Interview: Tom Shadyac of ‘I Am’

Interview: Tom Shadyac of ‘I Am’

Posted on March 30, 2011 at 8:00 am

Tom Shadyac was one of the most successful directors in Hollywood. He had wealth and fame. He worked with superstars like Eddie Murphy and Jim Carrey. But a bicycle accident left him in terrible pain, physical and spiritual. He realized he was not happy or satisfied. And so he made a small documentary about two questions: what’s wrong with our world, and what can we do to make it better? The movie is filled with fascinating encounters with people who are questioning some of our most fundamental assumptions about the way we interact with each other and the universe, from cutting-edge scientists to people who study history, culture, and theology. It was a great pleasure to speak with him about his literal and spiritual journey.

How are you feeling now?

I feel so much better. I’m 95 percent and if this is as good as I get, I’m beaming. I didn’t think I’d come out of it, so even getting to 70 percent, I’m blessed. The mind-body-spirit is definitely connected for me. Not only did I call in the accident into my life because I didn’t have the courage to get out of my head and speak to my heart. So what better accident than one where I had to leave my head to feel my heart. I had been living this way in the closet and my head said you should not do a film about this or talk about it. and I didn’t have the courage to see outside the box. I believe that when I finally said I would start this conversation and share this story the tension was released in my healing and it improved by leaps and bounds.

The most profound moment for me in the film was when you said that after you had the dream house you realized it didn’t make you happy.

I had that message and I went on my merry way suppressing it, ignoring it. So I accumulated more — I bought a bigger house. I was being pulled along by the way we do things. Maybe the thought was there that this situation will be better, but it was a sleepwalk. That bell or this whistle will fill that emptiness.

Your late father appears in the film and he seems to have happiness figured out. He did meaningful work as the co-founder of St. Jude’s hospital in providing free medical care for sick children.

There was a sadness, though, in my father. I don’t think he saw what he did or how capable we are of creating societies based on compassion. At the end of the interview, he says he doesn’t think mankind can build businesses based on compassion because of who we are. People behave one way on Sunday and then forget about it the rest of the week. But I believe we behave that way, but that is not who we are. We’ve deluded ourselves that those ideas have to stay inside those churches and cannot walk in our daily lives. He didn’t see what he had done. He thought of the world outside St. Jude’s as competitive, angry, always at odds with each other.

The indigenous peoples you describe in the movie are very peaceful but there are others who are very violent, just like more developed societies.

That wasn’t the overriding indigenous way. They had conflicts and no one would suggest that a new society wouldn’t have conflict. But the conflicts were limited. If a person was hurt or a piece of land was taken payment had to be made for that, a warrior against a warrior. But not genocide. Not what’s happening today. There’s an ideology underlying that about our disconnection that’s run amok and it allows us to do all kinds of insane things.

You mention in the film how important it is to you to know your neighbors. That really requires a smaller community like indigenous tribes or small towns, doesn’t it?

It isn’t just the idea of small, the size of it, though that is important. But there are no barriers, no one was isolating themselves, taking all the land. A Native American had a tent; he didn’t get to own a peninsula. What we’ve built out of our society exacerbates the gap between us, between what are called the rich and the poor, though I don’t subscribe to those terms because the rich can be very poor and the poor can be very rich.

There were spiritual elements in some of your big-budget films, like “Bruce Almighty,” in which Jim Carrey gets to exercise God’s powers and learns that sacrificing for others is the most powerful thing he could do.

With my left hand I may have been helping to heal the world but with my own life I was fighting that message. “I want a more just world but not so just I can’t have everything.”

Do you think that there is a way in the context of a blockbuster film to convey the message you want to get across more effectively than with this small documentary?

