Emmanuel Itier: It took almost ten years for you to bring this project to the screen. How did you keep your faith alive in this endeavor? How did you keep going?

Ed Norton: Well, fortunately it was not the only thing I was doing during all the time it took me to put together this film. But at times it was very frustrating because we came very close a number of times, and I thought that maybe we were the only ones to be passionate about this project. What kept me going was that I found someone like Naomi Watts, and she embraced the project. I thought that if someone like this likes my project, I must not be that crazy. Another good actor wanted to do this movie, and so it gave me faith again to keep going. Also, I didn’t see this story very often, so it kept me interested with this script. The scripts you get–many do feel familiar. This one was exotic and unfamiliar, and I knew also that doing this film would be an amazing experience, since we had to go to the other end of the world to shoot it and really immerse ourselves in it. So all of this kept me motivated.

EI: The ending is quite different from the book, and you took other liberties with this novel. Why these choices?

EN: Well, Ron (note: the screenwriter Ron Nyswaner) and I had a relationship with the book where we felt that Somerset Maugham (note: the writer of the book that inspired this film) is so intensive about the illusion that people have about life, about each other, and the way those illusions prevent people from seeing the world as it really is and seeing each other clearly, and that’s an interesting place to start. If you read the book, he does not let those characters evolve very far from the start. His book is an observation of people’s inability to see each other, and I think that Ron and I, together, embraced the fact that if we were going to China to make a movie, we thought we had to take the license to expand the scope of emotions–the physical scope as well. In the book, he doesn’t deal with China. It’s more about what going on inside these characters. So we made a film inspired by the questions that are raised by the book, and we wanted to imagine what would happen if these characters would go further with this process of examining themselves and their relationships.

EI: And what about changing the end? Was it your idea?

EN: Well, it was Ron’s and my idea. Again, we talked a lot about the various possibilities. We were even still debating about what to do when John (note: the director John Curran) and Naomi came on board. John went back to the book and he asked us what we thought we should do, so collectively we wanted to…without taking away the tragic component of it, we wanted to assert the capacity that forgiveness has to let people get past the worst in themselves.

EI: What made you want to get Naomi for this character as your co-lead?

EN: I saw her the first time in David Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive”, and I thought that what was on display was so interesting to me because there was such an incredible range, from the breathless and naïve girl to the sour and angry woman. It was a strange and surreal film, but she encompassed so much in it. In lots of ways, you needed for that character in this film–an actress that had a wide range of acting. And initially, some people were not so thrilled about her in this film, but with her career taking off and suddenly everyone becoming very exited about her, I personally thought she was the best person to get for this role.

EI: You’re suddenly more of the romantic type on the screen. Was it a conscious move?

EN: Not really. For no particular reason, I did two in a row that had a certain romantic elements to them. I thought it was not planned, but it was just the timing. “The Illusionist” is more of a romantic fantasy, in a way. It was difficult to do this film for me because the character was so dark and mysterious, and the idea of performing these stage tricks was very interesting for me. But “The Painted Veil”, even though it’s romantic, the challenge for me is that it was not a kind of romantic story that I don’t feel like I could bring anything to it in the sense that it was not about two people meeting in a charming way, and it was not one of these things that you would have to turn on the charm, and I was not sure I could do this. But I did feel that it was a very intimate study of people in the way that they take each other for granted and get hurt, and the way men can punish when they get hurt. It seemed very grounded, and these emotions were interesting for me to dwell into. The fact is it’s romantic because these two people earned the fact that they come together at the end of this long journey.

EI: How was it to shoot in China with a Chinese co-production?

EN: It was wonderful, and such an interesting experience. Even the difficulties we faced, in retrospect, were part of a great adventure. Our Chinese colleagues were amazing. The struggle to make the film had nothing to do with working with Chinese crews and actors. They were one of the things that kept us working. The level of work ethic with the Chinese is fantastic; the level of commitment is inspiring. They work so hard. You know, nobody walks anywhere, but they run! The way the crews are structured, everyone is committed to their bosses and, if the boss is committed to your film, everyone is so committed. These people would really die for their bosses. Everyone was so devoted to John, our director. He is such a great communicator. This was his goal, to make them understand it was not only a film about a couple of Westerners traveling in China, but also a movie ABOUT China and about what was going on in China during that period of time. Also, it was great to put lenses in a part of China where nobody had shot before. The crews from Beijing were struck by the mountains in this region–nobody had been there. So it was great opportunity for everyone that was a part of this film to do something unique and exciting.

EI: What was your biggest surprise about China? There is a lot of talk about this country, in good ways and in bad ways…so what is your opinion about China?

EN: I would never casually make a judgment about China because it’s like the US and it’s so enormous. There is more than one China, and the people are so diverse. The issues are also so complicated, like anywhere. When you get to a place as a tourist, you have a different experience than when you go and work somewhere. And when you become friends with colleagues who do the same thing as you in another place, it’s a beautiful thing because you really learn about them in a true and open way. You find that some things are different, but you end up finding that a lot of things are the same. The commonality between Chinese and us are plenty. It was wonderful to talk about the same things that we do and share stories. On the down side, dealing with the Chinese government on issues of control with material was a little bit challenging. China is such a force in the world, and lots of people are trying to do business over there. People in lots of fields are going to have to confront what the boundaries are, what standards you’re willing to accept–whether you’re willing to accept an imposition of authoritarian standard in whatever your business is. In our business, lots of it is about presentation of stories, about histories. Movie companies working in China are going to have to confront how far they’re going to want to let the Chinese government say what can and cannot be in the movie. These are unpleasant conflicts to face. There were lots of things, and it’s too long to talk about all the conflicts. But in our case, it came out okay, and we were lucky to have John who stood up for many points and many things about this movie. He was willing to have his name taken from this film if decisions to remove certain things would have been only politically controlled and not truly justified. At moments, it was tense, but John was very courageous and we are all happy with how the film turned out to be at the end.

EI: What is the movie about for you?

EN: I’m always careful not to try to say what I think a movie is about. I would never try to tell anybody what they should take from a film. I think that if the film has depth to it, then it has lots of room for interpretation. If anything, I would hope that the depiction of these characters is something that people see themselves reflected in. I think that this story is in a far away place and time, but if people can watch the film and feel an empathy and think, “I see myself in that–I see my own relationship,” and if it makes them question things and challenge themselves, that’s what it’s all about for me. If I feel a reaction to something, if it makes me think about something in an unexpected way, then that’s the idea–to share that creative experience for an audience. It’s all the point.

EI: You’re not the type of star that put his money on himself with diamonds and bling-bling, but you give a lot to charities and other humanitarian work. Where are you with these efforts?

EN: Not all of it is inter-related to my life as an actor. Sometimes I think that there is a way you can use a public platform–that you have to bring more attention to a work that other people are doing. The things I work on, the issues about life that interest me, that I care about–whether it is environmental protection work or things like housing, well it’s usually things I have a long-standing interest in, and it’s beyond my work as an actor. I try not to sort of let my involvement in other things be just about landing a known name to it. I don’t really associate getting involved with the issues we’re all struggling with as something you do because you get well known. I think it’s great for people to get involved with issues of their time, whether they are well known or not. I don’t ever think that my work on these things is more important than anybody else. I think it’s a generation thing. I think that people of my age and generation are starting to take up the responsibility to get involved in a lot of issues, and it’s a good thing.

Popularity: 2% [?]