Original subtitles

[man] I'd like you to explain the shooting of one specific scene of the film,

the one in which your character is telling all the truth

about the man from the hotel she wanted to have sex with.

Could you explain us the--How many takes?

How did the scene change? And all that kind of stuff.

Both of you. Thank you.

- Me? - You go.

Umm...

We worked on that scene for

I think it was about two or three weeks

because it was the pivotal scene in the film.

I remember when I first read the script, I thought,

Oh, this is, um... It's very rare as an actor

that you're asked to speak for more than two or three minutes with a monologue.

And I was terrified of that, of that monologue, when I first read it.

And also I thought, "What a great challenge."

But we basically spent time in the room, on the set, which was built,

the apartment, and the three of us,

and we worked on the scene, and Stanley rewrote it

and then worked on it a little bit more and rewrote it again.

And we sort of found the scene over a period of a couple of weeks.

And it was incredible how he also decided to shoot it.

He watched us on the bed. And because it's such a long scene--

I mean, I think it goes on for almost 13, 14 minutes all up, doesn't it?

He constructed the shots by just watching us.

And he actually--what was it?

- He had it on an arm, didn't he? - Yeah.

The thing. And so we were allowed to play it out for the whole duration of the mag,

which means that you get to play the whole scene without having to cut,

which was great as an actor. It's like doing theater, you know? And so...

And the thing that he did with that scene,

and I think that he, at that point, we'd already shot the first scene

and we'd been working for quite some time, and we'd thought a lot.

Yeah, the party scene, and he'd thought a lot about it,

and he encouraged, uh...

he really encouraged us, and Nic, in that scene, to just to go.

You know, he just he would say, "Well, you know, what would you say?"

And he just worked with her.

And then, just as an actor working with Nic, she'll work on a scene,

work on a scene, then suddenly she, you can just see her take the character

and the scene to another place.

And things would just come out.

She would ad lib, you know, when she was going along.

And Stanley would write it down and then he would come back and edit things out

or tell her, you know, "I like that moment. Keep that in there."

And that's really how the scene evolved.

The monologue itself...

was the monologue that, when she finally gets in that position

and lays out the story, it was always written like that.

But he still changed some of those things as we were going along.

Yeah, and he would allow us to do it differently.

I mean, he encouraged us to.

I mean, some directors like you to play the scene exactly the same.

Stanley liked to be surprised.

He would like it if, on one take, you do it one way and then,

on take four, it is completely different.

One time, you're crying. The next time, you're laughing.

I mean, he really liked the extremes, and he was excited by surprises.

I remember once he said to me,

"I'm not interested in naturalism,"

he said, "I don't want to see a documentary.

I want to see something slightly more heightened than that."

He felt that anyone could be--

He felt that anyone could be real,

but that he was looking for something that was interesting

and what excited him as a director.

So he wanted it to be spontaneous when we were working on the scene.

[moderator] I wanted to apologize because I didn't have a chance to introduce you.

[introduces Jan Harlan in French]

[speaks French]

[speaks French]

[man] Yes, it's a question to Nicole.

I heard you saying on the press kit

that you were often terrified to get fired.

- What made you-- - Always.

Not just on that movie. Every movie.

Well, I heard you say that several times. So what made you in this state of mind?

- I just think that's-- - The actor's plight.

Yeah, one of the fears of being an actor, I think, that you...

Acting is such an intangible thing.

It's not something that you can go and pass a test

or sort of write it down and here it is.

You're cast, a lot of the time, because of an essence

and you're not quite sure why you get a role half the time.

And you hope that you can bring your talent to the project,

but, of course, a part of being an actor is doubting that.

So I would always say to Tom, "Oh, I think I'm going to get fired tomorrow."

So that's just me.

[woman] Do you understand why he wanted a real couple to play the part?

Well, you know, that's what someone said.

