Taking on Graham Greene's The End Of The Affair has seen Neil Jordan back in the saddle after last year's hugely unsuccessful thriller, In Dreams. Paul Byrne caught up with the Irish filmmaker recently.
Having received a mauling at the hands of the critics and a cold shoulder at the box-office with last year's supernatural thriller In Dreams, Neil Jordan is very much back in favour with his latest outing. An adaptation of Graham Greene's celebrated 1951 novel based on the late author's secret romance with married American socialite Catherine Walston, The End Of The Affair reached our screens before, back in 1954. That time out, the bitter, egotistic author and his passionate lover were played by Van Johnson and Deborah Kerr, with Peter Cushing as the cuckolded husband. This time out, the three leading roles are played by Ralph Fiennes, Julianne Moore and Jordan regular, Stephen Rea. Nominated for four Golden Globes, Jordan and his cast left the ceremony empty-handed, something the Irish filmmaker wouldn't have been aware of when we spoke, a week before the winners were revealed.
PAUL BYRNE: Graham Greene referred to the previous big screen outing of The End Of The Affair as the "least unsatisfactory" adaptation of his religious novels�
NEIL JORDAN: "I don't believe him when he said that. There were better adaptations of his work out there."
PB: I'm sure The Third Man would fall into that category, but he seemed to be referring specifically to his so-called religious novels.
NJ: "Have you ever seen John Ford's The Fugitive? Someone told me it was very good actually. The thing about a filmmaker like John Ford is that he would approach The Power And The Glory just as a visual thing really. The thing movies find hardest to express when adapting books is the psychology of it, of an emotionally divided human being. And John Ford was nothing if not a filmmaker. He was a master of graphic, pictorial movies. I think Greene had an uneasy relationship with films because the problem lies in the fact that his books seem to be very filmic when you read them, because he starts with very, very strong images, and the atmosphere of them is usually very intense. I presume that's why they have this term 'Greeneland', all these seedy figures, in the sweat and the rain. But actually when you examine the books, they're all about moral dilemmas."
PB: So what made you take on a Greene adaptation, when so many have failed before you?
NJ: "Well, the guy in the middle of this is not in a moral dilemma. This is unusual in terms of Greene's books in that it's a deeply pitiless portrayal of a bitter, jealous man. And there's something in the novel that's actually very cinematic, because the same relationship is portrayed from several different perspectives. The same series of events are seen through the eyes of different people. The book is all about looking, and what is the truth of these actual events. It only becomes that difficult Greeneland thing in the last third of the story. That's where I had to do the most work."
PB: Was it difficult to decide how far to go with the miracles in Greene's book - you left some of them out?
NJ: "Yeah, it was. In the book, he has about seven miracles in there. Something happens with her child's schoolbook, a lock of hair is taken away, there's a man with a mark. At least four major miracles like that happen in the book; I reduced them all down to one, which I thought showed remarkable restraint."
PB: Given our cynical times, the closing 'miracle' with the private detective's son seems to leave little doubt that a miracle has occurred.
NJ: "I believe these things do happen, without it being attributed to being a miracle. I think these sort of things happen in life, particularly around people with illnesses. You meet people whose hair has gone white over an evening, bizarre things like that. I'm saying in the film that this does happen, the question is whether it's a miracle or not."
PB: Do you believe in miracles?
NJ: "It's the breakdown of rationality, and those things have always been around with me, in my world. But I'm not a religious person, I really amn't. I grew up as an Irish Catholic, so I know all that stuff. There's deeply mysterious things going on in life. I wake up in the morning and I never leave the house; I feel grey and irrational. If I go up on top of Wicklow Mountain, I suddenly feel magnificent, like I'm 22 again. Why does that happen? I don't know. You can wake up some mornings too, and everything is magic."
PB: It always surprises me when someone noted for their liberalism and free-thinking ends up turning to God - I'm thinking mainly of Bob Dylan here. Have you ever been tempted by the Lord in the midst off all your soul-searching?
