GOD'S HANDS: An interview with Frailty director/star Bill Paxton By Warren Curry 4/7/02 Part 1 of 2

Given the fact that Bill Paxton has starred in both box office smashes such as Titanic and Twister and smaller, critically acclaimed films like A Simple Plan and One False Move, the actor needs little introduction. Well, with his directorial debut, Frailty, Paxton wishes to re-introduce himself not only to the movie going public, but also to "the industry," which despite Paxton's varied résumé, has firmly placed him in a category of artists that he's not completely comfortable inhabiting.

Roaring off the screen like a lost Jim Thompson novel colliding headfirst with elements of horror and the supernatural, Frailty is a film destined to surprise even those intimately familiar with Paxton's work. The movie recounts the tale of young Fenton Meiks (played as a youth by Matt O'Leary and an adult by Matthew McConaughey) -- a Texas boy helplessly forced to bear witness to his father's (Paxton) carrying out of a mission, supposedly sent by God, which calls for the man to destroy a list of "demons," who appear to most as just every day human beings.

Frailty is perhaps the most purely menacing vision of good vs. evil (although, who's good and who's evil is entirely debatable) to hit the screen in many a year. Masterfully directed by Paxton from a provocative, disturbing script by fellow Texan Brent Hanley, it is certainly a film destined to find a spot in this writer's 10 best list at the close of 2002. Other members of the cast include Powers Boothe and Jeremy Sumpter. Lions Gate will release Frailty on April 12.

CinemaSpeak had the pleasure of speaking with both Bill Paxton and Brent Hanley at the film's recent Los Angeles press day. First, we bring you our conversation with Mr. Paxton.

(Click here to go to the interview with screenwriter Bren Hanley)

(Note: This interview was conducted as part of a press roundtable, therefore not all questions were asked by CinemaSpeak.)

In the marketing of Frailty, there are quotes from some of the biggest horror filmmakers and writers (Sam Raimi, James Cameron and Stephen King to be exact), who endorse the film. How much does that mean to you?

It means a lot to me. I went out and I tried to solicit some positive comments from people I considered masters of suspense. I know Sam Raimi and James Cameron, but if you know these men, they are men of such integrity that they wouldn't endorse something if they couldn't get behind it. Jim's the kind of person -- I remember having to audition for True Lies and it was like, "Jim, I have no mystique with you. How can I come in and audition for you? You know all my bullshit!" The film was originally going to come out at the beginning of the year, but when we started screening it in the late fall, we had very reactionary responses to it from the press. They weren't things that were published, but just what their comments were (made it seem) like no one was watching the movie with any objectivity at all. People were so reactionary to the fact that there were kids in it and there was some moral ambiguity to it. I got very worried and I thought, "God bless. All these people worked so hard on this film, and I might not be able to depend on the critics to support this film." So I thought of all the people -- you know, the writer was very inspired by reading a lot of Stephen King as a kid, and I thought about getting Stephen King to see the film. I found out who one of his assistants was up in Maine and I called her up and said, "Look, I'm an actor; you probably saw me in Twister or Titanic and I made my first film, which is very inspired by Stephen King in many ways and is there a way you can show it to him?" I sent her the "making of" documentary and she liked that. She called back and said, "Stephen will watch the film, but he might not comment on it either way." After about a month, I got a nice note from him, which until recently I had in my back pocket. It was a very short letter, but it basically said that he thought it was unique, edge-of-the-seat entertainment. I got Jim Cameron to take a look at it and Sam Raimi, and they both gave us quotes. I just wanted to steer the audience in a certain direction.

Was there anybody you sent it to, who did not comment? I know you can't say who.

They were the only three I went after. I thought that I could get my trifecta there. Bryan Singer really liked the movie too, but I didn't ask Bryan for a quote. The movie polarizes people, and I think when you make a movie of this kind of intensity, you're not going to go, "Oh, we love it!" The filmmaker has to have his eyes wide open. I think what gives this movie its punch is that the horror is derived from the impotence of children with these crazy adults -- this crazy father ­ and that's an old convention. This movie really has a lot of roots in The Night of the Hunter, which is one of my favorite films.

What were some of the initial press comments?

I wish I still had them; I usually commit these to memory. People just were not ready for it. They thought it was irresponsible and every other thing they call something that they're not sure about.

Has that criticism disappeared?

No, it hasn't. There are a lot people who don't want to participate in the junket, because they don't want to support the film. I saw comments by a guy, who was supposedly a film professor, who called it an "ugly" film. I thought, "Whoa -- and you're teaching students?" Look, if there's one thing about the film I prided myself on, it was that after all my experience out here, if I was going to direct a movie, it was going to look like a real quality, crafted film. I wanted this movie to look like it was produced at Warner Bros. That's why I hired Bill Butler (the D.P.), because he was an old master, who had his roots in the old studio system. I kind of shot it as if I was making the film back in the 60's. All the violence is implied; you don't really see the rubber hit the road.

That's what makes it terrifying.

Absolutely. The imagination of the individual is always more powerful. But, in the original script -- it was pretty tough. There was a cut away to the kid's Charlie's Angels t-shirt getting hit with the splatter, and I was like, "I don't know if I can shoot that." I knew what I was getting into; I knew it was a movie that would polarize people in ways, but I didn't have a political agenda with this film. I just thought it was a good, creepy, old-fashioned, adult, grim fairy tale; a grim parable. This movie is more of an alliteration of stories from the Old Testament. I mentioned this in another interview, but when I was a boy, my dad was a good friend of Thomas Hart Benton, who was a famous muralist and a regionalist painter. I remember Benton when he was a young artist, coming up, he did a series of paintings in modern day, which would've been in the 30's and 40's, depicting classic biblical scenes. He had one called "Susanna and the Elders." Susanna is seen as this kind of like 15-year-old, pubescent girl getting ready to take a bath in a creek near a tree, and behind the tree are two kind of farmer looking guys, who are supposed to be the Elders, and they're in these bib overalls watching. He got so much flak for this, and all he had done is taken an old story and depicted it a modern setting. In a lot of ways this movie is a story of a lot of old stories like that of Abraham, which I always found to be disturbing.

Click for Part Two

Home

Reviews

More Articles

IndieSpeak