Melbourne-based actor Eric Bana has played his share of heroes and
villains. Initially thanks to his rugged good looks and naturally
buff physique, he’s been cast as a heroic good guy in The Hulk
or Munich even as a romantic lead Henry in the sci-fi
thriller The Time Traveler’s Wife. But his cool and detached
demeanor led him to more morally ambiguous, even dastardly, parts such
as the assassin father Erik Heller in Hanna and the renegade
Romulan Nero in JJ Abrams’ rebooted Star Trek.
Now this 45-year-old actor is playing a character that lands right in
the middle – a morally ambiguous yet familiar place for most of us –
in the British legal thriller Closed Circuit. Barrister
Martin Rose wants to be a properly steadfast defense lawyer and hero
yet finds himself trapped between the ideal and the politically
opens with a suicide bomber attack on a major London market which
kills dozens; later on a subject is captured. When the barrister
handling the case supposedly commits suicide, Rose (Bana) is
appointed to replace him as the defense counsel for the accused
heroin-addicted perpetrator Farroukh Erdogan (Denis Moschitto).
colleague and former lover Claudia (Rebecca Hall) is appointed the
Special Advocate for the defense – a post 9/11 legal invention where
only the advocate can see the secret information being used to
convict the terrorist – in order to defend him.
questions emerge before the trial, with many answers sealed in
documentation that the accused can’t see. One of the main players in
the investigation is his adolescent son and the plot twists with
rich possibilities, some never fully exploited.
This high-profile case unexpectedly
binds together these two again – testing the limits of their
loyalties and placing their lives in jeopardy. Some good guys
turn out to be bad, MI5 is not transparent, and the accused is not
who he seems to be. Barrister Rose wants to be a properly
steadfast defense lawyer and hero yet find himself trapped between
the ideal and the politically expedient.
the titles and interspersed throughout, the closed circuit motif is
not what the occasional shots would suggest and therein lies the
attraction of the film. Much like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
(produced by the same team as this one), director John Crowley’s story and its
underlying implications requires a second viewing just to appreciate
its complicated real-world ambiguities.
Q&A is culled from a roundtable held at the Waldorf Astoria shortly
before the film’s release.
this something that sprung from the pages of reality or that might
have actually happened?
Maybe not at such an extreme level. But it's definitely born of a
sense of frustration by people that work in the legal system in
England, as to just how thorough and un-thorough that process can
be. I won't bore you with the whole special advocate intricacies.
But yes there's obviously many, many hours spent in the British
legal system being frustrated by a lack of progress that comes from
the mechanics that's in place, in terms of evidence that can't be
heard. The general idea was born out of that. You take that idea to
the nth degree. Okay, if they were withholding
evidence and information what would the extreme of that be? Well it
would be that there was an actual cover up. The reason that we can't
cross examine and talk to witnesses in open court is because these
are the kinds of secrets that they're holding. So I guess its an
exaggeration of that idea. As a result of that it becomes a more
traditional high stakes thriller.
It’s scary to think that a phantom government or organization exists
beyond the Prime Minister. It seems even more prominent in England
than here in the US. Does that make you look over your shoulder now?
You're paranoid that they might hit you for doing this movie to
reveal their secrets?
The world is changing. Depending on which country you're in, there
are different levels as to which you feel as though you could be
being watched and monitored. Every time we stay in the hotel and
hook into the wi-fi, we accept the fact that there's a good chance
that at any point someone could look up anything you've looked up
and check your history and see where you've gone. I think that's the
world we're living in now. Certainly when you're in London you're
aware of the fact that there are cameras everywhere.
Where I come from in Melbourne [Australia], its nowhere near that
yet. There is a sense that when crime does happen that it's not able
to be investigated as quickly because there's not as many closed
circuit TV cameras. I'm not sure what it's like in New York. I know
that in some areas like Time Square there's a lot of them but it
doesn't feel like a prominent part of the city landscape yet.
Your character has a back story with Rebecca Hall's character. Was
that always there when you first came into the script? How did you
guys work it out?
Yes, it was there right from the beginning. I don't know if you had
a chance to sit down with [director] John [Crowley] or Rebecca yet, but they are two of
the most delightful, super-intelligent people, so I was in great
hands on this job. I was lucky Working Title agreed. I wanted to
come out and do a bunch of research and hang out. I went out there a
month or a month and a half before we started shooting and spent
some time with John and Rebecca. We went through the script. We had
a read through and did some rehearsal and all this sort of stuff.
Early on it was apparent that it was going to be a great experience.
Working with Rebecca was incredible. I really loved that secret that
they have and the fact that it raises the stakes of the drama. They
tell a lie. They lie to the judge and have to cover up their past
relationship. That raises the stakes for the audience and the drama
involved. I also loved the fact that really, there is an element of
this that is a love story in which we see no affectionate moments.
There's just this one little flashback when we see them in this
hotel in the past, but you essentially have a love story in which
the main characters don't come anywhere near each other in a
Did you say at one point there should be a scene where you’re seen
taking a shower with Rebecca?
I joked with them every day that we'd be coming back and doing some
very raunchy reshoots. In very British fashion they were like "No,
no, no. We'll be fine. What makes you say that?" Well, because if
this movie opens in America they're going to want to see something.
Some visual evidence of the fact that they've been together. So I'd
always joke with them about that.
You said that they did research, and obviously with the Snowden
situation, there's things to think about there. Who would you have
sought out or have liked to have sought out – the secret service,
MI5 or MI6 people? Did you get a chance to talk to lawyers in this
For me it was much more to do with advocacy and the legal system.
The fundamentals of the legal system I was familiar with, because I
married into a legal family. Our legal system is the same or similar
to the British model as opposed to the American model. The
machinations of that I was familiar with, but I wanted to get more
into the minutiae of how these barristers live and work. That
was really interesting.
