The cinematic lore is strong with John Malkovich and Sam Rockwell. Between them, they have played some of the most memorable — and deliciously sinister — characters of all time: Valmont in “Dangerous Liaisons” and Cyrus the Virus in “Con Air” for Malkovich, and Officer Dixon in “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” and Wild Bill in “The Green Mile” for Rockwell. (Not to mention his unhinged mercenary-turned-Buddhist-on-a-bender Frank in “The White Lotus.”)
Now they’ve come together to portray the jaded C.I.A. agents at the center of the darkly comic drama “Wild Horse Nine,” the latest from the writer-director Martin McDonagh (“The Banshees of Inisherin”). Set right before the 1973 Chilean coup, the story follows the garrulous pair as they head from Santiago to remote Easter Island on a pivotal mission. It’s pivotal for many reasons, not least because Chris (Malkovich) is dying and may or may not have been involved in a presidential assassination; Lee (Rockwell) is tasked with keeping his ornery, loose-lipped partner in line.
“They’re kind of these two quintessentially American jackasses,” said Malkovich, 72, sitting down with Rockwell, 57, for a video interview in Telluride, Colo., the morning after flying in from the Venice Film Festival, where their movie received a 14-minute standing ovation and glowing reviews. “Instead of talking about the moral efficacy or repercussions of killing people, they talk about the etiquette of killing people if and when they’re eating. But it never occurs to them to discuss, really, should we be killing people? They’re both kind of very childish and they both, in their own ways, have the weight of the world on their shoulders.”
It’s a tonal tightrope act for sure, but their co-star Mariana di Girolamo, who plays Monica, a college student who befriends the pair, says the actors’ mutual respect eased the way. “They get along very well and admire each other so much,” she noted.
Here are edited excerpts from my conversation with Malkovich and Rockwell.
Offscreen, you’ve known each other awhile. You met in 2000 through Terry Kinney and worked together on 2005’s “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.” What was your first impression of each other?
ROCKWELL [Mock gestures at Malkovich] A real [expletive].
MALKOVICH We had a great time. Sam is an actor who isn’t at all pretentious and isn’t at all precious, but has a great work ethic, takes it very seriously and conversely loves to have fun doing it. And I think those two different facets need to go together. Sam is really a student a thousand times more than I am of the science of acting, of why this works and that doesn’t work. He sees films constantly. He’s constantly referencing performances, can talk about why they’re compelling, why they’re unique. I was never that much of a student in that way.
Sam, what is it about John that’s compelling and unique?
ROCKWELL [Cups his hands over Malkovich’s ears] Earmuffs, earmuffs! I look to John as a hero. He’s dangerous, emotional, vulnerable. He has all the goods. The thing that makes him really special is that he has the yin and the yang of femininity and masculinity. Meaning he’s got this almost primate masculinity and this kind of vulnerability, femininity of a ballerina at the same time. He has this style and grace, and then he could also, like, take your head off physically. Which makes him perfectly cast for this role.
What do you think it is about the movie that audiences are responding to?
MALKOVICH I think it’s a number of things. First of all, it’s kind of bookended by two national tragedies and traumas. And both had international repercussions: The assassination of John F. Kennedy and the coup against the democratically elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende. The Kennedy assassination, for those of us who were alive at that time, that’s probably the major trauma of my lifetime as an American citizen. Don DeLillo, who wrote the book “Libra” about the Kennedy assassination, referred to it as the seven seconds that broke the back of the American century. And I would concur. As Tom Waits’s character [in “Wild Horse Nine”] says, “The country went to [expletive] after that.” And Chris said, “The country was already [expletive]. You just didn’t know it.”
ROCKWELL Remember “In the Line of Fire” [[the 1993 action thriller that co-starred Malkovich as a would-be presidential assassin and Clint Eastwood as a Secret Service agent who failed to save J.F.K.]?
MALKOVICH Yeah. That’s almost the defining point that the country was already [expletive]. Certainly for most people, that was a kind of irreparable act that shattered a lot of illusions and cost a great price in innocence and its end.
I rewatched “In the Line of Fire” before this interview. John, here’s something your ex-C.I.A. agent character says: “Do you have any idea of what I’ve done for God and country? Some pretty [expletive] horrible things. I don’t even remember who I was before they sunk their claws into me.” That felt like a full circle moment after watching “Wild Horse Nine.”
