Interview: John Madden of ‘The Debt’

Interview: John Madden of ‘The Debt’

Posted on August 30, 2011 at 8:00 am

John Madden, director of “Shakespeare in Love” and “Proof,” came to Washington, D.C. to talk about his newest film, “The Debt.”  It is a remake of an Israeli film about three Mossad agents who are revered as heroes for capturing a Nazi war criminal, who was then killed trying to escape.  The film moves back and forth in time between the capture in the 1960’s and 1997, when a book about it, written by the daughter of two of the agents, is published.  We spoke about the challenge of casting a villain,

How did you become involved in a remake of an Israeli film?

An agent called Ari Emanuel, the brother of Rahm represents Matthew Vaughn and the producer of the original film.  Because it was in Hebrew it did not get a release anywhere else, but they thought it was an interesting project to reconsider or adapt for a wider audience.  So Matthew wrote a script that was faithful to the original story but it was structurally a little different.  The original film cross-cuts more between the two time frames.  He sent it to me, so the first way I came across the material in that form.  I thought it a very compelling and interesting story which I immediately wanted to unravel.  I did watch the original film — it’s the raw material and I wanted to honor that.  But I hoped it would not be very good!  It would be easier.  But it was good, very arresting.  It didn’t daunt me or arrest me.  It excited me because I could see it was a very powerful piece.  We inevitably developed the story in different ways, with different emphasis.  The material is sufficiently strong and charged and complex that as a director you need to find your own way through it.

I’m always interested in what goes into casting the villain, especially in this film where you have an actor who is unknown in the US and who gives a spectacular performance.

Jesper Christensen plays the villain.  He’s Danish and fantastically highly regarded and respected actor with a very long list of stage and movie credits.  I didn’t want an audience to be able to say immediately, “Oh, here’s the villain.”  The preoccupations of the story is about moral responsibility.  I didn’t want the ground to be completely solid.  One of the things you wonder as the Navy Seals must have wondered as they came into the compound in Abbottabad not knowing if the person there was Bin Laden.  You do find yourself thinking even once he’s in captivity, “Have they got the right guy?”  He is clever enough to exploit the weaknesses in the scenario to his own advantage.  A Nazi doctor is about the apotheosis of villainy in a certain kind of cinematic literature and that’s a trap, a danger of two-dimensionality, and Peter  Straughan and I were very conscious of not wanting this character to cooperate with the script, not wanting him to be this monstrous presence.  He does say things that are monstrous, but even that you have to contextualize that he’s a man fighting for his life and looking for any advantage.  He can be quite charming when he says he would prefer to be fed by Rachel, who had, he says, the makings of a nurse in another life.  There’s something beguiling in that sort of wisdom and you find yourself agreeing with him when he says that.

We were under a lot of pressure to change the title at one point.  It’s somewhat of a negative signifier in this modern age though I always thought it was a marvelous title.  In the interest of collaboration, I said, “Well, if we can come up with another one,” and one we thought of was “Another Life.”  He is a man who makes another life for himself, or tries to.  Watch for the moment when he starts speaking in English.  And there’s Rachel, looking out behind sunglasses which are supposed to protect her eyes from the sun but she’s looking out at a life she should never have had, that is a false life, that seemed a provocative and interesting idea.

It is very Israeli to have such an international cast.  Israel is even more of a melting pot than the US.

I’m slightly conscious of the fact that other than the Israeli actors, the principals are not by in large Jewish.  That wasn’t by intent.  But the internationality of the cast gave me a kind of latitude.  I don’t think anyone watching the film would know where Jessica Chastain or Marton Csokas was from.  He’s actually half Hungarian.  And Jesper is a Dane who blessedly is completely fluent in German and English.

Did you have the actors who played the younger versions of the characters work with the actors who played their older selves?

Only Helen and Jessica.  That symbiosis is necessary for the story and I set higher standards of physical affinity.  I wanted Jessica to be an unknown but she’s less of an unknown now!  I looked at the photos of the men side by side.  But David is almost unrecognizable to himself, one of those situations where you might say, “I saw him the other day and you wouldn’t recognize him.”  So resemblance was less important.

It is a story about stories, isn’t it?