That’s the kind of linear thinking that is not where I want to live. It’s important for me to do what’s on my heart and if I am called on to make a film that may touch a handful of people, I’ll do that. I do not want to be a servant of what Emerson called “the idolatry of magnitude,” that it has to be big to be important. The only giving mentioned in the Bible is the widow’s mite. She gave a penny but it was all she had and it was important. It was all she had. If a narrative film comes to me and it demands to be served, I will do it. It’s not that I wouldn’t make “Ace Ventura 3.” I would make another comedy because I believe it is sacred, a beautiful experience to bring people together to share laughter. But I would hope to behave differently as the director, not how I treat people — I always treated people respectfully. But in how I do the economy of my life. I don’t want to stand on top of a movie and say, “I am more valuable than you.” I want to say, “I want to be your brother, your sister, and I want you to be my sister, my brother,” and to have that reflected in the way I do the economic drawer of my life. If additional profits come, I want to distribute them to others. It was never mind in the first place.

How did you pick the people who appeared in this movie?

They changed me. Through the course of reading their work, seeing them interviewed, learning about their lives. “The People’s History of the United States” is a beautiful, brilliant work. The poetry of Rumi. The life of Desmond Tutu.

What was it like to meet them?

I walked into Howard’s office and it was as modest an office as I have ever been in. It spoke volumes about his modesty and humility. That is what I call integrity. Emerson says, “If you look in any drawer of a person’s life you know what a person is.” When I saw how he greeted me, when I saw his office, I saw he was open, compassionate, humble. But my economic drawer was taught to me by my society, not by my heart.

What was it like to go from a big budget film to a four-person crew?

Remember when Mel Gibson yelled out “Freedom!” in “Braveheart!?” It was very freeing to be able to see a shot and get the camera out and get the shot and not have to get a permit and a license and get the lighting and bring 240 people out there and the craft services truck. I like traveling light, an artistic extension of what is going on in my life.

Tell me more of what you have learned.

I’m much happier in this walk than I was in the isolated walk. I don’t think it’s about changing who we are; it’s about waking up to who we are. We know external things bring us joy to a certain point, but beyond that it doesn’t. How about competition bringing us together instead of separating us. Ignorance comes from the word “ignore.” We experience heaven when we serve each other. I felt that power with my father. When we feed others, we feed ourselves.

Related Tags:

 

Directors Interview Spiritual films
Interview: Tom McCarthy and Alex Shaffer of ‘Win Win’

Interview: Tom McCarthy and Alex Shaffer of ‘Win Win’

Posted on March 23, 2011 at 8:00 am

Copyright Searchlight 2011

Tom McCarthy has appeared as an actor in movies like “Duplicity” and “Baby Mama” but he is now better known for his writing and directing the acclaimed films “The Station Agent,” the Oscar-winning “Spotlight,” and “The Visitor.”  His film “Win Win,” stars newcomer Alex Shaffer as a teenage wrestling champ who ends up staying with a lawyer/coach played by Paul Giamatti when his grandfather, who is in the early stages of dementia, is placed by Giamatti’s character into a nursing home.  I spoke to both of them about wrestling, writing, what it feels like to be good at both, and doing whatever it takes.

I don’t know much about wrestling so I was surprised by how fast you moved.

TM: Especially the lighter weights.  They are really exciting. The lighter weights it’s just wicked to watch.  That match that I went to at your school – even the refs couldn’t keep up.

AS: Over 130 or 140 it’s more about strength.

One of the key moments in the film has Paul Giamatti’s character asking your character, Kyle, what it feels like to be that good at something.  Kyle says it feels like being in control.  Is that how it feels?

AS: For Kyle, for me it just feels good to be that good.  It’s a very comforting feeling.

TM: That would have been a good answer for Kyle, too.

What makes you feel that good?

TM: I like being immersed in work.  I like it when I’m in a sweet spot in the work.  When I’m writing I have a ritual or a regimen and I get really lost in it, get out of my own head and follow an idea, or a story, or a character.  I really like being in that space.

What was the beginning of the idea of this movie for you?

TM: I have this mental folder that I drop things into and when they feel like they’re of the same world I start to put together the movie.  It certainly was the wrestling at the beginning.  I called Joe , my co-writer, and said, “Have you ever seen a movie about high school wrestling?”  We started to joke about our own bad experiences and then talked about the good ones, the world in general, how unique a world it was, looking back on it 20 years later.

