Black Sheep interviews Paul Haggis

Haggis These Days

An interview with Paul Haggis

Films remade for American audiences are controversial to say the least. “I figured if Scorcese could do it, so could I,” quips Canadian born film director, Paul Haggis, referring to his third directorial effort, THE NEXT THREE DAYS, a remake of the 2008 French film, POUR ELLE. It’s a bold statement to put yourself on the same plain as an American film master like Martin Scorcese, especially when you’re a London, Ontario native who has only been making films for seven years now. When you consider that Haggis has been nominated for five Academy Awards and won two in that little time though, both for his breakout debut, CRASH, it doesn’t seem like such a stretch anymore. Incidentally, that’s one more Oscar than Scorcese has.

“There had to be questions that I wanted to ask on the nature of love and the nature of belief.” These questions would become the justification for the remake and how Haggis would make the film very much his own. They’re not the only reason he wanted to make this movie though. “I had always wanted to do a thriller, always wanted to do a caper movie.” His eyes light up when he says this. Boys will always be boys.

THE NEXT THREE DAYS is based on the central premise of POUR ELLE, where a teacher must take desperate action when his life has reached a seemingly impossible crossroads. His wife is in prison for murder and despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he never falters in his belief of her innocence. When her last appeal fails, he sees her lose interest in living and he sees their son heading down the same path. If he doesn’t do something, he will lose what matters most to him in his life, his family.

The solution is to break his wife out of a maximum-security prison and then disappear. Now, that might not be what you or I would do, but if anyone were going to sell this as the only viable solution, it would be Oscar winner, Russell Crowe. Crowe signed on to the project early on and played a heavy hand in shaping his character, John Brennan, a man who isn’t remarkable for anything other than his conviction and commitment. “As soon as he read the script, he knew what I was going for,” Haggis shares when we meet in Toronto the day before THE NEXT THREE DAYS opens in theatres. Despite Crowe’s reputation for being difficult, Haggis insists they explored the internal and complicated nature of John Brennan at length and openly. “We talked a lot. I like when an actor is secure enough to ask questions and challenge you and the director is secure enough to listen and isn’t threatened by that.”

Not only is Haggis able to foster a healthy relationship with a man reputed for unhealthy working relationships, he also pulls an impressive and unexpected performance from his female lead, Elizabeth Banks. “I like taking actors and putting them in roles that surprise you,” says Haggis. “I think if you see actors playing the same roles over and over again, there is no sense in going to the theatre.” And you’ve never seen Banks like this before. As a convicted but potentially innocent killer, she never lets on whether she did or didn’t do what she’s accused of and she does that with great poise. Haggis definitely thinks people will be surprised to see her. “It’s a great gift for an audience to say, ‘Oh, look at her do that.’”

Of course, beyond its solid performances, including brief appearances by Liam Neeson, RZA, Daniel Stern, Brian Dennehy and Olivia Wilde, THE NEXT THREE DAYS is as sharp and as tense as it is because of Haggis’ incredibly grounded screenplay. Haggis, who writes more often than he directs, took an extreme hands on approach to writing this particular caper. He actually placed himself in the position of a prison escapee to plot just how John Brennan would do it. “I just googled how to break out of prison,” Haggis explains, fully serious. Having access to the Pittsburgh prison that is a central setting in the film, Haggis put his internal con man to work. “I got outside the jail and then said, ‘What if I got out? What do I do now?’ And then, ‘Oh look, a train. Will they be waiting at the next station?’” Whether his plan would actually work or not is not the issue. It’s the geographical and circumstantial reality of his plan that makes it believable. “I guess I’m enough of a con to figure it out myself.”

THE NEXT THREE DAYS is Haggis’ third film as director and his first thriller. His approach to direction is still the same though despite the genre change. “I try not to watch any movies when I’m making my own,” he confides. I understand this approach; I don’t read other reviews until mine is written. Who needs outside influence when you’re trying to create? “I really try to stay in that world and let the film find its own imagery and its own voice.”

The voice found in THE NEXT THREE DAYS is a complex one. It is a particularly adult voice and one that Haggis hopes will be heard. “I believe in this kind of a movie. I think there is an audience for it. I think people like to be challenged and I think they like to be entertained.”

