There's not a whole lot of shared ground between Primal Fear, The People vs. Larry Flynt, and Everyone Says I Love You, three movies released in 1996 to widely varying degrees of critical acclaim and commercial success. What these movies do have in common is that each features a startling performance from a striking newcomer by the name of Edward Norton. Just weeks after the latter two films opened, Norton nabbed a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. Though each of his breakout performances was worthy of such recognition, in this case he got the nod for his chillingly seamless embodiment of Aaron Stampler, the stammering Appalachian altar boy whose trial for the grisly murder of a Chicago archbishop is at the center of Primal Fear.
After a hiatus of nearly two years' duration, Norton will be back on the big screen twice this fall, and he'll be
going just about as far afield from the straitlaced lawyers he played in Everyone Says and Larry Flynt as
possible. In Rounders, opposite Matt Damon, he's Worm, a just-sprung felon with a passion for poker and
self-destruction whom Norton describes as a cross between Bugs Bunny and Keith Richards. Then in October, he'll star as a
reformed skinhead in the already-controversial American History X. At the moment, Norton is hard at work on Fight
Club, in which he'll star opposite Brad Pitt.
Fluent in Japanese and a Yale University grad, the brainy Norton, 29, was a New York stage actor prior to his
pulling off his triple-threat cinematic breakthrough. He prefers to keep his private life private, especially as regards
the exact nature of his relationship with rocker Courtney Love, whom he met filming Larry Flynt. Yet last summer
when Love was made the subject of a caustic once-over by critic Daphne Merkin in a characteristically windy New
Yorker review of the Love-bashing documentary Kurt and Courtney, Norton could not refrain from springing to
her defense via a pointed letter to the editor. Was it love? A simple gesture of respect and friendship, as Norton
explained during a recent chat with Mr. Showbiz at a Los Angeles hotel. Wearing an unbuttoned plaid shirt over a
crisp white T-shirt, the man of the hour spoke at length about his career, each of his upcoming films, and just what did
motivate his exquisitely concise defense of his famous Flynt co-star.
Everyone calls you Edward, not Ed or Eddie I understand. Is that because you got mocked as a kid over Ed Norton, the plumber Art Carney played on The Honeymooners?
My father had it worse, he had that Honeymooners thing growing up. I'd occasionally get an older person who would go "To the moon Alice!" or "Hey, Norton!" and in that period I didn't know what it meant. There wasn't that Honeymooners resurgence until Eddie Murphy came out with that Raw album in which he did this bit about Ed Norton and Ralph Kramden having sex. One day I went into high school, every black kid came up and said, "Hey, Norton!" But nobody's ever called me Ed.
So no one calls you Eddie?
Only [Miramax co-founder] Harvey Weinstein. I let him do it, because it came off so naturally. It's like he's the manager of the baseball team and is allowed to call us whatever he wants.
What about this amazing leap from obscurity with your first three movies? How do you go from there?
There's no doubt it opens up a world of opportunities, in terms of access to privilege to choose amongst different
material. To actually have the freedom to make some choices based on nothing more than your interest - that's amazing.
That's all an actor can aspire to in a professional sense. One of the worst things about being an actor is the lack of
autonomy. You have to wait for other people so long to say yes to you. So to move to a professional place where you can
be the catalyst behind something getting made or have the freedom to choose among a host of opportunities, that is the
holy grail of being an actor. I never take it for granted. I feel grateful for that opportunity and try not to squander
it by caving to pressures of a Hollywood value system that says, "You should look for a commercial film." The worst
thing in the world is to have that freedom of choice and not follow your own muse.
But you had three commercial films that were hits.
Yes, but I can't act as if I was choosing Primal Fear. That was a very fortunate convergence of circumstances. That was exactly the kind of role I was right for and would have chosen to do were the choice mine. And I got it.
So being commercial isn't something you're opposed to?
Am I happy that movie was a big hit? Sure, sure. But I haven't made choices dictated by that. I did the Woody Allen [Everyone Says I Love You] film instead of a number of things that I could have done at that time that were more commercial. I did Larry Flynt instead of a couple of 'big things' that people were saying, "You really really should do this movie and not Larry Flynt." There was no way I was not going to do a movie with Milos Forman. I would have done a much smaller part in that movie to work with him, because he is not only one of my top filmmakers of all time, but as I got together with him to understand what he was trying to say with that movie, I knew I wanted to be part of it. So I turned down a lot of stuff that was arguably more commercial than that film ended up being. Same with American History X. There were two or three big studio movies I turned down, none of which turned out to be particularly good, but which were commercial.
Now that you're a seasoned poker player from Rounders, how good are you really?
I probably would beat the average home game. I never played before.
As a method actor, is that why you felt it was necessary to learn poker?
