|
|
| Interview: Lighting Up with Jason Reitman |
by Peter Sobczynski
The writer-director of "Thank You for Smoking" talks about bringing Christopher Buckley's satirical novel to the big screen.
The latest second-generation filmmaker to hit Hollywood (father Ivan directed such comedy hits as “Stripes” and “Ghostbusters”), Jason Reitman has made a splash with his debut film, an adaptation of Christopher Buckley’s 1994 political satire “Thank You for Smoking.” With the aid of a high-powered cast–featuring Aaron Eckhart, Maria Bello, William H. Macy, Rob Lowe and Robert Duvall–he tells the glib and funny tale of Nick Naylor, a lobbyist for the tobacco industry (Eckhardt) has he unashamedly goes about his job of trying to get people to take up the dangerous and deadly habit of smoking. Despite the monstrousness of his job, Nick is so amusing and straightforward about what he does for a living that even the most virulent non-smokers are likely to willingly follow him on the adventures that lead him from California (where he attempts to get the film industry to get cigarettes back on the big screen) to Washington D.C. (where a craven Senator wants him to appear before a highly publicized Senate hearing that will look good for his upcoming campaign). Although the satire is a little soft at times–since 1994, Big Tobacco is nowhere near as powerful as it once was and virtually everyone is now familiar with the concept of “spin” thanks to things like “The Daily Show”–it is still a funny and entertain film that marks Reitman as a director to watch.
Recently, Reitman sat down to discuss the film, the challenge of making a monster likable and the controversy surrounding that “missing” Katie Holmes sex scene.
Obviously you have been surrounded by moviemaking all of your life but what was it that made you want to get into the business yourself?
I wanted to for as long as I can remember. My first memory as a child was of being on the scoring stage for “Stripes” and just being fascinated by that whole process. My whole life, I have either been in a movie theater or on a movie set. As far as I can remember, I wanted to be a moviemaker and when my parents got a video camera, I started to make little videos and stuff. Nothing new to report–it is the typical story but movies have always interested me.
When I was 15, my perception of an indie film was an inaccessible black-and-white French movie. Then I saw three movies–“Slacker,” “Bottle Rocket” and “Clerks”–and those three films changed my life. They opened my eyes as to what an indie comedy could be–what any comedy could be, for that matter–and they got me searching for my own directorial voice.
What was it about Christopher Buckley’s novel “Thank You for Smoking” that struck you as something that you wanted to make as a film?
It was the fact that it never apologized for itself. It had this wonderful Libertarian sense of humor about life and I loved that the main character never felt bad about what he did–I loved that he actually took joy in it.
Considering that this is your first feature film, how did you get attached to the project in the first place? As I recall, Mel Gibson purchased the rights around the time that it was published in 1994 with the intention of making it himself.
He did. He bought the rights in perpetuity even before the book was published and for about 7-8 years, Icon, his company, tried to develop it into a broad comedy, along the lines of “Liar, Liar” for Mel to star in. It just died there because you can’t make a political satire about smoking so soft. I came in, having made a few short films, and wrote about 25 pages on spec and gave it to them. They liked it and hired me–they paid me scale and I wrote a draft and it turned out to be the draft that we shot five years later. Everyone seemed to like it–even Mel called to say he liked it–but the problem was that no studio wanted to make it with the ending as is. They wanted Nick to apologize for his job and go work for the Red Cross or something. I stuck to my guns and finally found independent financing.
What was the process of adapting the book into a screenplay like? Was it hard to maintain Buckley’s voice while still making it into something of your own that would also work within the parameters of a feature film?
When I read the book, I thought it read a lot like a movie–there were all these wonderful characters–and much of the screenplay is literally cut-and-paste, particularly the stuff with the M.O.D. Squad and all the political stuff because Buckley knows far more about that stuff than I do. I tried to make the film as whimsical as possible from the start–things like the icons over peoples heads that would capture the joy and whimsy of the book and what Buckley does. The two big things I did were that I took Buckley’s narration, which would normally never make it into a movie, and turned it into Nick’s voice-over, and I basically created the character of Joey, Nick’s son. The scenes between Nick and his son talking are all mine.
 |
How much of a challenge was it to center a film around a character like Nick--a man whose job is to do something that most people would consider to be monstrous while still managing to make him likable enough to capture the interest of the audience?
I always found the book very likable so it was just a matter of capturing the same mood as the book. To be honest, I have been going across the country doing these college screenings and people not only find him likable but they find the political ideals likable. I think it is a reaction to all the liberal do-gooderness that has been going around for decades–a reaction to all the political correctness. Despite his profession, people really like Nick and like what he has to say, which is “Relax, if you want to smoke–smoke.”
Right from his debut in “In the Company of Men,” Aaron Eckhart has virtually cornered the market for playing smoothly charming monsters and is obviously perfectly cast here as Nick. Was he always your first choice for the role?
As soon as I started thinking about this film in a real way, yes. As you said, he has this unbelievable ability to be subversive and charming at the same time in a way that George Clooney is. Very few actors have that–maybe he was touched by God–and it is a pure talent that he was born with. He smiles and lights up a room and he can say something terribly wrong and we still like him for it.