In all the time that we spent with Stanley and Jan and Christiane,

no one else has ever said that he wanted a couple.

Someone else said that. Stanley never said that.

- That's not true. - [Harlan] It's not true.

- [Kidman] You can answer that. - Jan can probably answer--

Completely irrelevant. Absolutely not true.

It's not true.

Yeah, it was interesting because we read that, too.

We read somewhere, "Oh, Stanley cast us because he..." I don't think...

I mean, the thing about Stanley was he never explained his motives.

He never explained why. He would get irritated if you asked him,

"So what does this mean?"

Or "Why did you cast us?" or "Tell me the meaning of this scene."

"How do you want me to play it?" That irritated him.

He wanted-- He hated to have to explain.

And I remember I had a conversation with him once, and he said,

he said, "So much of being a director is instinct.

Thus, when you're asked 'Why?' too much, it throws your instinct into doubt,"

which is, as a director, you're the leader,

and you cannot-- a lot of the time, creatively,

it would be like asking a painter,

"Picasso, why did you use blue?"

I mean, there's no answer to the "Why?"

It just is.

And so I think that's why he didn't like to be asked,

"What's the meaning of the film?"

"What are you trying to say with this film?"

The film, and all his films, are what he wanted to say,

and there's nothing more to say.

[moderator] Lisa, you have the mic.

[woman] Because everyone who worked in connection with this film

did such a good job of keeping what it was really about,

and what your characters really were,

secret until the film was released.

I'm thinking there must have been times when a rumor got back to you on the set

or just sitting at home about what you were allegedly doing in this film,

and I'm just wondering what were the ones that struck you as most ridiculous,

most far-fetched, silliest, in the end?

Well, there were a lot of them. It's hard to say which one was the most...

Well, there was I was a junkie,

I think at one stage--

And I was wearing dresses.

Yeah.

Different movie!

I don't know, I guess...

I'd go and see you in a dress.

I wouldn't.

[Harlan] But we also had two psychiatrists having affairs with their clients.

Right. Yes, and then we actually had the psychiatry board

at one stage outraged at that, yes.

It was interesting, actually. And this was a--

Anyway, I'm talking too much. You talk.

[Harlan] No, you're not.

No. That's why they're here. They want to hear you.

[Harlan] Exactly.

Jan and Tom talk a bit, please.

All right.

It was interesting how when you do not dispel a rumor within, you know, 24 hours,

it can become fact.

And I think we really saw that in relation to this film.

I mean, nobody confirmed or denied anything for about a year and a half.

And so, within that time,

they suddenly-- the plot of the film, everything--

No matter how far-fetched it was-- had become truth.

And we were reading in reputable newspapers and stuff that these were facts

and they obviously were not, so...

[man] Did you feel safer playing the...

did you feel safer playing those parts with each other or, on the contrary,

did you wish sometimes that you were playing with somebody else?

For me...

it was, at times-- you know, it's hard to say.

I mean, I was glad Nic was playing this role

because it was a very, very difficult role.

They're very difficult roles to play, both of them.

And I think that I was glad that she played it just because of her talent.

I mean, I'm just talking, whether I was married to her or not,

you know, she's my wife, and that had a whole 'nother thing.

But just as an actress, I was really excited

because she is such a great actress and artist that--

And to share that experience together is something very special.

And I think that we, uh... we had a lot to offer,

you know, because we are married and, uh...

but at times it was also complex because of the nature of what these--

This couple is going through at that time.

And also when you're making a movie, you know, and you're spending

the time that this film needed,

you're sitting on a lot of that emotion for a long period of time,

and it can be very difficult.

And I think that, as good as we are at working together,

at times it was--because when you're working with someone else,

there's a relief. You go home.

But it had its pluses and minuses.

But I definitely would, you know, I'm very, very fortunate and grateful

that we had this experience together.

I think also just in terms of working as a married couple together,

there's an intimacy that you're allowed.

I mean, you can touch each other.

