The Film Forum

It's a Wonderful Life: Q&A With Ben Affleck

By Kevin Polowy

Related Links Rent or buy 'Hollywoodland' Rent or buy his movies Watch 'Hollywoodland' trailer

Ben Affleck skyrocketed to fame in true feel-good form, as co-writer and co-star of the Sundance-turned-Oscar sensation 'Good Will Hunting' along with bosom Boston buddy Matt Damon. It wasn't long before he was saving the world in 'Armageddon' and necking with Sandra Bullock, romantic comedy-style. But somewhere along the way (point anywhere past the minute the media's coverage of Bennifer: Part I hit overexposure), it became trendy to dislike the actor. A string of duds ('Gigli,' 'Paycheck,' 'Surviving Christmas') supplied his detractors plenty of ammunition.

So Affleck took a couple years off, and with the exception of a few baseball games and political rallies, stayed mostly out of the limelight. His return to the screen in 'Hollywoodland' this past fall couldn't have been more perfectly timed: Not only was Affleck's performance as slain TV 'Superman' George Reeves deeply personal and slightly self-deprecating, it was arguably his career best. The turn earned Affleck a Best Supporting Actor nomination from the Golden Globes, where he found himself in good company seated against Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Brad Pitt and eventual winner Eddie Murphy. Moviefone caught up with Affleck a few days after he suffered a "crushing defeat" to the 'Dreamgirls' star to talk about fame, fortune and 'Hollywoodland,' now on DVD.

So ... any trash you want to talk to Eddie Murphy?
Eddie Murphy is amazing. I was in 8th grade and 'Delirious' was about the biggest thing that ever happened to me in the pop culture world. When I was a freshman in high school, 2,600 kids in my high school took a poll of "Who is the biggest star in the world?" and it was Eddie Murphy. When I was a senior, I took the same poll and the answer was Eddie Murphy. Eddie Murphy is like the king, you know what I mean? The fact that I was nominated in the same category as Eddie Murphy, to me, is a very big deal. I was genuinely glad for Eddie that he won.

When 'Hollywoodland' came out in theaters, there was a lot written around how this was such an ideal role for you given certain professional similarities between you and George Reeves. Do you think most of that coverage was accurate?
I don't know. My life and George Reeves' are very dissimilar. I've been a lot luckier than George Reeves. George never got to accomplish the things that he wanted to accomplish. I've been incredibly fortunate and have had wonderful things happen to me in my life. George spent a lot of his time being unhappy. I've had a wonderful life. The similarities in terms of a certain kind of extreme fame for something that we were uncomfortable with is accurate. In George's sense it was a kind of typecasting for 'Superman' rather than for being an actor. And in my case it was extreme fame in a tabloid sense rather than for being an actor. And that similarity is not only true but obvious. It would be foolish to say otherwise.

It's different now; it's 50 years apart. But the media dynamic is similar, and the typecasting. People not being able to separate you from some idea that they have of you. Though then it was, if you were on a TV show, they couldn't get that role out of their head. Nowadays, not just with me but I think you see it more and more and more with a lot of folks, it's hard to separate actors or performers from their media-gossip blog-created celebrity self-image. Everybody knows where you blew a tire the night before. That level of intimacy is going to make it really hard for you to believe them in a movie or TV series because you know that they had Starbucks the night before, and they blew a tire and who their boyfriend is and so on. After a while, (actors) just become what (George Reeves) was like with 'Superman.' You just can't see anything but that other thing. So they are a similar phenomenon but they are different kinds.

Another word that was tossed around a lot was "comeback." Can we call it a comeback?
You know, there are a few circumstances where I think it's perfectly fair. For one thing, I haven't been in a movie for two years, so in the most literal obvious sense, it certainly is. In another sense, I liked the movie, I think it worked. The last movie I had done, I didn't like very much, I didn't think it worked. ('Hollywoodland') is also like the kind of movie and kind of role that I was doing seven, eight, nine years ago, modestly budgeted films about people. And playing character parts in those movies that I am probably better at. Or at least I certainly like doing better. Or maybe I just had more success at. Movies like 'Good Will Hunting' or 'Boiler Room' or 'Shakespeare in Love' or 'Dogma.' I wasn't the lead and I had the opportunity to play someone who wasn't super-likeable and always having to make the right decisions and save the day from impending doom. So you have the chance to be more interesting. You can be a flawed character but not a bad character in a movie that's not necessarily concerned with value judgments or people tied to railroad tracks. But rather with the more nuanced vagaries of the human condition in the sense that people are complicated, they're all not one thing. In that sense, it was me wanting to go back to those kinds of movies.