We had the opportunity to speak with director David Cronenberg recently for the DVD and Blu-ray release of his latest film, Cosmopolis. During the course of our conversation we touched on some of the controversy surrounding his comments on comic book movies and Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise/The Dark Knight Rises in particular. Take a look at that portion of our exchang below and read the full interview here.
IGN: You’ve referred to the moments between Paul Giamatti’s character and Robert Pattinson’s in Cosmopolis as being the essence of cinema, which you said is just someone talking into a camera, if they’re given a good story and dialogue. That kind of raises the question: what is the purpose of cinema? People are talking about making the “arthouse” blockbuster these days, and many people have said that Christopher Nolan is a modern-day auteur in that, it appears that he has found a way to express his own vision within the framework of a massive franchise, or big budgeted movie. You’ve very notably said that you don’t see it that way.
Cronenberg: Well cinema is an art form, and that means that it has many, many functions. Sometimes they’re context specific. In certain circumstances art can be politics and it can be revolutionary in a political sense, and has been. At other times it’s an escape, its pure escapism. At other times it’s a meditation on the human condition that invites the audience to consider things that the they might not have considered otherwise and to walk out of the theater more understanding of their life, or of human life. So I don’t think you can define art as just one thing. If it’s a Freudian structure that you’re working out of, then art is an expression of the unconscious, and of the Id. So, as I say, there isn’t just one function. In terms of the Batman movies and such, you know context-wise, I was asked by the journalist (and that’s what’s always missing, the question which provoked my response) the question was: “Since comic book movies, and especially the Batman movies, have proven that they are capable of functioning at the extreme upper-levels of cinematic art, would you be interested in directing one?” And I said, “Well, wait a minute, who says that they function at the extreme upper level of cinematic art? I don’t think that they do.” It wasn’t as though it was a bug that I had that I had to express, or that I was angry or anything like that. I was just responding to a question that involved an assumption that I was questioning, which is the definition of what art is, or what art can be. I think that if you’re working within the expectations of the superhero comic book movie you’re limited. You’ve automatically limited your horizons and your expectations, because you’ve got an audience that expects certain things and you can’t frustrate those expectations and be successful, so you have to work within those limits. And they’re too strict, those limits, to allow you to really be creative as an artist, at the highest level of art. Let’s put it that way. Obviously the Batman movies are wonderful expressions of the technology of cinema, there’s no question about that. At that point it depends on what you look to movies for. As you say, what is the purpose of art and cinema? Well, you could say to any cinema goer: “Why are you watching this in the theater right now, or why are you putting that DVD into the machine?” You won’t get the same answer from everybody.
IGN: I think that people can take the idea that adapting comic books into films is limiting and interpret that on a global scale. In other words, I know that people have mentioned that A History of Violence was adapted from a comic book. The differences between that story and a character as iconic as Batman are pretty clear, but for you, where does the distinction come in?
Cronenberg: Yes, that has been mentioned, but the script that I got didn’t really reflect the graphic novel, it was a complete reinvention of it. So I actually didn’t know that the script was based on a graphic novel, nobody told me. I was actually making the movie before I learned that. I hadn’t seen the graphic novel, so I don’t think of that movie as an adaptation of a graphic novel, certainly not a comic book. The screenplay diverged from it quite extremely. But that’s neither here nor there. Obviously a graphic novel where you’re inventing characters that no one has ever seen before is quite different than doing another Batman movie, or a Green Hornet movie, or a Superman movie where the characters are well established and people expect certain things from them. I was kind of shocked when the journalist said that. I thought, “Wow, how do you compare The Dark Knight Rises with Fellini's 8 ½?” I don’t see the connection myself, quite frankly.
IGN: Some of your earlier work like The Fly and Videodrome could be considered elevated genre movies.
Cronenberg: Oh, they definitely are genre. That’s a different thing, to me. I think Nicolas Roeg’s film Don't Look Now is kind of a horror/thriller, and therefore it’s a genre picture, but it’s a brilliant movie. You know, there’s genre, which would include comic book movies, and then you’re saying Batman, which is narrowing it further. So, I’ve never felt that doing a genre picture meant that you were therefore automatically excluded from the temple of art. I mean there have been some incredible gangster movies that are definitely art, that I would say are high cinematic art. So it really depends very specifically on what you’re talking about. I don’t think generalizations really help much. We were basically talking about Batman movies in that conversation, that was pretty specific.
IGN: I think where it becomes really interesting, and since we’re talking about Nolan, is something like Inception. I’m not saying that I agree or don’t agree with this, but an argument can be made that that movie really does define the “arthouse” blockbuster, and that it is the work of an auteur, because it’s his original script and him exploring these ideas within the framework of a big budget movie. But there may be some resistance to the idea of it as art for some because it was so financially successful and made almost a billion dollars. So for you, when does it become the work of an auteur? When is it art versus commerce?