Sure. The whole pursuit of these kinds of characters is the experience of getting to dip down into the worlds you don't spend time in or know about and meet people without the consequences of choosing that life. That is the personal, experiential fun for me. As an actor that's what you're there for, to siphon that stuff and share it with an audience. And the more research you do, even if it's not details that are ever going to get communicated specifically by the film, the more imbued you are by the gesture and the details and vocabulary, and the philosophy of the whole world. Especially with someone like John [Dahl, the director of Rounders] who's willing to explore on the spot. You're more likely to have a true moment rise up because you won't be in your head thinking, "Am I holding the cards right?" The actions and motions of the game will be unconscious.
You've described Worm as a cross between Bugs Bunny and Keith Richards.
Bugs Bunny was the operating image for me with Worm. You latch onto different things, and Worm is such an anarchic spirit, the merry prankster and the healthy, chaotic impulse in the world. Like Bugs Bunny, he's always scheming and two steps ahead of getting beat up. Even when he's gotten a beating, he's laughing. The reason I needed an energy like that to tap is, if he's not appealing, you don't buy that Mike [Matt Damon] stays by him. If you don't feel the seduction of this guy, of how much fun he makes things seem, you won't buy Mike sticking by him.
And Keith Richards?
It's Worm's clothes. They say a lot about how he feels about himself. He's got a rock and roll
spirit and he's the only one who thinks he's got any style. When I was meeting with the costume designer, the Stones
were going to playing Madison Square Garden. I said, "Go see the Stones at the Garden!" Actually, I went to the Stones
with her.
Has this exposure to poker made you a gambler?
I'm not addicted but I have much greater respect for the game. The biggest bubble that was
popped for me was before this I would have lumped this with casino gambling. Now I would never call poker gambling,
I'd equate it with chess or other games of skill that require multilevel strategic or mathematical or psychological
skills. The people that play it seriously, there's no luck involved at all. That tournament Matt and I entered in Las
Vegas was the equivalent of entering Wimbledon. We were getting beat by a competitor of great skill.
As far as saying you're "addicted," that would be like saying Pete Sampras is addicted to tennis.
It's not the right term. The guys that live in that world, it's a living.
But they don't play chess in the scuzzy dives we see in the film.
It's true those rooms are scuzzy or whatever, but there was a half million dollars on the table [when I visited one] and the people playing are investment traders, bankers, and professional poker players. There's a guy there who is the best backgammon player and earns three-quarters of a million a year. And he plays poker. It's a mistake to see it as too low-end.
What was the biggest gamble in your life?
I can't easily bring to mind a moment like in the end of this movie, an enormous amount riding on that decision.
How about the choice to go into acting?
Sure. Matt and I used to talk about that. Any decision to pursue a creative life as a
career is a gamble. But to pursue anything you care about is a gamble, that's what you're more vulnerable to
emotionally. This is what drew me to the movie exactly. It wasn't poker but at the center of it is a story of
self-definition, a character who is in the moment at that point when you have to face-up to what you're passionate
about and make the decision to take the risk of pursuing it. And accept that risk as a necessary part of realizing your
dreams. There's no way of getting something you care about and not being risky.
What else could you have done instead of act? Go to law school?
I don't know what I would have done. That's the point, I don't know what else I would have done. I could have gone to law school. I had opportunities to do other things, most people do. There are certainly many ways to create some financial stability in your life other than to be an actor.
Have these three diverse debut performances taken away the stress?
It would be ridiculous to say on some level there's not some relaxation professionally. You are getting the opportunity to work and making a living and that's wonderful. But it doesn't eradicate that sense of risk or the need to keep doing the same thing you've always done, which is listening to your gut. There are new voices telling you, "You've got to do this!" or "You ought to work in a big action film and take a big payday" or "Find a commercial film to work in," and so forth. You still are in the same, exact situation and you must make your choices for your own reason or listen to other people's.
What about your role in the fight between director Tony Kaye and New Line Cinema for the final release version of American History X? The way it's been reported, you've sided with New Line against the filmmaker when he failed to deliver his final cut on time.
I want to be really clear about this. Despite some of the ways [Kaye] represented it, this
is his fight with New Line. I have never on any level played any role in that in which I wasn't invited in. I've kicked
in my two cents whenever I've been asked. By the studio and despite what he says, most of my participation was by his
invitation. At other points, it was definitely at the studio's [request]. He's run up into a thing with them. It's not
my fight, it's his issues with the studio. I do not have a say in the matter. Any two cents I might want to contribute
will be his two cents. By legal contract it resides with him. What makes me laugh is he's created this enormous gulf -
of his radical version of the film he has and the one they're going forward with. The one [New Line is going to
distribute is] the one he had! Tony is a hype artist as much as he's anything else and strangely I think almost the
two sides of him are at odds with each other. As a filmmaker he wants to make a movie but as a hype artist he wants
to create this performance event around his own movie.
Have you called Tony Kaye up and said, "Hey, asshole, what are you trying to do? Don't make me into the villain of this?"