And the other idea was about where we are in society, the title, “Win Win,” like “Oh, you can have a mortgage and pay nothing and a car and put no money down” and we all believed it for a while.  Oh, that’s great, why wouldn’t you do that!  It will cost nothing!  The other idea that aligned with that thought was that we are polarized in society.  The bad bankers did bad things – but those people are our neighbors.  We ride the train, the bus with them.  They’re not bad people; they just made some bad choices.

So wrestling with that part of our human condition – we all have that aptitude, to so surprisingly and sometimes shockingly bad things in certain scenarios.  Mike is confronted with that and that I felt very interested in.  It’s not enough to say, “I have a family, I have a good job, I’m a good person.”  That is not an excuse or a guarantee.  That I found interesting.

Alex, you went from doing something that you knew very well and were very good at to something that was completely new to you, and you were surrounded by some of the most experienced and talented actors in movies.  What was that like for you?

AS: I wasn’t nervous because it was something I didn’t care about that much.  Sorry, Tom!  Halfways, no more like one-third of the way through, I began to think, “I really want to do good.  I like this guy, I don’t want to ruin the movie for him.”

TM: I think that’s a good way to go into it!  I think that’s a problem for a lot of actors who go into an audition wanting it so badly, they sabotage themselves because they’re so anxious.  I think when I stopped caring about acting quite so much, when I got more involved in writing and directing, either I’m right for it or not, I started getting more jobs.

How did you like being a blonde for the filming?

AS: I was a blonde before the filming.

TM: He came to us like that!

AS: It wasn’t my idea for the movie.  Our team before we wrestled Phillipsburg, not every year but when the team’s good, we want to psych them out, so that year the whole team bleached our hair blonde.

I thought it was very funny that Amy Ryan’s character Jackie called you Eminem.

TM: We got a studio note about that: “Emeneim, isn’t he a little bit past now?”  I don’t think Jackie’s cutting edge!   And besides, now he won the Grammy!

AS: He’s amazing!  He will never be gone!
(more…)

Related Tags:

 

Actors Directors Interview Writers
Interview: George Nolfi of ‘The Adjustment Bureau’

Interview: George Nolfi of ‘The Adjustment Bureau’

