Hey, everyone. Capone in Chicago here. How can you not love Alfred Molina? The man can do no wrong. Think about this, his first speaking role in a movie was in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Imagine that an unknown actor gets one of the most memorable lines not just of this film, but of any film. For years, Molina was hounded by fans begging him to say, "Throw me the idol, I'll throw you the whip." But then he went on to be in one great movie after another: SPECIES, THE PEREZ FAMILY, DEAD MAN, BOOGIE NIGHTS, MAGNOLIA, ENCHANTED APRIL, CHOCOLAT, a blazingly funny bit with Steve Coogan in COFFEE AND CIGARETTES, FRIDA, THE DA VINCI CODE, oh a small but memorable role in a little ditty called SPIDER-MAN 2. And believe it or not, we talked about NONE of these films in any detail in our conversation, not for lack of wanting to, but our time was miserably short. Molina was in the middle of a hurricane-force flurry of press interviews on the day we spoke, so I feel fortunate just to have had the 15 minutes that we did. I could have easily spent an hour on the phone with him (I certainly had enough questions to fill the time), dissecting his career and the countess memorable characters he's played. But part of the reason I get the interviews I get is because it's understood that a person's latest work is the priority. So when I do compile my questions, I talk about the current project first, any upcoming projects second (because we at AICN like to scoop everyone on the new information), and finally, if there's time, go back into a person's career. The reason I'm bringing any of this up is because Molina has such an outstanding list of credits, it might actually stand out that we I don't have a question about whether he had nightmares after shooting BOOGIE NIGHTS whose soundtrack was either "Sister Christian" or "Jessie's Girl." Or whether he got overly excited having pretend sex with Natasha Henstridge in SPECIES. Or did he become addicted to twirling his moustache playing Snidely K. Whiplash in DUDLEY DO-RIGHT. These are things the world needs to know. Still, I think what we talked about is solid stuff, primarily because his latest film, THE HOAX, kicks major ass, thanks in large part to his frantic, edgy performance as a loyal friend who takes part in one of the great literary hoaxes of the 20th Century. If the film had come out late last year, Molina would have certainly gotten an Oscar nomination. I hope sometime in the future to talk more extensively with Molina, but I think you're going to like what I got in the mean time. FYI--When he first got on the phone, there's a fair amount of background noise at his end, which explains my opening comment to him. Enjoy…
Capone: Sounds like a whirlwind of activity wherever you go.
Alfred Molina: Yeah, yeah. It’s sort of one of those days--press and publicity. It’s all part of the game now.
C: I know. You’ve sort of graduated to a bigger production these days, so it's required of you. In fact, just doing the research for this interview, it was kind of hard to find interviews that you had done before SPIDER-MAN 2. There were a few, but it’s got to be a whole different level now.
AM: Oh, yeah, yeah. I think with movies like SPIDER-MAN, because there were actors like Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst and James Franco, who had done the first movie. Of course, the focus is always on the stars of the film. Yeah, it’s an interesting process, because there was a time, years ago when I first started in the business, when ‘press and publicity’ was kind of, like, you did it if you had the time and the inclination. They’d phone up and say, “Could you do an interview?” and if you really couldn’t be bothered or you were too busy, you’d say, “No.” But now, of course, it’s contractually part of the job.
C: Yeah, I was going to say, it’s written into the contracts now.
AM: Yeah, you’re obliged now to sell, because it costs so much money, and the studios want as much bang for their buck as possible, which is okay. Most of the time, it’s fine.
C: Well, I promise to try and not make this feel less like a contractual obligation than some of the others might.
AM: [Laughs]
C: As I watched THE HOAX a couple of weeks ago, I couldn’t help but think of it as something of a sequel or, at least, a great companion piece to THE AVIATOR. It’s two different eras in Howard Hughes’ life--one where he was more of a public figure and then one that focuses on the perception of Hughes later in his life. How much did you know about Hughes and about this particular aspect to his story before you got involved in the film?