Cronenberg: Ultimately it’s a completely subjective thing, as it should be. Therefore what I think doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with what you think. At that point the joke is “I don’t know much about art but I know what I like.” In a way there’s truth in that. It has to be: Does it affect you in a certain way, in an overpowering and full way? Does it resonate with you? Do you wake up thinking about it? Are you dreaming about it at night and does it alter some perception that you had or some way that you live your life? I really normally refrain from mentioning specific movies and critiquing them in public, just because of that. I know how hard it is for example to get any movie made, even a crappy movie, the people who made it deserve credit because it’s so hard. One of the things that put me off doing like a Batman movie is that you have this enormous budget, but you do pay for it. You have a lot of people with a vested interest in that budget, with that movie as a result. And you have to deal with them, you have to talk to them and fulfill their expectations and you have to quiet their anxieties. So the money comes with a lot of strings attached, and I think that those strings, for me, and I can’t talk about Christopher Nolan because I don’t know how he works and obviously he’s functioning very well in that world, but I think it would cripple me. I think it would hobble me and that I would find it too frustrating and too limiting. When I did Cosmopolis there was nobody. Rob Pattinson was shocked, he said he’d never been on a movie where the director immediately just made all the decisions and didn’t have to phone the studio. That didn’t have to talk to people to get permission to change the color of the wall or the lens we were using. He was used to the Twilight thing, which had become a massive franchise in which the directors were really not the sole masters of the shot, and I was, and I always have been. So if you’ve got something that is a $200 million movie then you know that you’re playing a different game. I mean I would have to accept that it was a different ball game than what I’m used to, and I would, if I chose to do it. I would say, “okay, I know that I can’t make casting decisions on my own.” You know I didn’t have to tell anybody who I was casting for Cosmopolis other than the couple of leads to make sure we could get financing, but after that I don’t have to tell anyone. Whereas when you’re doing a big, huge studio movie everything you’re doing is being questioned all the time, by all kinds of people.
IGN: Right, well there’s just so much money at stake, and they need to get people into theaters. And, of course, there are movies that people understand are just there to be popcorn fun.
Cronenberg: Yeah, and frankly there are times that that’s exactly what I want. It’s almost like watching a football game, or a boxing match or something. It’s entertaining, it’s not going to disturb you or worry you, it’s not going to confuse you or confound you or make you question things. Because at that moment that’s not what you want. That’s fine, I have no problem with that. The thing is, to watch a movie for two hours is not the same things as making a movie for two years. So if I’m going to spend a year or two years developing a movie, and for some of my movies it’s actually taken ten years, like Dead Ringers or A Dangerous Method, it has to have a lot more substance and intensity than just a popcorn movie. That’s all. I’m not making a formula for anyone else; it’s just a formula for myself.
Jeff Goldblum in The Fly.
IGN: I interviewed an actor recently who’s begun directing. He now tends like acting in big Roland Emmerich type event films, but direct smaller independents. He says that the acting is now where he can have fun, but if he’s going to take the time to direct, he wants it to have a lot more meaning for him.
Cronenberg: I completely understand. I've done a little bit of acting myself and if someone said to me, “do you want to act in a James Bond movie?” I’d say, “yeah, absolutely.” I wouldn’t want to direct it, but I’d be happy to act in it. I can completely see that, because you have a very limited responsibility as an actor. You don’t have the responsibility of financing the movie, or selling the movie, or creating the entire movie and getting the production happening and the crew. No, your responsibility is you show up and own the character that you’re playing. It’s a challenge, I’m not minimizing it. But it’s not the same level as what you have to do as a director. So, I completely understand why serious, serious actors like Ralph Fiennes and Anthony Hopkins, and you name it, are often found playing villains in popcorn movies. Why not? It’s fun, and you make money and you go to interesting locations. So in terms of what you’re doing with your life it’s creative.
IGN: Is acting in something like Jason X just a fun, guilty pleasure release for you?
Cronenberg: Well, it’s a favor that I did for the director, and also to continue to connect with him because we had a relationship. And also it was in Toronto, so it was easy. If it had required me to go away for a couple of weeks I wouldn’t have done it. But it was easy, and it was fun, and a lot of the people I knew were working on it, so on that level it was just a lot of fun.
IGN: What’s kind of a popcorn movie or an escapist movie for you to watch?
Cronenberg: It’s hard to say. For me to watch Skyfall it’s kind of a popcorn movie, or an escapist movie to watch. It’s fun to watch.
Roth Cornet is an Entertainment Editor for IGN. You can follow her on Twitter at @RothCornet and IGN at Roth-IGN.
Source : feeds[dot]ign[dot]com
No comments:
Post a Comment