|
AFTER
more than 20 years, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford are
reunited on-screen in Lions for Lambs, the
politically charged drama now in Philippine theaters
from 20th Century Fox.
“It was
really enjoyable because I’d never worked with him as a
director, only as an actor, and he brings a lot of
understanding to the actor’s dilemma that other
directors don’t necessarily have,” says Streep. “He’s
very organized and clear about what he wants and that
inspires a lot of confidence.”
Redford directs a stellar cast which includes himself, Tom Cruise
and Streep in an intense, thought-provoking drama set
against the backdrop of war. Lions for Lambs
illustrates how politics affect the real lives of young
people who have to carry out the plans hatched by
powerful men in far-away congressional offices.
Cruise
plays Sen. Jasper Irving, a true believer in the War on
Terror who briefs TV journalist Janine Roth (Streep) on
the latest initiative to wipe out insurgents in
Afghanistan. Meanwhile, as they speak, two young men,
Ernest (Michael Peña) and Arian (Derek Luke), who have
enlisted in the army because they want to serve their
country, are embarking on a dangerous mission which is
the reality of that new policy, putting their lives at
risk on snow-capped mountains thousands of miles away
from home.
At the
same time, at the West Coast college they both attended,
a jaded, once idealistic professor, Dr. Malley (Redford)
confronts a privileged but blasé student, Todd (Andrew
Garfield), who has turned his back on his studies and
commitment in favor of a hedonistic fraternity lifestyle
of drinking and girls.
For
Streep, the film asks pertinent and timely questions of
the audience and how they feel about the way the world
is—and, in particular, the conflict in the Middle
East—right now.
Memorable moment.
Streep and
Redford in one of the most unforgettable moments in the
Oscarwinning and thoroughly unforgettable
Out of Africa.
“It
seems to me that it is less about the people who are in
the movie than about the people watching it, which is an
interesting dynamic,” she says. “Instead, it asks you to
recognize your own place in where we are in the world
right now. Everyone can locate himself or herself.”
One of
the central themes, she says, is about engagement with
the world we live in. “Or nonengagement,” says Streep.
“Willful, ironical distance or just choosing to step
aside from a responsibility to events that are taking
place right now in our name. And, yes, that’s definitely
been on my mind for the last six years.”
Streep
last worked together with Redford in the sweeping
romantic epic Out of Africa that was released, to
great acclaim, in 1985 and went on to win seven Oscars,
including Best Picture. Set in colonial Kenya, Streep
played writer Karen Blixen, who has a doomed love affair
with big-game hunter Denys Finch Hatton, played by
Redford.
“Oh, it
was a wonderful experience,” recalls Streep. “It was
really magic. It was a time out of time and we lived in
Africa for six months when we shot it. That was back in
the days when they made films slowly and deeply. And now
things go much faster and I don’t think they’d ever do
it that way again.”
Streep,
58, was born in Summit, New Jersey, and studied acting
at the Yale School of Drama. After leaving college, she
first came to the attention of moviegoers with Julia
(1977) and the following year was nominated for an Oscar
for her role in The Deer Hunter alongside Robert
DeNiro, Christopher Walken and the late John Cazale—the
first of an astonishing, and record-setting, 14 Oscar
nominations, with her most recent for The Devil Wears
Prada.
She has
won the Academy Award twice—for Kramer v. Kramer
in 1980 and for Sophie’s Choice in 1983. Her
remarkable list of credits includes The French
Lieutenant’s Woman, Silkwood, Plenty, Out of
Africa, Heartburn, Ironweed, Postcards... from the Edge,
The Bridges of Madison County, Adaptation, The Hours, A
Prairie Home Companion and Evening.
Streep
is married to the sculptor Donald Gummer and they have
four children, including Mamie, who is making her own
way as an actress and recently starred alongside her
mother in Evening.
What
memories do you have of working with Robert Redford on
Out of Africa?
Well,
mostly of the day he washed my hair....And I wished he’d
do it again. (Laughter)
Was it a
happy shoot and a good experience?
Oh, it
was a wonderful experience. Yeah, it was really magic.
It was a time out of time and we lived in Africa for six
months when we shot it. That was back in the days when
they made films slowly and deeply. And now things go
much faster and I don’t think they’d ever do it that
way.
So an
experience not likely to be repeated?
No. It
was not being edited on the hoof as you went along.
Sydney Pollack just sort of held the story in his mind
as he went.
And did
you stay in touch with Robert over the years?
Yes, we
worked together in lots of things for The Natural
Resources Defence Council.
So you
obviously share Robert’s concerns for the environment?
Yes,
absolutely. So we were in touch that way really, more
than in terms of movies.
How did
Lions for Lambs come to you?
Well,
you know, they always lie to you so that you’d think
you’re the first choice. (Laughs) They told me I was the
first one to read it and I loved it. My agent called and
said, “This script is around. Do you just want to read
it? It’s something that Redford might have an interest
in.” So it came together that way.
(Besides
being a meditation on the War on Terror), Lions for
Lambs is about education and the media and your
character, in particular, represents the media in this.
How did you approach that? Did your character come fully
formed or did you do some research?
