Susanne Bier on the set of "Things We Lost in the Fire"
(Credit: Doane Gregory/DreamWorks/Paramount)
They also caught Hollywood’s attention. English-language remakes are in the works for “Open Hearts”—to be directed by Zach Braff—and “Brothers”—which will star Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal and Tobey Maguire.
But first, Bier makes her English-language directorial debut with “Things We Lost in the Fire,” starring Benicio del Toro, Halle Berry and David Duchovny. The film follows in the tradition of her most well known work by focusing on a unique family suddenly struck by tragedy.
On the phone from Copenhagen, the director talked to Metromix about her “really sexy” lead actors, the experience of working on a Dogme film and her feelings on remakes.
What attracted you to “Things We Lost in the Fire”?
I loved the script. I felt the material was something that was challenging yet familiar. It felt like the movie should be done, not like a whole lot of other scripts where you wonder, "why is anybody considering making this movie?"
I was extremely challenged by the thought of making a movie in a language which is so much more broadly accessible, which English is compared to Danish and Swedish. You know, as a European director you are brought up with prejudices about American studio movies. Like, ideas that people are going to limit you. But it wasn’t at any time like that. They were at all times really supportive and challenging and saying things at script meetings like, “we’re not looking for anything predictable, we’re looking for something exciting and edgy and innovative.”
There are certain thematic and narrative similarities to your previous dramas, is that purposeful?
I’ve always been fascinated by how the unexpected is going to change your life. A life that you sort of thought you knew in advance. When you’re feeling, "I know what my life is going to be like for the next ten years," in a positive way. And then something unexpected happens. I’ve always been fascinated by that, and probably frightened by it. And I think that’s why it appealed to my curiosity to…I can’t say solve it, but somehow leave that state of things in some sort of hopeful tone. Which I think is extremely important.
How did you decide to cast Benicio and Halle?
It might sound really boring but they were actually my very first choice. I felt like there was a very earnest but also exciting cocktail between the two of them for this particular story. There’s a certain rawness in both of them, a certain…you can say a certain lack of respect for conventions in both of them. And I felt that that was really good shaping that into a family. There’s something about that that I really like. (pause) And then they’re both really sexy. (laughs)
What did Benicio bring to the film that wasn’t in the script?
Well, Benicio brought a lot of humor to the movie. I think Benicio is an actor who cannot not be funny. Because it’s part of this mental buildup. I think he sees the world in a slightly surreal, absurd way. And that comes out [when he] does a scene.
Did you encourage the actors to improv?
I do improvisations, but they’re not loose improvisations. I do treat the script as a starting point everyday. Allan Loeb, the script writer, and myself, we did a lot of work on the script before we started shooting. And there were a lot of rewrites after our conversations. But still, once we were actually shooting, there’s a whole different truth or level that is revealed to you in the moment where you’re shooting and you have to be open to change accordingly. And I do that. So I usually rehearse with the actors in the morning before we start shooting. We start from the script and then we change it once we start really getting into the matter of the scene. But the script is always somehow a skeleton. I don’t like completely loose improvisation. I think they’re boring.
What was the experience of making a Dogme film like?
It was a bit like traveling on luxury trips and then going back to backpacking and hitchhiking. I thought it was really fun and challenging. It taught me a lot. It’s all about discipline. It’s not about not having money; it’s about deciding on certain rules of being that you stick to. I think that a lot of moviemaking is very much about being consistent with your rules for that particular movie. Once you start not having that discipline, most movies tend to fall apart.
There are some big names attached to Hollywood remakes of your work, how does it feel to see your previous films remade?
It’s kind of flattering, and kind of exciting, but it’s also very odd. It’s kind of like your child being adopted by other parents.
Did you ever consider remaking them yourself?
Filmmaking is all about momentum. And I’ve already had my momentum with those stories.
