Q&A with Laura Dern, Adam Driver, and Noah Baumbach

Can you talk about conceiving this story and your writing process?
Noah Baumbach: It was inherent in the title that we are asking, “Does anyone really know what the story of a marriage is, and if that story has an end of sorts, does it mean it wasn’t a marriage?” I was really trying to come up with a way to write a love story, and I wanted to find a new way into a movie love story and within this material I kept finding all these other embedded genres in it. It gave us opportunities to expand in ways that I don’t think I’ve ever felt before in material I’ve written. There were the thriller aspects, the screwball comedy and horror, legal procedural and a musical. It gave us and the actors a real opportunity to push at the boundaries of the material.

Noah’s writing is just flawless

What were your first impressions of the character when you got the script?
Adam Driver: The first time I read it, we had talked about Noah being interested on making a movie that on a structural level plays with audiences allegiances; maybe you’re following someone and then something happens. This maybe changes your perception of them and then you kind of like this person. Noah doesn’t sacrifice structure or an idea for the life-blood that is happening throughout the scenes. There is the thing of, “how do you tell a love story through the lense of a divorce, how you tell the story of a relationship at the end of it,” but kind of in a way start at the beginning. My first impression after reading it, and after months if not a year of these conversations, was how impressively all of these ideas fit into this very lean script, where the stakes were high in every scene. There wasn’t something you could pull out and the film would survive without it. It all seemed urgent and coming from a very immediate place, so I was impressed with that and then also with how rare an opportunity it was to get something like this. 


Laura Dern: I don’t know that I can add much to that experience of reading this for the first time, except to say that Noah’s writing is just flawless so that any actor finds it as a gift of a lifetime. There is a humility in the storytelling that allows every craftsman and woman involved to know their place in the storytelling. Whether the production designer or the actor playing the role, there is a fluidity in the narrative, there’s a heartbeat and a rhythm to the language. We all were a tribe to tell this story for Noah. It was like a composer working with all of these different players to come up with this language that Noah made out for us. Not only did Noah build this family early on with having these conversations for quite a while before we read the script, but we felt that all the way through. I still feel that way even through the press: hanging out with my family. It’s an incredibly rare gift to feel that feeling of a hundred people coming together with not just this common cause or this energy and awareness of the story, but really the rhythm of the language. That I had never seen before. You describe it as like working on a play, but its an amazing experience on a film to work like that.

The musical numbers in the film are completely surprising, and, somehow, they completely work. Can you discuss how you thought to include them?
NB: It spoke to the flexibility I was talking about earlier that I found. I feel like all of our jobs is to be open to those possibilities. I’ve seen it in past movies, things I wanted, the big ideas that the movie could not accommodate in the end. But here those ideas did work, for ways I both understand and don’t. Working with Randy is a privilege and one of the beautiful things about this job is you get to work with people you’ve grown up with who have meant so much to you. We both really loved the work of Georges Delerue, the french composer who did so many beautiful scores, like that of Truffaut and Godard, and how that music embraces and honors the characters for their struggle and loves them. But it can also be surprising how the same music can play at different moments and mean something different. It does not shift and it doesn’t play the scene: It’s a kind of response or memory. With the opening sequence was a way of scoring the everyday. On the one hand it’s a highly romantic thing, but it’s also about the ordinary moments, and those ordinary moments are going to continue throughout the movie. Even though the divorce overtakes these peoples lives, it doesn’t change the fact that they have to get their hair cut and get their kid dressed for school. All those moments that you see in the beginning are going on, but they’re different now. They’re the same and they’re different. I felt Randy understood that implicitly. I sit next to him at the piano at his place at the Palacaides. He plays and we talk. I talk non musically, but emotionally and he finds this musical language for these things. He will do things that I will take home with me and put into the cut. The pieces continue to grow and they inform the movie. Having those themes early on, because I cut in order, helped me cut the movie going forward. The movie has a musicality that helps me go forward. The more I do this the more I try to have all the collaborators involved as early as possible. I don’t write all these scenes if I don’t know these actors have their parts. I don’t write Nora’s monologue or have her saying, “sorry I look so schlepy– I had an event at my kids school.” Laura Dern delivering that line makes it brilliant. Otherwise it’s just fine as a line. Randy is just a wonderful collaborator in that way. 