It’s a
very interesting dilemma. I’m a news junkie and so I
watch a lot of journalists and I did watch the run-up to
the Iraq war and looked at all of our responsible
journalists and their willingness to roll over and put
aside their skepticism and I couldn’t figure out why.
And then there were certain voices that were raised
right from the very beginning, but they were alone and
they weren’t supported and there was some sort of
complicit path of understanding that if you raised your
voice, you were not supporting the truth. And it always
seemed to me that the responsibility of leadership is to
have the voice of the credible opposition in their ear
and that did seem absent. And we have so preserved the
rights of the Fourth Estate in our constitution and we
really rely on the press—even though it’s an unelected
voice—to raise its voice and raise questions and that
didn’t happen to the degree that maybe it should have.
That’s how I felt about my own character and it led me
to think deeply about what would prevent someone with
misgivings and with scruples from standing up and
saying, “Wait a minute!”
And what
does, do you think?
Usually,
it’s all self-interest. But another thing that I think
we probably didn’t cover in the film that mitigates
against people taking a stand is the Internet, which is
a new medium. It just seems people make a stand more
easily when they feel they’re not being heard. They use
the Internet rather than making themselves visible on
the streets and taking larger actions because they have
the outlet of the Internet and chat rooms and blogs. So
people can vent their feelings and then go see a movie
or have dinner and forget about it. People are heard
more easily now but, really, action isn’t taken now. So
that’s where we are.
Do you
think people will see Lions for Lambs as a
political film?
I think
everything is political. I think comedy that is put out
is political because of what they divert us from. Every
choice that you make is political, that’s my own bias.
Everything we do or don’t do has an impact on the world,
whether you choose to think about it or not. It just
does. I think people who don’t see that will view the
film harshly. But I think it’s pretty responsible in the
way that it presents a credible and accurate argument
from both sides of the divide in which we find
ourselves. We’re in this place now where people are just
barking at one another.
We seem
to have more films now dealing with the issues of Iraq
and Afghanistan. You yourself are in Rendition.
Do you think filmmakers are now putting this to the top
of the agenda?
Yes, I
think so. I think it just took a while for the scripts
to come together and for the people to green light them
and for them to get made and now they are all coming
out.
Do you
think cinema has a moral responsibility to tackle issues
like this and to put it out there as some kind of forum
for encouraging debate?
I don’t
know if cinema does. Cinema is just a bunch of
individuals and each individual person has to decide
whether he or she thinks it’s important to talk about
this stuff now and I have to give credit to United
Artists for putting their money where nobody wants to
hear people mouthing off. And for me it was important to
be engaged in the moment of where and when I’m living
and with what we’re dealing with, and I think whether
anybody sees it or not, the film stands as it is. And in
30 years’ time, it will still be a pretty accurate
record of where we are in 2007.
You have
a very vociferous right-wing media in your country and
certain sections are always willing to accuse Liberal
Hollywood of being unpatriotic. Was that in your mind
when you make films like Rendition and Lions
for Lambs?
Well,
Rendition is a fictitious setting but includes a
bunch of very high-profile cases that actually happened
to people. So it’s something that’s real. Just recently,
they interviewed our new attorney general who declined
to take a stand on whether or not water-boarding is
torture. It’s just another example of something where
you can’t, as an American, pretend that you don’t know
what’s happening anymore. We can’t say, “Well, gee, we
lived outside Auschwitz, but we didn’t know what that
funny smell was.” You can’t do it. We have to know where
we are and this is where we are and what we are dealing
with. And I don’t think Lions for Lambs takes an
irresponsible line on things because it clearly
represents the thinking on the other side, too, and puts
forth a valid argument. And I think it’s worth raising
these questions, if only to ask, “Where are you in
this?”
Tom
Cruise’s role is a hard one in this. How did he do?
Yes,
that politician thing really isn’t very easy to carry
off. It’s not an easy thing to present all the things
that politicians have to, to be winners right now. They
have to be charismatic and carry themselves with
passionately held positions. There is no place for
weakness or nuance. Fortunately, Tom walks in with a
position that not many actors have. I mean, maybe Arnold
Schwarzenegger enjoys the kind of power that Tom has had
for a long time worldwide in our business. He’s not just
an actor—he has a production company, he’s a
businessman, he’s enmeshed in the hierarchies of power
and is respected in those hierarchies of power in Los
Angeles and New York and wherever else they make these
big-business decisions. So he really understands all
that and he negotiates his way through with a kind of
undeniably attractive optimism and that’s really what
makes leaders, at least in American politics today.
There’s a feeling of can- do optimism and strength and
certainty. But it’s something that not every actor can
bring to the part. He walks in the room and he owns it.
So that was great.
Was that
enjoyable?
It was
extremely interesting. And to read him—because that is
my job; it’s almost like an actor’s job to find the
subtext in what you are doing. The usual transaction
between actors is that you have some kind of mutual
trust. But my job in this was to look beneath what he
was offering me and to scrutinize it on two different
levels: to hear what he was saying and then to see what
it is he is really saying and what is he not saying, as
well as what he is hiding. And that’s such an
interesting dynamic. It was fun for me and a type of
acting that I hadn’t done because usually you just give
yourself to the situation. In this one, I was in it and
I was outside it.
Were you
ever tempted to get involved in politics yourself?
No.
Never. |