Sometimes with another actor, you have to build up that trust.

You just immediately, you know, you have that.

Uh, and also...

just like in the, I remember, in the scene when we were doing the nightmare scene,

I call it, where he comes home, and I'm in bed, and we did, uh--

That took quite a long time to shoot,

and we were working on that.

And just having Tom there, who knows me and knows emotionally

what can trigger me and stuff.

He could whisper things to me before a take,

that would immediately put me into the scene, and the power of that,

that was something that, you know, a lot of the time

you don't have with another actor because they don't understand your history

and you have a history together that, uh...

that can work for you another time.

But then the other thing is you do go home and it lives with you

for 24 hours a day, you know?

So you are connected for a very, very long period in work

and in your private life.

[woman] Hi. I'd just like to ask you,

you read a lot about how Kubrick would close the set.

What did that literally mean?

Would it be often a case of just the three of you?

Would he ever do camera and sound for any of those scenes?

How closed was the set, literally?

Well, Stanley, you know, you look at that set, he...

his process--the most important thing to Stanley was time.

When you look at a budget, time was important to him,

so that he could...

Stanley, when he was writing a movie, he was writing it.

When he was directing the movie, he was directing it.

When he was editing the movie, he was editing it.

And each element of the picture, uh...

he needed to, you know, it takes time.

You know, ideas take time. And he was always incredibly patient.

He worked nonstop.

I'd get faxes from him three, four in the morning.

Sometimes I'd look at it the next morning.

So he never wasted time.

But he knew the importance of, you know, so many times when you're making a movie,

you're bound by a structure that,

you know, sometimes you look back and think, God, if I...

now I know why. Now I have the idea, what I was looking for.

And Stanley would take that time to allow it to evolve, and hence,

when he was working on a scene, it would just be the three of us,

when he was working on his ideas and he'd watch.

He'd watch us walk around.

And then he would, you know, it would depend. He'd look at the staging,

but he'd first work on, "Let's get the scene right."

And he would rewrite every single day.

He rewrote, rewrote, rewrote, rewrote, you know, even when he was cutting,

he's rewriting, working.

So there wasn't a large crew.

It was intimate. Very intimate group.

And when he was shooting, sometimes, it was just Stanley on the set,

- depending, or camera operator. - Because he could operate the camera.

Because he could operate the camera also.

But then if there was dialogue, you'd have the sound man,

and he didn't always operate the camera.

And if he was shooting on Steadicam, then there would be a couple,

you know, for focus and stuff like that.

But even then he would use radio mics and the sound man would be off.

- And people would come in. But it was-- - It was a great way to work.

It was a great way to work.

Hello, Henri from France 2.

From here, from our point of view--

It's a question for Tom Cruise-- you succeeded in everything.

You as an actor, as a producer. You've got money.

You work with the greatest, with Stanley Kubrick.

What do you expect now? What do you want?

What are your motives right now?

Well, thank you for that. But, for me, I don't feel that...

I don't feel that I have--I mean, I understand I've accomplished a lot,

but it's...

I feel so fortunate to be able to do something that I love.

I've always felt that way.

And acting and... it's not--

It's a progression. It's-- I don't know how to say it.

I mean, it's a journey for me. It's an emotional journey.

And I love movies.

I love making different kinds of movies, and I don't feel that I have accomplished

what I want to accomplish with my life.

I mean, you're talking long term, I kind of look back and think,

"Wow, what have I done?"

I mean, so, I don't have any goals.

I want to, you know, I don't know what kind of movie I want to make next year,

but I just know that now,

I think especially, you know, at 37-- As a young actor, I was thinking,

Am I ever--I hope that I have the opportunities to work as an actor

and to learn about movies and to produce movies.

I want to help younger filmmakers. I'm producing pictures in that way.

And I did a picture, just a cameo in a film called Magnolia

for a young director, P. T. Anderson,

and just keep learning. Just keep going forward.