Posted on March 2, 2011 at 8:00 am

“The Adjustment Bureau” is the first great film of 2011, a big and hugely entertaining film that takes on big ideas — love, free will, destiny, God, and the meaning of life. I was lucky enough to speak with writer and first-time director George Nolfi about being inspired by a short story from Philip K. Dick.adjustment-bureau-poster-3.jpg
The movie is very different from “Adjustment Team,” the original story by Philip K. Dick. How did you approach adapting it for the screen?
The short story is just that, short. And it has a character at the center of it who is explicitly an everyman and so there isn’t much of a character to play there. It was going to need some adaptation one way or another. I was interested in a different thing than Philip K. Dick was. The story can be read from one angle was “Is this real or is this not real?” I wanted it to be — this thing happens and it spins the guy’s whole life on its head and all of his conceptions about the laws of physics and the universe are turned upside down. And he has to accept it because the evidence is just so overwhelming. What does that do to a person?
When my producing partner brought me the short story, I thought, what a great conception for a movie, the idea that fate is a group of people subtly pushing you back on plan. He also said, “You could do this as a love story. Your lead falls in love for the first time in his life and the adjuster comes along and says, ‘Sorry, there’s been a mistake. You weren’t even supposed to meet her.'” For whatever reason, my reaction to that was, “I think I know how to write that.” I didn’t know what I was going to put in the script but I thought the blending of genres would be fascinating and it would get me into territories of these much larger questions that every great system of thought — philosophical, literary, science-fiction, theological — this story would allow me to get there. There are not many stories that make big movies that take you to those questions.
It is unusual for a big-time movie with big-time movies stars to take on questions of life and fate and meaning and free will. I love the fact that it wasn’t focus-grouped away from engaging on those issues.
I optioned the rights and controlled them for six or seven years. I gave the script to Matt Damon and got some thoughts from him about his character. Neither of us thought his character was fully developed yet. I rewrote it to give his character more layers and more interesting things for him to play. And he said yes and we got it financed outside the studio system, from a group called MRC. When we then went to the studios we were able to say, “We have this movie and we have this movie star” and give them a fully-formed movie, so you don’t have this automatic development process where it’s nobody’s fault but things tend to get homogenized.
And Universal was really supportive, right from the beginning. They were on board with the notion of trying something that was really reaching. They were just like — let’s go for it. They thought people would leave the theater feeling satisfied even though we were blending genres. I had no interference while I was making the movie. In post-production they had just a few thoughts which in the Hollywood scheme of things would be considered minuscule. They had thoughts about the music but that was temp music anyway. I didn’t think the original ending worked and they agreed. So it was good people we were in business with and we were all pulling the same way. They were completely supportive of what we were trying to do, and so was Matt.
As a screenwriter, you’ve worked with directors but this is the first time you have directed. What did you learn from the directors you’ve observed?
I was on the set for all the movies I am credited on. And for “Oceans 12,” I knew I was basically going to be there the whole time. I said to Steven Soderbergh, “I’m interested in being director, are you cool with my occasionally ask you why you’re doing what you’re doing?” And he was extremely gracious to explain some of his thought processes about why he was choosing certain shots and so on. But the single biggest piece of advice he gave me that really stuck with me was, “In a perfect world you want to choose your shots and assemble to the movie so that the sound could go out and people could still follow the story.” That’s telling a story through pictures.
Clearly you listened to him! For a writer turned director, this is a very visual film. The effects are very significant and essential to the narrative.
As a writer making the leap to directing the first time, it was very important to me to make a film that was visually significant, to use visuals and music and sound as well as the performances of the cast to tell the story — those are the things you don’t have as a writer. I really wanted to do visual story-telling. I write scripts that are very visual but you can’t know until you try it whether it would come easily to me as a director, but I loved it.
I liked the idea that the Adjusters could do a lot of things but in a way the humans adjusted their options, too. They were nudging each other.
Thematically, I had this idea that the Chairman was limiting the Bureau in all kinds of different ways. That’s too many ripples so you have to go to a higher authority. Or you can’t go through that door unless you are wearing a hat. Or it’s raining out and water kind of blocks our ability. Those are foreshadowing the way that the Chairman will turn out to be supportive of free will.
And of love! It’s a very romantic movie.
I hope so! I hope you experienced it that way. I think it is.
And it is very spiritual, as well.
I wasn’t trying to make a religious film per se, but the most comprehensive attempts to make sense of the world are theological. In terms of fate and free will, that’s the oldest question human beings struggle with. It’s there in Gilgamesh and ancient Greece. Is it fate or do we have choices? There’s a reason for that. Human beings are questioning animals and we want to understand our existence.
Looked at in much less grand terms, most people have some sense that the person they turned out to be, the job they have, their moral code, their interests, their religion, were shaped by what country they were born in, what neighborhood they were born into, their family, their friends, their schools, their chance encounters have put them on a path. Even things considered more deeply personal choices like who your spouse is — you were introduced by friends or met at a wedding or you had mutual interests or whatever it is. So we have this sense that the course of our life is shaped by outside forces, whether a divine hand or your surrounding influences. But we also experience our lives as a series of choices. No religion has successfully answered that. We did an inter-faith screening with an audience of followers of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and we had a discussion with experts in all all three. They discussed faith and free will and pointed out to the audience that the importance of free will was found in all of them. They have to, in order to make sense of existence.

Related Tags:

 

Behind the Scenes Directors Interview Science-Fiction Spiritual films Writers
Interview: John Wells of ‘The Company Men’

Interview: John Wells of ‘The Company Men’

