That's the thing about the script, is that how these people were affected by their decision, and how it could ultimately kill them, and I mean literally.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
For an entire populace, change, growth, and spontaneity were dangerous. Acting upon a personal desire, whispering a hidden longing, revealing your true feelings - all the human actions we think of as essential to a character - had be censored by the self lest they be punished by the state.
I've read the 'Public Enemies' script and, no, it's not 100 percent historically accurate. But it's by far the closest thing to fact Hollywood has attempted, and for that, I am both excited and quietly relieved.
The destruction of civilian hamlets, the killing and the wounding of civilians, became vastly greater than it had been before, and it was very upsetting; but I still couldn't bring myself to understand that the policy itself was wrong.
Of course, I'm not allowed to talk about the script, but I can say it is a really good story.
It wasn't until two or three years ago that I actually learned that in the end he actually did kill someone. But that was a choice that he faced: to kill or be killed.
Well, first of all, you read the script a million times. Because what the script gives you are given circumstances. Given circumstances are all the facts of your character.
If you think about what 'The Killing' is, it is the theatrical production, not the script.
It's not about the script: it's about who the director is and who the other people in the cast are. Because you can look at a great script and execute it in a very sophomoric way, and you can look at an OK script, and you can execute it in a very sophisticated way and come out with something really good.
There's no difference between one's killing and making decisions that will send others to kill. It's exactly the same thing, or even worse.
There is no sense in doing a wonderful script with somebody who can't direct because that is a disaster.