There is that fantastic scene where Scarlett tries to be amicable and then things fall apart into catastrophic collapse. How do you put yourself through that, Adam, and how many takes can you do in a day?
AD: We shot the sequence over the course of two days. We blocked it out and had rehearsal before the movie started. We rehearsed it in a room, similar to a play, in L.A. We taped it out on the floor, just like a play, and we ran through it by saying it to get used to each other, and then we rehearsed it the day of, if not the day before. At that point we had a couple of weeks of knowing each other. You have to know it, and thats easier with Noah’s language, because it’s so well written, so you’re not memorizing lines, you’re memorizing ideas and thoughts. Then we rehearsed it on the day. We blocked everywhere we were going to go. With Noah’s scripts, the lines are very similar to a play– there’s no changing the lines, but the intention is up for grabs. You can adjust as much as you want. I knew this from doing runs of plays, you do a play for four months, eight shows a week and always at the end, it has evolved into a better version than where you started, either through repetition or a new idea or the actors are doing something new, or something in your life has happened to you that influences your performance. Noah has compressed that into a day. You are given a lot of opportunities to run it, you can play with intention and either Noah or you will come up with an idea, sometimes just the act of doing over and over again wears you down and makes you more available. You look at a light on the set that somehow opens you up to a new idea, which only comes from good writing. Only good writing gives you enough places of your imagination to help you reimagine it. This is because there is no right way to do a scene. There are infinite possibilities. It makes sense on the page, but sometimes theres an emotional truth that makes even more sense than on the page. We started at the beginning of the day and went through to the end of the day. We did a lot of takes to make sure there was no regret. The second day, we realized it was hard to just jump into the second part, so we would have to run it from the beginning through to the end. There was just one camera that we were pushing around. Noah set very clear blocking and lines. Being within that is very freeing to me, because you know what your base is. What happens, you never push for emotion, because it never comes. You always rely on the text, which was very strong and very beautiful, and then I relied on my scene partner Scarlet, and even the crew. You could feel the focus in the room, and when you have a director who’s there with you who you feel is acting the scene with you, who’s not vacant or a spectator, you feel very free to not waste time in getting hung up on your own insecurity. You have to say it and mean it, and if the environment is comfortable to do that, then the conscious and unconscious part of acting that is most exciting for me takes over. You’re not processing anything. You’re just trying to mean it as much as possible. Inevitably, maybe something will happen if you’re there with your partner and the people in the room.  

What was your approach to the clothing and the movement of your character, Laura?
LD: It is all in the writing. Even the costume design was laid out. Even the red shoes and how she flicks them off was a description. We had this amazing collaborator, Mark Bridges, who I worked with a few times and love so much. I’ve worked with amazing filmmakers, but the’re not at my costume fittings. Noah was there for every conversation. Every detail and choice was important to him and it mattered. So to feel like we were not only designing, but defining how she uses her physicality to win, was pretty fascinating, perhaps especially at this time to consider a woman in her previously male dominated workplace environment, considering the take over, in order to represent a woman; to win that woman’s voice and using everything she has as a woman to beat the men, is weird and thickly layered. We met a few incredibly generous lawyers, particularly in Los Angeles, some of them who have even moved toward mediation because they know the system is so fractured. They are stealth and part of it is their physicality. I’ve never seen people at work using even their body and their physicality to win a legal case, but it’s a real thing. It was fascinating that every single detail was considered. I just wanted to add, and that Adam is describing so beautifully, is what you’re given in every moment in the space that Noah creates. It can’t be taken lightly the reverence for a set that Noah has. When you walk in, everyones checked their cellphones at the door, because this is space where we get to invent and find the story. There is a ritual and something that is a deep opportunity, where we are given this safe haven to find these characters whether its the physicality or the emotion of it, or from the painting on the wall, or days of exploring. It takes not only the auteur that he is, but the deep love for film, and the reverence that he has for storytelling that I think sets the tone for the entire cast and crew. So that you keep wanting to go on. You get so excited to keep exploring every possibility to tell this story he has laid out for us.

Q&A with Adam Driver, Daniel J. Jones, Steven Soderbergh, and Scott Z. Burns

The following questions and answers are excerpted from a conversation that followed the NBR screening of The Report.

Your characters spends a lot of time in an underground room, and doesn’t interact with a wide variety of people. But you still manage to develop a sense of urgency for the audience. Can you talk about that process?
Adam Driver: There is a kind of decorum that comes with being in that kind of space that I really related to. There is a withholding of emotion, because you are there to do a job and not to insert your opinion or to have a feeling that you can express to your higher ups. Even though there are a lot of scenes of research, it is still exciting to play someone who is conflicted internally with his own morals about this institution that he’s grown up idolizing. At the same time you can’t help but feel the bigger picture of the morals of the country that he cares about. Those things, even though there is a lot of research, there is an underlying drive that I thought was really exciting that Scott and I talked about. It was also necessary to not just spout information; there has to be something underneath. The internal drive that Dan so clearly has is exciting to play.

