SUBURBAN BLIGHT: An interview with The Safety of Objects stars Dermot Mulroney and Jessica Campbell. By Warren Curry 3/2/03 Part 2 of 2

Dermot, you are so versatile in what you do that I'm sure Hollywood has a hard time pigeonholing you. How does that affect you in getting parts? You can't really define a Dermot Mulroney part.

DM: Well, they don't hire me for most of their stuff, so they're either confused or they don't care, either of which is fine with me, because what I end up doing is films like this. But I've dabbled in the mainstream. (laughs)

You sound amused by this.

DM: I'm amused now. I've definitely gone through phases of being completely perplexed or mystified, but I've moved beyond that to simple robust acceptance.

Dermot, you're going to be in the next David Gordon Green movie. You must be looking forward to that.

DM: You bet. I'm just getting to know him now, but it's a great script. It's a small part; I don't really make it past page 35 -- not to ruin it for you. (laughs) It's an important part and I think he's an important filmmaker, so I was thrilled when he contacted me. He's a great guy, and young -- 26 or 27.

What is the difference between working on a mainstream film and one like this? Also, which do you prefer?

DM: Well, this (film) was maybe too much, but I do like to work more quickly, and if you have less money, you have less time and you have to work faster. That way you can just maintain your character. It's amazing the things I've learned in my trailer while working on big movies -- like how to play the guitar. (laughs) You have all the time in the world and it's nice when you don't have that time. That, to me, is the biggest bonus -- when you can actually work at a speed that helps an actor instead of hinders one.

Is it because the more time you have to think about your character, the less spontaneity?

DM: Partially that, partially just boredom and that can be very corrosive to the creative mind. Basically, it boils down to not have anything to do while you're waiting and then you do start over-thinking. You can have this one big scene in this whole huge shooting schedule, then the day comes for your big scene and (boredom) can affect your mood, which affects your ability to access your feelings.

JC: When we were shooting Election, it didn't feel like a big budget movie at all. It felt very small budget, but I did notice that there was quite a bit more tension on the set of Safety because there was this constant underlying panic. I remember there were a couple of times when we had to adjust the camera and something would be wrong. Normally, on a larger movie, I don't think it would've been such a big deal, but for this, where time was so pressed, people started to panic.

DM: I panicked. I took Rose aside and gave her such a talking to. She stood up to it like a champ; it was horribly timed. I couldn't have picked a worse day to fight with the director!

JC: I think sometimes communication was a problem. A bunch of us flew home and then had to fly back the next day. That was a mess; sometimes communication was a little bit lacking.

What was it like to work with Rose?

DM: Right from our first conversations on the phone I thought she was dynamite. She's really sharp and having written the script as well as she did, she was so specific. She'd be really subtle and really private with you. She's a very fascinating person.

Your characters (Jim Train and Julie Gold) had an interesting connection to each other -- something that almost seemed to transcend friendship.

DM: I don't know how much of that's intended. What I know is intended is to see Jim completely fish-out-of-water and looking to make connections anywhere that he can find them, including the teenage babysitter and her friends. Obviously, this guy's a man adrift.

JC: The way I saw it is that my character recognized his character's weirdness and was kind of like, "Cool -- weird old guy!" Plus, "Hey, he's going to help me win this car, so why not."

DM: There are sexual undercurrents in this whole movie; you can find them anywhere you look. Some are more evident than others -- my son (Jake, played by Alex House) and the doll, that one's pretty clear. (laughs)

How do you think that the relationships between these characters and their objects -- like Jake and the doll and Julie and the car -- characterize the film? What do you think audiences are going to come away with after seeing this film?

JC: I think, at worst, people are going to walk away thinking, "What was that? What's the connection between the title and the film," but at least they'll be thinking about it. I think what Rose was trying to get across is that people project their insecurities and things they might want out of life onto something they know they can have. Something that's safe -- like the doll; that could be intimacy, that could be friendship, that could be companionship, but it's not something he has to exert himself to get. It's his and he has it, and maybe it's a little bit of a delusion, but it's something he has. For me, for my character, the car is an object my mother's going to work to get me that represents all of the love, the attention and affection that I never got, which she always gave to my brother. But if she gets me that car, it'll all be o.k., because that car is a manifestation of everything I don't have but want. In the end when they give up their objects, they've moved beyond these things that they focused on falsely and gotten to the core of what the real problem is.

DM: For Jim, it's something as simple as a catcher's mitt. In our story, that's all he needed to be reminded that he's a human, who had been a child, had been happy once, had a fulfilling life and then he sees that he does have (fulfillment) in his family.

What do you gain from working on this project as far as working on your craft?

DM: I gained a lot from this project in that regard, largely because (Jim's) in a more mature place in society than other characters I've played. I thought this movie was really hard to figure out. I've always liked to solve puzzles and this had aspects of that, where sometimes movies are really clear and there's only one way it ought to go. This film could've gone any number of ways, even with this character who is pretty well drawn.

Why do you think that, for lack of a better description, "suburban weirdness" is a popular topic for movies these days?

DM: Well, you can go back to Blue Velvet, so it's been going on for years. Maybe it's a sub-genre, but it's not like there's dozens of these films. When we started shooting this, it was closer to when American Beauty came out, so I made that reference in my mind -- you learn what's really going on in the suburbs. But I don't think there's that many of these movies.

JC: I think in cinema for a long time there was a theme of not focusing on real people or what we're used to experiencing; it was more like glamour or war -- something a little bit bigger. I think right now we're just rejoicing in the fact that there is no such thing as normal, so we're pointing it out every chance we can get. The suburbs still maintain a little bit of that "50s, perfect life, everybody's happy." Well, they're not, and I guess that's the point -- nobody's normal.

Talk about this interview, the movie, etc. on the message boards.

Home

Reviews

More Articles

IndieSpeak