No. [Smiles at the idea.] I think what you have to do with these situations and those kinds of impulses is you have to rise above it. Because it's really not my fight. It's his issues with the studio. I don't have a say. All creative decisions by legal contract reside with the studio. I don't have any formal say in the matter.
How have you found celebrity?
There's a built-in oversimplification in the media. There's a reductiveness and to be a
complex human and have yourself boiled down to convenient copy which has to be highly oversimplified, that can give
you a sick feeling. It leaves you feeling a bit uncomfortable. To get reduced is strange; it flies in the face of all
the things you feel about yourself.
That side of it I don't tend to enjoy, which is why I draw the line about what's
a legitimate conversation before the public media. I reserve the right to say, "That's not why I'm here." But on
the flip side, I never mind talking about films or the people I've worked with or what we were going after, in a
story-telling sense. Because that's what we're trying to do as actors.
Given that desire for a separation of the personal and professional, it was surprising to see you write a letter to The New Yorker defending Courtney Love and attacking Daphne Merkin's piece about her.
As did many others, including Milos and some very prominent record and entertainment people. They printed mine because it was concise and to the point.
Or because they think the two of you are so close.
And we are close friends, so I'm glad they did it. I think everything I have to say about that I said in my letter. I don't need to rehash it. It was a response to what I thought was a reprehensibly shallow and actually mean-spirited piece of journalism. Motivated by things I was aware of that were not known to most readers, by a number of longstanding grudges.
You mean Love wouldn't give an interview, so this was payback time?
Yeah, exactly. But beyond that I think it reflected a very disturbing trend in American journalism, which is the tabloidization of America. It was complete tabloid trash, just being respun by a highbrow magazine without being re-examined. That goes on all the time now. The tabloids have become the nexus of American journalism. The Globe will say something and USA Today quotes them and then The New Yorker will quote USA Today. That's dictated by having to sell copies with things that have prurient interest. That's exactly what I was thinking was going on in The New Yorker, it was an exploitative rehashing of something that came from the lowest levels of journalistic integrity, standards, and even its artistic level.
But didn't she really admire Courtney Love, saying she could rise above these horrible family circumstances?
No, in fact she said exactly the opposite! One of the most offensive lines
in the whole piece was this assertion, "Heredity will overcome human spirit" - that a person must by necessity return
to that from which they came. That's one of the most anti-humanist statements I've heard! It implies we're all trapped
in whatever environment we're born into. It's not only un-American and shallow, it's a horrible thing to suggest and I
was just stunned by it. I wasn't the only one. I know [Love] got a lot of reactions from strangers and many people who
[read my letter] and said, "I had the same impulse."
When those things go on, you have to wonder: Where are the feminists?
Where is Gloria Steinem, who can find the energy to trash Larry Flynt but can't rise up to point out real sexism
when it's happening? But let's get off that.
You've said you don't want your life simplified and put on a public stage to entertain the world. Do you find it a battle to keep your personal life private?
I don't consider it a "battle." I really don't. One of the best things
anybody said to me in this business was Dustin Hoffman. He told me if he could do anything over again, he would try to
draw those lines around his private life - but without anger. If you're asked about this and you respond with anger, all
that creates is an energy that creates a cycle that goes back just as hard [against you]. I really took that in. Very
rarely is it a malicious impulse.
And people are interested in me as an actor and what I have is
diminished by too much of that sharing. I truly think you will enjoy what I have to do as a storyteller and as an actor,
you'll enjoy it more if you know less about me. So I'd rather keep all that stuff out of the air.
I had a conversation with a friend of mine, Drew Barrymore. We were talking about this stuff. She said to me, "You are incredibly lucky. Because from the get-go you've had cachet, you've been taken seriously as an actor and you've been able to convince people there is a good reason for you not to do that [publicity] stuff. To play this relationship in a way that works for you. And not everybody is that lucky. For instance, I." She's needed to use [publicity] to open up people's perceptions about her and she's right. I'm really lucky and very, very fortunate in the way my career has developed.
You were cast in Primal Fear when Leonardo DiCaprio passed and then when you were making Rounders, Matt Damon literally went from being a total obscurity to having to duck fans to get from his trailer to the set. Don't you have this eagerness to be a star, someone everyone knows by name?
Up to now since the beginning of those opportunities, it's never happened that I didn't get to do something I wanted to do because I was not considered a big enough star. No one's said, "We'll give this to someone else because they're a bigger star than you." When I run into that, maybe some part of me will go, "Geez."
If you have new information on Edward Norton (and you can provide a verifiable and reputable source), please email me- Susan
Note: Articles and images have been posted without permission for noncommercial and nonprofit use
with no intention of copyright infringement. The purpose of this reprinting is to disseminate correct information about the
actors, films, and studios. I have included author names and links to sources whenever possible.
