Mayor Call: Bill Murray Talks About City of Ember

Bill Murray won’t be so amused when he stops and thinks about the Cubs.  

I hate to make this “Cannibalize ComingSoon Day” but they have another great interview that you should know about, this time with Bill Murray. He’s talking about his new movie City of Ember and also touches on the topic of another Ghostbusters. I can’t cut and paste the whole thing, but here’s a few cuts to give you some idea what’s out there.

Q: What type of research did you do to prepare for your role as the Mayor?

Murray: I did a little research. I found that the book was a book that kids in America read in school now. They read it in middle school. And when I told my sons I might be in “City of Ember,” they said, “Oh! You’re gonna be the mayor?” And I hadn’t even read the script yet. And I thought, “They already know what’s being spoken about and I don’t.” So when I read it, I read it from their point of view. I tried to think of, like, what they made of this guy, what this mayor was. And I think a mayor can be a father figure who can disappoint you. I’m a father figure and I’ve probably disappointed on occasion. So, I just thought of when you’re most disappointed is when you talk the talk and you don’t live up to it. And that’s pretty much what he did. So I felt like as long as I was really, really successful in talking the talk, that the disappointment would be there just like a gasp.

Q: The title character, the City of Ember itself, was built practically for this film so that it pretty much surrounded you 360 degrees everywhere you were on the set. What was it like, in an era of CGI and green screens, to actually be immersed into a real, physical world like that?

Murray: When you walk in and there’s a street and an underground city that’s 55 or 60 feet high with tunnels underneath it and there’s decaying doors and windows and bricks built as a street and concrete and plaster that’s made its walls, real doors that open, real glass, and beautiful design work, too… the emblems of the city built into the street and into the fountains, fountains that work… it’s not so hard to say, “I’m living in a crumbling society,” when you walk in for work and there it is. It was so simple. And the costumes as well, the best costumes I’ve ever worn. The most beautiful I’ve ever seen in any film by far. It’s just my opinion, but that’s what I do for a living, and I’ve never seen anything like it. You know, the costumes that win the Academy Awards are the ones that look the most like the pictures in a book. And these were all original, all created. And they’re beautiful.

Q: You play a hero in “Ghostbusters” and a villain in this movie. Is it more fun playing a good guy or a bad guy? And what persuaded you to go back for the rumored “Ghostbusters 3″?

Murray: Well, you’re way ahead of me, but that’s okay. There’s someone trying to write a script for another “Ghostbusters” movie. There’s two fellows from “The Office” that are writing a script, but I have yet to see it. And I’m more involved with, you know, trying to get the dessert we order at lunch than I am with the new “Ghostbusters” sequel. (Laughter) But it’s possible. It’s a great idea that they hired these two guys to do it, ’cause I think it could be a fresh look at it. And it could be funny. We did a sequel and it was rather unsatisfying for me, because the first one to me was ‘the goods.’ It was the real thing, and the sequel, you know, it was a few years later, and there was an idea pitched. They got us all together in a room. We just laughed for a couple of hours, and then they said, “What if we did another one? Here’s an idea these guys have got.” So they had this idea, but it didn’t turn out to be the idea when I arrived on the set. They’d written a whole different movie. And the special effects guys got their hands on it, and it was just not the same movie. There were a few great scenes in it, but it wasn’t the same movie. So there’s never been an interest in a third “Ghostbusters” ’cause the second one was kind of disappointing, for me, anyway. But the third one could happen.

But you asked me a question about bein’ a bad guy and a good guy. It’s so much easier to be a bad guy. It’s a piece a cake. It’s a joke. (Laughter) And, you know, I keep saying, “Why do they give Oscars to guys that play bad guys,” ’cause it’s so simple. Play a good guy some time. That’s hard. Play a really, decent good person. That’s hard.

Q: So would you go back for “Ghostbusters” again?

Murray: Only if I could play an evil person. (Laughter) No, it’s mostly all about the script. I don’t have any obligation to the franchise or anyone. If the script were good and I thought we could do it, it’d be fun. But, you know, it’s only now that this has ever been a prospect. No one’s ever talked about it for a long time, ’cause the second one was the way it was. This is just kind of a clever idea. I think they see that, and the fact that every interview today has asked me about the “Ghostbusters” movie–every single person–means that there is some interest for it. You think you’re talking about the “City of Ember,” but I’ve answered as many questions about the “Ghostbusters” as I have about… well, not as many, but, I mean, on every single one. So there’s interest in it.

So there you go–read the rest here.

You know, I had always been under the perhaps incorrect impression that Murray was a tough interview, but he seemed really willing to talk here. So either previous reports about his being difficult were exaggerated or he really, really believes in this movie. I admit I’d seen the trailer for this and wasn’t knocked out; in fact, I thought it looked awful. But if Murray is this much into it, maybe I should be more open-minded.

City of Ember opens this Friday, October 10th.