Adam Brody:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n 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\u00a0other intellectual interests as well.<\/strong><\/p>\n AB:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n ShockYa: Your character, Charlie, exists outside of the main\u00a0gang 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?<\/strong><\/p>\n AB:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n ShockYa: A lot of times guys in their early\u00a020s, or even from 17 to maybe 26… well,\u00a0nothing 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?<\/strong><\/p>\n AB:<\/strong> 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 —\u00a0from him personally, and from his other movies. And that’s another argument that I think is wholly original, and not made in other movies —\u00a0that 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.<\/p>\n
![\"Adam](\"http:\/\/www.shockya.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/Damsels-In-Distress-Adam-Brody.jpeg\" "\\"Adam")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"