And hopefully, you know, I'll be able to work the rest of my life.

[speaking French]

[question continues]

[interpreter] Was this film just another film, or was it completely,

completely a different experience, something really completely new for you?

Well, I could just say every movie I've made has been completely different,

but I can say now that I know, having this experience with Stanley,

I've never experienced anything like it, nor do I ever feel that I will ever

experience anything like it again.

I mean, working with Stanley Kubrick, he...

he's just a stunning artist.

And his movies, you know, people say, well, "What's different about Stanley?"

You know, Stanley's movies when you look at them, on their own or collectively,

you know, his pictures, whether you liked them,

whether you don't like them, they are art.

And art, for me, is something that challenges you.

Art doesn't necessarily solve problems of life and wrap it up,

and "Oh, this is what life is about." But it poses questions.

And I think when you look at his movies, they do that. They challenge you.

It's the questions, I think, that interested Stanley Kubrick.

And I'm just saying this, you know, you look at his movies,

things that interested him, that concerned him,

and I... I know I'll never have another experience like this.

And, again, to have shared that experience with, you know...

my love, my best friend, you know, is...

you know, I can't imagine-- no one makes movies like Stanley Kubrick.

People said to me, when we were working, they'd ask Nicole, you know,

"How do you feel, all the takes, or how much time?"

See, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to me.

I mean, movies take what they take. It's not--

I've never felt movies to be, well, you know, a slot in life.

And this certainly was a journey and an experience that I can't imagine,

I don't know what's going to be in the future, but it was an extraordinary time.

Extraordinary. Really exceptional.

I imagine Nicole would say the same.

Yeah, I think that there's times in your life when you work on something

where it feeds you far more than just the here and now.

You know that it will affect you.

And when you're old and you look back,

it will have been something that changed you.

Certain characters that you play.

When I played Isabel Archer in Portrait of a Lady,

I just--that had an effect on me, that affected me, will affect me,

for the rest of my life. It changed me.

And then working with Stanley had exactly the same thing.

I admired him so much. He was so stimulating intellectually.

I basically received my film education from Stanley Kubrick.

So, he taught me, you know, he gave me the Dekalog series

and said, "Go and watch this. It's some of the greatest filmmaking ever."

So I went home and we sat in bed and we watched the Dekalog series

and went, "Oh, my God."

So, I mean, those things, beyond being on a set and learning from him

and seeing his expertise,

he, you know, he was the great master.

And I think that's why also every director

from Campion to Gus Van Sant to John Woo,

all the directors we know and are friends of ours,

they are obsessed by him, you know?

And it's very interesting to have been a very small part of his life.

We were a very small part of his life, but he was a very, very big part of ours.

[speaking French]

[woman] I would like to ask you two questions.

It would be first when you were-- probably it's better if I stand up.

When you were doing this scene and you suddenly laughed,

at about what take, if you remember it, did you have the idea of laughing?

It's the first part.

And the second part is, you said somewhere that this filming, this shoot,

had been dynamite.

I wondered, even if you admire Stanley Kubrick so much,

ten and a half months of your life,

how did it affect your life or your family,

or the daily readings you were doing, beside watching Dekalog?

There was others besides Dekalog.

But... when did I decide to laugh?

I mean, those sort of things happen when you're immersed in a character

and you're just being,

which is what you ultimately strive to do as an actor, is to just be,

and not to censor or monitor yourself or have that third eye watching you.

Those things happen. They just happen.

And it's wonderful when a director spots them or uses them.

And that's what Stanley would do. He'd say, "I love that. Do that again."

- So, um... - You were laughing at your husband?

That's a laugh in the scene, yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, but because you're the character at that stage,

for those moments, you become somebody else.

I mean, I don't know how you start to decipher acting, or analyze it,

but those things just happen.

And that's what you ultimately strive for, is freedom of expression within,

of being an actor.

