David Konow: How does Woo approach the violence in his movies?

Steven Kemper: John liked violence in his movies. What I like about John is that he always put it up there for examination. In other words, I think his theory is that man is a violent creature, and I think he always wanted you to question the violence. Not necessarily to question it in a negative way, but to examine it and then [question] the parameters that require violence. When is it accessible? Is it accessible? When is it not accessible? All of those things. There were a lot of places where I think he wants to create a beauty to the violence, but I also think he doesn’t want you to forget that it is what it is, and that it’s lethal and deadly. It was important to him to not tone it down, and in the American pictures he had to. He would always make some sort of comment under his breath, kind of jokingly; I think he thought Americans were way too tame when it came to violence—.or at least the ratings board (laughs).

Kemper considers the themes of morality and violence to be the strength of "Face/Off," which is considered Woo’s best Hollywood film.

David Konow: How did Woo feel about making the changes in his American films? Did he feel he was successfully able to compromise?

Steven Kemper: That’s a really good question ’cause I always do feel that he felt he was compromising in a lot of ways and I also think he really wasn’t pleased with the creative steps of studio people in general. Although I must say he was a big fan of (former Paramount Studios head) Sherry Lansing, and it was mutual. She just loved his work. I remember we had just finished the preview process of "Face/Off," and I can’t even remember if we were leaving a meeting or if we were actually leaving the theatre, but I remember her distinctly saying that "Face/Off" was the best picture made under her regime. She always loved it. The producers wanted it shorter, they thought it was too long. John, the producers, and the studios he’s worked have never agreed on any length issue, and right down to the very end the producers still wanted to cut the movie. Sherry kept saying, "It’s a gem. This movie’s a gem; leave it alone. Okay, yeah, maybe it’s 10, 15 minutes too long but who cares?" She was always a big fan, but I think that’s the only time when John really felt in alignment with the studios.

My personal statement is I never really think the people at the American studios, other than Sherry, really took the time to understand what he was trying to do. Because he had bitter fights with all the other studios he worked with, even Paramount, even though it was Sherry on the next on, "Mission: Impossible II." Every five minutes Sherry kept saying to John, "Give me another "Face/Off," give me another "Face/Off"." And there were a lot of story problems and Tom Cruise as a producer had a lot of power. There was a lot of fighting going on, and they were not happy with the way that movie was turning out. Very often when it comes down to the end, the studios [get what they want]...When we were doing "Windtalkers" at MGM I got a call a couple times from studio people saying, "Steven, do you think you could convince John to do such and such?" And at one point I remember saying to one of them, "Well, I don’t think so because that’s what John does. That’s his fingerprint." They said, "We don’t like it," and the first thing that sprang into my mind was: "Then you hired the wrong director."