Posted on January 19, 2011 at 8:00 am

“The Company Men” is a recession-era drama that follows three downsized executives at a huge conglomerate. Writer/director John Wells (producer of “ER” and “West Wing”) talked to me about the research that helped him to develop the script, how he had to keep amending the screenplay to stay accurate, the surprising reaction from audiences who think they know who the villain is, and what he learned about how men and women react differently to job loss.
This movie has an amazing group of actors, including Tommy Lee Jones, Ben Affleck, Chris Cooper, Maria Bello, Kevin Costner, and Rosemary DeWitt. How did you assemble your cast?
I kept sending the script out to people and they kept saying yes. The biggest surprise was Kevin Costner, who had read the script from his agent for a different part, called me up and said he really wanted to play Jack, the brother-in-law. I thought the agent had made a mistake when he told me that. He said he connected with that character and would love to do it if we could work it out. The_Company_Men_3.jpg
It feels very much of this moment and this economy. Did you do a lot of research?
I did a tremendous amount of research. It really came out because a member of my family lost his job. He started telling me about what was going on in his life in the time afterward. He had been very successful and this kind of caught him off guard and he had a lot of trouble finding another job because there were a lot of other people in his exact field looking at the same moment that he was. I went onto a bunch of different downsizing websites, places with chat rooms and put in little notices that said, “I’m a writer and I’m interested in this subject and if you want to tell me a few anecdotes, a few things about what’s happened in your life, let me know. I had a couple of thousand responses in the first weekend.
I ended up talking to literally hundreds of people, both people still working in companies, CEOs and human resources, and a lot of people who had actually or were actually going through this experience. A tremendous amount of the movie is just their experiences, things they told me.
I wrote an article about the corporation in the movies of 2010 and mentioned yours as exceptionally accurate, not just about the experience of being laid off but about the corporate environment and lines like the CEO saying that all that is left for American business is “health care, infrastructure, and power generation.”
Some of it changed as we made the movie because things kept changing. We made it right during the worst of the TARP period and were following things on a daily basis. When we made the film we assumed that the recession would be over by the time it was released and it would be an historical document. Things have gone on longer than we thought. When I was first writing about the film, I made it about the steel industry because I went to school in Pittsburgh. But when I went to scout it, it was gone.
So I had to talk to people about other heavy manufacturing and other and fabrication industries that might be suffering similar fates. One that was suggested was the auto industry, and I thought, “No, that’s ridiculous, no one would believe that the auto industry could go up in smoke.” Goes to show you what I knew! The other was non-military or non-protected ship-building. So I started looking around and we found that wonderful shipyard in Boston, which had only been closed a couple of years.
On a daily basis I had a couple of different people in the financial world who would keep me up to date on what was happening. When we started, there was still credit available. By the middle of it, we had to change things left and right to make corrections. The character Ben Affleck plays was originally working in new construction of homes. By the time we got to shooting it, the whole new home construction business had collapsed, so I had to switch to remodels. Six months later, that had also disappeared. The severity and depth of the recession is so much greater than anything I had ever experienced.
The things the corporate executives said to each other changed every day — the “infrastructure” line changed the day we shot it.
You focused on people we haven’t seen much of before, the top-level executives with six- and seven-figure incomes who are suddenly let go with no comparable alternative employment.
And it’s millions of people, tens of millions of people who felt that they had done everything they were supposed to do to fulfill the American dream. They got an education, they worked hard at companies, and really found themselves out in the cold. That’s what’s different about this recession that people don’t really understand, especially for older workers and by that I mean anyone over 40.
The characters seem to go through the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross grief stages but in different order — anger first, then denial.
Men don’t always respond to the stages the same way women do.
The women in the movie seem to be the truth-tellers, especially Rosemay DeWitt, who plays the wife of Ben Affleck’s character.
I found that to be true in the research that I did. One of the common themes was that the men involved in white collar work — finance, insurance, marketing — that the representation of what they did was how much they made and their possessions. So when they lost their possessions they lost their identity. And the common thread from the families I spoke to was how disturbing this was to the women, who didn’t understand that the men had built their self-respect on such a narrow base. They would say, “I was shocked at how losing his job completely undermined his sense of self-worth.” I kept hearing versions of the same stories, of them having to say, “Just do anything. Just get a job. Flip hamburgers. Just get out of the house and have a sense of going somewhere.”
The character a lot of people see as villainous in the picture is the woman who runs the outplacement service. I went to a number of different outplacement places and that woman and the tiger chant and all that, I asked, “Don’t you feel a little ridiculous when you’re doing that?” And she said, “Sure, it’s completely ridiculous. But you have to realize, these men come in here and they’ve been in something like a car accident. And I’m like the physical therapist who has to get you out of bed even if I have to slap you around to do it.”
There was a real difference to the way the women this happened to approached the loss of a job. It was equally devastating, equally economically difficult for their families. But they did not become unmoored in the same way the men did.
I liked the contrast in the film between the way the Kevin Costner and Craig T. Nelson characters thought about their employees.
Originally it was more of a screed and the Craig T. Nelson character existed and the Tommy Lee Jones character didn’t. But I felt I hadn’t given an explanation for the complexity of the way executives really look at this. So I interviewed a lot of people and a number of the things Craig T. Nelson says were things people really said to me. I was surprised by the number of CEOs who called me back. They really wanted to explain their responsibilities to the stockholders and the stockholders are us. One of the lines I snuck in was after the first big downsizing Tommy Lee Jones’ secretary says to him in the hallway, “Hey, my 401(k) stock is up!”
The thing we don’t quite accept is that we are the pressure — everyone who’s in a 401(k) or a public pension plan or a union pension plan — these large institutional investors have their responsibilities, too. You can demonize Goldman Sachs all you want and I’m sure there are reasons to do it. But the real pressure is all of us pressuring the companies for stock returns and that leads to all kinds of decisions. I was really trying to get across the two different attitudes that executives had. One was this attitude that my only responsibility is the corporation and the other was what the Gene character talks about, the sense that these are people who have put their faith in us.
It reminds me of the fight in the old movie “Executive Suite” between the guy who thought companies should provide meaningful work and make a commitment to the workers and the guy who thought it was all about cost-cutting.
I was trying to not make it too simple — I hope that comes across. Those jobs are gone and they’re not coming back and we haven’t had a conversation, except in the very unrealistic political arena, about what we’re going to do about it.
Even if it was a bit of a fairy tale, I was glad you provided some hope at the end, and I think it came from the right place — entrepreneurial spirit.
It came from a real story in the steel business about a guy who made a lot of money when his company was sold. And then the people he worked with all those years lost their jobs, everyone he cared about. He created a small, high-tensile steel side business. It could only employ about ten percent of the people, but they’re doing okay.