There's so much fantastic history of the British legal system and
the bar over there. Its a really very traditional system. But at the
same time, there's this modern element where you go to the court
room and see how seriously these barristers take their clothes. They
are dressed well. People really take care in how they go about
putting their wardrobe together.
Did you get to keep your suit from this movie?
I did not unfortunately.
Are these barristers rich? Would we call them wealthy?
Some of them are. Not when they're starting out, but some of them
are very wealthy, obviously.
At what point did you know what the secret was? Were you aware of it
from the start or as you went through your discussions with director
John Crowley and Rebecca Hall? What was underlying this, who betrayed who
– did you feel you know exactly? Did you figure out the layers, or
were there more layers to the story that we're missing?
It pretty much reveals itself by the end of the film. I really
enjoyed reading the script. It read fantastic. I read it on a plane.
I was so happy to be reading it. It was a lot of fun. At the point
at which the reveal came at the end it was like, “Ahh. Okay. Okay,
right.” It also made sense because at every point it had to be
factually correct with what we were saying about the legal system
and the role of the special advocate. What evidence can and can't be
brought up in court. That side of it.
It's actually a very close friend of producer Tim Beaven who pitched
the idea initially for this movie. Tim Owen is his name – a very,
very smart man. So that side of the film was always being kept in
check. Had lots of checks and balances so it was a case of – whilst
you can’t be a slave to that entirely while making a film – it does
sit in that framework and is 100% accurate in that regard.
Was this inspired by the London subway and bus terrorist act, to
take something from that horrible example of saying, you know, what
happens? Was the special advocate called in for those trials?
You'd have to check with John Crowley…
Do you think this film has its basis in that particular story?
It was post 9-11. Or it may have been post the London bombing. I'm
not sure when role of special advocate in modern system came in
exactly – what year it was. It is obviously in response to terrorism
and state secrets and protecting informants and all that sort of
stuff. But which year it came in, I'm not sure if it was pre or post
What is so appealing about dark themes, both in general and to you
These are the kinds of films I like to go and see, so I'm definitely
drawn to them. I really like to learn something, if that's vaguely
possible when I go to the movies. If I learn something new or get
entrenched in a world that I'm not familiar with and come away with
slightly more knowledge than I had before, I always enjoy that
experience. Taking a ride with interesting characters. Selfishly
when I read this I just thought that Martin was going to be a lot of
fun to play.
He was actually a bit more of a smart-ass on paper. When we shot him
there was a little bit that we cut out. I can see why John did, but
I played him as more of a smart ass than he appears in the movie.
There were a few key moments that we lost. From that degree I knew
he was going to be fun to play.
If this film was to be recast with actors from cinema’s golden age
who would you imagine sinking his teeth into your role?
I don't know how to answer that. The first thing I thought when I
read the script, I was just really glad they sent it to me. I was
really surprised that Clooney wasn't doing this. I don't know about
Golden Age but that was my first question, "Does Clooney not want to
play a Brit?"
Is there a shortage of brainy films for adults in this industry?
I don't know if it's so much a shortage or that it's just much
harder for these types of films to get air space in the market
place. I'm sure you read or heard that great talk by Steven
Soderbergh at the San Francisco Film Festival. He did a great job of
explaining how and why it is the way it is. I'm certain that at this
time of the year as we get toward the end of summer, hopefully
people are thirsty for this kind of movie and find it.
What happened here? This one's got people getting killed, but you
didn't get to do the killing in this one – but at least you didn't
I had to be a good guy for once. I know. It was interesting being on
the other side and being the victim for a change.
What have you been doing since
Hanna? Are you extremely picky? You did a great job in
Deadfall but that was last year…
Thank you! It's not my fault! I was really proud of that film and it
didn't get a wide release. It went down the new release model of the
independent cinema. That's why I didn't get a chance to sit with
you. I was very proud of the film. I would love to have seen that
Deadfall got much wider traction. It just seems to be getting
harder and harder for small dramatic films to compete in the market
place. I've been working as much. It's just that the release model
has changed significantly in the last ten years. Sometimes I’ll get
to sit here and talk about a film and other times I won't.
Television is where really provocative storytelling is happening, in
particular HBO and Showtime. Wouldn’t it be great to do something
like what we have with HBO – a series where everybody's talking
about it as the new trend?
I've never really seen television as an option for myself because I
live at home. That would be a lot more complicated for me than doing
movies for obvious reasons. I do love it though, like all of us. You
feel like you're being spoiled when you hook into a great series. It
does seem to good to be true that you've just got all those episodes
of a great show that you can watch. I enjoy it as much as the next
Do you prefer political dramas and do you get involved in politics
when you're not working?
No, I'm probably the most un-political actor out there. I never got
involved in politics. It's just not my bag. There are other people
who do a way better job of it than I do. It's just not something I'm
at all interested in.
You have a couple more things coming up?
I just wrapped a movie here, a couple weeks ago. Here in the Bronx.
We shot the whole movie in the Bronx which was awesome. It's called
Beware the Night. It's a Scott Derrickson movie, the same
director from Sinister and Exorcism of Emily Rose.
It’s going to be scary.
Do you play a priest?
No I'm a cop, a Bronx cop. Edgar Ramirez plays the priest.
Did you do research for your role?
We did a bit of everything...
Didn’t you do something before that, right after this?
I have a small role in Lone Survivor, the Pete Berg movie
coming out soon.
Do you do any of that social media stuff, Twitter or Facebook?
No, at this point absolutely none at all.
They don't force you to?
No one tells me what to do. I don't say that in an arrogant way.
Never in my career have I been cajoled in that way.
us Let us know what you