No matter how bad the movie, John Cusack has invariably been able to walk away with his integrity intact. Yet the charm so much in evidence in the likes of "The Sure Thing" (1985), "Say Anything" (1989) and "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997) has never quite transferred to his big Hollywood projects ("America's Sweethearts" or "Serendipity" anyone?).
The increasing duality of his career is reflected by his latest movies - the Agatha Christie-esque thriller "Identity", and "Max", which imagines a post-WWI friendship between a young Adolf Hitler and a Jewish art dealer.
What appealed to you about "Identity"?
I thought it was pretty smart, pretty funny, but it also seemed to work in that classic Hitchcockian way. You know, where the mechanics of the plot were put together real effortlessly and you couldn't see the seams and you couldn't see things coming. I thought it was a well done piece of writing. Then I was excited about James Mangold and Ray Liotta.
What was the challenge of your character in "Identity", Ed?
He's not a very verbal guy. He doesn't say that much, which is kind of fun for me because usually I play people who just keep babbling on and on and on - so l like that part of him! He's the counterpoint to Rhodes, played by Ray Liotta, so you have a sense that in this situation, you hope people listen to Ed because Rhodes is a little volatile! Ed's just a decent guy trying to get through a very bad day!
What is it about director James Mangold that allows him to master different genres?
I just think he's a really talented guy and he wants to do all kinds of movies. It's like an actor. I wouldn't want to say all I can do is romantic comedies or courtroom dramas. I like to do different things, and I think directors are like actors in that way.
"Identity" is really an ensemble movie with the story as the star. How do you feel about that?
I love these movies where it's just about the film. You don't have my face or Ray Liotta's face or Amanda Peet's face on the poster. It's all about the movie. I like that.
In the highly fictionalised "Max", you play a Jewish art dealer who befriends the young Adolf Hitler. What are you trying to do with this film?
What it hopes to do is show two contrasting world views. The character of Max Rothman represents this enlightened, western, rational, humanist, post-World War One consciousness, the modern spirit which says that whatever led us to the slaughterhouse of war, we have to reinvent the 20th century, and the only way through this thing is through art. So both Rothman and Hitler are drunk on art and they both have really contrasting world views.
The film has caused controversy and quite a fierce backlash in the States...
Yes. I feel like Don Quixote tilting at windmills! I think a lot of people hoped the movie would just go away.
People have said a fictional story about a young Hitler trivializes his evil and the Holocaust...
That's only said by people who haven't seen the film. In fact, the Anti-Defamation League - who originally came out and criticized the film - have completely reversed their position. It's a deeply moral film. Any suggestion that we're trying to humanize a monster in order to exploit the Holocaust would be slanderous to the film. In fact, what it tries to do is put a human face on evil, so that we can understand it and so we can prevent it from ever happening again.
Are you hopeful that "Max" might be more warmly received in Europe, that people might be more open to it?
I think Europeans are going to be a little less likely to avoid the film. If you do a movie about the victims of Nazis, I think that's much more easily digested. But in three or four or five years' time, people will look at "Max" and I think they'll appreciate it. If you want to invest some time and really think about the future and think about where we've been, it's worth the investment. It asks a lot of tough questions. That's what a good film or a good piece of art might strive to do.