NJ: "No, I've never been struck that way. I guess I've always considered it as a kind of a cop-out in a way, but then I tell myself it's not really. I've met people like that, who've become profoundly religious, and it always puzzles me. Because I used to be like that as a kid, but I just stopped. Some people get a lot of intensity out of that, but I find it hard because I think it's such a divisive thing. For me, the idea of the mysterious, inexplicable nature of things is always there, but I wouldn't call myself religious."
PB: Stephen Rea is something of a permanent fixture in Neil Jordan films; do you ever look upon him as your alter-ego?
NJ: "No, no, no, no, we just enjoy working together. I can't think of a better actor for those parts. Does that mean I'm Henry? It probably does."
PB: Tim Burton seems to have a similar relationship with Johnny Depp�
NJ: "And Johnny Depp is never really as good in anyone else's movie really, is he?"
PB: Do you feel the same way about Stephen?
NJ: "Well, we have a strong relationship, sure. We started making movies together a long time ago, and I think we've just been very lucky to keep doing that. He's a most unusual actor, Stephen, he's one of the best actors that there are really."
PB: I read in the press notes that Julianne Moore sent you a letter congratulating you on your script for this film.
NJ: "Yeah, she did. And she didn't need to do that. A lot of people were writing me letters for this part though, believe me [laughs]. There are not that many good parts for women out there, you know, and a lot of people wanted that role. There were a lot of upset actresses when I eventually cast Julianne. I won't mention any names."
PB: The Golden Globes nominations must be encouraging.
NJ: "They are, yeah. Julianne's nominated in two categories; I hope she doesn't divide the vote. She's also nominated for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy, for An Ideal Husband. They liked it over there a lot."
PB: Looking back at the negative reaction to In Dreams; do you recognise now why it got such a rough ride?
NJ: "I just thought they hated it. There were problems with the story. The story was a story about irrationality. It was a story about contact between two people through dreams, and I think people didn't really want to go with that. As well as that, it was also about the death of a child. A child is killed within the first ten minutes of the film; that's very difficult for an audience to accept, and in a way, it's very difficult for the movie to recover from that. I was terribly worried about that when I was making it, because when something like that happens, it throws you out of the film. And the danger is you never get back into it. I wrote the final draft of the screenplay, but it was about a story that I was given. And I think maybe the problems with that story were impossible to solve, you know."
PB: How do you feel about the possibility of Oscar glory?
NJ: "For a movie like this, those kind of things are very important. A movie like this is very difficult to get out to a broad audience, and that kind of thing is very important for the movie, for the actors. I hope the actors get nominated. But there are a lot of very good movies out there, so it's tough. A lot of competition out there, and this film is very quiet by comparison."
PB: Given your tumultuous relationship with Hollywood, have you reached a point yet where you want to stay away from films that cost sixty/eighty million plus?
NJ: "A sixty/eighty million dollar movie is always irresistible. Sometimes you want to do things on a large scale, on a larger canvas, and you have to get involved in that kind of budget. The way I go, sometimes I make several small movies, and then I feel the need to make something more visually extravagant. But the truth is, of course, the more money you spend, the more trouble you can get into, and the less independence you have. But you don't always want to work on this scale, so we'll see what happens."
PB: Do you find you have an odd relationship with Hollywood?
NJ: "Oh, very. But then, I don't know anyone who doesn't have an odd relationship with Hollywood. I'm outside of it, so I'm very comfortable not being there. But when I'm there, my relationship is very odd. But it's a big bloody factory there, of course, and they constantly need people to make movies, so they'll give you a chance or two."
PB: What have you got lined up next - I read that you were planning an English-language version of Jean-Pierre Melville's 1955 gangster classic, Bob Le Flambeur?
NJ: "Yeah, I've written a script of that, but I'm not sure if I'm actually going to make it or not just yet. I don't know what I'm going to do, frankly, I really don't know."
Paul Byrne