For a first-time director, you have amassed a fairly high-powered cast of actors. How hard was it to get them to sign on? For example, how did you get someone on the level of Robert Duvall to make an appearance?
Far easier than I ever expected it to be. I wish I could say it was tough but I still don’t know how we managed to get him so easily. The producer of the film knew that Duvall loved the tango and got him a tango book that he had signed by all these great tango dancers and sent it with the script. He liked the words and I attribute that to Chris Buckley. Duvall is a pretty conservative guy and I presume that he felt that his politics aren’t well-represented on the screen and even though this isn’t a conservative film, he liked playing that kind of old Southern tobacco baron. When I talked to him, he said “I want to play this character with dignity–I don’t want to make him a caricature of an old Southern gentleman.” He loved the politics, loved the words and thought it was very funny.
The other performance that really surprised me was Rob Lowe, who is hilarious as the Japan-obsessed talent agency head who Nick comes to regarding placing cigarettes in movies. He is admittedly not the first person that I think of when I think of comedy, with the possible exception of that hockey movie, but he flat-out steals the movie.
You know, he is a very funny guy and I think that people are going to start realizing how good he is at doing comedy. If you go back and watch “Tommy Boy,” I swear to God that you will shit your pants over how funny he is. He is the funniest thing in that movie–I never thought about it at the time, because it is such a broad movie, but Lowe is hilarious in it. Look, he is a smart guy. Dennis Miller is one of his best friends and the two of them sit around and talk politics all the time. He is the real deal and I hope that people start to see that with this film.
You have directed a couple of shorts in the past but this is your first feature-length film. What was the experience of directing a major film for the first time like–for example, your first day working with someone like Duvall?
That was incredibly intimidating. I’ve been directing commercials for the last five years, so the actual set experience wasn’t that intimidating. In fact, I had less money on this one than I had on some of the commercials I’ve done. The idea of coming to the set and looking in the eyes of people like Duvall or Macy or Sam Elliott or Maria Bello–actors who I am fans of–and directing them and giving advice on how they are supposed to make their performances better–that was insane at first. Then you do a scene and notice a couple of things and you say, “You know what would be better,” and then you start directing.
Considering the amount of potshots that “Thank You for Smoking” takes at both the government and the tobacco industry, have you experienced any sort of blowback from either during the making of the film?
No, not at all. Big Tobacco is probably watching and waiting but I think they are going to like it. Our attitude is that we all know the dangers of smoking and that people should take responsibility for their actions–that is Big Tobacco’s line now. Ever since the big settlement in the 1990's, Big Tobacco’s new attitude is that they are big companies that make all kinds of products and that you should be aware of the dangers because they just want to stay out of court. Secretly, I think they are going to love the film.
Prior to the release of the film, it had two high-profile festival appearances that generated much gossip and controversy. The first was at Toronto, when a bidding war developed in which it appeared that Paramount Classics won the distribution rights until Fox Searchlight suddenly wound up the victor.
It was terrifying at first. At Toronto, there are 300 films there and I had an indie film that I had no idea was going to sell. At the time, there were people threatening lawsuits and since I just wanted people to see it on the screen, I was really scared. As soon as that passed, it got really exciting because there was a lot of real interest in the film because of it.
Then at Sundance, there was a projection error that led to the accidental deletion of a brief sex scene between Aaron Eckhardt and Katie Holmes that led to speculation that Tom Cruise had somehow pressured you into deleting it, even though the scene is still obviously in the film. Were you surprised to see how that story suddenly took on a life of its own to that degree?
Yes and no. When I came to talk to the audience afterwards, I kind of joked about the fact that the scene was missing and the audience jokingly booed me. I felt like that would be it and it wasn’t until two days later when the “L.A. Times” published an article saying that it was the doing of Scientologists or Mormons. It kind of caught fire and I am amazed that I am still answering questions about it and that people are still intrigued by it. It was nothing–just a simply and stupid projection error that couldn’t have happened at a more inappropriate, or maybe appropriate, time. The funny thing is–you have seen the scene and you have probably read how people have described the scene as being sultry and filled with nudity and lasting for minutes and that is obviously not it. The strange thing now is that I go to screenings and people ask if they saw “the scene” or not because they had a picture of what the scene was supposed to be and the actual scene isn’t living up to it. Now it is just personal accusations that I somehow orchestrated the whole thing.
How have the audiences been reacting to the film at the screenings you have attended, considering the fact that satire has a tendency to polarize viewers?
It’s been fantastic and a huge relief. This is a very accessible comedy–it isn’t trying to hit you over the head, it isn’t too smart for the audience. It is being very well-embraced, especially by college students. We’ve been showing it mostly to college students and the comment we get the most is that it reminds them of “The Daily Show.” I love that because there is this idea out there that college students don’t get their news from the “New York Times” anymore–they get it from Jon Stewart. I think the reason is that he doesn’t seem like a political pundit and he is the only one holding up a mirror to both sides. He is the only one not trying to tell people how to live and hopefully this movie is doing the same and it will be embraced in the same way.
link directly to this feature at http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1783
originally posted: 03/26/06 23:07:33
last updated: 04/23/06 00:08:47
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
 |
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed
