Few film categories have become more densely populated in recent years than the Young Adult genre. Seriously, we can only watch the same, sanitized, dystopian world before all of these films start to blend together. It's a hard world to stand out in, but that's exactly what Paul Haggis intends to do. The legendary director recently opened up and provided some insight into his upcoming adaptation of Paolo Bacigalupi's Ship Breaker, and it sounds like it's going to be one of the most intense YA adaptations ever.

Director Paul Haggis recently spoke to THR and provided more information regarding his upcoming adaptation of Ship Breaker. It seems that he found himself drawn to the $100 million film (the first installment in a planned trilogy) because he wanted to take on a project that would take a hard look at environmental issues and the topic of global warming. At its core, the story of Ship Breaker centers on a future version of human society that has no real knowledge of the events of the 21st century, and such an idea resonated with Haggis and his concerns about these real world issues.

The overarching premise of the Ship Breaker story sounds far more intense than the average YA adaptations that we typically see these days. Taking place hundreds of years in the future, the story centers on a dystopian version of our world in which global warming has wreaked havoc on the environment. Sea levels have risen due to shifts in worldwide temperature, and major cities have vanished as a result of rising sea levels. The story follows a young boy named Nailer who tries to survive by scavenging derelict ships for supplies, while also coping with an abusive, alcoholic father at home.

For Haggis, the ultimate appeal seems to be the opportunity tackle a story about major ecological issues in a way that audiences might actually respond to. This isn't his first foray into the realm of topical drama -- his wholly underrated 2007 film, In the Valley of Elah similarly took a hard-hitting look at the mentality of soldiers returning from Iraq -- but he thinks Ship Breaker could really be a chance for him to frame this particular issue properly.

What makes the prospect of a Ship Breaker film so interesting is the fact that it's a generally much darker story than the average YA adaptation. Sure, projects like The Hunger Games and The Maze Runner broach some dark topics, but Ship Breaker is one of the darker Young Adult novel series in recent memory. Much of this has to do with the fact that writer Paolo Bacigalupi is actually known for writing adult oriented material, and Ship Breaker really represents his first major foray into the YA world.

CinemaBlend will bring you any and all relevant details related to Paul Haggis' upcoming Ship Breaker adaptation as more information becomes available to us. At this point only one thing is certain: Ship Breaker could be exactly what the Young Adult genre needs right now.

When it comes to the Oscar race, there’s always going to be debate. Should Dances With Wolves really have beat out Goodfellas? Should Al Pacino really have won for Scent of a Woman over both Denzel Washington in Malcolm X and Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven? One of the most questionable choices was Crash, which walked away with Best Picture at the 78th Annual Academy Awards. Almost no one, including the director, thinks it should have won.

Talking to HitFix about the upcoming HBO drama, Show Me a Hero, which he directed, Crash helmer Paul Haggis talked about the controversy surrounding the choice. He said:

As Haggis points out, there was a lot of strong competition for the Best Picture statue that particular year. Many people view Crash’s victory as being indicative of the Academy’s discomfort with the idea of homosexuality, as it beat out Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain. That film has become something of a cultural landmark, while Crash is largely remembered for this above all else.

Though Crash is widely regarded as the worst Best Picture winner (Film Comment put it as number one, with Slumdog Millionaire at two, and Chicago at three, though Out of Africa and a few others are frequently cited as well), not everyone was upset at the decision. Legendary film critic Roger Ebert championed Haggis’ movie, and publicly stated that the best film did in fact win that year—it was also Ebert’s pick to walk away with the Oscar. Still, he was definitely in the minority with that opinion.

Crash isn’t a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s still hard to imagine it winning against such a stacked field. Though he doesn’t necessarily think his film should have the Academy Award, Paul Haggis does think he made a good movie that moves people. He continued:

Haggis has continued to write, produce, and occasionally direct big movie and television projects, including working on Casino Royale, Flags of Our Fathers, and many more. Still, he’s always going to have a historical footnote thanks to Crash. What do you think, did the right film win Best Picture that year, or is this, as many believe, one of the worst Oscar missteps of all time? Sound off below.

David Simon, creator of HBO’s The Wire and Treme, is gearing up to make TV audiences praise his name again with another hard-hitting social drama. HBO has officially given the greenlight to Simon’s Show Me a Hero, a politics-filled miniseries led by the talented Oscar Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis) and Catherine Keener (Enough Said). My fingers are already crossed that Michael K. Williams’ casting is right around “The Corner.” (David Simon joke.)

Show Me a Hero, which will be shown in six parts, was co-written by Simon and Baltimore Sun journalist William F. Zorzi (The Wire) and based on the 2000 nonfiction book from former New York Times journalist Lisa Belkin. Directing all six parts will be the Academy Award-winning director Paul Haggis (Crash), who last helmed the interlocking 2013 love story Third Person. Simon began developing the project a while back, but HBO was waiting until cast members and a director were locked down before officially putting in the order.

According to Deadline, Isaac will play Nick Wasicsko, the youngest mayor in the history of Yonkers, NY. His youth makes him particularly unequipped to handle the shitstorm that occurs when a federal court orders him to build low-rent housing units inside the town’s white neighborhoods. Expectedly, his attempts to do so polarize the town, creating huge problems within the local government and completely destroying Wasicsko’s life. Just once I’d like David Simon to make a light, witty comedy.

Keener co-stars as Mary Dorman, a homeowner in East Yonkers who “comes to a remarkable realization during the battle over where to build low-income housing.” Will that realization be something along the lines of, “We’re all insensitive?” The miniseries' events take place in the late 1980s, so we can probably expect the points of view to be brusquely hateful in nature. And knowing HBO’s reputation…

Show Me a Hero is the third miniseries Simon has developed with HBO, joining 2000’s Emmy-winning The Corner and 2008’s Emmy-nominated Generation Kill. (Treme is nominated for Outstanding Miniseries in this year’s Emmy Awards.) Chances are good that this project will earn itself a chance for the same accolades, and that the rest of this cast will be filled by equally talented thesps.

There’s no telling when Show Me a Hero will go into production. Keener recently finished filming Peer Pedersen’s family drama The Greens are Gone with Cary Elwes, while Isaac is currently inside a giant mystery box filming J.J. Abrams’ Star Wars: Episode VII. I’m betting we’ll be watching Show Me a Hero long before that space adventure makes it to theaters.

Just last week when reporting on Rob Marshall's casting considerations for who should play Johnny Depp's onscreen paramour in his Thin Man remake, I wondered how far Hollywood would push their love of pairing older men with much younger women. And now Oscar-winning writer-director Paul Haggis (Crash) has revealed to Vulture his striking choice of casting 28-year-old Olivia Wilde to play the love interest of 59-year-old Liam Neeson.

Don't get me wrong, I--like many younger ladies--harbor a serious crush on the Taken star who can go from tough as nails to utterly adorable (I'm thinking Love, Actually) with an endearing believability. Nonetheless, that's pure fantasy and this 31-year gap is sure to be a jarring disparity on screen. Regardless, this May-December pairing will be among the stars fronting Haggis' latest ensemble piece, Third Person.

After having developed Third Person's script for more than two years, Haggis is finally looking to lens the film this August. But for now he is being painfully tight-lipped when it comes to who else may appear in his next effort. He has divulged:

Neeson and Wilde will be at the center of the New York plot line, with the latter slated to play a reporter who covers the city's ever-vibrant party beat. Haggis shared no details on what kind of role Neeson will fill, but it seems to me that with such a prominent difference in their ages, and Wilde's character's incredibly cool job, their story may well revolve around Neeson's character feeling too old and out-of-date for his chic, young girlfriend.

Already, the age gap along with Haggis' decision to set part of his love-centered tale in New York is drawing superficial parallels to the work of Woody Allen. But it's unlikely Third Person will be a wry comedy in that vein as Haggis is best known for his earnest and dark dramas. To that end, I'll be curious to see what Haggis take on romantic love is, as his exploration of patriotism and fatherly love in 2007's In the Valley of Elah was riveting and unforgettable.

Now that Martin Campbell has taken over the reigns of the paranoid thriller Umbra (Joe Carnahan was set to direct but bowed out), the director reportedly has hired frequent colleague Paul Haggis to polish up a script that has passed through several hands on its way to the screen.

Deadline reports that Haggis has been hired to rewrite a story with undertones of Alfred Hitchcock’s finest. It centers on a businessman who receives a mysterious package, only to find himself under investigation as part of a large government conspiracy.

What happened to Carnahan? The Narc director, who has The Grey with Liam Neeson heading to theaters, dropped out of Umbra for personal reasons, according to Deadline’s report, but he left on amicable terms. Campbell’s a fine director, though it’s hard to say who would be better suited for the material until we learn more about the plot or the nuances of characters. Plus, Haggis could come in and rework the script entirely, keeping the barebones of the storyline but changing up expected twists.

I'm excited about the creative collaboration because Haggis and Campbell produced Casino Royale, the best James Bond movie I’ve seen since Sean Connery was in 007’s tuxedo. Yes, I mean that. So while this isn’t a Bond thriller – and Campbell recently helmed the uneven Green Lantern -- the idea of them collaborating on a suspenseful actioner is intriguing, to say the least. We’ll keep an eye on casting news and potential release dates, though it's still very early in the process, and Haggis has Paris on his radar, so stay tuned.

When you hear about a film in which Russell Crowe stars as a man who tries to break his wife out of prison, odds are, you expect to see a standard action thriller. That’s far from the case in The Next Three Days. Crowe’s character is a well-meaning English teacher and while he does attempt to spring his wife, Lara (Elizabeth Banks), the process is far more thoughtful and methodical than you’d expect.

Of course The Next Three Days isn’t devoid of action, but writer-director Paul Haggis certainly aimed to make this one more character driven rather than your basic thrill ride. Taking a cue from the French film Pour Elle, the two-time Academy Award winner developed a script that aims to create suspense and tension through character exposition and the gravity of his situation.

In honor of The Next Three Days’ November 19th release, Haggis, his two stars and producer Michael Nozik assembled to shed light on the filmmaking process, discuss the key concepts of the story and to have a little fun while they were at it. Check out all the details from Banks’ experience in Allegheny County Jail doing research to Crowe’s thoughts on his co-cast and to get a little taste of what a Russell Crowe/Paul Haggis comedy show might be like in the interview below.

Russell, when you were working on this character, was it a challenge to transform him from mild mannered ordinary guy to somebody who can pull off this huge heist in terms of the audience credibility?

Paul Haggis: I think that the tension comes the fact that we -

Russell Crowe: [whispering] I think he was asking me mate. [Laughs]

Haggis: I think the tension comes as a preamble to what Russell is going to say in the fact that we don’t know if he’s going to pull it off or not and you cast an actor like Russell Crowe because he’s such a fine actor and you can forget about roles like Gladiator and Robin Hood in the first two minutes of the film and look and go, ‘Oh my god. The poor sap. He’s never going to really do this.’ Russell, what do you think?

Crowe: Thank you Paul. We’ll be touring Europe soon, Paul and I. I think it’s about belief. It’s kind of simple. If the audience is seeing this guy believing in what he’s doing then they might not agree with what he’s doing, but he’s obviously got an unshakable belief in his wife and it transfers into how he researches what he needs to research and then when he hits those hurdles and things don’t work out properly, the mere fact that he keeps going. I think that the transformation, if there is one, is in his persistence.

Russell, in this film we can tell just by your facial expression what was going on? Was this harder for you than a classic action film?

Haggis: Where you use no facial expressions. [Laughs]

Elizabeth Banks: Where you let the swords do the acting for you.

Crowe: I think Elizabeth should answer that one. Ladies and gentlemen, Elizabeth Banks.

Banks: Having not ever played a Gladiator or -

Crowe: Except on Halloween.

Banks: Not even then actually. I don’t know if it was harder. I have no idea. He seems to be just as devoted and dedicated to the seriousness of the work at every moment and I’m very grateful.

Elizabeth, we’ve seen you do a lot of comedy recently, so why did you choose to do something like this, something more dramatic?

Haggis: Can I answer that? Because we felt it could be a lot funnier and it just turned out not to be.

Banks: [Laughs] Yes, and I was actually written comedically and I screwed up. [Laughs] I’m a classically trained actor; I went to drama school. I fell into comedy. It was my very first job as an actor actually was in a comedy called Wet Hot American Summer and I really enjoy making comedies, but I was so happy that Paul sort of called me one day and said, ‘I think you can do this.’ I think a lot of the best actors have great comedic chops as well. I wanted there to be a lightness to Lara so that you believe that this man would want her in his life forever. So I think that’s partly why I ended up in this job.

Haggis: Because of your lightness? No, you did it because you’re a damn skilled actor, that’s why.

Russell, in a world where there are so many divorces –

Crowe: Cue violins!

Where’d you look for inspiration for your role of such a loving and devoted husband?

Crowe: On the 10th of November my parents will celebrate their 49th wedding anniversary, so I’ve been very lucky and blessed in that way that I’ve grown up in a household which is all about commitment, true, hard at times and the good, you know? It was one of the things that really attracted me to the character that unshakeable belief that we were talking about before. I was away from my own family for 87 days in order to make this film. So there was a big distance between me and my own family so that made a lot of the things we were doing in the script come into a very stark reality or a stark light. A lot of the time, and I know this simple, but I take the inspiration that I need for what I’m doing from the thing that I’m doing. It’s a really well written script.

A large part of this film is founded on an understanding of police procedures and prison routine. Elizabeth and Russell, when you saw the whole process, what did you think of the whole concept and process?

Banks: I remember having a discussion with Paul where he told me that you can just Google how to break out of prison and like 400,000 come up. The fact of the matter is that people do break out, it happens all the time; you can learn how to do it. I think the great thing that we’ve done in this movie is that it ultimately comes down to you can learn how to do it, it’s all about the bravery of doing it. Am I brave enough to actually risk it and do it and risk the consequences of making it happen? I think that’s the larger message of the whole movie, right? That we can control our destinies and we can take action. It just takes this regular guy that goes, ‘ I’m going to be brave enough to actually change the fate of the people I care about.’

Crowe: On behalf of Lionsgate Films and Hwy 61 Productions, I’d just like to have a disclaimer here right now. We’re not recommending that anybody tries anything that they see in the movie.

Michael can you talk about some of the challenges from the producer’s side?

Michael Nozik: The city of Pittsburgh was incredibly helpful in shutting the city down for us and allowing us to control the subways, the bridges, the tunnels at various hours of the day and night to execute the chase sequence. The challenge was that much of this chase sequence takes place over the course of a set number of hours, a day or two. You’ve got one day and one evening of the chase and we shot it over a course of a number of weeks so all of the light and the weather had to match and it was always a challenge, in a city like Pittsburgh which has ever-changing weather, to match the light, weather and consistency to make it all seem like it was one day. One third of the movie was one day of the movie.

Banks: Also, they hit us with a fire truck.

Haggis: But that was not on purpose. [I said,] ‘Russell, ‘This shot would be a lot better if we weren’t towing it, so can you drive through this tunnel by yourself?’ We were around traffic so I go, ‘Do you mind?’ He said, ‘No.’ And I said, ‘Well, and as you’re going, would you mind taking off your jacket in the middle?’ ‘Of course I’ll do that.’ And then, of course, I say, ‘Action,’ and -

Banks: No one asked me anything. [Laughs]

Crowe: You’re half way through a tunnel at 65 miles an hour and you realize the tunnel actually has a curve and I’m trying to think, ‘How am I going to get the sweater off? Elizabeth, take the wheel!’

Banks: That was the scariest day of my life.

Russell: And the thing is, I love the way that Michael confidently says the city of Pittsburgh allowed us to lock down the streets. Uh huh? Really? [Laughs]

What about that fire truck?

Crowe: We were parked. We were back at the number one position for a shot we’d done a number of times already and we’re just sitting there waiting for the police to tell us when we could go on another circuit and then next thing you know this fire truck sort of comes up behind us and just before it hit I went, ‘Oh, dear.’ [Laughs] And the guy does this turn and takes out the front of the vehicle. I mean actually took off the front of the vehicle.

Haggis: He was only going about five miles an hour, but it did take off the front of the car.

Crowe: We were in a little SUV and he was in a fire truck so he was going to win.

Banks: [Laughs] And he did.

Were you hurt?

Banks: No, no one was hurt.

Crowe: We weren’t hurt. We spent about an hour laughing. And all the other fireman came out and said, ‘Who did that?’ ‘Well, it would be Dooley.’ It’s like, if this guy’s got a reputation, don’t let him drive the truck! [Laughs] I got a cap out of it though. My son Tennyson was really obsessed by fire trucks at that time so he was really happy he got a Pittsburgh Fireman hat.

Elizabeth and Russell, what’d you learn about each other doing this movie?

Banks: You go first.

Russell: What I learned about Elizabeth was that she was worth saving. Now follow that bitch! [Laughs]

Banks: Wow! What I learned about Russell was -

Crowe: Let me make some notes for you.

Banks: I know, please do. [Laughs] What I learned about Russell that I could share with you all, I think he was saying that words can be a crutch and for me, Russell was the crutch.

Crowe: Make sure you spell that right.

Paul, how was it shooting in the prison?

Haggis: You should ask Elizabeth about that. They were really open to us, but she was the one who did a lot of the research when she actually got there in the day.

Banks: Well, for me, so much of the character was so fully realized because we were lucky enough to shoot at the Allegheny County Jail. I was put in a cell, they closed the door and after about two minutes I was like, ‘I’m good! I got it! I see why I would never wanted to be in here.’ I got to talk to a lot of inmates. Like myself, they really cared about the authenticity that we brought to it. I was wearing all prison-issued clothes and they’re very scratchy and they’re itchy. I was really fascinated by everybody’s little attempts on a moment-by-moment basis to capture every little sense of freedom. The pants I wore have an elastic waistband that was horrible and cut into me and everyday at the end of the first few days I had all these marks around my stomach from wearing them. And so when I was sitting with the inmates, I said, ‘How do you guys deal with this?’ They’re like, ‘We cut ‘em open and we make them all drawstrings.’ I remember going to the costume designer and saying, ‘You know, authentically these could be drawstring.’ So what was really great for me was just figuring out all of those little authentic things that they do.

The characters felt much more important than the actual event of escaping and at the end seem really alone. Can you tell us a little about this?

Haggis: I think that’s what we’re saying. Everyone wants to go to a movie like this and wants a happy ending and so we almost create our own ending as we go through as the audience despite what we show you. At different times through the movie we tend to just say, ‘Okay, that’s not that really happening,’ because we’re just too uncomfortable. We always wanted to ask the question, would you save the woman you loved if you knew that by doing so [you] could quite possibly turn into someone she could no longer love? American films, I think, and I think because of American films, French films, other films are mostly morality tests, the good ones I think because you just don’t go out a commit a crime like this or turn yourself into someone like a criminal without you paying a price. That price can be something [like] you could lose your wife, you can lose your child, you can lose who you are and you’re not sure so much what he’s going to lose, but you know he’s going to lose something.

Crowe: There’s real insight in your question because the end is the beginning, isn’t it? They have to learn who they are now.

So you’ll do a second movie.

Crowe: [Laughs] The Next Four Days. See how clever Paul is? He’s got scripts all the way up to 365.

Haggis: Actually, if you look at the film, you’ll see the titles of the film cover over the last three years, the last three months, the last three days. I called it The Next Three Days because I was interested in what was going to happen after the film.

Russell, working with a writer-director like Paul with a very specific view, do you have to change your approach to the film?

Crowe: It’s actually a real bonus when the writer is the director because if something becomes apparent to you that hasn’t been covered or whatever or there is a question then because he’s actually constructed it you tend to get a conversation on that particular thing going a lot quicker and sharper. But I was a big fan of Crash. I really love Crash, so when this script was sent to me that was one of the reasons I read it because of my respect for his earlier work. In simple terms, we had a really easy, fluid relationship, so hopefully we’ll do something else again.

Can you talk about the character parts because a number of them stand out from Liam Neeson to Daniel Stern to RZA?

Crowe: Well, RZA’s one of the coolest guys I know. He has a real individual perspective on life, so we get on really well. He’s just a very very natural excellent actor. We spent a lot of time together on American Gangster and when Paul said he was going to cast him in this I was really happy. It was a real sense of enjoyment for me that those actors were coming in because a lot of this film, as it’s being pointed out, is just me in a room filing down a key, so once a week basically I think it was, I had Liam Neeson come in then Daniel Stern was coming in then Brian Dennehy’s coming in, so it was great to have those things to anticipate and look forward to.

How was it acting with the young boy that plays your son? Is it tough to play a dad on screen and in real life?

Crowe: It’s not tough, no, but Ty Simpkins is his name and he’s a really good little actor and, as I was talking about before, there was a large geographical distance between me and my own kids so that played a real part in just the atmosphere that was around me at the time of making the film. We sort of found out from day one that we communicated really easily, so it was really enjoyable. I’ve been very lucky in that respect. I’ve had a lot of movies where I’ve had kids in the film, I’ve been really lucky to come across some great little actors and he’s one of them.

Elizabeth, can you talk about relating to him from a mother’s point-of-view?

Banks: I adored that little munchkin. I really wanted to get back to him for sure. He was very very sweet and I was the same, just so grateful that we had this little angel that we all got along great with and who was just beautiful. We also had these little twins that were really cute too and cried on cue, nonstop, all day. [Laughs]

Haggis: Well, that was actually hysterical because we had that scene in the beginning where they did the break in and the child is supposed to cry and I figured with all of this commotion, the child’s going to cry. While people are breaking into the house with cops everywhere, the child’s going to cry. The child’s crying until I say, ‘Action,’ and then everybody breaks in and the child’s looking around going, ‘Well this is really cool. Wow.’ And I’d say, ‘Cut,’ and he’d go, ‘Wahhh.’ [Laughs] Four or five takes of this. We finally got it, but it was not easy.

Russell, how does being a father effect your decision when potentially taking a role?

Crowe: It definitely is part of the equation every time you decide to work, is it a place the family can be comfortable and that’s just the way it is. It’s just part of the natural order of things in that respect. But, yeah, this year, for example, there was possibly some things that I might have had a second conversation about, but having been away from Australia and away from the family as much as I was last year, I just didn’t want to be this year. And I’m in that sort of schedule at the moment that a lot of parents find themselves in. I take my boys to school in the morning and then there’s a couple of hours in the middle of the day and then I’ve got to be ready to go and pick them up. And then you go through the bath time, dinner time and then bed time stories, so after eight o’clock there’s really not enough hours in the day to engage yourself in anything creative. [Laughs] But, finally enough, everything – I have a very busy life in Australia and Venice, too, and involve myself in lots of different things, football teams and what have you, so I’m actually really enjoying the simplicity of it.

Life is good for Paul Haggis. Not only does he have two Oscars sitting pretty on his shelf, but he’s got three other nominations in the bag and his career continues to flourish. Ever since his shift from TV to film Haggis has almost only delivered critically acclaimed work. First was Million Dollar Baby and then Crash followed by The Last Kiss, Casino Royale, In the Valley of Elah, Quantum of Solace and now The Next Three Days.

The film stars Russell Crowe as John Brennan, an English teacher who’s separated from his beloved wife (Elizabeth Banks) when she’s arrested for murder. Convinced she’s innocent, John devotes himself to getting her out. However, what starts out as a lawful venture turns into a daring plot to defy the system and help her escape.

The Next Three Days isn’t your typical thriller. It does offer a fair amount of action, but it’s really a character driven drama more than anything and that’s exactly what Haggis intended it to be. While promoting the film for its November 19th release, Haggis sat down to tell us all the details from developing his script from the original film, Pour Elle, to locking down locations, working with Crowe and Banks and much more. He even took the time to address the never ending Crash saga. Check out all of that and much more in the interview below.

I’m sure you have your choice of projects to take on, so why The Next Three Days?

I’ve always wanted to do a thriller. I’m a filmmaker and I was most influenced by Hitchcock’s films. How he could plant such deep enriched characters and then make us care both about the antagonist and protagonist was masterful. I’d also loved films like Three Days of the Condor where Sydney Pollack was able to manipulate us into caring about these two people who shouldn’t be together and yet pulling you into a thriller. So I thought, that would be a lot of fun for me and then I saw this little film and it was very slight, it was like an 84 minute film, but had great balance and so I thought it asked the question it didn’t have time to fully explore and I figured I could ask my own questions about it.

Did you stick closely to the story of the original French film Pour Elle?

The format is the same. There are a couple of places where the shots are the same. I tried to do something different, that filmmaker just did a better job, so I said, ‘I’m going to go with him,’ but it was just a couple. There are signposts all the way through that are exactly the same, but then my film is two hours and ten minutes, theirs is 84 minutes, so there’s a lot more stuff in it.

Did you write it with Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks in mind?

I don’t do that. I never write thinking of an actor because I think it ruins your chance of getting that actor because you’ve naturally written for something they’ve done before. You can’t help it because you’re not writing for that person, you’re writing for performances you’ve seen and what impressions you have of them. So, no, I try to just push them away and just write the characters and then, as soon as I’m finished, then I like to cast them. Russell was at the top of my short list, went to him, he said yes and then we did an audition process to find the girl. Russell was very strong in the fact that it worked very well for A Beautiful Mind; they went out, they found Jennifer [Connelly] during the audition process, so we did that and Elizabeth stole the day.

How was it working with them? Did they have any specific methods that called for you to work with them in particular ways?

Russell was so respectful of the process and I was concerned going in. Russell Crowe, I’d heard all the stories, right? I asked him about them and I was very frank with him from the beginning. We had an honesty that really cut through all the bullshit. I am a great admirer of him as an actor and I often know that when folks have a reputation, it’s usually nothing about the work. It’s usually for something else and so I wasn’t afraid. I was a little hesitant when I first met him, but he quickly put me at ease, he made me a steak in his backyard, talked and then from that point on it was a mutual respect. It wasn’t necessarily easy at the beginning because we would both test each other, but then very quickly we learned we could trust each other and we’re both very very confident people. In his case, for good reason, mine, completely unmerited, but I happen to be and so I don’t mind being challenged. I like being challenged because it makes the work better. So we had that where I could easily challenge him, he could challenge me and if he came up with an idea that I thought was great I would use it and if he didn’t I would say, ‘No, no,’ and he’d respect that. It worked out really well. I’m looking forward to working with him again.

What about Elizabeth? Most people know her for her comedic work.

I think Elizabeth was probably a little scared to do this; you’d have to ask her. When people are scared they tend to be a little over confident at times. So I think it took her a day or two to shake down, but she’s a really skilled actress. A lot of the times you just have to trust yourself and she pulled it off as soon as she realized that I trusted her and she learned to trust me. There’s always that dance with actors to get them to trust you when they don’t. So she learned to do that; she relaxed and started doing some really good work.

People will likely go into this thinking it’s a thriller, but so much of the suspense comes from their performances and the relationship between their characters.

Exactly and that’s what the great films from the 40s through the 70s did; they took the time to invest in the characters and everyone when I was making this movie said, ‘Oh, it’s got to go fast. It’s got to go fast. Things have to happen.’ I said, ‘No they don’t. Sorry, it’s not the film we’re making.’ This is a film that’s going to get you to invest in these characters and care so when they run, you’re going to care that they’re running and when they jump into a car, you’re going to care that it starts and it’s not just one thriller after another that you sit back and go, ‘Oh, cool. Look at that CG.’ No, I want to be inside the character. I want you to sweat when this character’s sweating. So that’s what I was hoping to accomplish.

How’d you go about casting the secondary characters? They’re very minor roles compared to your leads, but you managed to secure some pretty impressive talent.

I was so lucky to pull this together because I knew I needed a really terrific supporting cast, but so many people only have one scene. It’s impossible to get great actors to play one scene! These people have egos! Well, apparently not because I would say, ‘Well, we’re not going to get Brian Dennehy. There’s no way. He’s got seven scenes, three lines.’ I called him and he said, ‘Yeah, I’ll do it.’ I said, ‘Really?’ He said, ‘Yeah.’ [Laughs] I spoke to him two days ago. I said, ‘[You’re] getting such great reviews,’ and he said, ‘Really? Paul, I had three goddamn lines! What are they talking about?’ [Laughs] His presence, he’s such a strong presence so he breaks your heart in that scene where he says goodbye because you really care and you need to find actors to pull that off. Liam Neeson, he was in the middle of shooting another movie. He was off doing The A-Team in Vancouver. I was shooting in Pittsburgh. I knew I wouldn’t get him, but I called him because I knew him and he said, ‘Love it, love to do it. I’ve got two days off next week. I can assure you one day. I’ll fly in do it,’ and I said, ‘Yes, I can do that.’ And so we shot seven pages in one day. You needed someone who had that moral authority as an actor and as a character. We did that with RZA, with Daniel Stern, with Moran [Atias], with a lot of terrific actors doing one great scene for us.

You know who stuck out to me? Jonathon Tucker.

Isn’t Jonathon great?

He plays such a bad guy in the beginning, but towards the end you actually feel sorry for him.

Exactly. I love those. You set somebody up one way and then you make them empathize. It’s just what Hitchcock did. He made you care for the villains. In Strangers on a Train in the scene that the villain is going to plant a key at the fairground and he drops the key down the grate, you’re going, ‘Thank god,’ and then you see him squeezing his hand down, ‘Don’t get the key. Don’t get the key,’ and I remember I’m very young I was watching this going, ‘Don’t get the key,’ and suddenly he got it and I went, ‘Yes! [Gasp] I just rooted for the villain.’ He was a wonderful manipulator like that so I always kept that as a lesson. You have to surprise people; you have to show your characters as being dynamic as multifaceted.

What was the pre-production stage like? You set the film in Pittsburgh. Was there a reason for that? Did you know you could have a prison and hospital to shoot in?

No, no, I didn’t know if we would. I found the geography that I wanted and how close to borders, how close to airports, how you could go in any direction. It wasn’t Chicago, it wasn’t New York, Seattle, LA, something that we’ve seen and is iconically American. I wanted you to really feel like this could happen any place, to anybody and I figured Pittsburgh has a really good shot the way I think it could be. Once I found out that everything worked for me there and then walked it through. I do this in the place I want to shoot. And they had great taxes there, which was great because we could actually afford to shoot there.

Were there any locations you wanted to include that you couldn’t get or maybe just didn’t work out the way you’d hoped?

No, they all worked well. The difficulty is shooting with moving trains. You’re shutting down the real T Train System; that was challenging, but they were great. They worked with us, we shot over several days, a few hours a day when it’s not peak rush hour. In the jail it was hard because you’re working around a live jail, a working jail, the largest jail in the world. It wasn’t easy, but they were wonderful to us. We used a lot of the actual prison guards and they brought a level of reality.

I’d imagine that’d make your actual actors’ performances more authentic as well, especially in Elizabeth’s case, here character being in prison for most of the film.

