|
|
| Interview: Chris Cooper and Ira Sachs on "Married Life" |
by Peter Sobczynski
The Oscar-winning actor and the acclaimed filmmaker sit down to discuss their latest project, the acclaimed noir-influenced comedy-drama "Married Life."
The anti-hero of “Married Life” is Harry Allen (Chris Cooper), a man whose entire life seems like an advertisement for the joys of upper-middle-class life in the wake of World War III–he has a good job that allows him such luxuries as three-martini lunches, a brand-new television in the living room and a luxurious cabin in the woods for weekend getaways and a loyal and supportive marital comrade in wife Pat (Patricia Clarkson). The only dark cloud on Harry’s horizon involves his clandestine affair with sweet-natured war widow Kay Nesbitt (Rachel McAdams). No, the other woman isn’t blackmailing him or pressuring him to leave his wife–it seems that the genuinely and unconditionally loves the guy and while it is clear that she won’t stand for being the other woman forever, she is perfectly content for time being with the way things stand. The problem for Harry is that while whatever passion there once was in his marriage to Pat has long since eroded away, he still loves and cares for her and he realizes that when he leaves her for Kay, the shock and humiliation of both his departure and the subsequent divorce will simply be too much for her to possibly bear. In his eyes, there is only one truly humane way in which he can spare her the shame of being a divorcee without giving up his own happiness with Kay–he will kill Pat in the most painless manner possible and then marry Kay afterwards.
There are, of course, complications to all of this–the least of which being the fact that Harry’s Lothario pal Richard (Pierce Brosnan) has instantly fallen for Kay and is trying to win her for himself–and what happens when they kick in is something that I will leave for you to discover. What I will mention is that instead of merely offering viewers another self-conscious homage to the glories of film noir, co-writer/director Ira Sachs has instead presented us with a funny, knowing and thoughtful examination of love, friendship, marriage and betrayal that also happens to succeed as a throwback to a beloved style of filmmaking. In this regard, he is aided by a quartet of fine performances–Brosnan has never been funnier as the cheerfully caddish best pal, McAdams brings surprising depth to the role of the other woman and Patricia Clarkson is great as the seemingly ordinary suburban housewife with a few secrets of her own. The real surprise, however, is the central performance from Chris Cooper. Not that the notion of him turning in a great performance is a surprise–the man won an Oscar for his work in “Adaptation” and deserved another for his astonishing performance as Robert Hannsen in the criminally underseen “Breach”–but what he does here is something miraculous. The character he is playing is, of course, somewhat of a monster–he wants to kill his wife for entirely selfish reasons while pretending that it is for her own good–but he invests the role with such a disarming sense of sincerity that viewers may actually find themselves rooting for him to pull off his dastardly deed after all.
Recently, Cooper and Sachs came to town to promote “Married Life” with a small roundtable of journalists and these are some of the questions that were asked.
Sachs: I think that this film shouldn’t be taken literally. It can be but I think we signal early on in the early with the animated opening credit sequence that what’s going to follow, you can enjoy, engage and invest in, but it plays out in a level that’s movie-like. That came from me watching all these Joan Crawford movies like “Sudden Fear,” “ Harriet Craig,”or Bette Davis’ work or noir in general. They’re kind of like life but not life. I particularly remembered a scene in “Sudden Fear” between Jack Palance and Crawford in their bedroom that had that quality. For me the film speaks to the idea that all relationships are subject to the process of rupture and repair and the fact that as a couple you are still always separate. If you can accept that there is more of an opportunity of being closer to the people you have an intimate life with. To me “Married Life” is one way to give people a filmic version of certain things that are part of their own life that allow them to accept certain kinds of disappointments or pains or distances they might experience so they don’t have to beat themselves up for it.
In many ways this movie is very different than your last two movies, “The Delta” and “Forty Shades of Blue.” While those two films were basically character driven this one is driven just as much by story. I’m wondering what you see as the tie-in between this film and your other two?
Sachs: Well I think in a way all stories are character driven, if they’re well told. When I was making “Forty Shades of Blue,” which was technically a character driven story, I was reading a lot of Patricia Highsmith. Because you’re always trying to figure out what is the mystery in the moment that you’re conveying to the audience. What is not known in the scene is what makes it interesting. I think Patricia Highsmith, particularly in her non-crime stories always presents the question, “Something’s not right here.” I think whether you’re talking about Antonioni or Bourne, that’s the question of movies.
