| 
Compiled by: Jack Foley
Q. Where did the inspiration for Revolver
come from?
A. It was a culmination of concepts really, but a germ
got stuck in my mind about one particular concept: the con of
all cons.
I’m fascinated by how you can trick the mind and the individual,
and this concept was so audacious, so radical, that I was attracted
to say the least. The formula of the con is quite simple –
you seduce people by their own greed.
We can all be conned but at what point do we realize that we’re
being conned and to what point do we allow ourselves to be conned.
There was a famous book called The Big Con, which works
on the formula that it is impossible to con an honest man. I was
attracted to that idea too.
The great challenge then was to take an intellectual concept and
clothe it in an exciting, action-packed narrative because concepts
are not necessarily interesting to look at. It’s important
that the film delivers on an entertaining level. What you want
in the cinema is entertainment but I like to be intellectually
titillated while being sensorially stimulated.
It took me three years to write this film whereas Snatch took
me three months. Fundamentally, it’s not a very complicated
film, it’s actually quite simple, but to clothe it within
a narrative was quite complicated.
Q. Why did you call it Revolver?
A. I’ve always been surprised that no other movie
has ever been called Revolver because it just sounds cool. So
I like the name but I also like the concept that, if you’re
in a game, it keeps revolving until you realize that you are in
a game and then maybe you can start evolving.
The film is based on the formula of a game: where does the game
start, where does it stop and who’s conning who.
Q. Is it a film with a message?
A. I don’t think there is a message in the movie.
The idea is that that there is no such thing as an external enemy.
Jake Green is playing against Jake Green. That’s quite a
hard concept to get your head around initially – of course,
if there is only an internal enemy, he wouldn’t want you
to get your head around it. So it’s based on the formula
that you can only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent. Who
is the ultimate opponent? Yourself.
Then comes the principle that your enemy will always hide in the
last place that you would ever look. The last place you would
look is inside your head and the last place you would look inside
your head is behind fear.
I’m not saying that formula’s correct, it’s
just a formula and I’m interested in formulas. In this particular
instance, the only opponent Jake Green has to challenge is himself
by doing exactly what he doesn’t want to do.
Q. To that extent, are his experiences an allegory for
life?
A. It’s funny, I never expected as a writer-director
to end up talking about high-falutin’ concepts. I got into
filmmaking because I was interested in making entertaining movies,
which I felt there was a lack of. Jake Green isn’t just
Jake Green. Jake represents all of us.
The color green is the central column of the spectrum and the
name Jake has all sorts of numerical values. All things come back
to him within the film’s world of cons and games. Jake’s
on a journey of how to play the game.
He’s very good at playing games and he’s done very
well out of playing by a certain formula but he didn’t realize
how big and consistent that formula is. He only saw the formula
in its microscopic form and didn’t realize that it could
be macroscopic.
Q. How does he get drawn into the game?
A. One of the first rules of business is to protect your
investment. I like the idea that we do the same with our personal
philosophies. Once we have decided what’s right, irrelevant
of whether we are right or wrong, the more energy we will invest
to protect that. Which is basically how conmen work. They get
you to invest a little bit, then a bit more. They never tell you
to buy something, just take a look. Even looking’s an investment.
Once you’ve contributed some of your energy to looking -
appraising a certain article - then a small investment has been
made. From a small investment comes a larger investment, from
a larger investment comes a greater investment until eventually
you’ve invested so much that you can’t be wrong. Because
if you are wrong, it must mean you’re stupid and nobody
can admit that they’re stupid.
Q. Jake is prompted to invest to counteract the threat
of a fatal disease that’s hanging over him…
A. The only way to handle this concept within an hour
and 45 minutes of film is to cut to the chase, and there’s
nothing quite like death looming on the horizon to precipitate
events. Let’s get the party started, and the only way that
can happen is the imminent threat of death.
Q. If Jake Green represents all of us, what do the other
characters represent?
A. The other characters all represent a certain human
characteristic. Jake, Avi and Zack represent one characteristic.
Then there’s Dorothy Macha, Lily Walker and Lord John, who
represent another aspect of our nature, different aspects of vice,
of which there are lots of ingredients so I wanted to be specific
about which character represents which vice.
Q. Does that mean Jake, Zack and Avi are on the side
of good and the others on the side of evil?
A. I hesitate to use the words good and evil because
this is not a story about morals and ethics, this is simply a
story about the game and there is no right or wrong. It’s
about whether you win and how quickly you can win.
Jake, Zack and Avi represent players who have decided to win in
this game, and that leads into the slightly more radical concept
of how to win the game. We’re all players within our own
little games, so we embody all of these characters, we embody
all the aspects of vice, we also embody all the aspects of competition,
wanting to play the game and succeed in the game.
All of the characters represent aspects of ourselves. For example,
Sorter represents the aspect of our character in which we have
taken a left-turn somewhere and later on decide that the right-turn
might have been the better idea. He represents the u-turn within
us when we think we’ve gone the wrong way or when we’ve
decided to take a different path than the one we’ve been
on, which is of course a terribly difficult thing to do.
|
 |
Q. And who is Sam Gold?
A. I like the idea that Sam Gold is a collective hallucination.
He doesn’t really exist but he does exist. He has no power
of his own, he only has the power that you give him. He’s
as real as you believe him to be.