I felt like I needed to show you enough to make you want to leave, but I hoped that my actors were engaging enough so that you would stay.

Scott, you were wrestling with this mammoth source text, and you had to bring it through a dramatic arc over about two hours. You are also telling the story through a couple of different people. How do you as a screenwriter begin to do that? It seems like an incredibly hard thing to do.
Scott Z. Burns: It is really hard to balance the different components to the characters. You sit there as a dramatist asking, “What is my obligation to the story” and then you look at the fact that there is reality underneath it all. With this more than anything I have ever worked on, we had a lot of table readings so that I could hear the script out loud and figure out which parts were redundant or emotional. It was interesting because I went back and thought about a movie like Serpico and the scenes I found least compelling were the ones where we go home with him. Steven [Soderbergh] and I have talked over the years about when it is appropriate to go home with your characters and when it’s not. Dan has a great story about being asked about the Report and Senator Feinstein looked at him and said, “You’re not a Senator, Dan.” I was more interested in the emotion that comes from somebody who is not allowed to express their feelings. When I’ve worked with actors in the past, telling them they can’t express something is more interesting to watch than giving them the luxury to feel all over the scene.

Dan, can you talk a little about the path you’ve been on in your life, from the years we see depicted in the film to now?
Steven Soderbergh: Can you believe you’re talking to the National Board of Review right now, after all this! How does that fantasy happen?

Daniel J. Jones: It is really gratifying and wonderful to have a film depict some of the events in your life, but there are a lot of people in the world who do amazing things, and films aren’t made about their work- there was a scene in the film where Adam says to Annett [Bening], “Maybe when the report comes out, the world will know.” There was a period of time where I thought this was bigger than the report we were working on. We had gone so deep in the weeds, 6,700 pages and 38,000 footnotes. No one had ever really looked at a program like this in such detail. I did think anyone who is serious about acquiring the intelligence from detainees, if this report was released, regardless of the regime, they would say this does not work and we’re not going to do this. I thought there was value in this; feeling that pressure; feeling it needed to get out because of all the research we had done. I did not think films would be made, but I think it did have huge implications to the world. 

Daniel J. Jones: It is really gratifying and wonderful to have a film depict some of the events in your life, but there are a lot of people in the world who do amazing things, and films aren’t made about their work- there was a scene in the film where Adam says to Annett [Bening], “Maybe when the report comes out, the world will know.” There was a period of time where I thought this was bigger than the report we were working on. We had gone so deep in the weeds, 6,700 pages and 38,000 footnotes. No one had ever really looked at a program like this in such detail. I did think anyone who is serious about acquiring the intelligence from detainees, if this report was released, regardless of the regime, they would say this does not work and we’re not going to do this. I thought there was value in this; feeling that pressure; feeling it needed to get out because of all the research we had done. I did not think films would be made, but I think it did have huge implications to the world. 

In the film, there are a few bold-faced names; Snowden comes up. Also you immediately think of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers in the opening scene. How much were these characters and these similar historical events in your mind as you were making the film?
DJ: We ended up where we ended up. There was Senator Udall depicted in the film. There was the Democratic Caucus meeting when he says, “I’m prepared to read this on the Senate floor.” There were a lot of roads not taken. We were down to the wire. The fact that the report came out right before the congressional Senate changed hands from Democratic to Republican could have made it not come out. But it did and it is hard to think what the other options could have been.

SB: For me, it’s interesting because in the film when Feinstein says that Edward Snowden is a traitor, she said that; that is a direct quote. What was important to me was to show that the character of Dan was living in a different kind of box. The movie is in a lot of boxes, both metaphorically and physically. He couldn’t have been Edward Snowden without betraying everything he had done up to that point. The only path for him was the constitutional path, which has now been blocked by all manner of bullshit. It was just about a bunch of boxes; The room where he did the work, and even when he goes to meet [an attorney played by Corey Stoll], the reason I fell in love with that location is because after having been in a windowless room for six or seven years, he finds himself in a room that is entirely a window.

There is a great scene in the film where you talk to your colleague about the nightmares you are having. It is remarkable because we don’t see inside your character’s head that often, and this is a startling admission, that this stuff is touching you in a deep and profound way. I was wondering if through talking to Daniel or just through how you conceived it, how he kept doing this, in spite of the horrific facts he was unearthing.
AD: I think Dan just kind of answered that. He was driven by a sense of faith in the system that this report had the potential to change our identity as a country. Even just that idea is enough to make someone persevere with almost no support. That kind of faith and patriotism is pretty strong within him. It’s not just him against the CIA as a whole or against any one person, but unearthing what is true, even with people who are trying to support him within the CIA. I don’t think it was a lot of support, but the potential of what the end result could be is a big reason.

