Viggo Mortensen talks about the movie “Shame” & working with Michael
I don’t know what else we were talking about. Oh yeah, “Shame.” I think it’s an interesting movie, it’s a good movie. But I don’t know… If the movie was really groundbreaking and really transgressive, it certainly wouldn’t have been winning all those awards. I guess people’s taste is fairly conservative and it’s pretty much a herd mentality. And many times, on these Top 10 lists, people tend to dismiss it until a year later.
It’s kind of a little absurd. I don’t think “Shame” is one of those movies. I think “Shame” is a very interesting movie, but the thing that I’ve heard about it… It didn’t seem, at least to, my taste, but to each his own. It didn’t seem groundbreaking in terms of photography, or movie storytelling, script writing, acting, directing. I didn’t think on any level it was a new wave of moviemaking that we were seeing the birth of. I think it’s a very well made movie, like other movies were quite well made, but I don’t know what all the taboo-breaking fuss was about. It’s really not about that at all. It’s fairly straightforward.
PK: I take it you didn’t discuss it much with Michael when you were making the movie.
VM: No, because I hadn’t seen it until just the other day.
PK: With all the hype it must have been disappointing.
VM: No, it wasn’t disappointing. I was just surprised. I appreciated the things that were good about it, and good about his performance. But the aspect of, “This is the most bold, brave, blow your mind kind of thing,” I didn’t get that from it. It’s a well made movie. It’s a nice follow-up to “Hunger.” But it wasn’t much more than that. It was a decent piece of work. But I don’t understand why people make a big deal about a lot of things, so. Nice job. If I hadn’t have heard all the hype I would have said, “Oh, nice.” It was pretty good. Good job. It was a probably a hard role to play, and, congratulations. I’m talking about… It’s not just about the filmmaker, or the actors. There’s just a reaction of how it’s categorized or how it’s described, and I find fault with that. Not fault, but I don’t comprehend. It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s just like, “What’s the big deal?” As far as transgressive, because it isn’t.
PK: How was it working with Michael in the making of “A Dangerous Method?” Did you guys get along?
VM: We had a good time, yeah. He’s obviously a very good actor, but he’s also a good work companion. He’s very funny, has a very good sense of humor. He has a good singing voice and enjoys singing. He’s very well prepared. He shows up having worked extremely hard on the script. I’m sure that’s probably how he always works. He shows up ready to go to work and give his best, but he’s also relaxed and fun. We get along very well, cracking jokes. It’s a good way to keep things light, especially when you’re dealing with heavy material or lots of dialogue. The worst thing you could so with Carl Jung or Sigmund Freud is to take yourself too seriously, because you’re going to bore yourself and others, I think. It’s important to keep it light. I think that was David’s attitude.