+ Thirteen Days review by Cynthia Fuchs
A Sense of Responsibility and Respect
You might not recognize Bruce Greenwood in his new movie, Thirteen Days. Not only does he completely inhabit his role as John F. Kennedy, but as well, he is completely different here than in his previous parts -- Ashley Judd's dastardly husband in Double Jeopardy, the grieving father in Atom Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafter, the title character in UPN's short-lived SF series, Nowhere Man. Moreover, not one of these characters quite prepares you for
Greenwood's own demeanor -- the guy is modest, funny,
and enthusiastic. We spoke on the phone, about his
career, his approach to acting, and the "absurd amount
of research" he did for Thirteen Days.
Cynthia Fuchs: How difficult was it to tackle this mythic character?
Bruce Greenwood: Well, the fortunate thing about the
script is that it doesn't go to Camelot. Instead, you
see a man alone. The deeper I got into the research,
the more I realized how driven intellectually he was,
and how his sense of moral obligation, to do what he
felt was right, evolved profoundly from the Bay of
Pigs to this time [the Missile Crisis].
CF: The relationship that you and Steven Culp [as
Bobby Kennedy] have on screen looks pretty intense.
How did you work that out?
BG: We spent a lot of time together, in the month
before we shot, initially because our accents tended
to drift into one another's. So we wanted to find a
way to hang onto our own thing and be distinct without
drifting into each other's territory. We're both
guitar players, so we noodled around on guitars. And
we just talked at each other.
CF: Your general performance style is low key, even
when you're doing a villain, as in Double Jeopardy.
BG: You know, it's weird, because in person, I'm a bit
of a flat-footed goof, more inclined to broad,
banana-peel behavior.
CF: So is this something you think about when you're
putting a character together?
BG: I'm looking forward to doing something in the
future that's a little wiggier. But certainly in this
film, and The Sweet Hereafter and The Rules of
Engagement, I needed to come to a certain quiet
resolve or something. I think you're right, it's less
showy than it might be.
CF: Can you tell me a little about Nowhere Man,
which I thought had an intriguing premise.
BG: I thought so too. About half the episodes we did
were really good. And about a quarter of them were
appalling. And I was completely immersed in it for
about a year.
CF: So, TV is hard work?
BG: Oh mama! Yeah, if you're the sole star of an
hour-long show, you're in every scene, and at the end
of the year, you kind of say, "Jesus, what happened
this year?" I wouldn't want to do it again. Never say
never, but I'm not going to do it any time soon. And
of course, if you're the star and the show is
cancelled, it's hard not to take it personally.
[Laughs] I was pretty rattled by it, but you know,
I've been in the business for a long time and I have a
lot of cartilage from having doors slammed in my face
-- so it didn't hurt too long. And the silver lining
for me was that if it hadn't been cancelled, I
wouldn't have been able to do Sweet Hereafter, which
contributed to people thinking, "Oh, maybe we haven't
seen this guy before, maybe we haven't seen all that
he can do."
CF: Do you have a preference for big-time or smaller
projects?
BG: They're fun for different reasons and serve
different purposes. The big stuff is widely
distributed and seen by a lot of people, and often fun
to chew on. Jeopardy was fun to gnaw away at, and
this film was certainly was more than I ever expected
to try and consume. And when you're seen all over the
place, you're more recognizable and the studios are
more inclined to give you a job that might actually
pay some money, or one of the few good parts that
aren't only two or three scenes. And then you get to
do the other stuff, the Atom Egoyan stuff for example,
which is so wonderfully conceived.
CF: I know that Egoyan is very precise in planning his
work, but the films can feel almost organic in the way
they unfold on screen. How do they feel when you're
working on them?
BG: They feel different from other movies. Usually I
fool around a lot, to separate myself from the work,
and to keep the energy up. It was a different kind of
energy on Thirteen Days. Everybody studied and had a
deep sense of responsibility. There wasn't so much
cartwheeling around the set.
CF: [Laughs] Now I have an image of Kevin Costner
cartwheeling around the set.