The other thing that I think connects the films is that, in a way, they form a trilogy about the nature of betrayal and deceit within relationships. I think the consequences of those betrays and deceits are what interest me. “Married Life” is as much about consequences as my other films. I think I had a changing notion of relationships at the time. If I had a darker idea of what relationships were at the that time, in the beginning, then this film, “Married Life,” has a lightness that hopefully comes from maturity. I think that if you look at Altman or Renoir or any of these filmmakers there’s something they thought of at the beginning that maybe they let go of a little bit.
A question for you Mr. Cooper. In “Married Life” you play a somewhat conservative and repressed individual as you’ve done famously in such films as “American Beauty” and “Breach.” What fascinates you about such characters and what qualities do you look for to communicate their humanity.
Cooper: I wish it was that intriguing The fact is these scripts come when they come, in a linear fashion. And it’s whatever comes first that strikes my interest. In some respects, I assume it’s my age bracket, I see a lot of actors who I’m contemporaries of and competitors with, going out for the same roles and the same roles come our way. A lot of them are military men, FBI, CIA, etc. So from all these scripts, these are the pieces I read and find most intriguing and challenging. It’s as simple as that.
Sachs: I think Chris is being modest. I’d also say that what he brings as an actor is he makes text and subtext equal. He brings so much to silence it becomes part of the texture of his performance. Its what makes his characters so complex and I think interesting.
Cooper: And then if I’m going to add onto and hopefully answer your question, those choices… if I’m going to spend that much time on a role, then whether it be a five month shoot or a six week shoot then I’m going to get that script as early as I can. In the case of “Married Life” I think I had it at least a year and half before the shoot because I was the first person attached. Periodically I was reading it, thinking it through and then when we got the green light I still had several months to work on it. When that happens, when I’m committed, I’m working everyday on that piece. I don’t feel comfortable not doing it. It’s just a joy, it’s the pleasure I get from this. It’s a security blanket while I’m filming, I have a head and emotional life I’ve created for this character. On the same hand I don’t mind saying I’m picky. I’m not going to waste my time that’s not a challenge for me.
Sachs: I kept hearing Chris Cooper turns everything down, Chris Cooper turns everything down. It was a very nice thing he didn’t turn this down.
If we look at this on the surface it’s about a guy who has a long term relationship with his wife, is having an affair and thinking about killing his wife. But we really like him. There’s gotta be some trick as an actor for pulling that off?
Cooper: If there’s a trick to it, or a conscious choice for me, I’m not going to give the viewer a break. I’m not going to anticipate, or show them my hand. I want to challenge them. I will not, as an actor, simply play up the bad choices or the evil quality of what this man is choosing to do, I want to make him as human as he probably would be in realm life. That’s what we see in the news everyday, “Well I never would have expected someone like him to do something like that.”
What compels you to make such a small intimate not especially commercial film?
Cooper: Well for one thing, from the actors P.O.V., I knew we had three strong talents attached. In film today there is so much of what I call casual acting. There’s not a scene in this film that is casual. Everybody invested deeply. And the characters are invested, they go after what they want passionately. At the same time nobody in this story wants to hurt anybody else. Everybody was aware that as actors, characters, we needed to approach the story as real and yet with a light touch.
Sachs: I think that, for me, as a filmmaker, and an artist, that what’s very important is being able to make things and be aware that you are both in your time and also that there is a history. For me the idea that this story would be considered new just says that audiences aren’t watching a lot of films. Film is only a hundred years old. This isn’t something that goes back to the cavemen. I’m being influenced by Preminger, Hitchcock and Lubitsch as much as I am Spielberg or anyone else of my time. What you try to do as an artist, and this is a scary term to use, is to be both of your time and not of your time. I read Henry James, I read Edith Wharton, I go to Paul Thomas Anderson films. These are all part of my life and I’m just trying to be honorable to it directly.
One thing that struck me about the movie was both the tone of it as a whole and too your performance. It would have been really easy to do it as a really dark cynical black comedy. But what struck me was how sincere the film really is. When your character talks about how he wants to kill his wife so she’s not suffering. I mean you could have played that for a sick black joke but it actually comes off as very realistic and sincere.
Sachs:I think a lot of it has to do with a general aesthetic approach to my work, and to directing. It also involves casting people that are honest in what they show onscreen and offer a level of authenticity and detail that’s going to embellish the story. I think also that I have great sympathy for people who do terrible things. Like which is partially a good thing in my life, like as a director it’s really helpful. But in my personal life it can get you trouble because you can end up forgiving people for some really bad shit. But it’s just a way of life on some level. What was interesting about this film is that more than any others, and all films are like this, was we wrote a film, directed a film, edited a film. Finding the tone meant listening to each of those three films. In the last stage one of the things I think we realized with an audience was that the basic premise of the story is funny. So we accepted that.
