Munich - Eric Bana interview
Interview by Rob Carnevale
Q. The film has drawn some flak from some predictable sources and some from less predictable ones. Do you think that because it has come from both sides that perhaps the correct balance has been struck?
A. I think it’s a pretty healthy sign. There’s no way you’re ever going to get a whole bunch of people to sign off on what actually happened. No one is going to be able to get that document so in the end we’re having to deal with some indisputable facts and some poetic licence. I guess I trust that we’ve achieved a pretty good balance. There’s a bunch of facts that just aren’t in dispute – 11 athletes were slaughtered, there was a response and as a result a bunch of terrorists were assassinated. How you join the dots, whether he was driving a brown car or a yellow car, or using a bomb or a gun, does not change the central themes and moral complexities of the film. So a lot of this stuff you’re talking about was predictable and a healthy sign that the film has begun to achieve what Steven wanted it to.
Q. Was the accent had to master and did you get a lot of rehearsal time?
A. Not a lot of rehearsal time but a lot of preparation time. I had nearly two years to get ready. The Israeli accent wasn’t one that I was overly familiar with so had to learn from scratch but I was very fortunate I had the right amount of time.
Q. How much research did you have to do into the events surrounding Munich itself?
A. It was a bunch. Some of it I was aware of just through history and so forth but nowhere near aware enough to play the role of Avner. The thing that was important to me about playing an Israeli in such a sensitive environment was being better equipped with the history of the region. Growing up in Australia, Middle East politics and history is not something we’d studied at school. So that was the area I really wanted to concentrate on because it was important to me, personally, and I felt that it would affect the character. There’s obviously then a bunch of other stuff to do with historical facts and you essentially have to come up with a character in your head. But the more you know, the more it helps affect the final outcome.
Q. Did you ever get to meet the real Avner?
A. I was able to meet with him and he was very generous to me. It was extremely beneficial because you can always learn some things that are not on the page or not expressed – things that he might say, or things that he might not say. In the end, you can never have too much information, or too many thoughts or instincts. It all sits in your subconscious, so being able to meet with him was very, very interesting.
Q. It looked like a very physically and emotionally draining film to make. What kind of effect did it have on you?
A. It was. I don’t like to come at my character from some really technical place. I always find that 90% of the performance, for me, is about what comes from inside. I’m not really interested in manufacturing those things, they have to be very real so it’s about finding those places and the character was very taxing but also very rewarding. Steven [Spielberg] creates an incredible working environment. We were shooting a 170-page script in three months which, for him, is not unusual. But the beauty of that for me was that I was able to get into a zone and maintain that zone for the duration of the film. I was very depressed at the end of the film that we’d actually finished and that it was all coming to an end because it was just the most incredible experience. He works with an unbelievable crew of people. They are like a football team. You arrive and you feel like you better step up to the job because you’re on the field with the greatest team in filmmaking, arguably, because they work together all the time.
Q. You’ve worked with two of Hollywood’s greatest filmmakers, so how would you compare working with Steve Spielberg and Ang Lee?
A. They’re obviously both incredibly diverse in the types of films they’ve made but they couldn’t be more different to work with. Steven is completely different with the actors than Ang. Ang is far more in his world and not as engaged with the actors on a day to day basis. He’s obviously very meticulous and equally as brilliant but they just work differently. Steven is a little bit more of an audience member and gives more feedback. He’s extremely enthusiastic by the monitor which is wonderful.
Q. How did it feel to work with Geoffrey Rush? And the rest of the cast? Did you have much time to get together with the other members of your team off-camera?
A. We had a lot of time because we were shooting so much of our stuff together. We did hang out together. We were all away from home on location, which is always great. It always enthuses the production with a different energy and especially in this case, working on this subject matter, it was a very close knit team. My immediate team – Ciaran Hinds, Daniel Craig, Mathieu Kassovitz and Hanns Zischler – were very close and spent most evenings together.