Any audience that sees THE NEXT THREE DAYS will see a thriller that is as taut as they come but that still somehow honours love in its purest form, without ever feeling forced or far fetched. “It’s a love story,” Haggis asserts without hesitation. “There is something transformative about believing in somebody that much, even when they can’t believe in themselves.”

Escape from prison, run from the law, risk your life, I guess none of that matters when the reason you’re doing it is love. And after sitting with Haggis for just a half hour, it is pretty clear that he makes movies for the exact same reason.

Author's Note: Mr. Haggis was an excellent interview. I could have easily gone on about our conversation for another 1000 words. Maybe one day, I will.

I want to give a big thanks to the fantastic team at Maple Pictures for making this interview possible. I genuinely appreciate it.

For further Paul Haggis reading, here are past Black Sheep reviews for his films:

(click to read.)

CRASH

(writer/director)

IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH

(writer/director)

CASINO ROYALE

(writer)

QUANTUM OF SOLACE

(writer)

THE LAST KISS

(writer)

ROBIN HOOD

Written by Brian Helgeland

Directed by Ridley Scott

Starring Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, Max Von Sydow and William Hurt

Godfrey (on Nottingham): I’ll make this place famous.

I’ve seen a number of Robin Hood movies.  Who hasn’t?  I haven’t seen them all and I’m sure some people out there have, but even those people haven’t seen Robin Hood in Ridley Scott’s bluish hue before.  Originally titled, “Nottingham” (which I actually prefer), ROBIN HOOD tells us the tale of how this famous outlaw actually came to be that outlaw.  It’s Robin Hood, the prequel, which would explain why it often feels like you’re watching a film franchise being set up instead of the historical account Scott seems so determined to present.

With a reasonable amount of historical inaccuracies (aside from Robin Hood not having actually existed, that is), writer, Brian Helgeland (who has floored me once with the Oscar-winning, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL but who has mostly made me want to vomit with scripts like GREEN ZONE and MYSTIC RIVER) takes us back, way back, to when Robin Hood was still Robin Longstride.  Longstride used to fight alongside King Richard the Lionheart against Norman invaders at the turn of the 12^th century.  That is, he did until the king was killed and he saw the opportunity to abandon the army for a life of freedom.  He took with him a few other men, all with appropriately varied degrees of merriness, and they set off to disappear.  They ended up becoming more visible than they ever desired when they came across a dying group of knights whose duty it was to return the fallen king’s crown to his queen.  This is where Longstride adopted the name most would know him as officially, Robert Loxley.

As transparent as Helgeland’s intentions to enlighten us about invented Robin Hood’s past are, Scott’s skillful direction is focused and fiercely barrels through the near two and half hour runtime.  He wants to plant Robin Hood’s roots firmly in the ground and proceed from there, taking an iconic figure and making him more human.  Albeit an odd choice to cast a 46-year-old actor to play a younger Robin Hood, Russell Crowe plays him with both restraint and confidence.  His Hood is one that fends for himself whenever possible but that respects the hardships of the greater population.  In that regard, he is often painted as somewhat saintly but that is in line with what we know of him anyway.  And with that classic Crowe ruggedness, this Hood is essentially a sexy bleeding heart.  It’s no wonder then that Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett) falls for him when they meet. 

Scott’s ROBIN HOOD is a lesson in history with a somewhat misplaced agenda to turn one of the most famous heroes of the people into Hollywood hero for the masses.  The talent caliber spread amongst the director and the actors easily boosts the film to a level of strength and stature fitting to the size of the subject.  The constant attempts to champion the origins of the lore undermine the pedigree little by little.  What we’re left with is a legend that feels more manufactured than legendary.

AMERICAN GANGSTER

Written by Steve Zaillian
Directed by Ridley Scott


Frank Lucas: The loudest one in the room is the weakest one.