Related Tags:

 

Directors Interview Writers
Interview: Tom Hooper of ‘The King’s Speech’

Interview: Tom Hooper of ‘The King’s Speech’

Posted on January 13, 2011 at 8:00 am

Tom Hooper, nominated for Golden Globe and satellite awards as best director for his acclaimed film, “The King’s Speech,” spoke to me about what made the movie especially meaningful to him, why the MPAA’s decision to give it an R-rating was so disappointing, and what he and star Colin Firth learned from watching footage of a speech by the real King George VI.
I don’t know anything at all about sports in the United States or the U.K., but I loved your last film, “The Damned United” (about real-life soccer coach Brian Clough).


That’s fantastic to hear! It was a very hard sell in America. I’m actually not a soccer fan myself, so for me to do it was proof that for me it worked on many levels and not just the sporting story.
There is some similarity to “The King’s Speech” as both are about big events surrounding the relationship between two people.

Weirdly, they’re almost unlikely companion pieces. They’re both about love between men, or at least strong companionship. And both films explore how men become great through the help of a friend. They can’t do it on their own. We live in a society that’s very focused on self — me, me, me, all about going into yourself to make yourself better. And my films suggest that it’s actually sometimes about opening ourselves up to collaboration with others that we can achieve our best.
How did you come to this project? I know the screenwriter, David Seidler, worked on it for decades.

I only came to it because I happen to be half-Australian, half-English and living in London. My Australian mother happened to be invited late 2007 by some Australian friends in London to make up a token Ozzie audience to a play reading of an un-produced, un-rehearsed play called “The King’s Speech.” She’d never been invited to or attended anything like that and it didn’t sound very promising. But it was a good thing she went because she rang me up afterward and said, “Tom, I think I’ve found your next film.” And so the moral of the story is, “Always listen to your mother.”
What’s extraordinary about it is that it was going nowhere, even as a play. It was off the mainstream industry’s radar completely. It’s a great reminder that there’s often wonderful material that’s gone unnoticed and we should remain alert to that, and the extraordinary role that chance can play.
I agree with that! Seidler was dedicated to the story in part because of his own struggles with stuttering. And it sounds like the story became very personal for you as well.