Ten and a half months of shooting.

But I think it was all up about just over a year or something, wasn't it?

And it was it was one of those things

where you enter into a different world.

We were living in England. We were living near Pinewood.

We had our children in school there.

And we basically just lived and breathed the film.

We'd go to Pinewood Studios every day for a year and a half.

I mean, it really was--whether we were--

A lot of the times we'd, whether I was working or not, sometimes I would--

I'm obviously I'm not in all the film, but it, uh...

And people say, "Wasn't that so hard?"

And, no, it wasn't hard. It's strange.

You look at it and you say, "No, I was working on a script that I believed in,

with a director that I believed in..."

And some directors take three months to make their films,

and they make great films in three months.

Some can do it in four weeks.

Some can do it in ten months.

I mean, I think once you start to monitor,

or try to...

control or understand someone's artistic ability,

there is no--it doesn't work that way.

And I think sometimes that's the problem with this industry now,

is that you're being told, "Okay, the release date is summer,

so make the movie in May, so that we can have it out in August."

And that feels wrong.

I mean, I think, as an actor, when you work with somebody

like Kubrick or any of the greats, you say, "Here I am. I'm your vessel.

Let's work together, and I'm here to help you achieve your vision."

I mean, and it's a very gratifying experience.

[man] I'm going to talk loud. I hope you hear me.

Very clearly.

The question is for the three of you.

We all know that Stanley Kubrick was a great director.

He mostly became a myth for all the journalists

who all wanted--for all moviegoers and even the directors you mentioned--

We all wanted to meet him, talk with him about his movies.

But I would like to know also what kind of man he was,

because he was also a human being. And you, Mr. Harlan,

you were his brother-in-law. So you know him for years now.

And you worked with him for ten and a half months.

So I suppose you knew him also as a man. So what kind of man was he?

Well, I knew him for 40 years, and I've worked with him for 30 years,

and he also has changed over 30 years, like we all do in a lifetime.

He was a very witty, highly intelligent, interesting character,

with an enormous net of contacts around the world.

He was a telephone man. He was a computer man and a fax man.

In fact, he had the very first fax machine that I have ever seen in my life.

He told me, when I questioned him,

"What are you going to do with this thing?"

He said, "Ah, Warner Bros. in California also have one.

And I'm sure that in about-- well, maybe it takes ten years--

Most companies will have one."

So you see, he was always a high-tech person.

What he did not do,

and that is I think where most of the myth comes from,

is he didn't socialize. He certainly didn't talk to the press.

And he certainly wouldn't be sitting here today.

He didn't enjoy that.

He liked to be at home, and he chose with whom he was in contact.

He was not going to be interrogated by anybody.

So he was a very, very friendly soul.

He was also very difficult. Oh, yes.

He was very difficult, very demanding, very precise,

and no shortcuts in his life for anybody.

I enjoyed it, and that's why we got along so well.

So what kind of a man he was? He had three daughters.

He was married for over 40 years.

He had five dogs, three cats, four donkeys.

And he made absolutely sure that they were well looked after.

I am not exaggerating when I can say that the vet bill was much, much greater

than his personal doctor bill.

So what else can I tell you?

He was a great guy. You would have loved him.

But, you know, he didn't like these kind of things. He just didn't.

He was very considerate, patient, kind to work with,

always very concerned about how we were doing, how our children are.

Is everyone comfortable when we're working on the set?

You know, did I have enough to eat?

You know, he could discuss...

from philosophy, poetry, down to...

the science of a blocking back in the NFL.

He had vast knowledge and...

incredibly charming man.

And I loved him.

[moderator] Nicole, do you have something to add to that point?

Pretty much summed him up. No.

[Harlan] On Kubrick, I could go on for hours, of course. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, the, the... myth, you know.

He was he was wickedly funny.

I mean, I would have to say that.

And a very, very dry sense of humor, which I love.