That’s some solid advice from an unflappable, businessman/innovator who also happens to house an unshakable tyranny beneath his nondescript black overcoat. The man is Frank Lucas – a North Carolina-born crime boss who sold top quality heroine at discount-store prices to the good people of Harlem in the late 1960’s and ‘70’s. The advice would have been better taken than given as one loud moment, one indulgence in pride and riches, would ultimately lead to his unraveling. Having accepted an innocent gift from his beautiful wife, Lucas arrived at boxing title bout in a pimped-out chinchilla fur coat and matching fedora. All eyes were drawn to the man who dressed with such impeccable flare and had better seats than some of the highest profile gangsters in all of New York City. One of these sets of eyes belonged to Richie Roberts, a Jersey detective who was heading a covert task force determined to make big moves in the war on drugs. Before this, Richie didn’t even know whom he was hunting but now he at least knew where to start looking. That moment is now a pivotal scene in Ridley Scott’s AMERICAN GANGSTER, a juxtaposition of Lucas’s rise and demise offset against the blind pursuit to bring his untouchable operation to its knees.


AMERICAN GANGSTER is (aside from seeming like a blatant attempt on Scott’s part to latch on to some of the residual success from Scorsese’s return to glory with THE DEPARTED) an exploration of the vast field of gray between what is supposed to be the clear black and white ends of the law spectrum. Lucas (a fiercely calculated Denzel Washington) hands out turkeys to his Harlem brethren while getting their children hooked on some of the purest heroine on the streets. Roberts (a disheveled and determined Russell Crowe) refuses to play into the dirty cop stereotype, even going so far as handing close to a million dollars into his superiors, but disrespects his ex-wife and disregards his responsibilities as a father. Still, both see themselves as examples that should be followed because they follow a strict life code built on core American values like integrity and hard work. What neither understands about themselves or each other is that abiding by such a rigid set of guidelines for a successful life touches every facet of your image, from where you live to what you eat for dinner to how you treat your family. Not to mention, while they spend so much time defining themselves as model Americans, they lose their individuality.


Both Washington and Crowe are impressive performers, each boasting past experience that would make them clear choices for the roles they were cast as in AMERICAN GANGSTER. Washington, having done twisted and unpredictably violent in TRAINING DAY, now takes a more stoic approach to evil as he is unflinching even when lighting someone on fire only to shoot them in the head seconds later. (I guess he just needed to be sure his last moments alive were spent in agony.) Crowe, having played the manly cop in L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, brings a certain nervous uncertainty to the authority figure icon. Each is capable of carrying a film on his own and, in AMERICAN GANGSTER, they each essentially have to as the two share the screen for what amounts to maybe ten minutes. In what is perhaps Scott’s greatest movie magic trick, he splits the film into two distinct pieces that exist on their own but depend on each other for purpose. While Roberts runs around the city chasing after Lucas, he never knows that it is Lucas he is actually gunning for. At the same time, Lucas never knows Roberts is after him until it is too late.


All that stands between Crowe and Washington now is Ridley Scott. There is no contesting AMERICAN GANGSTER’s ferocity but its dynamism is severely overrated. Good cops and bad cops have been done to death (although none nearly as delicious as the sleazy turn by Josh Brolin as the crooked cop ringmaster) and the same can be said for bad guys who love their mothers. By now, we all know the world is gray but strong performances, a sharp 70’s visual style and companion soundtrack do their best to distract us from seeing that we aren’t really learning anything new. The action moves into the clubs. The threads are slick; the tunes are smooth; the club is definitely swinging but the scene is getting tired.

BLACK SHEEP @ THE 32ND ANNUAL TORONTO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL III

3:10 TO YUMA and INTO THE WILD


My third and final day at the Toronto International Film Festival was considerably less rushed than the previous two. In fact, I only had one film scheduled. During my manic search for tickets, I contacted a colleague at the National Post. Craig couldn’t help me with tickets but wanted to know if I would participate in the upcoming Popcorn Panel film discussion on 3:10 TO YUMA. As I love these opportunities, I said I would and found myself buying a ticket to a movie for a reasonable price and without any serious stress over whether it would be possible to get in or not for the first time all weekend. It was liberating. And so my final day in Toronto became all about casual shopping on Queen Street, a first-run movie with the regular film-going folk and a world premiere of Sean Penn’s INTO THE WILD.