I’m curious as to whether or not the hypotheticals that John Yoo gives in that OLC meeting were actually said that way, or if there was some dramatic license taken. They were totally shocking.
SB: You can Google them. I did not write very much, but he did. It goes to a larger thing which we are all living through now, which is the issue of the unitary executive, and exactly what it means to be president of this country. John Yoo really started this. It did continue through the Obama administration as well. It was sort of an amplification of the powers of the President. It was stunning to me that suddenly, the president, in the minds of some of these people, had these supreme powers and that they could order things that I always thought were horrible crimes and that they were above the law. So I started reading John Yoo’s speeches and googling them. I went back and read the OLC letters and even the OLC itself is a strange, arcane body that sort of exists between the White House and the Department of Justice.

The depictions of torture are very difficult to watch. Could you talk about your philosophy behind keeping them that way?
SB: We went back and forth about this more than anything in the film. I had written a draft where there was no torture and then we talked about how we would shoot it. I knew from the beginning I wanted it to be more about the torturers rather than the tortured – I realized that if I showed a lot of torture, it seems that I am asking for sympathy for the people being tortured, and so I was always very conscious to spend much more time on Mitchell and Jessen and the people who were doing the torture than on the tortured people themselves. But Alberto Mora, who was the Navy’s general counsel and is one of the real heroes of this story after the fact. Mora, when he was at the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld, stood up when he found out about this program and said, “this is wrong. We can’t do this. This is against the uniform code of military conduct. This is against everything we are as a country.” And what he said to me both when I was doing research and more recently, is you have to show people. And it’s the same reason why the CIA burned the tapes. They did not want those tapes because they’re betting that if you saw the tapes you would turn your head and walk away. And that’s the difference between movies and Senate reports. I felt like I needed to show you enough to make you want to leave, but I hoped that my actors were engaging enough so that you would stay.

You grounded it in truth, so it becomes an act of bearing witness as opposed to something else.
SB: I spoke to Malcolm Nance, who created the SERE School at Coronado to protect people. The whole function of the SERE school was, if you serve this country and you’re going to fight some horrible dictator who does brutal things to you, you’ll be prepared. The fact that Mitchell and Jessen took the training that we give our best soldiers and weaponized it is… bananas. When I first reached out to Malcolm, I asked if he could help me with this and he was so passionate about helping us tell the story. It is really important that people understand the moral high ground we lost by doing this and what it means to everyone who goes out and defends our country. Adam was in the Marines and he and I talked about this. It’s not a small thing. We’ve compromised generations of people who will serve this country.

How did you approach the film which is so procedural yet has these very human qualities and startling closeups?
SB: I never went to film school. I did get to stand next to Steven for about two to three hundred days on set. I learned a lot and the main thing I learned is that I am not him and I can’t do what he does. One of the things I did learn along the way when we were doing the Informant is the abuse of the close up, so I knew at the beginning when I wanted to really get in close. The close up of Adam during the scene with Corey Stoll I think resonates the way it does because we didn’t abuse that technique. I really learned from Steven that, if you have faith in the language of cinema, you can save that shot and that it will yield great results. But you as the filmmaker have to have that restraint. Eigil Bryld, who is spectacular, really got that and worked with me and so we knew there were certain points were we were going to go there. The other thing is that we shot this movie in 26 days, and so I knew going in, if you know your quarterback can’t throw, work on your running game! If we had tried to get a technocrane and to build really elaborate shots in every scene, we would not have made our days and I think we would have just obfuscated the story. The great thing when I went back and looked at Alan Pakula films, and solicited advice from Steven, is that they did not put the camera in front of the story. I had such great actors that I knew I could just lay back and I didn’t want what we are doing to interfere. And as Steven has said to me, “there’s really nothing Adam does that isn’t interesting to look at.” And so I knew I could get away with that restrained, because he is that interesting to watch. I also knew there were times I could tip my hat to those great political thrillers. But if the movie was going to rely on a lot of trickery to build tension, it wasn’t going to work.

I would love to know what your reaction was to everything you learned when you had completed the film?
DJ: One of the things that impresses me the most is that the full report is almost 7,000 pages. The executive summary, which we slaved over for a long time, was 525 pages. I did not think you could do it in less, but then Scott goes off and does it in 130 pages! And he  has done a fantastic job not only telling the story of the study itself, but also the story of getting the report out; the process of pulling it all together. I also want to mention Adam here. If you follow Adam’s face throughout the film and his eyes, they convey time. This started in 2007 and it wrapped up in 2014. The film is only 2 hours, but you feel that lapse of time both through Scott’s writing and Adam’s portrayal of the character and I’m really proud of them for what they did.