Harrison Ford - Raider of the lost soul

In a thirty year career, Harrison Ford has become the star of the century. At 58, he displays an impressive clarity on his future, as with his past, always with the same objective : to service the public and, if possible, surprise them. Harrison finally misleads the appearences…

Ciné Live : Without disclosing the details of the character you play in What Lies Beneath, does the role seem to you more risky in terms of your image?
Harrison Ford : No. Reading it, the script seemed to me to be potentially very entertaining. The role was not only interesting to me, but was also a role the public had not seen me in. It was a great opportunity. And I had wanted to work with Bob Zemeckis and Michelle Pfeiffer for a long time. This as much as anything was a factor in my decision.

At the time of Air Force One, you declared that there was no reason for you to play a villian on screen because the public would prefer to see a hero…
To repeat, What Lies Beneath has been an occasion not to assume the stereotypical role, to be a character like those I had already played. I have never searched to play only the hero, and this is not a new approach for me. Honestly, I'm not concerned with what the audience will think or they will me accept in this role. Quite simply because I think the character is credible and successful. I am there to complete my mission which consists, at least I hope each time, of providing if possible quality entertainment. For me to serve the public in some manner, which summarizes the idea that I've had of this business all through my career.

All the same, your doctor Spencer is a man of two faces. One knows from the beginning that he has deceived his spouse and understands later that he conceals a horrible secret. Does that seem like pure evil?
At the beginning, one does not perceive him as so. The audience has time to become interested to story of this couple, to involve itself in measures, suspend doubt, but also to be aback by the unexpected bounces. This character, he is not to be judged by me. At any rate, the morality of the characters that I play does not enter into my choice of films. For each film, my goal is to develop and continue an emotional connection with the audience. Once they have bitten into the hook, it becomes easier to interest them in what passes until the end. That is this the fascinating power of cinema.

What do you think of Robert Zemeckis?
To begin, my hat off to his unlimited enthusiasm for the cinema as a medium, giving him multiple talents. He takes his job very seriously, he is very attentive. He has particularly strength with the decor of the film as well as the visual appearance, and it is my belief this has a significant payoff. I found it very gratifying to work under his direction. He is somebody who knows the cast, who includes their way of acting and their needs. He knows how to reach to this and fold it into the big picture. Without be ever thinking of himself, he makes discerning choices. He has a marvelous sense of editing. For me, the film has taken on another dimension thanks to the manner in which Bob has supervised the final editing. All these moments of surprise are also effective, thanks to him. During the editing, no scene that has been imagined is also not clearly necessary. That is what makes the whole difference.

How do you explain the chemistry between Michelle Pfeiffer and you in the film?
Listen, that is something that people talk about of which I don't analyze. All I know is that Michelle and I both understood the story and were on the same wavelength. At the start, it was a good idea for us to join up. That is what we call good casting. But there was also a good script, which served us to give life to these characters, helped us bring attention and scope to the details of their life as a couple, and keep accurate the nature of their relations. From the beginning, I felt very at ease with Michelle as with any actress. Our first scene in common was the one where we are both in bed! It was to show not just the sensuality, but also to add a step to make the story progress. We worked enormously on this and that is why the scene functions so well.

Your last two films, Random Hearts and What Lies Beneath, have centered on personal intrigues. Is that a deliberate choice to move away from thrillers and action films?
I am interested in and open to all sorts of films, roles, genres. I hope to have another opportunity to do action films and comedies… I don't try to look for a specific genre, as long as the quality is there. I was always uncompromising on this, even where my character of bloody nuisance. But that is because I am rarely contented one hundred percent.

Compared to Working Girl, Sabrina was not a complete success and 6 Days, 7 Nights was welcomed indifferently. Do you consider these films mistakes?
With Sabrina, I had wanted to play in a comedy as a different genre. I was not disappointed by the results, knowing that such a departure would not be a blockbuster. I was very honored to work with Sydney Pollack and Julia Ormond. None of us, and me in particular, consider this film like a check. Comedy is a delicate genre, where timing is essential and where rhythm and the quality of the writing are important. It's difficult. With 6 Days, 7 Nights, it was an occasion for me to do a comedy of words… with gusto. That is a test.

What are the chances of a fourth installment of Indiana Jones?
It has been four months since we got together, George [Lucas], Steven [Spielberg] and me, to discuss and exchange ideas. At this time, I hope we will begin to proceed soon. This is no formal announcement of the start of episode 4! But I believe we will start when we find a story that we are all satisfied with. I would love to reprise this role.

Concerning just Indiana Jones, how did the character take form and what was your contribution?
Indy possesses some of aspects of my own personality: the dry humor, especially, that were not in the original script and that we have developed in the shaping of the character. I remember having suggestions on the look that he ought to have in reaction to the drawings that were done in during the film preparation. It was a close collaboration with Anthony Powell, the costume designer. Especially the details...

Is it a character that you miss?
Of course, because of his significance not only to me, but for millions of fans. Because, also, of the challenge it represents, knowing that the public is waiting to follow the adventures. In the case of Indiana Jones, I was always convinced he should have something brought into his character in each episode, to build his character.... So, the decision to cast Sean Connery to play his father in Last Crusade was a genius move. The movie also helped us better understand his phobias. But after three episodes, we have a lot in the mix with such a figure. I know that Steven and George will not exploit the series for greed, and we expect that eventually the character will run dry of potential. On the other hand, the character of Han Solo was too slender, too simple to justify me playing him again. Jack Ryan, possesses sufficient depth to further explore again and detect other aspects of his personality.

So why did you decide not to reprise the role a third time?
I thought the script adapted from the Tom Clancy novel was not dramatically attractive. That it did not exploit not the elements developed in both the previous films. All I will say about the film is that it goes sour very soon. I am certain that it will please many. I am happy that a talented actor like Ben Affleck will take the role.

What do you need to feel when you read a script for the first time?
I like a role that wasn't written for me. I prefer by far to play a role originally written for… Dustin Hoffman, for example. A screenwriter who writes a role for a specific actor writes to his assets, his strong points, avoiding generally his weaknesses. For me, I would rather adapt and confront my weaknesses to improve. I believe that a good character really depends on a talented screenwriter and the actor playing the role work together.

What kind of actor are you?
I am someone very technical. I am never good at explaining precisely the functioning of the machinery as an actor, but in the first place, I try always to know, as specifically as possible, what I have to communicate, and what is the purpose of each scene. Because each scene must help in the progression of the story, otherwise it has no reason for being. After that is the ablity to play the game, but I hold to this especially that we meet the demands of the story.

When the director says “action”, are you instantly able to be in character?
Yes. It is very easy for me to concentrate and be the character before the camera. It is also easy to stop being the character once the director says “cut”. I am not the kind to bring home my work after a day of shaping this character. On the other hand, if I had problems with the scene or somebody else I am working with, then yes, I will think about it at home.