film also gets so enamoured by its very idea that it loses control and does not know where to stop.

The vibe is eerily similar to Jathi Ratnalu early on. Again, Brahmanandam (as Vaidyanathan), is a judge. Faria Abdullah, the actress in the former film, is the only female presence in the lead lineup here. The other oddball male characters — Gurram Paapi Reddy (Naresh Agastya), Chilipi (Vamshidhar Goud), Goyyi (Jeevan Kumar) and Military (Rajkumar Kasireddy) — are the not-so-smart ones who get entangled in a mess.

The similarities end there. Brahmanandam, who is in terrific form, sets the tone of the comedy, doling out harsh punishments to petty criminals, not for their crimes, but for their sheer stupidity in getting caught. Gurram, Chilipi, Goyyi and Military are the victims who reunite after their jail term. This time, they are joined by Soudamini (Faria).

Gurram Paapi Reddy (Telugu)

Director: Murali Manohar

Cast: Naresh Agastya, Faria Abdullah, Brahmanandam, Yogi Babu

Advertisement

Runtime: 160 minutes

Storyline: A gang of four ex-convicts swap dead bodies for easy money and land in a ‘royal’ mess.

While their earlier heist at a jewellery store goes terribly wrong, the new plan is strangely simple. The four men need to swap a dead body from Srisailam with another body in a graveyard in Hyderabad for a meagre sum. While they execute it, albeit with difficulty, it gets messy when the motive behind the swap comes to the fore, dating back to a royal gift from the pre-Independence era.

The key conflict is established prior to the intermission, but newer problems surface later. Though the story idea is deceptively straightforward, the director builds many layers to the fun quotient and it’s evident that he treats comedy like serious business.

The actors react to the situations without trying too hard to impress. The scenes are not only thematically funny, but also packed with outrageously hilarious one-liners. Every time one feels the film’s trajectory is sorted, there is a surprise. The screenplay is busy with backstories and subplots.

Advertisement

The second hour could have benefited from some economy in writing. Past connections are strung together, newer characters and their complexities are introduced, there are backup plans, flashbacks and a song is thrown into the mix. Thankfully, the humour quotient remains unaffected. Some breather would have been welcome.

The subplots involving Sangi Reddy, particularly the courtroom proceedings, and Markandeya Raju’s son crowd the screenplay, leaving the viewers with too many dots to connect. It’s inevitable for some restlessness to creep in towards the final 45 minutes — a stretch packed with several events and coincidences. A clever climax salvages the film.

Gurram Paapi Reddy is aware of the crucial balance between the goofiness of its characters and the seriousness of the plot. Too many characters and a packed, expansive narrative make the film exhausting, given its 160-minute runtime.

Naresh Agastya, Vamshidhar Goud, Faria Abdullah, Jeevan Kumar and Rajkumar Kasireddy share wonderful on-screen camaraderie and get ample scope to shine individually too. Yogi Babu, as a convict with night-blindness, brings the roof down even when he doesn’t dub for himself. Motta Rajendran’s antics look repetitive at times, though they land well.

This is also among Brahmanandam’s best on-screen appearances in recent times. It’s an absolute joy to see the veteran actor ever-hungry to prove his worth when he senses potential in a scene. John Vijay is in dire need of reinvention with his dialogue delivery and body language. Both songs in the film, composed by Krishna Saurabh, though well-shot, feel abrupt.

A narrative with lesser flab would have amplified the film’s impact. The makers tease the audience with a potential sequel idea, but appreciably it does not appear forced. The film is also complete in itself.

Advertisement

Gurram Paapi Reddy is a smartly written and performed con-comedy that delivers laughs aplenty, though a few segments become indulgent.

Published – December 19, 2025 08:22 pm IST

Continue Reading

Trending