There’s a lot of thematic richness in the film.  It’s about a need for heroes and the way we mythologized them.  This country’s whole political discourse and movie culture is based on the idea of the hero. It’s a very potent idea to deconstruct.  And we all mythologize our own histories with an unconscious editing of our own behavior.  You know you’ve got a good story when it starts talking back to you and revealing things that you haven’t foreseen.  It’s the daughter’s unawareness, the way she is enveloped in a lie — the mother has to do something truly heroic, to immolate herself in order to release her daughter from the contamination of the lie.

 

 

 

Related Tags:

 

Directors Interview
Interview: Joseph Dorman of ‘Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness’

Interview: Joseph Dorman of ‘Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness’

Posted on August 10, 2011 at 8:00 am

The writer Sholem Aleichem was born Sholom Rabinowitz.  He grew up in a Russian shtetl. Today, he is most widely remembered as the author of the stories which became the basis for Fiddler on the Roof.  But a new documentary from Joseph Dorman (“Arguing the World”) called “Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness” makes a case for the man who changed his name to Yiddish for “Hello Friends” as not just a teller of folktales but a major literary figure.  Mr. Dorman spoke to me about making the film, which is opening around the country.

Tell me how you became involved with this project.

I really stumbled onto it.  I am not a native Yiddish speaker, nor were my parents.  Yiddish was lost in my family between my grandparents’ generation and my parents’.   I finished my last film a decade ago, “Arguing the World,” and was desperately looking for a project.  A friend of mine, a professor of Yiddish literature at Rutgers, suggested doing something about Sholem Aleichem.  He had originally thought about doing a film himself, about Sholem Aleichem as a failed immigrant in America and he had curated an exhibit on that a few years earlier.  I thought, “I don’t know much about him, I know the name from Fiddler on the Roof.  This will keep me busy until I find what I want to do.”

But in a very short time it turned out to be what I wanted to do.  It moved from a way station to a destination. I spent the next ten years of my life working on it and falling deeper and deeper in love with Sholem Aleichem’s work and fascinated by his world.

Why is “Fiddler” all most people know about him?

Fiddler on the Roof should have its due.  It is a brilliant popular entertainment, kind of a miraculous adaptation in many ways.  He did his own theatrical adaptation and really focused on the Chava story .  “Fiddler” is entertainment, re-interpreted for its time.  It’s a classic comedy in a sense because everything is wrapped up neatly at the end.  Tevye is coming to America.  But at the end of the Tevye stories, it is a tragedy in the classical sense.  Tevye is homeless.  He doesn’t know where he’s going.  He’s like Lear.  His world drops out from under him.

What’s so fascinating about the Tevye stories is that he started them when he was younger and wrote them over 20 years.  His own experience informed them and they get deeper and darker as they go along.  They become a tragedy, something larger about the nature of man’s alone-ness in the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z6cJ2_RLdA

You were able to uncover some real treasures in your research.  What were some of your “Eureka” moments?

Because of the budget I did most of the research myself.  There are 300 photographs in the film and the bulk of them come from the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research.  It is a marvelous repository for Eastern European Jewish life, originally set up in Vilna between the wars, when the intellectuals of the time realized that the world of the shtetl was beginning to disappear.  I would go there and keep looking through there — half the reason for doing a film like this is to get a chance to look at the treasure trove of these photos.

There are a number of photographers.  One of the most remarkable was Alter Kacyzne.  He was a writer, a protégé of one of the other classic Yiddish writers, Isaac Leib Peretz of Warsaw.  He took photographs for the Jewish Daily Forward in the 20’s and 30’s.  Even then he was photographing in a nostalgic way for an audience that had been separated form it.  People didn’t want to see it as it looked at this moment.  They wanted to see the eternal shtetl.   Religious Jews are shot as they had been for centuries rather than trying to capture that moment in time.