Before I take a look at the films I saw that day, I want to talk a bit about what I found to be most inspiring about the entire festival. It is one thing to be surrounded by celebrities and premieres; this alone is extremely surreal. What was even more baffling to me was the number of volunteers in and around every venue at the festival and how these volunteers seemed appreciative of their place in the system. They were always courteous and smiling. They were apologetic if the wait was too long as if they cared that you might not be having the best time ever. It was near moving to see so many motivated, energized people who only got to keep their T-shirts and sneak into movies if there was any space left as payment for their time. Before each screening, several sponsors screened tags announcing their support. NBC/Universal was the official sponsor of the volunteer program and each time their tag played and announced their pride in supporting the volunteers, the crowd would erupt in genuine warmth and applause. Maybe that appreciation, plus the T-shirt, made it all worthwhile. Thank you volunteers; you were all helpful and lovely.


3:10 TO YUMA was one of those films that truly surprised me. You know the kind of movie I’m talking about; it’s that movie that you don’t really want to see but you somehow end up seeing it and go in with zero expectations of quality or what will unfold. Seeing a movie under those circumstances can either go one of two ways. Either your suspicions that it was not a movie for you are confirmed and you leave knowing you should trust your judgment next time or you leave impressed and thinking you should probably be a little more open-minded in the future. My experience was clearly the latter. 3:10 TO YUMA has an energy driving it forward that stems from its originality. This might seem a stretch to say given it is a remake of a 1957 film so I’ll elaborate. It is original much like AMERICAN BEAUTY breathed new life into the existing suburban exposition drama or the way THE DEPARTED showed us Scorcese awake for the first time in years. There is something new being brought to the table. Here, director James Mangold (WALK THE LINE) combines a quiet, introspective script (like modern Western, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN) with a classic, straightforward story (like the Western classic, STAGECOACH) to create something visually lush that has both exhilarating action and gunfight as well as depth of character. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are both excellent as men at different ends of the moral code. They learn from each other but have strong enough characters to begin with to not falter from their true nature without just cause. With 3:10 TO YUMA, Mangold is forcefully establishing himself as one of the best in the West.


Then there is this other Western director, whom I’m sure believes himself to be one of the best. When Sean Penn was brought on stage before the world premiere of his film interpretation of the life of Christopher McCandless, a university graduate who abandons his possessions, family and attachments in pursuit of life’s greater truths, the crowd was happy to receive him. People clapped, many cheered. However, the next audience response, for a surprise appearance by Eddie Vedder, who contributes four songs to the film, was so much more spontaneous and sincere that it made Penn’s seem almost automatic. Most of the cast, from William Hurt to Catherine Keener to Jena Malone to star, Emile Hirsch, proceeded to fill the stage. This was clearly an event. The moment quickly faded though as it became apparent within the film’s first scenes that INTO THE WILD was going to live up to its name. As McCandless rejects society and conformity, so does Penn with his style. While this does make for many beautiful shots, some entirely scenic, some involving dangerous wildlife in peaceful surroundings, the manner in which it is all strung together is ultimately pretentious. There is so much beauty but so little purpose. The numerous supporting roles come in and out throughout the film, much like the people would have on the adventures McCandless would have experienced. Only this isn’t that experience, this is a film. Consequently, many performances come across as overly dramatic and the adverse affect on the film itself is a disdain for the lead character carrying you everywhere. As McCandless, Hirsch is strong and mature but his character, as noble as he is for pursuing greater meanings in life, is not likable for the emotional pain he caused, especially when it is apparent that he is only running away from his own truths. It’s hard to respect someone who is running away while pretending to be a pioneer. Many people left before the screening had ended and when it finally did, the applause slowly but surely transitioned into a standing ovation. When I saw this, I bolted. My stomach turned seeing all these people paying lip service when a respectful applause would have been sufficient.


This was a bit of a sour note to end my festival experience on. This is the gamble though. You’re not going to like all the movies and we shouldn"t base the entire experience on its final moments. I hope to have the opportunity again next year to go, maybe for longer. For all its industry-centric catering, the Toronto International Film Festival still gave me the chance to see so many movies I was excited to see. I’ll just make sure to have a Visa gold card by this time next year so I can cut to the front of the line.