Geoffrey Rush was an exceptional thrill for me because he is from the same city as me, Melbourne, and we know of each other and have met vaguely. We got to know each other through international flights between Melbourne and LA over the years during which we’d sit down and talk and eat and drink together and that had been the basis of our relationship. So when Steven told me he was going after Geoffrey for the role of Ephraim I was really excited and thrilled that he took the part. In some ways it kind of reminded me of our own lives in that our characters during the course of the film come together for these moments and then disappear and re-appear. It kind of feels like us in real life.
Q. What’s your own opinion about the Israeli response to Munich. Was it justified or not?
A. That’s a tough one. It’s really idealistic in some ways to say that you shouldn’t respond to a response that’s obviously going to be different for every set of circumstances. If you come up here and punch me in the face, I’m going to want to punch you back, so it is a very challenging notion. The film and real life is right now dealing with that complex issue and how people respond to it is very, very individual.
Q. Did Spielberg ever talk to you about how he saw the context of the story and what his take was on it?
A. We were so into what we were shooting on a day to day basis. I always knew that this was a very passionate project for Steven and one that was very close to his heart and that he felt very, very strongly about. So it was obviously very important that the film be balanced and challenging and I think that was the priority. On a day to day basis we never really stroke in broad brush strokes about this is where the film is going to end up, or this is exactly what it’s going to be. He’s very instinctual and on a daily basis was just responding to what was occurring on the set. He was never completely set in his mind as to what the scenes were; they’d kind of evolve in front of you and constantly be changing and adapting to it. That was very exciting to work in that environment. You never felt like you got there at the beginning of the day and this is what this scene is, this is what it’s going to be, this is the point at which your character is going to change. It was never that. You had loose discussions and then while you were organically working your way through the scene he would suddenly go ’ you know what, this is not the right place for us to be doing this right now, let’s change it – in fact the scene that’s written to come after this one is gone now, I’m not even going to shoot it’. He’s very, very reactionary and not at all set in his ways. He’s constantly evolving his thoughts and so forth.
Q. Do you agree with the message of the film?
A. I think the message of the film is different for whoever sees it. Do I agree wholeheartedly with what Steven has made? I couldn’t be more proud of this film and couldn’t be more excited to be associated with everything that Steven has done in relation to it.
Q. When terrorist incidents took place in Israel during the filming did you feel any empathy with the Israeli or Palestinian sides?
A. There were a lot of moments. We were filming when the London bombings were occurring for instance, so that was obviously very poignant because we had a predominantly British crew. It gets to a point though where you are so consumed by what you are doing on this daily basis that you almost can’t afford to take on what’s occurring in the outside world. That may sound incredibly naive but you would not have the movie you have if we’d been distracted by events that were occurring outside the confines of our sets every day. So me personally, no you can’t take it on, you can’t consider it. You have flashes or moments when you occasionally catch a minute of the news and go ‘oh my God’ but that only spurs you on, gives you energy and makes you realise that if you’re lucky enough to be involved in a film that’s about something very real and that you hope will continue to hold up in 20 years time it just gives you more energy and makes it feel all the more worthwhile.
Q. The film is very much about the emotional impact the events had on Avner, so did the role live on with you for a long time afterwards?
A. Yes the character did stay with me and he’s still with me today. It does take a long time to shake them off as the deeper they go inside you, the harder it is to get rid of them. What I mean by that is that it’s an actual physical thing. If you’re playing a character that has his senses so raw, you end up in a place that’s similar. I’m not saying that you carry the character to the point that you’re a pain in the arse to everyone around you. But you maintain that zone in your head so I became extremely anxious. I didn’t get a whole lot of sleep during the making of the film, I didn’t seem to need it. You just fundamentally change as a person. You just get to a place where you’re very raw. So the character does have a very real effect and it does take a while to change because you go home and you’re picking up the kids from school and you forget what time of the day it is school finishes. It’s been the same time for the last three years but you can’t keep that information in your head because that’s not the part of your brain that you’ve been actively employing for the past six or 12 months. So it does have a very practical effect on how you are at the end and how long it takes to shake off.
Q. One of the more challenging scenes comes when you’re making love to your wife which is set against the background of the killings of the actual Israeli athletes. Was that one of the toughest scenes to do?
