Jean-Jacques Annaud: Mountains, Mantras, and a Movie Star

Q: There was no sign on the set that Brad and Gwyneth Paltrow would be splitting up, was there?

A: They appeared to be a very simple, unified couple. He was very interested in me and my wife--we've been together a long time--and he had a lot of questions about marriage. He was very serious about having children, making a commitment. I don't know what happened. It comes as a shock to me. What I witnessed was that they were very much in love. She was on my shoot the whole time. Brad is very, very serious. I've never even seen him flirting with another woman. He goes into his trailer, listens to music, reads, looks at movies. I think he's under too much pressure from women and needs time to himself.

Q: Did Brad change during the shoot?

A: He became so staggeringly, how do I say, mature. He'd asked me to put certain scenes almost at the end of the shoot, to be in true possession of his character. Which I think worked.

Q: If you hadn't had Brad, could you have made your $70 million movie about redemption?

A: No.

Q: Didn't Brad end up delaying your film by doing The Devil's Own?

A: I was supposed to do Seven Years in Tibet before The Devil's Own, but Mark Canton wanted so badly to be perceived by the Japanese as a man could make such a deal between two stars. Brad always said to me that he would only do The Devil's Own if it didn't harm Seven Years in Tibet. Then Mark Canton called me in his office to tell me that I was his friend, which I didn't know [laughs], and that I should be happy to see there would be a big success between Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford before my movie. I remember saying, "And what if it's not a big success?" He said, "How can it not be?"

Q: Ultimately, you had no choice but to push your movie back?

A: I waited. Then [the opportunity to film in] India fell apart.

Q: Why?

A: I think one reason we couldn't shoot in India was that the Indians were faced with two movies about Tibet. As I understand it, Martin Scorsese's movie Kundun is much more centered on political issues, while my story is the transformation of a man in the frame of the transformation of a country. There was more pressure from the Chinese on the Indians for Kundun. But if the Indian government gave permission to one movie, they would have to give permission to two. I have a strong feeling this was the reality--that India was put in such a difficult position with China that they said no to two movies. But it was a blessing in disguise.

Q: Why?

A: First of all, I would have had to shoot the entire movie at an altitude of 11,000 feet, which would have been hell on my crew and actors. And the telecommunications and roads in India are poor. In Argentina, I built Lhasa, the enormous streets, the houses and interiors. As I couldn't go to Tibet, Tibet came to me.

Q: Did the existence of a rival movie about Tibet have any impact on you?

A: Absolutely not. This competition has happened many times to me. When I did The Lover, it was Indochine. When I shot Quest for Fire, Peter Guber was shooting Caveman. I'm used to it. I start my movie when the actors are ready and when I'm ready, without any consideration of the others.

Q: Will there be enough interest in Tibet for two films?

A: If the movies are good, yes. If they are bad, no. I hope they are good, for obvious reasons. Tibet is such an incredible, unique culture. It works, against all odds. It's a feudal society [pre-1951], there is a king who's a god--but there is harmony. I think it's terrific to keep alive a nation of people who work with totally different concepts. We suffer from materialistic competition. It's all about success and money. Over there, the less you have, the better you feel. It's about happiness and respect. I don't want to sound like a monk, but it's impressive. Why is it that you can be extremely rich, extremely glamorous, extremely famous and be very, very unhappy? What you learn with Tibetans is that you can have absolutely nothing, look like crap, and be in absolute harmony with yourself and lead a happy life.

Q: Are you among the Hollywood Buddhists?

A: No. No. In a way, I resent those people who are parading in front of His Holiness, bent in obedience. I respect the man immensely, but I'm not a Buddhist, I'm a filmmaker. I don't want to convert people. I want to entertain them and give them a glimpse at another civilization. I have seen a lot of Hollywood Buddhists who produce violent movies and give three percent of the gross to nonviolent organizations. That doesn't work for me. I think, if you want to promote nonviolence, don't make violent movies.

Q: In the script, Harrer endures having to be associated with Nazis, but displays a disdain towards them. The recent revelation that he was, in fact, not a casual Nazi, but a member of the SS, creates quite a different picture. Is this revelation of great concern to you?

A: No, because I always suspected that Harrer had connections. One, he never mentions anything in his book. This hole is revealing. I know Germans and Germany very well; I lived there. As a Frenchman, I have parents and grandparents who were very anti-German. I know the guilt of Germany, that most people of that generation were willing or unwilling participants. Harrer was part of an expedition that was an official expedition, therefore financed by the Nazis.

Q: What was your initial reaction to that news?

A: It didn't disturb me. I was happy, because I had guessed it. Sure, I could see it would cause problems. But you know the pleasure when you're right?

Pages: 1 2 3 4