Interview conducted by Josh Horowitz
December 26, 2003
Norman Jewison’s impressive credits as a filmmaker ensure his place as one of the elite old guard of Hollywood directors. Today, at 77, he is a three-time Academy Award nominee for Best Director, whose credits include such classics as THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR, IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, and MOONSTRUCK.
Put it this way, Jewison has been around long enough for director John McTiernan to remake not one, but two of his films! Jewison’s start came, like many, in directing for television in his native Canda and later, the United States.
But Jewison is not fading gently from Hollywood. Rather he continues to direct films with impressive pedigrees like the 1999’s THE HURRICANE starring Denzel Washington, the HBO feature DINNER WITH FRIENDS, and now THE STATEMENT starring Michael Caine and scripted by Ronald Harwood, the writer of THE PIANIST.
THE STATEMENT is that rare animal in movies today, a political thriller. Based on a novel by Brian Moore the story of Nazi war criminal on the run takes inspiration from disturbing real-life cases that have come to life in recent years. The Toronto-based director recently came to New York to talk up his latest project and spoke to me on the phone.
Josh Horowitz: I got a chance to see the film the other day and I enjoyed it.
Norman Jewison: Oh great. We had a screening last night for the [American Museum of the] Moving Image that went just great. They were really into it!
JH: What are people talking to you about after seeing the film?
NJ: It’s really disturbing them. Boy, they were hanging into it. The same thing happened in Toronto. You can hear a pin drop. People get locked into it because it’s one of those real political thrillers and they’re trying to figure it all out.
JH: I felt like the opening sequence drew me in especially.
NJ: Yeah. It’s a real Hitchcock-ian opening with very little dialogue the first ten minutes of the film. It kind of sets up this monster. You read the book and you see what [author] Brian Moore was going for. He was
inspired by real events, Paul Touvier and the murder of those seven individuals in that little village in 1944 and it was all part of what happened under Vichy when eventually they rounded up 77,000 French Jews.
JH: It’s unbelievable.
NJ: It is unbelievable! How do you do that? It’s so strange that so many people that were involved with Vichy continued on like Rene Bousquet who was the secretary general of the police. He provided over the total Vichy Jewish policy and he prospered after the war as a banker and an industrialist.
JH: One of the disturbing things in watching the film, more than trying to figure out who the bad guys are, is realizing almost everyone is a bad guy.
NJ: In a way they are. But I’ve never met a racist yet who thinks he’s a racist. That’s always the disturbing thing about when we begin to look at ourselves.
JH: It’s also interesting having Michael Caine in this lead role. He’s sort of our protagonist but he’s obviously done some despicable things. Do you imagine that the audience is rooting for his capture? Where do you think our sympathies lie in the film?
NJ: Strangely enough there is that dichotomy. Brian Moore often writes about failed people. There’s something sad about Brossard and I think there’s something sad about
|
bigots. That’s in a way what Michael tapped into. We also have a tendency to root for the fugitive. We’re always on the side of the animal being chased. It happens when you read the book also. You say, “wait a minute! Why should I root for this guy?” Maybe it’s what makes the story more interesting.
JH: And I feel like for a while you want to not believe he’s done these things.
NJ: That’s right. All he wants is forgiveness. He’s racked by guilt and he wants to be absolved of his sins and we identify with things like that. And of course by forgiving him the church forgives itself from the responsibility of excavating the truth of a very strange period in French history when a man like Maurice Papon can end up being the prefect of police for Paris. He was given the legion of honor for public service in 1948 if you can believe it for 18 years of public service! Now they got him finally for crimes against humanity and they put him in jail at the age of 90. And now they’ve just let him out because they were worried it wasn’t right to keep an old man in jail. Well forget it! I’d let him die in there! It just bothers me.
JH: The religious aspects also disturb in the film. This man is so devout. He’s clinging so much to his beliefs. It’s this strange paradox. He’s trying to rationalize his actions with his beliefs and there’s no way to do it.
NJ: That’s right. And Moore explores that disturbing moral question. At times in the film you feel that Church law is above civil law because of all this providing sanctuary. You’ve got to remember that the Vatican was terrified of communism and Stalinism. Communist were antichrists [to them]. But I think they kind of turned the other way when it came to fascism. But maybe that’s because the fascists were the biggest enemies of the communists. It’s a political thing I think.