That's sort of, being Australian, that's part of our--

Our culture has a dry sense of humor. And Stanley had it.

But, yeah, he...

He was also--when it came to...

He would let you sort of--his office and stuff would always be quite messy.

But there was order within the mess.

I would go and sit on the floor of his office in the studio,

which was Pinewood.

He had his own little section, and he was very unpretentious.

And he just let me sit on the thing and read his books,

and go through his papers and, uh...

It's just a very different, different sort of working relationship

and friendship that I've ever had.

[man] Did you ever argue with him?

Oh, yeah.

Stanley, I don't think, would have respected you

if you didn't argue with him.

Yeah, we would argue.

And he would say, "Nicole, you should have been a lawyer."

Because I would always try to sort of...

But he liked that. He wanted that.

He didn't want you just to sort of lie down and...

and say, "Okay, Stanley, whatever. Whatever you want."

He sort of enjoyed that. And he would see the humor in it.

And he also never held a grudge.

You know, no matter what would happen, every day was a new day, which I...

That's exactly how I like to operate.

You know, you don't--I mean, you...

And so I think that's why we all managed to get on so well, you know.

[speaking French]

[question continues]

[interpreter] The impression was that

the film didn't work, in terms of box office in the United States,

as well as we were all expecting.

Do you have an explanation for that?

Well, I don't know what everyone was expecting.

The movie is, you know, like all Stanley's movies,

they have a life beyond the opening, or the first run.

I mean, you look at Stanley's movies are for life.

And you look at it, in the pantheon of film, you look at Stanley Kubrick,

if you want to know movies, you're going to have to look at Kubrick's pictures.

You know, along with the other master filmmakers.

So, I mean, you can't--

His movies have always, you know,

done actually better foreign than they have domestic, historically,

even at a time when domestic box office was the main,

which it no longer is.

I mean, you know, Stanley's films have always done better foreign.

But even beyond that, you look at the life of his movies,

that's why he was able to make the movies and have the money because of,

you know, for a studio to have Stanley Kubrick in their library,

it's huge.

So, I mean, you know, you can't...

I also think it's a pity now when films are judged in relation

to an opening weekend or their box office

- or I think it starts to-- - You can't judge Stanley in that same way.

I mean, you can. People can. They can continue to do it and probably will,

but I think it is, sort of, it makes it far more difficult for our industry now

with box office results sort of published all around the world within 12 hours.

And then because it made $50 million on its opening weekend,

versus four...

it's a better movie?

I mean, I think it's something we all have to fight against in a way.

[Harlan] I'm going to wave the European flag a little bit here.

It's a European film. It's a very European story.

Arthur Schnitzler was one of the most important writers of his time.

He was a friend of, or a contemporary of, Sigmund Freud.

He had correspondence with Sigmund Freud.

It came from an innovative nest of ideas.

It is very European. The film is very serious.

The key content is not Vienna in the '20s and the '30s.

It's universal. The style is very European.

The film treads on people's shoes, on their toes.

It gets some--it gets too close.

There are certain topics which in some societies are not discussed.

Death, religion, politics, and serious sex.

Frivolous sex you can discuss as much as you want. This here is serious.

So, for some people, the film gets too close.

They don't want to be told anything like that because they know it.

And they are right. They know it.

They are all experts. You are all experts on the topic.

Everybody in the audience is an expert on the topic, to a bigger or smaller slice.

But there's nobody who doesn't relate to what's going on.

For some people, that's uncomfortable.

But hopefully for many, many people in Paris,

it will be a film that will be embraced because it's a challenge.

It's like a Bergman film, but on a much bigger scale.

I mean, first of all, we have Tom and Nicole, so that puts it

in a completely different league.

It is entertainment. It is a major film.

It's not an art-house movie, but it has these elements.

And I think many people will appreciate it very, very much.

Every grown-up should see it twice.

Well, thank you very much.