Naomi Watts Press Conference
Why do you think this remake was done?
Naomi Watts: “Because Haneke made this film to speak to American audiences originally. The fact that it didn't reach here was a shame to him. He feels that we're the biggest consumers of violence and that might be not just because, or well, it's also about numbers. It's a huge market here for film. When Hollywood called and said, 'Here's a bunch of money. Remake this film.' It wasn't like, 'Oh, okay. Now I can change it. Now I can correct this bit and that bit and glorify it.' His intention and message remained pure and therefore it is a very similar film.”
Can you talk about the atmosphere on the set because the film is so intense and there's so much fear on the screen? Tapping into all that emotion was difficult, so what was it like while shooting the film?
Naomi Watts: “It was quite hard to turn off at the end of the day and, in fact, it didn't happen that often. Most of the time while working on a film people will ask if it was scary to make because it was scary to watch, and usually the answer is no. Usually what's scary in a film is a succession of moments that build up to a scary payoff, and you shoot out of sequence and everything is fragmented. That's not the case with this film. The way we shot it was very much in chronological order. It pretty much all takes place on the one set and as you've seen the film, Michael's framing is evident. He doesn't cut a lot. One shot is held for endless minutes and so it was hard. The set was at times a very tense place, but then you also go, 'Okay, I have to break this.' Tim [Roth] would crack a very crass and base joke.”
Was it physically demanding?
Naomi Watts: “Yes. The way that Michael likes to work is from a very authentic point of view. Like the first time I was bound and gagged, he came up and said, 'That looks like s**t. No way. I don't believe that. Let me do it.' He bound me up, and you saw the way that I was bound. There's a name for it. I forget what it was.”
There was that rag in your mouth along with the rope.
Naomi Watts: “Yeah, and it was all around my neck and my feet. So if you fell or tried to walk, you could be strangled [laughs]. I'm laughing, but it's a nervous laughter.”
Do you think with the tremendously gory films like Hostel and Saw that there was a trend in horror films where there was a judgment on the people going to see these movies, because now the same people will go see Funny Games? Do you think there's a chance that they might be turned off by this film or question a perverse taste in cinema?
Naomi Watts: “Yes, I do. I haven't seen those films, but I know about them. I think that, yeah, Michael is trying to invite that audience in and say, 'Come, come, come. I'm talking to you.' He tricks them with Funny Games. That's the irony of it all. That audience is such a mass audience and I suppose that he does feel that they are culpable. Again, he's trying to build awareness of what he feels violence is and by depicting it in a very authentic way it becomes very, very grotesque and brutal even though he never actually gives it to you. Although, he does in that one isolated moment and then he says, 'No. You can't have it. I know you want it.' So those people might feel very angry, but I think that's the point of the film.”
How was this director compared to working with David Lynch?
Naomi Watts: “Very, very different - very different. Lynch won't tell you anything. He won't tell you what's going on and really doesn't give you that much direction. He encourages you to intuit it, whereas Haneke tells you everything. He's very specific and very by the numbers.”
If he tells you everything, is there any backstory that's not revealed in the film?
Naomi Watts: “Well, we talked about the 'what ifs' a lot and who this family was. You do create that stuff on your own and with him and as a group.”
When you first read the script and realized that you're spending a lot of time in your underwear, was that terrifying and intimidating or did you embrace it?
Naomi Watts: “It is terrifying, but that added to it all. I don't know if you've seen the original, but she strips down and then puts back her slip. And to be honest with you, when I saw the original, that was one of the only false moments to me. It felt a little bit like the wonderful actress was being slightly modest, and I completely understand that. Michael said to me, 'How do you feel about this scene?' I could tell where he was going, like did I feel right about doing it in my underwear versus in a slip? I said right away that we should do it in the underwear because it felt less self-conscious. It's like, 'Oh, I just happened to have a slip on.' I don't know how many people wear slips these days at home. So it was frightening and for such a large portion of the movie, but again it added to it. I felt so vulnerable at that place in the story and the fact that I didn't have any clothes on added to that vulnerability.”
Can you comment on working with Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet? Can you talk about the dialogue?
Naomi Watts: “Yeah, they both had such difficult parts. Michael Pitt particularly had just these endless amounts of dialogue. Haneke wanted to shoot long takes and he doesn't do a huge amount of angles, which means that there's more of the long takes, that you shoot it more times. So they had to be very much on their game. I mean, I was so impressed with both of them. They're very, very fine actors and I think although they struggled with it, playing these awful, hideous, psychotic people, I think there was some fun in it too – weirdly. Michael Pitt, I know he struggled. I can tell that he's someone that works from a very organic place and Haneke had a lot of instruction for him, and I think that you feel very trapped and very confined. So occasionally they had their moments. Clearly this material is so heavy that it makes you tense.”
Page 3: Naomi Watts on Violence and The Birds