Another man I don’t know much about is Menakhem Kipnes, who also has wonderful portraits.  The last great discovery — and it wasn’t my discovery — was that I found out through one of my interview subjects was about a series of photos from the expedition of an ethnographer called An-Sky.  He’s a remarkable figure, born in a shtetl, who became radicalized and a socialist.  He decided what he wanted to do most of all was to leave the shtetl and study Russian coal minders.   He moved to St. Petersburg, continued to be a writer and an intellectual, and it was probably the post-1905 pograms that radicalized him as a Jew.  He realized he needed to turn his talents toward his own people.  He realized that the shtetls were rapidly changing and so he organized ethnographic expeditions, recorded songs, and took along his nephew to take these remarkable, remarkable photos.  Until the last few years, they’ve been unknown in the West.  Now they’ve been published in a beautiful book.  They are some of the most beautiful photos in the film.  An-Sky was also the author of the famous Yiddish play, The Dybbuk.

I was so happy to see the involvement of Aaron Lansky of the Yiddish Book Center in your film.  I am a big fan of his book, Outwitting History: The Amazing Adventures of a Man Who Rescued a Million Yiddish Books.  

The sad irony of Yiddish and its fate in the modern world is at the very moment that writers like Sholem Aleichem were bringing it to its literary flowering, taking this thousand year old language which had been looked down on as a street language or a language for women, not working of intellectual vehicle or a vehicle for literature — that was supposed to be Hebrew — at the very moment that writers were using it in all its richness, that was also the very moment it was ceasing to be the vernacular of the Jews.  90 percent of Jews in the world at that moment were speaking it but that was beginning to change as the Jews were leaving the shtetls to go to America or the big Russian cities or to Palestine.  An amazing flowering was taking place over 100 years with Isaac Bashevis Singer at the end.  This remarkable literature was produced, but it has been by the bulk of Jews forgotten, not just lost in translation but in the movement of Jews but their assimilation into other cultures.  It’s a living language for Chassidic Jews, but not for anyone else.  What’s nice about what’s happening is that generations younger than mine are realizing what’s been lost and there’s kind of an upsurge now and younger generations are studying it and learning it and that is wonderful.  But it is not going to be a living language for secular Jews again.  What is important about what Aaron is doing is the importance of being able to read this literature in whatever language you speak.  Aaron is very committed to preserving those Yiddish books for Yiddish speakers but even more important is preserving Yiddish language and Yiddish culture whether you speak it or not.

We do speak it in a certain way because it is the ghost in our machine.  It informs even the English we speak.  One of the most beautiful things I heard was from a young Russian student who said, “It didn’t feel like I was learning Yiddish; it felt like I was somehow remembering Yiddish.”

In this film you make a strong case for Sholem Aleichem as not just a folklorist but a literary figure. 

He is the equal of a Chekhov or any other great writer.  This is top shelf world literature.  It does not have to be couched in cultural terms to make him an important writer.  Another irony that exists is that he was trying to reach not an illiterate but an uneducated audience.  He created a folksy persona so undeducated people could relate to him.  But very sophisticated literature.  The very success of that persona masked how sophisticated and intentional an artist he was.  He is thought of as a stenographer who wrote down what people spoke.  But he took what seems to be everyday language and transmutes it to poetry.  He is a great of world literature.  Comedy is deceptive.  If you laugh, how can it be serious?  But of course it can be.

The stories are very particular to their place but the themes have universal appeal.

There are stories about fathers and daughters all over the world.  There’s an annual yahrzeit, a memorial for Sholem Aleichem every year.  At the last one, there were five men from China who are starting a Sholem Aleichem research center in Shanghai.  As the Chinese leave the small towns for the big cities now, they are experiencing what he wrote about.

 

 

Related Tags:

 

Directors Documentary Interview Spiritual films

A Serious Man

Posted on February 9, 2010 at 8:00 am

Larry Gopnik (theater actor Michael Stuhlbarg) is a physics professor in 1967 Minneapolis. He covers a blackboard the size of a movie screen with equations, confidently lecturing his students about the uncertainty principle but outside the classroom unable to cope with the uncertainty all around him. He can explain that Schrodinger’s (hypothetical) Cat inside a box may be both dead and alive, but he has a much harder time understanding his wife (who is leaving him), a student who may be attempting to bribe him for a better grade, the tenure committee that will decide his professional fate, all of which has him feeling as though he is in a box and both dead and alive, too. Larry’s son does not seem to care about anything but being able to watch the western sitcom “F Troop.” His daughter seems to spend all of her time washing her hair. His brother (Richard Kind) seems to be either a genius or completely mad, but in either case he does not seem capable of living on his own. Larry wants to be a serious man, and he wants some answers.