BG: [Laughs] Yeah, it's the little known Cirque du
Soleil connection.
CF: Was it difficult or unusual for you that Thirteen
Days was so focused on guys, to the point that there
were few women in the film?
BG: You're right. It was a pretty "guy" set, but it
was a guys' world, at that time, in the Oval Office.
And there weren't any pissing contests, just a lot of
guys on the set. Of course there were women working,
and a couple of actresses, but for the most part, they
were on the sidelines, as they were back then. Often
when there's much "guy" around, there's a lot of
testosterone flying, and a lot of people asserting
themselves with solid stances and pushing each other's
buttons, just because that's guys being guys, staging
contests for fun as much as anything else. But [on
Thirteen Days], the set itself inspired a really
broad and deep respect in everybody. It was just in
this big old dusty warehouse in the middle of
Glendale, [California], the last place you'd expect to
walk in and be moved, because you're driving past all
these McDonalds cups blowing down the street. And then
you open the bay doors on this warehouse, and the air
is different. It was like we'd dropped through the
ceiling into another time. It gave everybody a sense
of responsibility and respect.
CF: Do you think this sense of respect had to do as
well with our current historical moment?
BG: I do think there was some of that. The more we
realized what men and women in the Oval Office are
going to be called on to deal with, the more we
thought, "Oh my God, what we've got going on now is
just thoroughly unacceptable." Admittedly the Kennedy
brothers were lucky during this event, but at the end
of the day, if it had been anybody else, we might not
be having this conversation. And it's beyond politics.
One of the [Kennedys'] brilliant strokes was that they
enlisted as many different points of view as they
could respect, put them in a room together, and
allowed everyone to have their say. My own respect for
what's required to be a great leader and exercise real
judgment was altered. You put yourself in the shoes of
an icon like Kennedy, and at some point you see him as
a man, and you think, "Who among us is really
qualified for this?" Not many. Maybe some who don't
appear to be qualified will rise to those occasions,
but for the most part, we need superb people. The
office of course, is not attainable for people who
make mistakes, who've had sea changes in the way they
view the world. That's not acceptable because it looks
like a lack of focus or a lightness.
CF: Well, Bobby Kennedy went through some dramatic
changes during his career.
BG: Yes. At first he may have seen Civil Rights
initially as a political necessity and then once he
investigated it, it became a moral crusade for him.
CF: JFK is pervasive these days, as a model of
presidential goodness -- as in The West Wing. Did
other people's performances of Kennedy influence you
at all?
BG: No, I took pains not to have any of that in my
consciousness. A friend of mine gave me a copy of The
Missiles of October and I popped it in, and the
minute I saw the brothers, I said, "No, no, no." If I
make a choice that's the same [as someone else's], I
don't want to change it because it might be considered
derivative. In a role that's not a real person, stuff
comes to you all the time: while you're washing the
dishes, there's some arbitrary bit of behavior that
you suddenly mark and you go, "I'm going to do that."
Whatever goofy things you come up with, and whatever
more profound inventions you come up with -- you can
just pile them up arbitrarily and then peel away the
ones that you can't tie in. But this is a whole
different smoke. You can't pull that stuff out of the
ether, you can't make it up.
CF: Even though Costner's in the film, which sort of
makes it a Costner film in marketing terms, anyway,
the other characters are well drawn, or at least
sketched.
BG: And that credit goes to Kevin, for understanding
that, to get this movie made, and not play the
president, he'd have to share the hero spot. And he
really loves what's best about America. It sounds like
the most horrendous cliche....
CF: Yeah. It does.
BG: [Laughs] Forgive me. But it's the truth. And he
really wanted to make this movie. And he believes in
much of what it asks us to think about, issues of
trust and leadership.
CF: This may be a hard time to sell that.
BG: Or is it? We're hoping that people are looking for
it somewhere. I think certainly kids, who might have
been less interested in this at another time, now have
seen beyond that flimsy curtain that the soul of
politics is hiding behind. Maybe now we should spend
some time looking at where we've been and how far
we've come, or haven't.