Interview: Oren Moverman targets the home front in The Messenger

With four recent Independent Spirit Award nominations, The Messenger is receiving some news of its own – and unlike the dreaded notifications that are delivered by the film's military officers, this message is all good. In a recent interview with Moverman, Kimberly Gadette got the chance to exchange a few words as well.

He walks a wide path, this 43-year-old, Israeli-born filmmaker named Oren Moverman. His past screenplays include a scattershot interpretation of multiple Bob Dylans (I'm Not There) and a black comedy/noir thriller set in an impeccably-designed 1949, intrigue and deception buried deep within the heart of the grey-flannelled businessman (Married Life). As both co-writer and first-time director, Moverman brings us a searing look at the casualty notification officers who have one hell of a day job: informing families of their loved ones’ deaths.

Given his background as a paratrooper for four years in the Israeli army (1984-1988), Moverman is no neophyte when it comes to negotiating the minefields of war, both on the battlefield and the home front – where the return to civilian life is, as he states, "like coming back from another planet."

He teamed up with Italian-born producer Alessandro Camon to write a different kind of war film, the two of them seeing themselves, per Moverman, as "foreign men looking to cry in a story about hurt and loss and love on the American home front." As for directing, well, that was a last minute surprise.

Was he up to the job? According to those Spirit Award nominations, as well as all the raves pouring in: mission accomplished. But how did he perceive the process?

IMO: One of my favorite films from last year was that marvelous ensemble period piece you co-wrote with Ira Sachs, Married Life.

OM: Oh, wow.

IMO: I particularly love the line, "Whoever knows what goes on in the mind of the person who sleeps next to you, raise your hand." How difficult was it to jump from an impeccably-designed 1949 John Cheever meets Alfred Hitchcock, to a modern army base in New Jersey?

OM: It wasn't that difficult because they both involve human beings. To me those settings are exciting and they're fun to go to, it's a world that you can explore, but ultimately you're dealing with people. For me, it was a pleasure moving from one set like that to another.

IMO: Was it a challenge to flip from Chris Cooper's character in Married Life, who initially treats murder so casually, to this film depicting people who are devastated by the loss of their loved ones?

OM: Every movie is a challenge. The biggest problem is always tone. Fitting the character into the tone of that character's world; making the tone of the world work for that character. In Married Life, the artifice is on the surface; it's a film that clearly states, "I'm a film." It's a period piece; there's a lot of fun exploring that kind of arena. But when you're making a movie like The Messenger, you have to pay attention to a lot of things that are happening in "reality," and then re-interpret that into a movie version that you can honor without being too self conscious about it. Every project needs to be looked at as a separate entity rather than trying to compare it to others.

IMO: Given the amazing versatility you've exhibited as a writer, do you foresee your directing style to be varied as well, depending on the project? Though this is your first time out, do you feel you've hit a certain stride, the way you eschew the rehearsal process, letting the actors freely play? Is this something you foresee as your own "style," or will you be changing it up a bit?

OM: I have to say, that's really an excellent question; no one's asked me that before. I've been thinking about it a lot and I think that the truth of the matter is that, as you're sensing, I would very much like to apply the same approach to directing (if I'm lucky enough to direct in the future). But I'd have to look at each specific project realistically, differently, every time – at what is right for the project as opposed to what is my style. There are certain directors who I admire like Louis Malle who did that, who took on projects and thought "this is that kind of movie, the style should be that." They were very specific for what was right for the particular kind of storytelling. For The Messenger, it was going to be a performance-driven film no matter what, it was going to live or die with the quality of the performances. This movie was designed to capture those performances. But that's not to say that all the films I do in the future would be following that style.

IMO: The leap, or rather the chasm, from your words on the page to the final product up on the screen: is this the movie that you envisioned in your head?

OM: I have to say this is the film I envisioned, except that the acting is so much better than what I had in my head. (Chuckles.) I'm not a very good actor but I was doing all the parts in my head; when the real actors took on the roles, doing what they ended up doing in the film, it was above and beyond what I'd expected.

