Though she appeared in John Duigan's 1991
coming-of-age comedy Flirting, which launched the careers of Nicole Kidman and
Thandie Newton, Naomi Watts spent years in the wilderness before finally
getting her due. Throughout the '90s, she struggled to find footing in
Hollywood, but she was mostly limited to bit parts, save for a lead turn in a
straight-to-video Children Of The Corn sequel. But after David Lynch plucked her
photo from a stack of headshots for 2001's Mulholland Dr., Watts' star ascended in
short order. Renowned for her willingness to take on roles of great emotional
intensity—and for a strange propensity for appearing in
remakes—Watts earned an Oscar nomination for her bruising turn in 21
Grams,
and has extended her career with carefully selected parts in We Don't Live
Here Anymore, I Heart Huckabees, The Painted Veil,
and Eastern Promises. She's also proved herself a bankable Hollywood actress with
lead performances in The Ring, The Ring Two, and Peter Jackson's King
Kong
remake.
In Michael Haneke's new English-language remake of
his controversial 1997 thriller Funny Games, Watts gives another
full-barreled performance as a bourgeois wife and mother who tries to will her
family to survive a home invasion. Watts recently spoke to The A.V. Club about her humble
beginnings, her propensity for remakes, and the impact emotional roles have on
her psyche.
The A.V. Club: What experience did you have
with Michael Haneke's work before agreeing to star in this movie?
Naomi Watts: I had seen three of his films, starting
with The Piano Teacher. That screened in Cannes the year that Mulholland Dr. was in competition. I
didn't get to see it in Cannes, but I did later on my own, and I found it
incredibly powerful. I saw Code Unknown because Alejandro [González Iñárritu] had
screened it for Sean [Penn], Benicio [Del Toro], and myself, because it was an
inspiration for him when we were making 21 Grams. And then I saw Caché. So I was very familiar
with his work, and that was my initial interest to work with him. Then I saw
[the '97 Funny Games]… and that's when I started struggling with the idea of
[starring in a remake of] it, but I felt compelled to do it, because I had such
a strong reaction the first time I saw it. It really was one of those films
that stays with you and gets under your skin. At the time, when I saw it, it
brought up so much, I had to discuss it. I couldn't believe how [Haneke] played
with us as an audience and tricked us, and commented on his trickery the whole
time. Once I spoke to him, I understood what he was trying to do. The [remake]
is risky and controversial. Is this going to land well with an American
audience? Are they going to get it? Ultimately, I wanted to work with Michael,
and I believed in what he was saying and doing.
AVC: Given how closely this film hews to the
original film, how did that figure into your preparation for this part?
NW: The preparation was quite simple. We [Watts, Tim
Roth, and Devon Gearhart] were being led by these two boys [Michael Pitt and
Brady Corbet] the whole time, and we had to react to the situation they put us
in. We talked about this American family being different from the one in the
original. We wanted them to be warmer and busier, and that meant talking over
the top of each other and more noise, like the kid having a Game Boy in the
back of the car. Little things like that. I had endless discussions with
Michael privately about how I would deal with this situation myself, and
putting myself in that woman's shoes. I'm so sure that I would have been able
to defend my family. I know that I'd be capable of doing whatever was necessary
in my family's defense. But you just don't know, do you? You don't know if
you're going to become stronger and more powerful because of your fear, or
paralyzed because of it.
AVC: How did your performance exist in relation
to Susanne Lothar's in the original film? Was that on your mind at all?
NW: I've done a few remakes now, as you know. And my
philosophy is, you see the [original] film once, and that's it. You have to do
whatever you can to shut it out, because you don't want your performance to be
tainted. You don't want to fall into the trap of comparisons, basically.
AVC: But given that the film is almost a
shot-for-shot remake, how did that figure into the way Haneke directed actors?
NW: It was difficult. The blocking was dictated by the
fact that he was doing a shot-for-shot remake. That was a great challenge. And
that's when you did go, "Oh my God, I'm going to end up giving the same
performance, because I have to move here and I have to move there." That was
quite scary, but Michael had such passion for what he was doing, and he gave
such attention to every single detail. He knows what he wants, and ultimately
he's the director, and he's the man to follow.
AVC: Haneke's films have a very cold, precise
quality. Is the man different than the movies? What was the mood on the set?
NW: Well, it was a very tense subject, and it made for
a tense feeling on the set. We were all affected by what we were doing. At
times, we were having to get off the set for a while just to break away from
it. And other times, we would just stay right there, crack some ridiculous
jokes, and work our way through it. Fortunately, Tim Roth has a fantastic sense
of humor, and he'd do whatever he could to create some kind of reprieve. As for
Haneke, he's a very gentle man. He's very soft-spoken and sweet, but incredibly
intelligent. He knows so much about everything. Ultimately, I trusted him at
every turn, even if I struggled with the material or had different ideas about
it. I did my best to give him whatever he wanted.
AVC: This Funny Games is essentially the same
movie it was in '97, but how does the context of today's time make it
different? How might it be different than in '97?
NW: Well, the horror genre has had such a kickstart in
the last 10 years or so. Though Funny Games isn't quite a genre
film—it had a foot in and a foot out—it speaks to the audience that
might be interested in seeing films in that genre. So I think it has great
relevance now.
AVC: How about for you? You said you struggled
with whether to do the movie. What tipped the scales for you?
NW: Again, the main reason was to work with Michael. I
feel that film is a director's medium, and I want to work with great directors.
