Millions of fans came of age vicariously through Adam Brody on the small screen via his roles “Gilmore Girls” and especially “The O.C.,” where he displayed a penchant for neurosis-infused quips. But the 32-year-old actor has also crafted a surprisingly diverse and hip, quirky filmography, which he adds to with writer-director Whit Stillman’s latest movie, “Damsels in Distress.” In the very atypical college comedy, Brody, opposite Greta Gerwig and Analeigh Tipton, co-stars as Charlie Walker, a suave young businessman who might well be exercising a loose relationship with veracity in attempting to create some romantic shortcuts. ShockYa recently had a chance to sit down and talk with Brody one-on-one, about both Stillman’s peculiar style and tone, as well as his career overall. The conversation is excerpted below:
ShockYa: Often much to their credit, I think, all four of Whit’s films are kind of these odd little ducks. Were you familiar with his canon (“Metropolitan,” “Barcelona,” “Last Days of Disco”), and what was your first experience with this script?
Adam Brody: I’m precious about all of his movies, including this one, and it’s the same thing about him — I find him to be so fiercely intelligent and funny, first of all, and such a deep thinker, and then also so kind. That’s not what I look for foremost, necessarily. I’ll do a very cynical script too. But that said, the idea that he has such love for all of his characters and empathizes with all of them [is appealing]. It’s so funny, this movie, but also has so many ideas and philosophies, and so much irony. All of his films are so heartfelt and involving — I love every one of them, none of them have a hair out of place. He puts so much thought into his scripts, and I like that he’s not that prolific, actually. He’s only putting his best foot forward. On the one hand, “Damsels” is easy to talk about, because I love it, but also hard to talk about, because there are so many ideas, so many themes, and so many books mentioned [in it] that I haven’t read. The experience of doing it is interesting, because going in I thought we would have endless discussions and debates about these sorts of things, yet [there] was nothing of the sort. You were sort of left to fill in what you will. He trusts you and leaves you to your own devices. …We’ve talked about many books since, but it’s not like he’s sitting down and teaching a class. So I find that I’m as much a viewer of this film as anyone else, really.
ShockYa: He does seem a filmmaker almost incidentally, in some respects — I know he’s had a couple projects in development hell, but he’s not out there grinding out a movie every year… he seems to have other intellectual interests as well.
AB: Yeah, and it’s funny because some of these themes and subjects that he’s talking about [are] in no other movies, really. They’re completely original. It could be argued, I suppose, that that’s because they’re not very cinematic, although to me he’s made it very cinematic. But soap as a cure-all for depression (as in “Damsels”) has certainly never been talked about in any movie for any length, and I find that wonderful, funny and true. He’s an original thinker. And then to be espousing the ideas that he is — which can be seen as conservative — but doing so in this medium of indie art film, which is the opposite of that, is such a contradiction already. It’s so unique that he champions the etiquette that he does. I think he champions these values and a certain class system, in a way, but to me it’s not about money. To my knowledge he has no money, really. But he’ll always have a popped collar or a blazer. He’s very formal, but not [in a way that’s] synonymous with some greed-is-good philosophy at all.
ShockYa: Your character, Charlie, exists outside of the main gang of girls that is the movie’s primary focus, but, because it is so particular, was there any discussion of the (similar) meter or pitch of dialogue in the film?
AB: No, not with me, anyways. I think part of that is because we’re on a shoestring budget and time is of the essence. I think he casts right, or who he thinks can do it, and then sort of lets them [go]. I probably have plenty of weaknesses as an actor, but I think perhaps one of my strengths is that I can be very verbal, and so his stuff was never daunting to me, it was a pure joy. I never struggled with the dialogue. I had to maybe look up things to know what I was talking about, because there were certain bits of history that I’d learned about and forgotten — like dandyism and the decline of decadence. But the cadence of the dialogue was always intuitive for me. It was so fun to play in that key, if you will.
ShockYa: A lot of times guys in their early 20s, or even from 17 to maybe 26… well, nothing a guy says then should be listened to or taken seriously, because there’s all this energy and testosterone and very little life experience. But what is the nature of Charlie’s character and deceit, in your opinion?
AB: I think Charlie’s deceit is not malicious. I’m taking my cues a bit from Whit, but Violet, Greta’s character, completely reinvents herself from her past. I know that Whit subscribes to that some — from him personally, and from his other movies. And that’s another argument that I think is wholly original, and not made in other movies — that truth isn’t always the best. There are such things as polite lies and etiquette, if you will; brutal honesty isn’t always the best policy. The most glaring example of it (in Stillman’s films) is in “Metropolitan,” when they play a game of truth-or-dare, with disastrous consequences. And as the character in the movie says, “There’s a reason why people don’t go around telling everyone their most innermost thoughts.” To a certain degree, I think Charlie is [lying] with a clear design to meet women, as he confesses readily. He doesn’t see anything wrong with it. It’s just a tactic, and no different than doing a comb-over if you were bald. If they date him [based] solely on his fictitious job, then it’s hard to feel too sorry for them. I see him as a pretty straightforward individual, just trying to better himself in name only.
ShockYa: Your filmography includes movies — like “The Romantics,” “In the Land of Women,” “Thank You For Smoking,” “Jennifer’s Body,” even, and now this — that have a certain type of standout idiosyncratic appeal, that take some chances. Do you specifically look for or think of that, or do your tastes just come down more indie-inflected?
AB: I think the thing is that I’m really a fan of almost every genre, from tentpole movies to little $1 million art films, so I think I run the gamut. But my own personal taste just trends toward an intelligence and originality — whatever the argument the film is making, or themes or characters, I can almost tell from the first page whether I’m in the hands of an original, intelligent storyteller, and if I am then they’re going to take me to all sorts of interesting places that I didn’t expect to go. And if you’re not, then hopefully the structure is great and you can elevate it with performances, because otherwise it might not be that interesting of a journey. But I’m very pragmatic about it. On one hand, I’ve scarcely had the complete freedom to do only what I want, even any thing of “one for them, one for me.” But I have both a personal taste — where I might like less, but what I do like I really love — and professional taste, and given my openness to doing things that I’m not crazy about, specifically some of the bigger (studio movies), I do look at my resume and it does more often than not reflect my tastes. And that, to me, is I guess not an accident, but it feels like it given that I’ve been willing to bend. I’m getting older, and I should probably live in the now more, but it’s really satisfying to look back and say, “Hey, I’m proud of this and it speaks to me.”
Written by: Brent Simon