As a half-Australian, I had wanted to tell an Australian story for years, or a something that explored my background. In some ways the narrative of my childhood was my Australian mother dealing with the effects on my father of his rather brutal English upbringing. It was nice that it came through my Australian side because there were some strong emotional connections for me.
It was very important to the story that Lionel was Australian, an outsider.


It was essential. Just before Christmas I was in Australia and Baz Luhrman hosted a wonderful screening in Sydney. In his introduction, he said the movie expressed a key Australian quality which is that the Australians are “impervious to majesty.” I think that quality is very key to Lionel Logue. He’s not so in awe of it that he is can’t approach Bertie about his childhood or his father brother or his struggle, which the aristocracy would consider not good form to talk about.
My mother told my father that over her dead body would her children go to an English boarding school, because those schools had a big effect on a generation of English men, including my father. His father died in the war when he was two and he was sent to boarding school when he was five, incredibly young. That was the era of cold baths in winter and corporate punishment and outside loos with no doors and all those British innovations. My mother was always great at saying, “This obviously affected your dad and it is up to us to unpack it. She was in a much gentler sense a kind of Lionel Logue to my dad.
I’ve been very frustrated and unhappy about the MPAA’s R rating for this film because of a brief scene of some bad words used in a vocal exercise. What is your response?


I’m finding it very sad. We just did a staggering opening in England, twice the next film, ironically titled “Little Fockers,” talk about language. And it’s playing as a family movie; people are taking their 10-year-old kids. Although it appears to be starring middle-aged men, it’s essentially about the risk that you can carry the effects of your early childhood right through your adult life and never address them and always be locked by it.
One of the key lines in the movie is the line Lionel says to Bertie, “You don’t need to be afraid of the things you were afraid of when you were five years old.” You’re living your adult life in the same defensive cringe you had to adopt when you were five and the world really was against you. But now you’ve got a lovely wife and lovely kids — it’s not that world any more. You don’t want kids to wait until therapy when they’re middle-aged to learn that. It’s so important to understand.
I respected the economy with which you established the characters of Bertie’s brother, David and Mrs. Simpson, the woman he abdicated the throne to marry.


One of the challenges was how to draw tip of the iceberg portraits of these two key characters without being caricature. David Seidler warned me when we first sat down of the danger of having them hijack the movie. In his original script, Wallis Simpson literally didn’t open her mouth. We had an incredible ensemble cast and having actors of the talent of Guy Pearce and Eve Best really helped– Guy did as much research as if he was playing the lead role in the film.
How did you work with Colin Firth to achieve an authentic stutter?


Partly it was talking to David Seidler, who had a childhood stammer and was the best source. We did have some speech therapists, but their specialty is teaching people how not to stutter, not making people start. Colin’s sister is a voice coach, so she was helpful to him. But mainly it was watching the archive footage of the real King George VI. There’s a wonderful 1938 clip where you can see him really struggling. In his eyes, all he really wants to do is the right thing and he keeps drowning in these terrible silences.
How did you decide to use the Beethoven in that last scene? It is so stirring.


My wonderful editor, Tariq Anwar, who cut “American Beauty” and “The Madness of King George” — the very first time he showed me the assembly of that final climax he used the Beethoven 7th and it was a revelation. It was so well chosen. When we showed it to Alexander Desplat, who did the score, I expected him to say, “I should write something for that scene myself.” But he didn’t. He said, “The reason that choice is so good is that Beethoven exists in our public imagination, our public space. It helps to elevate the speech to the status of a public event instead of a private event. No film score can do that because it’s always internal to the movie.” And I thought was a rather brilliant explanation about why that was a perfect choice.
Great actors say a lot when they act and you have this risk that the composer comes along and it’s like he says, “No, no, no, what he really means is that he’s very sad. It’s just a sad scene.” Music can be quite reductionist because it’s harder for music to move from mood to mood second by second. Alexandre was particularly brilliant at dancing with these great performances, understanding the greatness in the performances and protecting and amplifying the performances and amplifying the sense of multiple meanings, not closing them down.

Related Tags:

 

Behind the Scenes Directors Interview
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2024, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik