Archive for February, 2009

It has been more than 10 years since “Titanic” made Leonardo DiCaprio a superstar, and this week he caps off a golden decade of performances that this status has afforded him (“Gangs of New York,” “The Aviator,” “The Departed,” “Blood Diamond”) with a new movie reteaming him with his “Titanic” co-star and friend, Kate Winslet.

But anyone who expects this reunion film, “Revolutionary Road,” to be another teary-eyed romance in the tradition of “Titanic” is in for a shock. The movie is a very faithful adaptation of Richard Yates’ decidedly unromantic novel about the dissolution of a marriage set in the 1950s in the Connecticut suburbs.

Normally one of the more publicity-shy of movie stars, DiCaprio gave this interview by phone from New York in December. Throughout the 20-minute conversation, he seemed thoughtful, passionate about his new film and aware that it represents an interesting point of reflection on his career.

Seattle P-I: Let’s start with the obvious question: What was it like working with Kate Winslet again after 10 years?

DiCaprio: It was great … better even than I expected. Because … not only is Kate the best actress of her generation, she’s also my dear friend. So working with her again was a pleasure on two levels.

Does having a close friendship with a co-star help your performance — or can it be a hindrance? In this case it was a great help. I don’t think the (marital) fight sequences would have been nearly as good if we didn’t have this trust level with each other.

	Actors Leonardo DiCaprio, left, and Kate Winslet in a scene from “Titanic.”

How exactly did the movie come about?

We’d both mutually wanted to work together again and were trying to find a project. But we knew it couldn’t tread on any similar territory to “Titanic.” That would be silly and would seem as if we were trying to re-create some magic from the past or something. We knew we had to find something that was unique and also good enough to do. And this was it: A story about the disintegration of a relationship as opposed to two people falling in love against all odds. It seemed the perfect kind of movie for us to do.

I understand she was the prime mover of the project.

Yes, she shepherded it for many, many years. She’d just locked her eyes on the novel and was determined to see a great movie rendition of it.

Entertainment Weekly says you were reluctant to do the movie — their story says it took her two years to “coax” you aboard.

That isn’t true, actually. It’s something I said yes to relatively quickly. I think that (misconception) may have came from the fact that Kate had the project so early on, but it wasn’t until Sam (Mendes, her director husband) got involved and all the pieces were there that it seemed real. So maybe the story that I took a really long time to join in is a reflection of that fact. But no — I said yes very quickly. It’s not often that powerful material like this comes your way.

Ed Zwick, who directed you in “Blood Diamond,” said he thought “Titanic” was, in many ways, a traumatic experience for you — and thus this reunion might carry some difficult emotional baggage for you. Did it?

		Warner Brothers
	Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou in “Blood Diamond.”

(Thinks a moment) Well, that’s interesting. … But no, I don’t think “Titanic” was at all “traumatic” for me. I would never use that word in connection with the movie. I think the experience of being thrust into the limelight like that was disconcerting for a 20-year-old. And any bad feelings I (harbor) have nothing to do with the movie itself and everything to do with the post-experience. I’m honored to have been a part of “Titanic.” Because of it, I can get movies financed by my name alone. It’s given me incredible opportunities as an actor. My life since then has been about the question: “What do I want to do with those opportunities?”

Had you read the Yates’ novel before getting involved with the movie?

I’d heard about it and knew it had a cult following. But I’d never read it. And, wow, when I did read it — after reading the script — I was blown away. I’m such a huge fan of Yates now. I really think it’s a literary masterpiece. I don’t think there’s any book I’ve read that comes as close to taping into that unconscious voice we all have in our lives of doubt. Yates was able to capture that in a way I’ve never seen any other author do.

Does that amazing detail of characterization in the novel make your job more daunting?

No, it just gives you so much more ammunition. You really understand your character in a deep, emotional way. In an ensemble piece where, you know, the whole film lies on its performances, to be able to have that kind of subtext is invaluable.

The movie is, in fact, very close to the book, isn’t it — even most of the dialogue?

Sam was really respectful of the book. Everyone was. Our goal was to capture what’s most important about the novel and put it in a two-hour film format. There was no need to change the dynamics of the piece. I don’t like to use the term “Bible” because it’s such a cliche, but I don’t know another word to describe how we regarded the book. It was all so well-written and fantastic.

Was there ever any thought of — or pressure to — take the story out of its mid-’50s period and modernize it?

No. The film is about the 1950s and the loss of individualism and the conformity of the suburbs and the role of the man and woman in the American household of that era. All that stuff is the backdrop of Frank and April’s dilemma. At the same time, the more we worked on the film, the more we realized the ’50s were less and less relevant to the characters’ lives. At the end of the day, the film is about two people trying to be happy in life. That’s what it really boiled down to: the (universal) struggle of any married couple for happiness and satisfaction.

Did you have any qualms about playing a character that many people will find unsympathetic?