A. Yes it was tough. There were at least a dozen really difficult scenes in the film but that’s essentially what you live for as an actor. There were at least a dozen really difficult scenes in the film but that’s essentially what you live for as an actor. But the one you mention was in some ways and not in others. It’s weird, in some ways it was one of the easiest scenes for me. I wasn’t the least bit perturbed by it, I wasn’t the least bit concerned. I think it was a very brave scene and just another example of how brave Steven is as a filmmaker.
Q. But do you think it borders taste?
A. Not for me it doesn’t. I thought it was an incredibly touching scene. You have a man who was finally at home, finally back with his wife in the most intimate of settings and he cannot exorcise the events from his mind. He has not found peace, he has not found any closure and he has not been able to get the memories of what happened out of his mind. But that’s one part of the scene. To me, the most powerful part of that scene was the reaction of my wife at the end of it. To me, that’s what that scene was about as much as the physical acts of the flashbacks to Munich and so forth. The actress who plays my wife, Ayelet Zorer, did the most incredible job. I thought that was one of the most brilliant female characters I have ever seen on film.
Q. There’s an incredibly stirring shot of the Twin Towers at the end of the film. Would a film like Munich have been made without those kind of incidents as it has such striking relevance now?
A. You’d just be taking a guess. I really don’t know. I was in a movie called Black Hawk Down which I shot just before September 11. We shot that in Morocco and got out of that country at the beginning of July and then two months later there was the attack on the Twin Towers. The movie then came out in December and so that kind of atmosphere is not something that was unfamiliar to me. You never really know what effect those world-wide events have on things. This project most definitely felt like one that was related in some way to what was happening on the news in a practical sense because the film was about to shoot quite a few times and then Steven decided to keep working on the script and change the beginning of the production. So every time that happened you just hoped that something wasn’t going to happen that was going to stop this film from being made. It’s not every day that you work on a film where the 6 ‘o’ clock news may have some bearing on whether or not you actually get it made. I was very relieved when we finally did start production.
Q. As an actor you spoke about the luxury of having two years to research your character. Is that a blessing or a curse in some ways? Would you rather have something that you can prepare for in two weeks and allow your imagination to take over?
A. You still let your imagination flow. There are times when you can get away with it and there are times when you can’t. For me personally, I couldn’t have got away with it on this film. There’s an accent to learn and some history that’s very, very relevant to the character that you have to understand. There are times in our job where you can do that but this wasn’t one of them. It’s also very risky when you’re playing a central part in any film to not have had the right amount of preparation time. But do I relish the idea of playing a character where you’re not playing the lead role and where you can turn up and absolutely go crazy? Absolutely. I’m trying to find one of those as we speak.
Q. You mention flying between LA and Australia. Do you feel under any pressure to actually move to LA full-time? Do you dislike LA?
A. I love LA. I don’t dislike it. I love London, I love Malta, I love New York, I love Sydney but I just happen to love Melbourne more than all those other cities. It’s a bloody stupid idea if you ask me because it means that I’m quite often away from home and it’s a very impractical choice but it’s not one that I have a say in because it’s home. Home is one of the themes that I really loved about this film. One of the central themes of the film is about home and it was one that I definitely related to. The Palestinians in search of a home, the Israelis in search of a home. Home for some people is a geographical place on the map and for others it’s just a mere notion.
Q. You have played a lot of serious roles to date but your background is with stand-up comedy. What can you bring from stand-up comedy to a part like Avner?
A. My background was actually a mixture of stand-up and sketch comedy and sketch comedy I prefer. What it does do is, especially when you’re working in fast turnaround sketch comedy (which all TV is), it forces you to rely on your instincts. As well prepared as you can be for a character there are times in the middle of a scene where something’s not working and no amount of preparation is doing you any good, where you have to completely fly by the seat of your pants and go with your gut instinct. Having a comedy background does help because you’re more used to flying in that area than someone who’s not been in that world. It also makes you braver and puts you in a position where you very rarely can be embarrassed professionally because you’ve done some pretty weird stuff before and nothing that a director or script can come up with can be any more humiliating than anything I’ve done. So it can be beneficial, yes.