IMO: I don't mean to disparage, but I can't see you as that good an Olivia [the romantic lead played by Samantha Morton].

OM: Well, you haven't met me face to face ... (laughs outright.)

IMO: Your expectations about directing: what surprised you most? Things you thought would be easy that weren't; things you thought would be difficult that turned out to be relatively minor?

OM: It's hard for me to pinpoint something that surprised me. Not from an arrogant perspective, but I've spent a lot of time on film sets and I was very familiar with the director's job. There were little surprises every day that ultimately had to do with communicating, how you work with actors, how you work with the crew, all those little things that add up to an experience. But nothing where I found myself saying (takes on a playful, exaggerated tone) "Oh, wow, this is what directing is!" All in all, it was a pretty organic experience.

IMO: You've explained that rather than rehearse, you would talk at length with the actors before the scene, and then turn on the cameras and let things rip. Though over-rehearsal may take away from the spark of the moment, were you ever concerned that too much talk prior to the scene might also tend to defuse the emotion?

OM: The reason I wasn't concerned about that was because I hardly ever talked specifically about the scene. It wasn't as if I would say, "this is how you feel," "this is what you're doing." Instead, it was about what the actor had for breakfast, and what his relationship was with his parents; it was about building characters. We invented stories, creating other movies in the moment. I never worried about the emotion because it was never part of the conversation. Rather, the conversation was "I'm playing this guy, this is where I come from, this is my relationship." I would talk to actors who were playing husband and wife; we talked about their past, how they might have argued about certain things that happened, which we would then bring into the scene.

IMO: What a great opportunity for actors to simply play. Did you find that you had to guide some of the less seasoned performers who might have been a little apprehensive about working with so much improvisation?

OM: Most of the actors had a lot of experience; they were trained New York actors who'd done a lot of theater, film, TV ... so there were few, if any moments where I thought, "Wow, this isn't working." There were always adjustments, different directions to take, but I felt that the actors were versatile in their being able to listen and take direction. It had a lot to do with the wonderful process that we went through with our casting director, Laura Rosenthal, who put some great people in front of me, who was instrumental in making decisions of who was right for what, that gave me all this confidence.

IMO: Speaking of consummate actors, Steve Buscemi has two riveting scenes, depicting a father's path from initial shock to acceptance. How did Buscemi became involved in the project?

OM: He's an old friend of mine. Actually, I've written a script that he's interested in directing. Because of our friendship, it felt right for me to ask him to be in my movie. The first notification scene is his; it felt really good to be surrounded by "friends and family," making me feel very comfortable. He was apprehensive about it because it's a highly emotional scene to go through, and he has a son of his own. But he has such wonderful range and ability, I felt Steve could do something you don't normally see him do. So, yep, I pulled him in.

IMO: If you could work with the shockingly versatile Ben Foster again, writing anything for him that you desired, what sort of character do you imagine writing for him?

OM: He could do anything. But I am planning on working with him again – we have some projects in mind. Yeah, I'm trying to change that "if" into a reality.

IMO: Foster mentioned in an interview that part of his preparation was talking to you, the prior military man, about what it means to be a soldier. Without prying too deep, what did you tell him?

OM: I told him stories about my experiences; how I felt; how certain things were confusing and hard to get through. How coming back from the combat zone is the most difficult thing in the world because it's such an intense, specific experience – and then you come back and you realize that life has been going on without you, that people have moved on. They can't really understand what you go through. And so I think a lot of guys who serve end up not talking to people and internalize their pain, ultimately suffering for it. There's a lot of conversations about the emotional landscape of the soldier in combat.

IMO: In reading about you, it was wonderful to discover that your landing back on the planet had to do with your getting involved in film. How incredibly poetic.

OM: (pauses) Just lucky.

IMO: Do you find that the Israel does a more responsible job in dealing with their war vets, and their integration back into society, than America does?