Well, the sympathy in the movie shifts from character to character. Obviously, in the beginning Frank is very detestable. He’s sleeping with his secretary and, you know, convincing his wife she has mental problems because he doesn’t have the courage to change his own life. But toward the end of the movie he’s desperately trying to salvage the relationship and not knowing what to do, and becoming more and more of a lost child. I feel great compassion for him at this point. Yates does a terrific job of jarring you as an audience or a reader so you don’t really know who to solidify your faith in. And that’s very human. We’re not just one thing. We’re complicated creatures.

What is it you find to like about him?

I love the fact that he’s incredibly unheroic — that he’s, you know, unable to take that chance in life and make his life better. He’s a product of his environment … his father’s son. At the end of the day, all he really wants is to lead a simple life and have his wife congratulate him for earning a living and that’s it. Any guy can relate to that — to just wanting your spouse to say: “You know what? I can see your efforts. I can see what you’re doing. And good on you.” But he never gets it. A simple dream, unfulfilled.

For the past 10 years you’ve been one of the most famous people on the planet. Do ever get used to it?

I don’t think anyone can really ever quite get used to the dynamic of being famous. That’s just something that you never quite feel 100 percent comfortable with. … You just learn to live with it.

Tom Cruise says it helps him to have a role model — which, for him, was Paul Newman. Do you have anybody in your life like that?

Well, I would agree with him that it’s great to have someone like Paul Newman to look up to. I never met him but, in reflection, to see a man who was such a talented actor, who remained normal and good-hearted and philanthropic and level-headed and yet still managed to do great work until the end of his life … that’s pretty spectacular. But there’s been no handbook on fame for me, and no one I knew well enough who’d been through (the experience of stardom) that I felt I could go to them for personal advice. Ever.

Then where do you get your inspiration?

Mainly by just looking back at what the iconic great actors of the past have done with their careers.

And what did they do?

They put their nose to the grindstone and got to work. They made the most of the opportunity they’d been given. They created … a body of work. That’s what drives me every day. I know I’ve been given a tremendous gift with this career and I’m not going to waste it.

THE ESSENTIAL LEONARDO DICAPRIO

10 films that define his career:

THIS BOY’S LIFE (1993): After a busy career as a child actor (TV’s “Growing Pains”), DiCaprio’s big movie break came with this pitch-perfect, shot-in-the-Northwest film version of Tobias Wolff’s coming-of-age memoir, with Robert De Niro as his abusive stepfather.

WHAT’S EATING GILBERT GRAPE? (1993): DiCaprio earned his first Oscar nomination for playing Johnny Depp’s mentally retarded younger brother in this touching domestic drama about a young man locked in a dead-end life with the responsibility of caring for his dysfunctional family.

	Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio in “Romeo + Juliet.”

ROMEO + JULIET (1996): DiCaprio solidified himself as a dramatic actor with 1995′s “Basketball Diaries,” but it was this modern-day, MTV version of the Shakespeare play that first attracted a vast audience of young women and indicated he had box-office pull as a romantic star.

TITANIC (1997): Despite many clunky moments, the romantic chemistry between DiCaprio and Kate Winslet set against the lavish sinking of the famed luxury liner made irresistible epic entertainment, won 11 Oscars and became the biggest movie hit of all time.

CATCH ME IF YOU CAN (2002): Steven Spielberg directed DiCaprio in what was, up to this time, his best performance: as Frank Abagnale Jr. — a real-life great impostor and serial check-forger who masqueraded as a doctor, an airline pilot and an assistant attorney general.

GANGS OF NEW YORK (2002): DiCaprio was somewhat overshadowed by Daniel Day-Lewis’ Oscar-nominated villain in this gangland epic of 1840s Manhattan, but the gig proved he was much more than a teen heartthrob and began his fruitful partnership with director Martin Scorsese.

THE AVIATOR (2004): DiCaprio received his second Oscar nomination (his first for best actor) for his splendid portrayal of eccentric tycoon Howard Hughes in this surprisingly entertaining biopic — his second collaboration with Scorsese.

THE DEPARTED (2006): DiCaprio played an undercover cop in this third DiCaprio-Scorsese teaming, an Americanized version of the Hong Kong gangster movie “Infernal Affairs.” “The Departed” won the ’06 Best Picture Oscar. (The pair’s fourth film, “Shutter Island,” is due in ’09.)

BLOOD DIAMOND (2006): DiCaprio earned his third Oscar nomination — and gave his most striking and uniquely layered performance to date — playing a Rhodesian-born mercenary in this action-adventure with a message set in the Sierra Leone civil war of 1999.

THE 11TH HOUR (2007): You never heard of this one? Well, you should rent it. It’s a sobering documentary about global warming that DiCaprio wrote, produced and narrated as an expression of what has been his great cause as a celebrity-activist: saving the environment.

– William Arnold