Opening the Cambridge Film Festival is a new comedy starring Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones and Steve Carrell – HOPE SPRINGS. A surprisingly risque story of an aging couple trying to not only spice up their marriage, but also their sex lives, the film catches some very intimate, deep moments while in the guise of a summer romantic comedy. Jim Ross talked to director David Frankel about working with Meryl Streep and how HOPE SPRINGS isn’t quite your normal Hollywood movie.

Jim Ross: Was the film viewed as a risk in the sense that it is dealing with middle-aged characters going through marital difficulties? Not your usual Hollywood summer fare.

David Frankel: I think it was slightly risky. It was certainly a screenplay that couldn’t get made for many years in Hollywood. It was only when Meryl Streep said it was something she wanted to do that the project got launched – and I think it probably wouldn’t have happened without her. So yes, that’s the only way that a movie that’s dealing with these middle-aged characters dealing with intimacy issues could ever get made.

It was certainly a screenplay that couldn’t get made for many years in Hollywood.

JR: So it was the star power behind the film that gave it the momentum to get made?

DF: Yes, you know everybody loved the script and respected the script, but it was also understanding [Streep’s] vision of the script; that it wasn’t some small, dramatic movie and that it could also be big entertainment, that could attract other stars and could be sold as a summer romance really.

JR: On that note, it obviously deals with sex and sexual issues, yet it has a 12A certificate here in the UK. How did you approach it such that you could get a wider audience in this way?

DF: Well, firstly, there are rules about the rating system. The language of the film is never dirty, when they talk about sex it’s quite clinical – I mean, they’re using medical terms and asking questions. And it was important that the love-making, and the intent of love making, was never explicit. I wanted to make a movie where the intimacy of the characters, the candidness of the characters and the awkwardness of their relationship, made the audience uncomfortable – but not the actual sex. So it was walking that line. At one point you would have read the screenplay and said, ‘This is only for mature audiences.’ But then as the performances emerged, the scenes lightened up and we took out some of the heavier stuff and some of the darker moments – it seemed possible that we could reach a wider audience with a gentler rating.

“For some reason, movies aimed at women always seem to be a harder sell.”

JR: I was wondering, why do you think people are surprised when a film made for a female audience is a big hit? There always seems to be a sense of astonishment.

DF: It’s true, it still is not the norm. For some reason, movies aimed at women always seem to be a harder sell. That’s just based on the math, the statistics and the demographic – y’know studios are driven by their marketing departments, and movies are very expensive so people want to reduce the risk as much as possible. And somehow women will go to movies about men, and men will have a hard time going to films about women. So basically, you’ve limited your audience.

JR: In that sense though, some of the films we’re talking about – MAMMA MIA!, THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA – cost less than the average blockbuster.

DF: You’re right. It’s a lot to do with the marketing and getting the movie out there. The return has to merit that enormous investment. People would rather bet 100 million dollars with the chance of making 300, rather than bet 30 with the chance of making 60. And you know, I don’t do the math – but I think it’s a shame. I grew up in an era of incredible sophistication in cinema – the 1970s, when great movies, great blockbuster successes were very challenging and ambitious movies. And now those films only come out for a few months at the end of every year, and it’s gotten harder to make anything that sophisticated in Hollywood or the studio system. But, that said, there are a lot of smart people who work in Hollywood, and everybody does want to make great movies. So it’s really just finding the right balance.

“…those films only come out for a few months at the end of every year, and it’s gotten harder to make anything that sophisticated in Hollywood or the studio system.”

JR: In terms of the way the characters are presented, there has been a trend with the characters that come out of the Judd Apatow stable, for example, for male characters to suffer from a form of arrested development. It always seems that the onus is on the women in the film to change or accommodate them. Whereas, in HOPE SPRINGS, there is a more realistic approach. It’s a couple trying to sort through their differences together. Would you agree?

DF: Well, I think that’s really just specific to this story, specific to these characters. I don’t know if it lines up with any trend in storytelling. I think it’s just who these people were, and they’ve got to this point where Meryl’s character just woke up one morning unable to go on without making changes in her life.

JR: Talking about Meryl, how did you find it working with her in this role compared to her previous role in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA? Did you take a different approach?

DF: Well, she was very different in the two movies. In THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA, she was playing a character who was very reserved, and very cool and kept her distance – very emotionally closed. And it’s not that she was unkind, but she did the same – kept her distance… she said herself that this was one of the hardest, most painful experience as an actress, because she just didn’t really love the character. However, here in HOPE SPRINGS, she was playing a character that she loved. So she was very relaxed, very flirtatious and funny and warm. So the spirit of her character that came out of her everyday was very different in the two films.

JR: Steve Carrell has shown himself to be a good dramatic actor in recent years in addition to the well known comedic roles. Is it that aspect that you were looking for when you cast him?

DF: Well, I think watching him in the American version of the office for many years, he’s both hilarious and slapstick and playing a real buffoon – but you always seem to find incredible pathos in that character, Michael Scott. There would always be a moment when he made you feel his pain. I realised that only a great actor with enormous range could do that – you know he really has that ‘crying clown’ element and I met with him and wanted to do something with him. This character actually reminded me of Steve himself, who’s very warm and very compassionate and trusts silences and communication.