MALKOVICH Frankly, I would say that “Wild Horse Nine” is considerably deeper, and I’ll tell you why. He talks about people sinking their claws into him, but these characters are the claws. So here you have people who are personally responsible for killing all kinds of rather important people. It’ll be interesting to see how an American audience responds to this, and most especially not an American audience of so-called elites or coastal types, but how Americans in the heartland respond to it.
McDonagh has said that he had originally written your characters as a father and son and other variations before landing on colleagues. But there’s still that father-son dynamic. What did you draw on for that? Did your long-term friendship inform that at all?
MALKOVICH I think so. And when you’re the elder one by many years, it’s a kind of natural thing. You’ve lived a number of lifetimes. But this really portrays two people who have a profound love for each other. And like each other’s company. In the film, they drive each other nuts; we don’t drive each other nuts.
This movie feels like not a literal sequel, but a spiritual sequel to another dark buddy movie of McDonagh’s, “In Bruges” (2008). Were you fans of that film?
MALKOVICH Very much so. We’re both also fans of Colin [Farrell] and Brendan [Gleeson]. It’s a terrific film.
ROCKWELL There’s a lot of parallels. Colin is the truth sayer. John in this, he’s the truth sayer. Martin always has a truth sayer in his pieces. Frances McDormand being the one in “Three Billboards.” Someone who tells the truth, whether it’s offensive or not. “In Bruges,” I’ve watched that a lot, for different reasons. Colin’s portrayal of guilt is really extraordinary.
The thing about a great performance like John’s or Colin’s is that it simmers throughout. So you just see the tip of the iceberg. With Colin, for example, the guilt is always there in every scene. And it comes out in a couple of scenes. But if you watch that movie carefully, which I have, it’s always there. When it surfaces, it’s very deep. Very, very profound guilt. And I think John has a similar thing that brings pathos to this movie.
Sam, you’ve worked with Martin on three movies and a play. What is it that makes you want to keep going back?
ROCKWELL He likes actors. It helps when directors have social skills. They can look you in the eye and say good morning and talk to you and tell you what they want. And he always gets the best tennis players. When you get a tennis player like Frances McDormand or John Malkovich, you really want to step up and meet that.
John has the gift of fury, and I know that Martin needs that in his pieces. For me, I had to go to years of therapy and I need three mochaccinos before I do an angry scene. I might have to beat a rubber trash can with an umbrella. But John, at a very early age, had access to his instrument.
John, is it an impossible question to ask how you access that?
MALKOVICH No, it’s a good question. Sam and I were talking about it yesterday. See, my theory is it’s there. Meaning, if you’ve had a life, it’s there. Just get out of the way.
ROCKWELL Exactly. That’s true. And that took me years to learn, were it not for him.
MALKOVICH I was talking about a film I did with Julia Roberts [“Mary Reilly”], and I was very much taken. Her [emotions] are just right here. It’s not a problem for her. For some people, it’s a problem. I would suggest that that’s because they’re thinking about it too much. The thing we do in life is very different to what a lot of actors do in acting. When you have emotion in life, 99.9 percent of people — so that excludes sociopaths and psychopaths — try to subjugate their emotions, to block their emotions. So why is that any different in storytelling? Emotions are still there. People who have easy access to them are just, they’re out of their way. I’m not in my way. It comes and I don’t question it or worry about it or call upon it. I just get out of the way.
ROCKWELL Wow.
MALKOVICH Because I know it’s there. We all had childhoods. We all had our griefs and sorrows and problems and wishes and dreams like everyone else. And in good material — most material isn’t that good — but in good material, that is boiling. Right underneath, like a bottle that you shook for 10 blocks and you just take off the cap and let it go.
How do you feel about the awards buzz? I know you’ve been hearing it. You’re both being talked up for Oscars for your performances here.
ROCKWELL Buzz, buzz, buzz. Yes, well, it’s always flattering to hear stuff like that. But at the end of the day, it’s buzz buzz.
MALKOVICH [Smiles and waves away the question] Working, working.
The post John Malkovich and Sam Rockwell Get Real appeared first on New York Times.