OM: I don't know if the word is "responsible." In Israel, everyone has a stake in the military because your child will serve, as well your friends and you (up to a certain age), so everyone is connected in one way or the other. It is the center of society, for good or bad – a lot of bad, of course. So there's a tendency to treat the military with a lot more attention. In the US, it's a volunteer army, it's a professional army, and it's marginalized. People don't pay attention because they don't have the same immediate, personal connection to the military. If it's not immediate and personal, it becomes bureaucratic. And as we know, a bureaucracy can only go so far in taking care of people.

IMO: Looking at the casualty notification methodology in Israel (a four-person group plus a psychiatrist and a physician) versus the US (a pared down, two-person team): to the outside eye, it doesn't seem as if the US military system honors the bereaved family very well.

OM: I think the intention is to honor; to the army's credit it's something that they keep examining. What they do these days is send a chaplain with a notifier, and it's become a more personal, warmer approach. But the truth of the matter is, there is no right way of doing this. It's pretty awful. I don't know that I have the answer as to how to do it better, how to do it more humanely.

IMO: Rather than bring up the proliferation of Iraqi war films this year, let's look at World War II and the fact that at the end of last year, six Holocaust-themed films had been released. Do you think audiences can become inured if they're exposed to too much, negating the very effect that the filmmakers intend?

OM: It's a funny concept, the idea of over-exposure, because it's a large discussion that has to do with economics ... just in terms of the subject matter, I don't think there's a problem. To use your example of the Holocaust films, if someone goes to all six, they're probably obsessed with the subject matter anyway. There are all kinds of stories to tell, and I think that it's ultimately the audience's decision if they're going to see it or not. If they're not going to watch them, then there won't be any more films made on that subject matter. Ultimately, there are rules of supply and demand, and I don't see a danger in oversaturation.

IMO: The last question that everyone asks: what's coming up for you? IMDB mentions a writing/directing project, This Side of the Looking Glass, and I also read, germane to the discussion above, that you're looking at adapting Daniel Mendelsohn’s nonfiction book, The Lost: A Search For Six of Six Million.

OM: That's what's up. Some writing work, some directing projects in the future. Right now I'm just trying to finish up the work in support of The Messenger, trying to get people to see it. And I thank you for being a participant in that.

An overview of The Messenger

Having sustained wounds in both the face and leg during a brutal skirmish in Iraq, Sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) is having trouble with his left eye. He may be a decorated war hero, but he struggles with the ghosts of the men he left behind. It's not necessarily what he sees in the somewhat cloudy haze in front of him, but what haunts him in his mind's eye.

Filmed without flourish, The Messenger reveals multiple scenes of anxious family members who, after a few sharp knocks on their door, are flattened with the news that a loved one has died during active military duty. But the film focuses on the two uniformed men who stand rigidly at the front door (Foster and Woody Harrelson), assigned to repeatedly carry out one of the military's worst missions. Sergeant Montgomery's eyes aren't the only ones that hurt – this is a hell of a sight for all of us to see.

The miracle of this film is in its insistence on finding a way back home – to fragile new beginnings giving way to new friendship, perhaps even new love. Along the way, the characters are so breathtakingly rendered, we fall in love: with Harrelson's manic Captain Stone, holding the concepts of proper procedure tightly to his chest like a life jacket, and with Samantha Morton's Olivia, a gentle widow who still reaches out to take care of others in the middle of her own grief. And then there's Ben Foster's Will, his "messenger" akin to that biblical angel sent from on high, who gradually moves from sullen, nearly speechless darkness to an inner light that defies all reason.

Sensitively directed, beautifully written, The Messenger is a perfect meld of character and story, told in alternating rhythms of defiance, grief and humor. It is quite simply a must-see film.

Release date: US: 4 December, 2009 (wide); UK: TBA
Directed by: Oren Moverman
Written by: Oren Moverman & Alessandro Camon
Cast: Ben Foster, Woody Harrelson, Samantha Morton, Jena Malone, Eamonn Walker, Steve Buscemi
Rating: US = R
Running time: 112 minutes