Any movie that has that much of you in a Speedo [Gugino's character seduces him in a swimming pool] had to have been a pain in the ass to prep for.
Literally. Uh, yeah. No, I - somebody downstairs was just telling me they think that Speedos should be outlawed in films, and I really couldn't agree more.
Did it give you a little empathy for what actresses go through?
No. [Laughs] Not at all. It gave me a deep level of insecurity of what I was going through, but it's all right. It's over. Preserved on film forever.
Well, it's nice to have that kind of snapshot that you can look back at in your dotage.
For my children to see years from now.
Have you played a lot of fathers since becoming one yourself, or is this one of your first?
No, it's not my first. I've played a few fathers. I guess what jumps to mind is A Walk on the Moon in the '90s.
But that was before you were one yourself, though.
Yes.
Do you think that the real-life experience puts something in your quiver that wasn't there before?
Absolutely. I think having recently become the father of two small boys, when I got the script, that was a big part of its appeal to me, exploring those themes and getting a jump on raising an adolescent son.
Having become a parent yourself, does it change your dynamic with your own parents? Do you see things through their eyes more?
Yeah, it gives you a level of empathy for what they went through. And also the... You know, I think that we forget that our parents are human beings. They fall under the massive umbrella of "Mom" or "Dad," and they aren't allowed to be much else. And I don't know that you really understand that as profoundly as you do once you have children: that while it's an incredible experience -- and in my case, the greatest experience of my life -- there's a sadness and a loss of identity, too, that I think within a year of having my first son I identified and wanted to talk to my mom and dad about.
I was thinking about this because you've played Orson Welles [in HBO's RKO 281], but there are films in his career that he basically made as an actor so he could raise the funds to finish Macbeth or Mr. Arkadin or whatever. Or John Cassavetes starred in some movie so he could afford to make Faces. When you do a Wolverine or a Salt, is that a way for you to buy yourself eight months on stage?
No. Uh, although that is a nice side effect. I do them because I really need variety. It's very important to me that I mix it up, both as a person and as a professional. It makes the job easier, and it informs the other work. I think it's a reciprocal relationship between film and theater, and even independent films and large-budget films, that they inform each other, and to me, it's important to continue to do them all, as much as possible. I just think that that's what makes you grow as an actor.
And are you planning to direct anymore? [Schreiber directed 2005's Everything is Illuminated.]
I would love to. I've been in perpetual development on a couple of things, which I think is bad luck to talk about. The driving project of the past three years has been our two sons, so it's been difficult to write, and that's kind of a critical element of getting things off the ground. I'm hoping that as they get a little bit older, some time will open up.
It's also such a weird time for indies. You hear from filmmakers like John Waters who say, "I can't get $10 million to make a movie, and I don't know anyone who can." Even people on the super-low-budget end are finding it harder to get their money together. If you don't want to make a $100 million movie, nobody wants to make the $8 million movie.
It's true; it's a tricky economic climate for films. But you can't let that stop you. If you've got something, you've got something, and I kind of believe there's always financing for good films.
Does the cachet you get from doing Hollywood films allow you to take on more challenging material onstage? Where you become the selling point, so the script doesn't have to be a musical based on an old movie?
I think that was probably true earlier on in my career, where I wonder sometimes if I hadn't done Scream, would I have done Hamlet? [Laughs] But I think staying in New York and maintaining a fairly consistent presence in the theater and being fortunate enough to be part of some productions that were commercial successes in New York is more what drives my currency as a theater actor, I think.
They're separate industries, but there's no doubt that Hollywood has a box-office allure to a lot of New York theater-goers. I just get a little bent out of shape when I hear people complaining about Hollywood actors -- quote-unquote, even though I've never lived in Hollywood my entire life -- overrunning the theater and exploiting the New York theater, when in fact, many of those people they are calling Hollywood actors have been theater actors their whole lives but were fortunate enough to have movie careers and make substantial livings. And why wouldn't they want to return to their home and to a form of work that is completely different and rewarding in an entirely different way than film?
On the Social Network DVD, Jesse Eisenberg says that as an actor, he doesn't find film as fulfilling, because at the end of the day you've done two scenes or four scenes, whereas in the theater, you get to do the whole thing every night. Is that a big difference for you? Are you able to leave a day of shooting with a sense of completion or fulfillment?
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more: You fulfill a narrative arc every night on the stage. And I think also that film is a director's medium, it's really a director's and editor's medium, while in the theater, it's yours. While you're onstage, you own it. The structure, the shape, the tone belongs to the actor, and I think that's a satisfying feeling for a lot of actors.
Since this interview will be for the film's DVD release -- are you a home-theater person? Do you watch movies on DVD? Do you watch extras?
I do watch DVDs, and if the movie really grabs me, I'll watch the extras. But the movie has to really grab me.
I've spoken to other actors and directors who say they never watch the extras because they feel like they already know what goes on behind the scenes.
I don't watch the commentaries, only because I don't tend to watch movies more than once. But the times that I have listened to commentaries, they're really fascinating. I really do think they're interesting. And for real film buffs -- which I suppose I should be, but I guess I'm not -- I completely understand the appeal behind listening to the director and maybe one of the actors talking about the process they went through. There's just not enough time in the day.
Have you done any commentaries yourself?
No.
Really? Not even for Everything is Illuminated?
It was such a rush to get that DVD out, they were just pushing us like crazy.
For Every Day, because the character is a TV writer living in the rarefied atmosphere of show business, but the film is about the day-to-day struggles of family life, did you feel like you had to ground him? Given that he's in an unrelatable profession for a lot of the audience, did you have to play up his Everyman side?
I felt like [writer-director] Richard [Levine] really took care of that. I felt like he had done a very good job
of being sincere about his own life and drawing from that in a realistic way and balancing out the time spent at work with the time spent at home with the time spent internally in the relationship with Carla's character. I didn't think there was ever any risk of him coming off as rarefied because the themes of the film were so relatable, so clearly domestic in a way.
One thing I really liked was the fact that, not all that long ago, the gay son would have been treated as another wacky travail, whereas now it's really presented as the father being the one who has the problem in his inability to deal with things.
That was why it was so important to me to maintain Ned's homophobia -- that he really did take a hard line on that. It's not a very popular stance.
And usually that kind of kind of character in a movie is a full-blown, foaming-at-the-mouth Bible-thumper. So to see a guy who is otherwise very intelligent and very liberal...
Open-minded -- and to still have that thing when it comes down to your child. Like, "Holy sh*t!" I really liked that.
If his oldest child were a daughter, I imagine he'd be similarly protective as far as, Who are you talking to on the Internet? Who are you dating? When are you gonna be home?
That's a very good metaphor; I think that's how he felt about it.
So what's next for you?
I wish I had a better answer. [Laughs] I was on my way home to have some meetings and do a producer's reading of a play, and that's all up in the air now, so I'm not really sure. I spent the last three months in Southeast Asia watching the kids while Naomi worked, so I'm hungry to work again. Looking forward to something, just not sure what it is yet.