AM: That’s an interesting point that you make, because, it’s also indicative…the fact that this film and THE AVIATOR can be seen as sort of companion pieces, how they cover Howard Hughes, I think, is also a testament to just how fascinating and intriguing he still is. I don’t know how long it has been since he died, but it’s extraordinary how he still has this kind of charismatic persona. And, the public imagination is still gripped by him. We still don’t know everything about him. And, I think that this film coming, as you say, at a different time, from a different angle just kind of puts another color on it. I think we’re all aware of Howard Hughes to varying degrees. I knew a little bit about him from various books and articles I’ve read over the years, but when we started working on the film, I obviously started doing some more focused and serious reading. And, I was just amazed at how our fascination with him has got very little to do with the fact that he was a billionaire, very little do with the fact that he was incredibly rich and successful and powerful. I think it’s more to do with how we created this persona of him, you know. We ended up with image in our heads of this guy with incredibly long fingernails and long hair, living in the most bizarre way at the top of a hotel somewhere, with this phobia about dust and dirt, and all that. And, that seems so much more fascinating, and it kind of overshadows some of the real serious achievements he had in his life. He was a serious man in the airplane industry. He was quite a powerful heavy hitter in the movie industry. The man had chops and credibility in all kinds of areas, but we remember him as this crazy guy with long hair and freaking out about the dust on doorknobs, you know?
C: The recluse persona took over his accomplishment as an inventor and innovative engineer.
AM: Kind of, yeah.
C: Unlike the other characters in the film, your character seems to--I realize this is sort of a fictionalized portrait of Dick Susskind--but his integrity is always sort of drifting, I guess that’s the polite way of saying it. How did you evaluate him?
AM: Well, I kind of imagined him as a man who was very, very loyal to his friend Clifford Irving [played by Richard Gere], loyal to the point of actually getting himself into trouble, a man who somehow was Clifford’s moral conscience in a way, the man who always reminded him that he was a married man, the man who reminded him that there were consequences to whatever action he would take, whether to do with his own personal life or to do with this particular scam he was pulling off. And, I think, he was slightly easily led, but it struck me that this relationship was one of those symbiotic relationships where each of these men was searching for something from the other that they lacked. Perhaps, for Dick, he lacked the charisma and the attraction that Clifford clearly had; and, for Clifford, Dick sort of embodied an integrity and moral center that, perhaps, he didn’t have.
C: It’s interesting that you mention loyalty. Of course, the loyalty that your character talks a lot about in the movie is to his wife, whom we never see. And, he almost uses it sometimes as an excuse not to do things, when it’s convenient. What did you think of that choice, not to have a wife as an actual character in the film?
AM: I didn’t think it was a bad choice. I remember when I read the script, I think had we seen his wife, it would have lessened that sense of why he’s so committed to her and why she’s so important to him. She’s this sort of character that lives, in a sense, off screen. But, someone who he’s constantly referring to. He talks to her, he talks about her; she has this influence on him. And, I think, it’s a kind of nice. We dealt with that rather effectively, I thought.
C: She’s sort of a saint, and if you'd seen her embodied, she might lose that mystique.
AM: Yeah, exactly.
C: Did you ever get the sense that the two men are so immersed in this mythology they've essentially created for Hughes that they began to believe their version was true? They certainly fight for it like it is true.
AM: Yes, I think that’s right. It certainly starts to obsess Clifford--I’m talking about what happens in the movie, not anything that the real Clifford Irving might claim, that’s different--but in the movie, certainly, it becomes an obsession. He’s driven by this quest, and it sort of overtakes him somewhat. And, I think that’s the point at which the friendship starts to fracture and starts to break apart, because, for Dick, it was never an obsession. It was a sort of irreputable romp, and then it suddenly turned into something a bit more dangerous, a bit darker. And, I think [director] Lasse Hallström's choice to weave in the kind of ‘buddy movie’ aspect, and the ‘caper movie’ aspect, and also this little sense of a thriller weaving its way through the proceedings, I think, was very effective.
C: You’ve worked with Hallström before, but this film really surprised me because it’s not paced, and not as polished, maybe, as some of his other films. Was he deliberately trying to change the style to fit the fast-paced nature of the whole plot and of the times?
AM: [Laughs] I’m not sure that I agree with you that it’s less polished than some of his other films, but, certainly, he attacked this material with a different kind of energy. And, that probably was to do with wanting to capture something about the madness and the spirit of the time. It was all happening at the beginning of the ’70s, when it was still really the ’60s. You know how decades have this habit of not really starting until about half way through the calendar. At the beginning of the ’60s, we’re all still living in the ’50s. I think in this part of the ’70s, we were still living in the ’60s. And, there was this kind of madness. There was a sense of… everything was about Rock & Roll, basically. There was this kind of feeling of youth, and everything was basically…it had to be sexy in some way, otherwise it was worthless. And, I think that was certainly the reason why Clifford seemed so charismatic to so many people, because he kind of embodied that. He was a tall man, he was very good looking, he had a sexuality, a charisma that was very attractive. And, so he kind of fit right in to that maelstrom of activity that was happening at the time.