In the context of the film, he is the opponent, the force that
the individual in the movie has to overcome. Is Sam Gold evil
or is he good? That’s up to the individual to understand.
I love the concept that if this was all a game, evil may not actually
be evil. That if there is such a thing as the devil, the devil’s
only job is to be smarter so that we can become smarter.
I have no idea if this holds water philosophically or theologically,
but it’s a very slick concept. That’s basically what
inspired the film: that the devil isn’t a bad guy, the devil
is just a very clever guy, and the idea that Sam Gold is really
just a very smart opponent.
Q. Where is the film set?
A. The movie is set in no-man’s land. It’s
a kind of transatlantic destination that is really supposed to
be illustrative of East meets West somewhere in the middle of
the Atlantic. In fact, we shot most of it in London and the Isle
of Man, which isn’t quite the middle of the Atlantic but
it’s going that way.
Q. You’ve also worked with Jason Statham on almost
all your films…
A. Apart from the fact that I don’t like him, don’t
trust him and have no respect for him as a chess player, Jason
and I work quite well together.
Actually, Jason forced me into using him. He threatened me with
violence. The rest of the cast I have more affection for. André
was a pleasure to work with. In fact, 95% of the people in my
films have been nothing less than a pleasure to work with. That
goes for Jason, too. I like him and because I like him, it’s
much easier to work with him. He’s a very capable actor
and he embodies what I want to see when I go to the cinema.
I’ve been a big fan of Ray Liotta’s for a long time
and been desperate to use him in something. He wasn’t very
keen about being put into spandex pants and Speedos but once he
got into the spirit of things it was hard to get him out of them.
Q. What freedom do you give the actors to improvise?
A. I like to think that we’ve got a plan, so let’s
stick to it. That said, once we’ve stuck to it, we’re
allowed as much improvisation as anyone cares to indulge themselves
in. You’d be surprised how little indulging one wants to
undertake once you’ve stuck to the plan.
We always have a take that’s “one for fun”,
so once you’ve got what you need, you can do what you like.
Something does occasionally pop out of that tree. I’m always
open to ideas.
Q. Does chance exist?
A. I don’t believe chance exists, no. I don’t
know whether it does but personally I don’t believe in it.
Either there’s order in the universe or there’s chaos.
Either everything is predetermined or, by the definition of free
choice, you can determine it but there’s still no element
of chance. Or there’s the other way of thinking, that it’s
all chaos and there’s absolutely no order and it’s
all chance.
You either subscribe to one or the other. I subscribe to the idea
that there is order although it may look like total chaos, but
I’ve no idea if I’m right.
In the film, Jake’s niece is a good example. She represents
innocence and I liked the idea that she could ride a roller-coaster
that’s collapsing all around but still land on a bed of
cotton wool against all the odds because innocence protects her.
There are infinite examples, of course, where innocence is not
nurtured or cared for, but it all comes back to chance. Do you
believe in chance or not? Do you believe that the universe is
fair or unfair?
Q. What’s the role of violence in your films?
A. My approach to violence is that if it’s pertinent,
if that’s the kind of movie you’re making, then it
has a purpose. There’s quite a lot of violence in this film
but I like to think that it serves the story, that it illustrates
the point we’re trying to convey.
Jason doesn’t take his shirt off and beat anyone up, which
would seem to be the kind of thing that Jason would do as he’s
quite good at it, because it didn’t seem to serve his character
and the narrative. I quite like the idea of Jason keeping his
shirt on anyway.
Q. Does Jason still do all his own stunts?
A. Jason’s game to do all his own stunts. I wouldn’t
allow him to because if he broke his leg or something I’d
be screwed for eight weeks. He’s as game as a train to throw
himself down flights of stairs. I am not so enthusiastic, so I
threw other people down the stairs.
Q. Is there any limit to how violent a scene can be?
A. I think there’s a natural system in your own
head about how much violence the scene warrants. It’s not
an intellectual process, it’s an instinctive process.
I like to think it’s not violence for the sake of violence
and in this particular film, it’s actually violence for
the annihilation of violence. It’s about not letting the
internal enemy, the real enemy, have his way because the more
he does the stronger he becomes. The film’s about the devastating
results that can manifest from the internal enemy being unbridled
and allowed to unleash chaos.
Q. As a writer-director, which aspect of filmmaking do
you enjoy most?
A. You get a different kick out of all aspects of filmmaking.
I suppose directing on set is the most fun because it’s
a good crack and you feel you’re on the battlefield whereas
writing is a fairly solitary undertaking. It’s not easy
to strap yourself down to a desk and bash on a keyboard when you
know you can direct lots of films, because directing films is
fun and interactive and gregarious.
Writing isn’t. It’s very solitary and you need to
exercise a great deal of discipline to do it. I think it’s
in the exercise of disciplining yourself to do it that the most
profit lies. I love dialogue and I suppose writing dialogue is
certainly the most fun.
Related stories: Read
our Jason Statham interview
Revolver - trailer
Revolver - Preview
|