So, like a character in a fable or a fairy tale, he brings his questions to three rabbis, a young one who wants him to see everything as an expression of God’s will, an experienced one who tells him a mesmerizing but pointless story about a non-Jew’s teeth and tells him to do good works, and one who is very old and remote and is too busy thinking to talk to him. Internally, he becomes more stressed but his reactions are passive and conciliatory. The audience feels a sense of helplessness and dread as it seems we are more aware of the disasters heading for Larry than he is. A record company calls to tell him he needs to pay for the records he ordered. He says he has not ordered anything and they tell him that under the terms of their agreement not doing anything means ordering. And Larry is as poorly equipped to resolve that problem as he is to stop his wife from leaving him for a neighbor who somehow has the confidence, admiration, and deference he wishes for. Throughout the movie, there are many close-ups of ears, but no one seems to be listening to what is going on in front of them. He goes up on the roof to adjust the antennae, but still has trouble receiving the signal.

Under pressure, he begins to make some compromises that are contrary to his values, and that increases his stress and sense of losing control. As he searches for some sense of meaning or connection or even (he is a scientist after all) rationality, he does not realize that the answer is what he tells his students: that everything is uncertain but you are still responsible for it on the midterm.

Much has been made of the fact that for the first time Joel and Ethan Coen have made a film with autobiographical elements. Like Larry’s children, the Coen brothers grew up in a Jewish suburb of Minneapolis in the 1960’s, and like Larry, their father was a professor. But you get the feeling that they have once again appropriated and embraced and tweaked a genre just for the fun of it, and that it has no more meaning to them than any of the others. As Larry says, the stories are just illustrative; the math is how it really works.

Once again, as with Wes Anderson, meticulous and imaginative production design and a level of opacity far beyond most mainstream releases is often confused with profundity. Perhaps this is an ink blot for us to project our own questions on. Or perhaps it is their version of what Larry tells his students, and our midterm is coming up.

Related Tags:

 

Drama Spiritual films

Defiance

Posted on June 2, 2009 at 8:00 am

Cowriter-director Edward Zwick, who also made “Glory,” the story of an all-black Union regiment in the Civil War, spoke to me about why it was important to tell the story of the Bielski brothers, who kept 1200 Jews hidden from the Russians and the Nazis during WWII.

There is a perverse irony in commemoration of the dead in the Holocaust with little attention to the survivors and the resistance, especially the Jewish resistance. Its immensity can’t be underestimated and it is a story that needs to be told. We all know these iconic images of Jews in the Holocaust and those are important but we have come to accept them as the only images and that needs revision.

This is not the story of Jews trying to stay alive in concentration camps. This is the story of Jews who were lucky enough to have the chance to fight back. Tuvia Bielski does not just have a gun — he is played by James Bond himself, Daniel Craig.

When the Bielski parents are killed by the Nazis, the three brothers hide out in the woods. In addition to Tuvia there is Zus (Liev Schreiber) and the youngest, Asael (Jamie Bell of “Billy Elliot”). Over time, other escapees ask for their protection and they are faced with the wrenching choice between turning away those who are old or ill or putting the entire group at risk by taking on people who were not strong enough to help them or quick enough to keep out of sight. They have to make other choices, too. The Russian army will give them some minimal protection but only if they will join forces and devote their energy to fighting the Nazis, just just hiding from them. Zus joins them but Tuvia stays on to take care of the people who are not capable of fighting.

The natural world of the forest is for the escapees a sort of Arden where many things are turned upside down. Back in the village, social status depended on class, profession, education, devotion to religious study and ritual. The Bielskis had none of these. In the forest, status depends on the ability to survive in the forest, including the ability to find a balance between asking and telling everyone what to do. Tuvia falls somewhere between achieving greatness and having it thrust upon him. He never wanted to be a leader; he certainly never wanted everyone to depend on him. And most of all, he never wanted to make the tragic choices he must make, to have to find out that he is a person capable of killing and of moral compromise.

Related Tags:

 

Based on a book Based on a true story Epic/Historical War
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