The second thing we realized is that collectively when the audience watches this every time there is a twist and turn the audience isn’t going to scream. They’re going to laugh. “Married Life” wasn’t a screamy movie. So I think I did go back to movies like Hitchcock’s “Shadow of A Doubt” because they are sinister and funny but it’s not a movie that people need to know anything about films to enjoy. There are lot of quotes that I have in my own head but it’s not of interest to me that people can know where they’re from. You know, “There’s the scene from ‘Potemkin’.” It’s not like that. I think you can borrow as a filmmaker.
I was struck by the scene at the beginning of the film where they are sitting on the sofa and she says sex is what drives the marriage and he wants love and romance. It’s kind of funny that the whole thing is set in the forties.
Sachs: One of the things that’s interesting to me is that scene is in the book., which was written in 1951. And it was like, “Oh, people in the forties talked about these things.” There was a freshness in that. And the truth at the end of the day is that I think Pat’s character wants love just as much as anyone else. She discovers that on some level people who are compulsive about sex are really just looking for love.
Cooper: If we look historically at the late forties things were cooking. We have this idea that things we’re pretty dead and bland. But in 1949 the Kinsey Report was coming out.
Do you think the film suggests that they are both wandering because they believe they can’t get everything they want or need out of the marriage?
Sachs: I think what they come around to is an acceptance. That you can’t have everything. But what I think I learned from this story on some level is that even though every relationship has secrets and you can never tell what’s going on in the mind of the person you sleep with, the more transparency the better. The more transparent you are the more likely you are being honest.
You mentioned that Pierce Brosnan’s part would have been perfect for Cary Grant if “Married Life” had been made in the forties. Did you have any other golden age actors or actresses in mind when you were making the film?
Sachs: I thought about it without trying to imitate those things. I do think that Chris has a certain quality you could associate with John Garfield or Edward G. Robinson. He’s vulnerable, easy to identify with and he has drive. When we cast Rachel there was some discussion of the age difference and the dynamic that would create. But I realized that Kim Novak was 25 when she made “Vertigo” and Grace Kelly was 25 when she made “Rear Window” against Stewart who was in his late forties or early fifties. At that point I time there were no teenagers. 25 was a grown woman. The right clothes, words and posture, made it easy to sell Rachel as a grown woman.
It is a period film but what I like about it is that unlike a lot of period films it doesn’t fetishize the period in terms of obsessing over the set decoration and costuming. Could you both talk about that, about working on a period film as an actor and as a filmmaker.
Sachs: Every time you make a film you build sets, you costume people, you create a world, and I think what we tried to do was do that authentically, but not preciously. Once we did it we didn’t talk about 1949 we just made the movie, told the story between these people because 1949- that’s the time of our parents, our grandparents. I always go back to Shakespeare. If you look at the time of Shakespeare nothing has really changed. Once you believe that there is no thing called the past, so there’s no such thing as a period film. There’s only life and how well you embrace it. I think what the period gives the film is a certain grammar and certain larger than life quality. Plus we had four movie stars so we had the movie stars, the color, the costuming, t’s not really like our life but it represents our life.
The film simmers with it’s own undercurrent of sexuality but it’s really not a film about sex. There’s nothing explicit in it. If you had remade this film in a current period would you have the felt the necessity to include those things?
Sachs: I think that very few films are about sex. Most films tend to be about intimacy. There are films that are about sex that I think are fantastic but what happens in a bed between people is literally a whole other story. This story is more of a fable and that’s not a level that fable often go to. I also find sex really hard to direct. I find that when I write sex it’s usually one of the first things that gets cut when I make the movie.
Cooper: After you’ve done fifteen years of theater and you’ve worked with some of the greatest trainers they teach you how to have a private moment in public. You’re trained for that. You have thirty people hanging around the set, but there’s also a security in working with a director who realizes the sensitivity of that. I don’t know where that comes from but Ira and Rachel and I rehearsed this for about five to seven minutes and that was quite enough so let’s shoot the thing. Added to that, I hope it comes through in the story, it isn’t like hot lustful kind of sex, initially it’s two wounded people comforting each other, and initially the relationship is kind of paternal but becomes romantic.
link directly to this feature at http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=2444
originally posted: 03/13/08 21:13:19
last updated: 03/17/08 14:58:58
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
 |
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed
