(Non-official version, privately re-translated)

The Poison of Cynicism spreads

As a Hollywood star he knows what it is like to become a victim of the media - in the thriller 'State of Play' he now plays a reporter getting caught up in moral conflicts. In his interview by Spiegel Online, Russell Crowe explains why journalists must try to re-enhance their credibility.

Spiegel Online: Actually Brad Pitt was supposed to take the leading role in the reporters' thriller 'State of Play'. How come you ended up doing it?

Crowe:In the summer of the year before, when I was finally back home in Australia after a long time of shooting, I suddenly got a call by someone from Universal Pictures. They are not any company to me but after several mutual projects like 'Gladiator' and 'American Gangster' a studio full of true friends. They told me about the mess they were in after Brads withdrawal and reminded me of former movies directed by Kevin McDonald, the high quality of which I just couldn't ignore. Finally they sent me the script of 'State of Play'. Swoosh - out of the window my vacation plans went.

Sp.O.: You liked the plot at once, although you are known to be extremely choosy?

Crowe:Since my days of youth I keep following a basic rule: if I feel any physical response when reading a script, be it goose pimples or tears filling my eyes, then I know it's the job I've got to do. I just feel obliged to do it - out of respect for the movie gods. This is and will always be the main reason why I am in this business: to tell the stories that affect my emotions.

Sp.O.:Did you have a special relation to the character of journalist Cal McAffrey since you too considered to take that line of business as a young man?

Crowe:Not only that - I've also been sitting in front of journalists quite frequently over the last 30 years and been able to gather lots of characteristic material just by watching. Personally I've been praised, scathingly criticized and betrayed by the press, had the privilege of finding friends and was forced to suffer many a dirty attack. My impression of the media is diversified, believe me. Therefore it was important to me not to play some heroic character in 'State of Play', like the journalist as a brazen enlightener. But a man who doesn't live according to the moral rules he's talking about - because he, too, is just human.

Sp.O.: You don't really like journalists, do you?

Crowe:Well, I do! None of this has ever been able to change my mind about journalism at it's core being a noble profession. Provided that it is taken seriously. Provided that a reporter does his job in a self-critical way, that he writes a first, a second, and a third draft of his article and at least tries to achieve a certain level of objectivity.

Sp.O.:But in your opinion most reporters don't care too much about the truth of facts?

Crowe:To believe that journalists might always be obliged to objectivity, that's just bullshit. We all have our mistakes and preferences - which is okay. Good journalism to me belongs under the roof of creative arts, seen not in a cynical but in a purist sense. I expect an author to be personally involved in the same way a painter or a filmmaker is because only in this state of mind an optimal work can be produced. However, I'm well aware of the fact that the circumstances of this job may dilute a journalist's personal ambition. Be it time pressure or malicious editors who, after a liquid lunch, tear the heart out of a story just to make it fit next to the women's underwear advertisement on page 5.

Sp.O.:'State of Play' draws a critical picture of the commercial way of thinking in the media business.

Crowe:If there is a crisis in the media business, it was caused by the journalists themselves.

Sp.O.:What do you mean?

Crowe:News have been successively trivialized for decades now. The line between facts and entertainment was allowed to dissolve in order to raise the editions and reach better quota. You can take any newspaper regardless of its reputation and you will always find pages of which the persons responsible know that they deliver nothing but banalities. Between reports on the greenhouse effect and politics you'll find pieces meant to amuse the readers, based on meager facts concerning the private life of famous contemporaries. They go under the label of 'Mixed News' - maybe you smile, but you don't question the seriosity of the sources anymore. But who really cares who's presently getting divorced or what Ann Rimes has got in her handbag?

Sp.O.: Do you want to deny people's interest in persons of public life?

Crowe:Of course not, but by now all along the line facts are replaced by speculations or innuendo. Quotations by informants lacking any credibility are reprinted all over the world, it happens all the time in my business. Thus they appear everywhere, which is what reporters can point out to defend themselves when in doubt. As soon as you let this lax attitude towards the truth in dealing with athletes or actors crawl into the paper, however, the door is wide open for an equal attitude when presidents are concerned, isn't it? The poison of cynicism spreads. All of a sudden an entire generation of readers arise who cannot really trust the News anymore because they got accustomed to triviality.

Sp.O.:Which responsibility do artists have in this climate? By 'Body of Lies' you for instance shot a film about the Near East lately which actually was fictional entertainment but also offered a view of the region to those in the audience who do not inform their selves otherwise.

Crowe: Everybody in the movie business should keep in mind that between Oslo and Orange County people do internalize whatever we show on the screen. No director may hide behind the argument of fiction when dealing with a serious subject. The influence of images and dialogues on the spirit of the time is quite massive. Speaking of me, I can only look at my own career. I always try to meet this responsibility. Sometimes you just can't be satisfied with the result, at others you really attain something.

Sp.O.:Could you give an example?

Crowe: Look at one of my earlier films, 'Romper Stomper', a true story about Neo-Nazis and Skinheads in Melbourne. Their movement was literally killed by us then. The audience felt attracted by a plot actually luring by adrenaline and drama - but at the end of the story every single protagonist was either dead or in prison. The visualization of violence was necessary but appeared disgusting and didn't encourage imitation. This debate has to be faced again and again by a business in which, unfortunately, the means of violence is often used as a lure beyond moral context. It is an everlasting discussion which inevitably evokes the question of the limits of the freedom of art. I haven't got all the answers, either. But in choosing my projects I try to never forget how powerful the medium we use really is.

Sp.O.:As a result of the financial crisis in many places the fear is getting loud that in future Hollywood will avoid more serious productions in favor of escapism. How is your opinion?