I let people do their own research. I don’t force them to research. You want to learn about the role? Go over there; learn it and that’s what Elizabeth did. I made is possible for her to get into the prison and possible to talk to prisoners and then how much time she wanted to spend was up to her.

And you did a lot of research yourself because you had to put together this whole breakout plan and it had to be sensible.

[Laughs] That’s my job!

Did you just come across that video on how to make a “bump key” and think it’d fit perfectly?

I found out how people tried to break out of the prison and one way was going through the elevator and somebody had gotten a key from one of the guards and so I said, ‘Oh, that’s too easy. I wonder if he can make a key for this. How do you do that?’ So I Googled it and I learned how to make a bump key. We created that video [in the film], but you can find videos about how to make a bump key. There’s four or five of them.

You’ve had such a successful career. Does the pressure to continue to deliver ever overwhelm you? Is it daunting to be able to keep the work up?

Yes, but it’s not what people think, ‘Oh, you have to go for your next Oscar,’ because you can’t plan for shit like that. You can’t plan for people to like your movies. I knew that people were not going to run in droves to the theater for the In the Valley of Elah. I knew they might not want to see it, but I still had to the movie; I felt very strongly about it. Wanting to keep telling a good story is what you want to do, a compelling story. That’s what our job is. If actors or others get recognition because of it, that’s great, but you want to tell a powerful story.

What’s it like for you handling Crash at this point with people still talking about the post-Oscar backlash? It’s one thing to make a bad movie and have people criticize it, but it must be different to make something and have it well received and then all of a sudden have people turn on it.

Well, two things happened. First of all, it’s an independent film, $6.5 million, then suddenly, when it got the Oscar attention, it became a big Hollywood movie and I’m going, ‘I’m sorry, were you on the set of a big Hollywood movie? Are you out of your minds?’ [Laughs] You’re talking about race and intolerance in Los Angeles, a big Hollywood movie, yeah, okay, good, that’s why it took me four years to make. So, yeah, you let that go. People are idiots.

But the other thing I saw is how people have to make themselves feel smart and smarter than the filmmaker. Well, I’m not the smartest guy in the world, but I certainly knew I was dealing with stereotypes. I don’t know if Crash is a good movie or not because I didn’t set out to make a movie. Really what I wanted to do is more of a social experiment. I was really upset. I just thought about myself and my preconceptions about people and the way that I judged people and I was also upset about the friends I’d see who’d done things that were in that film. It was really bothering me living in Los Angeles and so I said, ‘I wonder if I could do this.’

It was also after the first Iraq war. All of my good liberal friends were saying, ‘We have to invade.’ They’d say, ‘He’s a terrible, terrible villain.’ Well, I’m sure he is. He gasses some people. We did get him that gas, but he did all the stuff. But why him? Why invade this country and not let’s say some of the countries with dictators we support? Why? Because he looks like a villain. His swarthy dark skin, he has pock mark skin, he has a big mustache; looks like a villain. We judge people by the way they look, especially if their skin looks a little different than ours.

So I said, ‘Hm, I wonder if I could do this. I wonder if I can do a movie which reinforces all your preconceptions.’ I’m going to sit you in the dark, I’m going to tell you everything you already secretly know, all those stereotypes, I’m going to reinforce them. This person does that, that person does this, all these different things, that’s exactly what – Shh, it’s okay, you’re in the dark. No one’s going to challenge you. It’s fine. So I set up all of these stereotypes right at the beginning and then I said, ‘Now watch this. Watch me just fuck with you,’ [laughs] and I just one at a time made you question every single thing you knew about those characters until, hopefully, you left spinning.

So I don’t know if it was a good movie, but I know it was a good experiment because people literally walk out saying, ‘The movie just changed my life. I just started thinking differently. I just started dealing with my housekeeper differently,’ whatever. So whether that lasts for more than a minute I don’t know, but it challenged people, so that, I guess, is a good film. But for people to feel all superior to suddenly realize that I wrote stereotypes, it’s laughable to me. ‘Duh! I didn’t see it for myself? Thanks you for point it out.’ [Laughs] You know? Of course it is. But also they say that’s all I write. My long history of television, Easy Streets and all of these shows, which I was allotted for writing such detailed and subtle characters and then suddenly, oh, I just write stereotypes. Okay, you judge me anyway you want. I don’t give a shit. I just find it funny that people have to feel superior somehow to others. That’s what they do.

As far as winning best movie, I didn’t think it deserved to win best movie. I was a big fan of the other four films that year, huge fan. I was so honored to be a part of it and just to meet those filmmakers. It was a great experience for me! So, I think it’s a ridiculous thing judging one film better than the other and certainly ridiculous to judge our film better than those films, but I didn’t make that judgment, others did.

Well, you certainly left your mark on this industry!

Yeah, and I got two Oscars and they’re really cool on my shelf! They’re great! I was nominated five times in three years. How fortunate is that? Wow, what a ride! If I never get nominated again, I don’t care. That was so cool because each time you’re nominated, the cool thing is you get to meet those filmmakers. You get to meet those people who do wonderful work and for me, a guy who was just a television guy who had been making movies for six years, that’s it, to get into this place where I get to hang out with folks like that, it’s such a gift.