JH: Who’s got more war stories you think, you or Michael Caine?
NJ: (LAUGHS) He’s got some beauts. We’ve known each other for thirty years. It’s the first time we’ve worked together even though we’ve known each other socially. I knew him when he opened his first restaurant in London. I lived in London for almost ten years. We’ve always wanted to work together but we just never had the opportunity until now. It was great. He is one of the most focused actors I’ve ever worked with. I think in the last five or six years he’s done the best work of his life. He’s also really courageous to take on this role. This is a real portrait of an unrepentant man, kind of an embodiment of pure evil and he did it.
JH: Does the Michale Caine that you work with on the set differ from the man you’ve socialized with?
NJ: No. You’re not aware of him preparing at all. He seems to be able to sit there and sip his tea and talk
about flowers and plants. And all of a sudden he gets up and does a scene with maybe 20 or 30 seconds of preparation and he becomes someone else so totally. I could see him actually change. He’s to a point in his life where he’s doing his best work. I guess most actors are like that. They get better as they get older. (LAUGHS)
JH: Hopefully the same is true for directors.
NJ: Oh yeah, well directors are like orchestra conductors. It takes us a long time… I was talking to Bob Altman about that. There’s not too many of us left who worked in live television and all of that. We’ve been doing it for so long.
JH: In 40 years the next crop will have taken over. There’s not going to be these links to the past. What’s going to be missing?
NJ: Maybe ideas. There’s good pictures out there. I don’t believe they are necessarily coming from the major studios. When the major studios were taken over by multinational corporations—I made a film called ROLLERBALL all about that--I think when corporate control takes over anything in the arts, there’s such a focus on marketing and gross return and investment and all of that, then it’s like the bankers taking over. When that happens, the choice of material they want to feed the public start to all look alike. No one wants to take a chance because there’s too much at stake. Smaller films with larger themes is what’s starting to happen. I mean they’re making remakes of my films and I’m not even dead yet! Why would you want to make a remake? Now they’re remaking ALFIE if you can believe it! I guess it’s a lack of creativity out there. I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t like to think that maybe I’m just getting old. I’m not too excited about watching a huge explosion. I’m more interested in people and characters.
JH: Do you find yourself watching older films or do you keep up with what’s out there now?
NJ: I see the new films that come out and some of them are wonderful. I love films like THE FULL MONTY and
THE CRYING GAME. I like those small films. I just saw Jim Sheridan’s film IN AMERICA. I loved that film. He makes me cry. I like almost everything he did. Here’s a man who’s a writer and a director and you feel like he’s telling a story that has some meaning. Those are starting to get rarer.
JH: A lot of your early films were comedies. You of course also directed MOONSTRUCK. Do you lament the demise of the intelligent comedy that’s not just made for a teen audience? There are so few now.
NJ: There are so few of them. Again, it’s the marketing forces at work. It’s an entire industry focusing on young male viewers that want action and violence. They sell us something that isn’t valid. They’re selling films like a product. I’m working on another romantic comedy at the moment and I’m doing it with John Patrick Shanley who wrote MOONSTRUCk. I feel like you that there is a place for an adult sophisitcated romantic comedy that doesn’t necessarily appeal to 18 year olds.
JH: It does seem like a whole segment of the population is ignored when it comes to comedy.
NJ: When I did DINNER WITH FRIENDS I had to do it for HBO. The studios said, “oh it won the Pulitzer prize. It’s too clever. It’s too much talk.” This is why HBO does interesting stuff. (LAUGHS) I don’t know. Maybe we’re just getting old and crotchety and complaining…
JH: I’m 27 and I’m already complaining.
NJ: You’re only 27!
JH: Imagine how curmudgeonly I’ll be in 50 years.
NJ: (LAUGHS) Well at least you’ve got some taste.
JH: So is this John Patrick Shanley film going to be next for you?
NJ: Probably yeah. He just finished the first draft so it looks that way. I’m in the mood for it. I’m in the mood for anything. I just gotta keep working!
JH: Do you find that you have to chase the material now more than vice versa?
NJ: I still get a lot of material but I find that as one gets older you get more fussy. You know you’re going spend a year or a year and a half on this and you know there are only so many films in you so you get a little bit more selective.
THE STATEMENT is open in New York and Los Angeles. It will be opening throughout the country in January.
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | ARCHIVES