C: When I say the film is ‘less polished,’ I don’t mean that in a bad way. I actually think it adds to the great feel of the film.
AM: Yeah, there was some handheld stuff, and there was an edge to it, definitely. But, I think, Lasse’s one of those directors who is able to somehow calibrate his approach depending on what the material requires. He’s always had a wonderful eye for that kind of stuff.
C: Let me just go back a bit: I noticed doing the research for this interview that someone on a message board somewhere about THE HOAX said something to the effect of “Is anyone else interested in this just because Alfred Molina is in it?” When your name is attached to something now, it’s a mark of quality. I’m not complimenting you because you’re here, it’s just happens to be the case, especially in some of the genre stuff that you’ve done. And, you don’t really repeat yourself in terms of the types of roles that you take. Is that intentional?
AM: To a certain extent. It’s always nice to try and make each job that comes up as different from the last one as possible. But, I wish I could say it was all strategic and part of a massive game plan on my part, but, sadly, I’m not that smart. A lot of it has been just some really, really good luck. And also, it’s part of the nature of being a character actor, which is that you do get a chance to play different roles and wear different hats, both literally and metaphorically. Unlike actors who are essentially leading men, where there’s a certain amount of expectation and, in a sense, they have to fulfill the audience’s expectation, audiences don’t have such expectations for character actors. They’re willing to just be surprised. And, if you get a chance to mix it up like that, then that’s all well and good.
C: So, you fully embrace the label of "character actor"?
AM: Absolutely, absolutely. I wear that label with great pride, because I think of some of the great character actors that have gone before me, and I look to them for inspiration. They’re some of the greatest performers of all times--the guys and women who can just sort of slot themselves into any character, the kind of actors that take themselves to the role and inhabit the role, rather than drag the role to themselves and just make it another version of them.
C: Coming up, I’m curious about the movie SILK from François Girard, who made one of the greatest films from a few years ago, THE RED VIOLIN. What can you tell me about your role in that film? Even the title is sexy.
AM: Well, I play a character called Baldabiou. The film takes place in France, in the sort of mid-19th century. And, it’s about the opening up of the silk trade between Japan and Europe. It’s a love story weaved in with this incredible adventure story of this young man who goes from rural France to Japan on a couple of trips to bring back silk worms, because at the time, there was a huge silk worm epidemic of sickness in Europe. And, European silk weavers were unable to sustain their silkworms. My character is basically the man who finances these trips. And Michael Pitt, a wonderful, very interesting young American, plays the lead. Keira Knightley’s in the movie. That was a real change of pace for me, after SPIDER-MAN 2, and then I’d done a year on Broadway in “Fiddler on the Roof,” and I had just wrapped on THE DA VINCI CODE. So, it was a lovely change of pace. I had a wonderful time working with François. He’s another one of those directors who doesn’t seem to work every day of the week, but when he’s not making movies, he’s directing operas or something like that. He’s just about to direct a new Cirque du Soleil show.
C: Oh, my goodness. That’s actually very appropriate for him.
AM: Absolutely. He’s a real sort of Renaissance man. A wonderful film director.
C: I’m actually pretty excited--maybe ‘desperate’ is a better word--to see this Kenneth Branagh film AS YOU LIKE IT that you're in.
AM: Yes, AS YOU LIKE IT. We made that the same year that I did THE HOAX. That’s going to be shown on HBO, I think.
C: Oh, it is? I was wondering because I wasn’t getting any sense of when it was going to be released--or if it was going to be released.
AM: I think it goes on the air later in the summer, maybe the end of July, beginning of August.
C: Any excuse for Branagh to direct another Shakespeare…
AM: Well, you know, he’s the man. There’s no one quite like Kenneth. He’s got a sort of sixth sense about Shakespeare. It’s like he’s got a connection with this material at a very visceral level. His instinct for it, his understanding of it, his ability to convey everything that’s happening in every line to the actor is really quite exceptional, really quite amazing. And, not just from an acting point of view, but also from a literal and a creative point of view, he’s brilliant.
Capone capone@aintitcoolmail.com