If you’re a creator in any capacity, you’re well aware of the fact that it isn’t easy to hear criticism from others. Clearly there’s no avoiding critique as a filmmaker. You release your film and people get their chance to praise or trash it. It’s one thing to make a shoddy film and have it panned across the board, but there’s something about making a good film and winning an Oscar, only to suddenly have your movie torn apart, that’s not only a unique occurrence, but must be a pretty tough situation to deal with too. Well, that’s exactly what happened to Paul Haggis and his Academy Award winning film Crash. After Crash stole the Best Picture statue from Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night, and Good Luck and Munich, people basically revolted.

This was no easy question to ask Paul, but genuine curiosity about the repercussion of such a change in tides compelled me to ask him how he feels about the whole thing. He was nice enough not only to answer the question, but really elaborate on the situation. Haggis began by explaining how Crash went from an indie production to being looked at as a big Hollywood movie, when in fact, nothing had changed in terms of the production even after the film became an Oscar potential.

But that wasn’t the only issue that arose along with the Oscar buzz. Haggis continued:

Adding to his concern about stereotypes in LA was the general sentiment at the start of the war with Iraq:

This is what drove him to create Crash in the manner he chose. Haggis continued:

Yet another problem Haggis says he has to deal with is the misconception that he only writes stereotypical characters:

Finally, Haggis had a little something to say about winning that Best Picture statue:

As bitter as you may be about Crash stealing the Oscar from your favorite film of 2006, Haggis is right about one thing: what’s done is done and he didn’t make that decision. Whether you agree with the Academy’s choice or not, pointing a finger at Haggis won’t make a difference. He had his reasons for approaching the project in a particular way, is well aware of the common misconceptions surrounding the film and is simply looking past them. He’s still quite proud of his accomplishments, eager to continue moving on in his career and is working on more projects he’s passionate about.

Open up a new tab in your browser. Head on over to Google Images and do a search for "Elizabeth Banks." Click on the first photo and study it intensely. Now, I ask you: does that look like a person that could ever kill somebody? Apparently the police in The Next Three Days think so, but, then again, it's also a world where Russell Crowe doesn't know where the bullets go in a handgun.

Yahoo! has premiered the first trailer for the Paul Haggis film, which is a remake of the French film Pour elle. In the movie Elizabeth Banks is framed for a murder she didn't commit and her husband, Russell Crowe, concocts a plan to break her out. It's worth noting that the film also stars Olivia Wilde, but she is completely absent from the trailer. I guess the marketing people don't want people to see this movie.

Check out the trailer below or in HD over at Yahoo!

Paul Haggis continues adding more big names to the cast of his thriller The Next Three Days. Ever since Haggis announced he’d be remaking the French film Pour Elle, the casting news has been pouring in. First it was Russell Crowe then Elizabeth Banks followed by Ty Simpkins, RZA and Brian Dennehy and, most recently, Olivia Wilde and Jonathan Tucker. Haggis must still have room for more because, according to Variety, there’s been another addition, Liam Neeson.

Banks plays a woman thrown in prison for a murder she didn’t commit. Her husband, played by Crowe, decides to do whatever it takes to help her escape. The odds of him springing his wife just increased exponentially because now he has a partner in crime, Neeson. Neeson’s character is an ex-con who knows a thing or two about breaking out of jail.

Filming kicked off Friday in Pittsburgh and is expected to conclude on December 12th.

Paul Haggis nabbed three more actors for his remake of the 2008 film Pour Elle called The Next Three Days. Wait, a remake of a film from 2008? No, Haggis isn’t getting ahead of himself; Pour Elle is a French thriller; odds are, nobody in the US has seen it.

According to THR, Haggis recruited eight-year-old Ty Simpkins to play the son of Elizabeth Banks and Russell Crowe’s characters. Their marriage is put to the test when Banks’ character is accused of a murder she claims she didn’t commit. She’s thrown in jail and her husband devises a risky plan to free her. Tony winner Brian Dennehy is still in negotiations to play Crowe’s character’s father while rapper RZA has signed on, but his role is unknown.

Great for Simpkins, Dennehy and RZA, but I still think Haggis should have chosen Diane Kruger for the leading lady role. Not only is she all the rage after Inglorious Basterds, but she played the role in Pour Elle. Oh well, Banks is a fine choice, as is Crowe. All the pressure for this project is on Haggis anyway. So far, there’s nothing to make me think The Next Three Days will crash and burn (pun intended), but Haggis has a whole lot of dirt to wipe off his shoulder.

So it looks like I’m going to have to fight Russell Crowe. He’s playing Elizabeth Banks’ husband in Paul Haggis’s next movie The Next Three Days. I’ve been auditioning for the role of her husband for years now and for him to swoop in and pull the carpet out from under me is unacceptable. Why couldn’t it be Andy Dick? I’m pretty sure I can beat up Andy Dick.

THR says that in the film the lovely Miss Banks will play Laura. She seems to have a thing for Lauras, having played Laura Bush in W.. This Laura is not the wife of America’s clown prince of leadership but rather a woman imprisoned for a murder she didn’t commit. It’s up to Russell Crowe to clear her name, and defeat me in a three round, no holds barred, cage match. My chances are not good.

The movie is a remake, but that’s ok since it’s a remake of a French thriller called Pour elle which no one in America would even know exist if I hadn’t just now told some of them. Don’t let your knowledge of its existence get in the way of enjoying Banks’ adventures on cellblock C.