Jared Leto Throws His Weight Behind Chapter 27

by Mallory Potosky | Published April 7, 2008

(Page 2)

MM: You’re a producer on Chapter 27. Did that bring up more interaction on the set than just acting? How did that role come about for Chapter 27?

JL: It’s a different opportunity to participate in a film in a deeper way and have a different set of responsibilities. Obviously that’s a new job for me and a great place to learn a little bit more about that side of things. Essentially, the job of the producer is to help bring the director’s vision to life and to help make the best film that you can, whether that’s dealing with the financial side or hiring a crew or supporting the director or the actors when it comes down to creative battles that you have to fight. But I think if you’re an involved actor, in a sense, you help to produce every film that you’re in. You have a responsibility that goes pretty deep. There’s different ways I guess you can apply yourself—or not.

MM: In this movie, there really isn’t a scene that you’re not in. So did you feel like the movie was totally dependent upon your performance—on-screen and/or off? Do you think it was the subject matter?

JL: I think probably all of the above. It’s an experimental film—it’s not a traditional Hollywood melodrama. It’s different and from the beginning the director had a really unique, claustrophobic vision for this movie; it was an experiment.

MM: Have you seen the movie yet? In a few interviews—at Sundance and afterwards, you said you hadn’t seen it, that you couldn’t even bring yourself to see it.

JL: As an actor, my work is pretty much done when I’ve finished shooting a film. It’s really a director’s movie. I’m not involved with any of the elements once the film is finished except to help support the movie. This is Jarrett’s vision.

MM: Do you generally make it a point not to watch yourself on screen?

JL: I generally don’t watch myself. It’s a strange point of view to look at your acting that way. I think when you’re in a scene with someone, the most important part is that moment right there, not hindsight. But I could be wrong. I’ve seen a few of my films. I saw Requiem for a Dream because it was premiering at Cannes and Darren was adamant that I come see it. I tend to not watch the films because I really don’t have a desire to watch them. I like the idea of not knowing what works or not in hindsight, and kind of having to re-learn and figure things out again each time.

MM: When news of the movie started coming out, there were some people that started to boycott it. What would you say to those people about the goal of this movie, or the subject of this movie?

JL: I would say that it’s not a sympathetic portrayal or trying to cast a positive light on somebody who is clearly a monster. (I mean the term “monster” as in someone who has failed greatly, not as a stereotype.) He was, unfortunately, a very disturbed individual, but he was a human being nonetheless. We were always very concerned to move forward and to operate with the most dignity and respect as possible. It’s not a sensationalistic film. This is the vision of Jarett Schaefer, the writer and director, and it’s a very specific and claustrophobic and strange look into madness and obsession.

COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT

POST A COMMENT

OUR PRIVACY POLICY | We will not publish or sell or share your email address or other personal information. Read more.

Name:
Email:
URL:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

This story was sponsored by

SITE DELIVERY OPTIONS

Home | Latest Headlines
Screenwriting | Producing | Directing | Acting | Cinematography | Editing | Distribution | Education | Festivals | Locations
Listings | Archives | HOP Interviews | Blogs | Forums | Contests | Subscriptions | Advertising

About | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact

© 2008 MovieMaker Magazine

Web site design by Hop Studios