And I think Michael is one who will be remembered, and his films will be
studied in the years to come. In fact, when I was wrestling with the decision,
I spoke with a couple of other director friends of mine—some that I'd
worked with, others that I hadn't—and they all said, "You've got to do
it." Whenever a film allows you to think and feel and take it beyond the
moment, I think it's achieved something. And Funny Games does that.
AVC: Have you watched this film with an
audience? Do you have a sense of how it's working on them?
NW: No, I haven't seen it with an audience yet.
AVC: I remember seeing the original film in a
sold-out festival screening, among 800 other people, and it felt like the air
was getting sucked out of the room. Are you nervous about what kind of response
this new film is going to get?
NW: You're always nervous about how a film lands with
an audience. And this one especially. It's a very controversial film: Will they
get it, or will it just aggravate them? But I think it was always Michael's
intention to get under the skin of the audience. He says, very
matter-of-factly, "This is hard work. I dare you to go there."
AVC: Michael Haneke and Alejandro González Iñárritu
have espoused similar philosophies on film violence, and 21 Grams and Funny Games both address that to a
large degree. Is it fair to say that your appearance in these movies means that
you share their concerns?
NW: Yeah, I do. The use of violence in movies is a
subject that's worth addressing. I'm not standing on a soapbox or wagging a finger,
but I'm interested in those subjects for sure. And they're both very
responsible in how they go about it.
AVC: Your role in Funny Games requires a lot of
emotional intensity, and you're well-known for taking on such parts. What sort
of toll does that exact on your psyche? And what do you do to cope with it?
NW: Some movies are the kind you take home with you at
the end of the day, and some, you can let go. This was one of those that did
get under my skin making it. It was very powerful, but I can turn it off. At
the end of a shoot, that's it. I'm done. But I don't mind doing that with my
work. I don't mind taking it home. It's not like that's all I am, and
everything in my life is part of that. I am able to have moments of lightness
and laughing my head off. For instance, if it's not too much information, my
son was conceived during the time of filming Funny Games. [Laughs.] So it can't
all be bad.
AVC: You talked about film as a director's
medium. Does that figure into your philosophy as far as how you choose the
roles you do?
NW: Absolutely. Directors are our teachers, and I'm
always craving to work with a great director. They're pretty much the first
thing that interests me about a project. Let's put it this way: It'll take me a
lot longer to read a script if there's no director attached.
AVC: Are you aggressive in seeking out
filmmakers you'd like to work with, or do you pretty much let the work come to
you at this point?
NW: I've definitely made it known to a few directors
that I'd like to work with them. Not necessarily calling them at home or
stalking them, but if I run into them, I can sometimes be pretty vocal about
it. I don't know if I've done anything beyond that, though.
AVC: What's the most challenging role you've
taken on to date?
NW: Probably this one and 21 Grams, because they required so
much of me emotionally. In a way, King Kong was also very
challenging, because it was physically demanding, and it was a long, long
shoot.
AVC: With King Kong, you also had to act
against a green screen. Did that take some getting used to?
NW: Oh yeah. That was extremely challenging. Once you
get used to it, it's not so bad, but it took me a lot of time to get there.
[The filmmakers] devised a lot of different ways to make it easier, like having
Andy Serkis [the model for Kong] to act with, which was pretty great.
AVC: He isn't a very imposing actor.
NW: [Laughs.] No, he's not. But he's a brilliant actor,
and he can get you to some pretty believable places. You'd be surprised how
convincing he could be.
AVC: Now that you've achieved a level of
mainstream success with the Ring movies and King Kong, do you feel obliged
to sustain a certain level of fame by appearing in more commercial projects?
NW: I'm not obliged, hopefully, to do anything with my
work. I don't think that I could survive that. I have to be able to do
something that I could act with. I couldn't do what's expected of me.
AVC: What was Hollywood like for you when you
first arrived? How well did your expectations meet the reality?
NW: I got the sense pretty quickly that there were
some people who were overly enthusiastic, and not in an authentic way. It
seemed to be a cultural thing. People were so full of promise, and saying,
"Yeah, it's gonna be great, and you're incredible…" and it seemed to me that
they were saying that to get rid of you quickly or something. [Laughs.] They
think that's what you want to hear. I slowly understood that they didn't really
mean what they said. They were just being polite and moving on to the next
thing.
AVC: Were you able to cobble together enough
roles to make a living?
NW: I came to America with some savings, and I think I
got pretty close to having nothing left before Mulholland Dr. During that time, I'd
get to the point where I was just about to throw in the towel, and then I'd get
a job that would hook me in and keep the money flowing a bit. I was never
completely destitute. I think I borrowed money once off a friend, but I've
always been quite careful with my money, having come from not much of it.
AVC: What was your involvement in Mulholland
Dr.,
from its origins as an ABC pilot to a feature film?
NW: Well, it was supposed to be a television series,
as you mention, but [the network] panicked at the last minute and felt it was
too weird or something. So the project sat around doing nothing for a year and
a half. And then finally the French producers of some of David [Lynch]'s
earlier work made him an offer and he pieced it all together. I think he had a
great meditation one day, and he found a way to make it work, and that was
that. In terms of my role, it was always about myself and Laura Harring, and he
wound up expanding the female roles a bit more in the rewrite. I'm not sure
why, but I'm obviously very grateful and lucky because of it.
AVC: What's next for you?
NW: I don't have anything in place that's definite.
I'm talking to people about a couple of different projects, but I'm not sure
which ones will fall into place first. For now, I'm just enjoying being a mom, and
I probably won't work for the next few months.