Vince Vaughn Talks ‘Swingers,’ ‘Wedding Crashers,’ ‘The Break-Up’ – MASHAHER

As the star of everything from “Swingers” to “Brawl in Cell Block 99,” “Wedding Crashers” to “Freaky,” Vince Vaughn has made an impression on moviegoers that looms even larger than his 6’5” frame. Be it comedy or horror, on the big screen or small, his performances often feel oversized but always exude a lived-in authenticity, which is why so many of them have endured as stand-outs and staples of the genres he’s explored. And yet, when facing an honor commensurate with his impact on the entertainment industry, a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, Vaughn reacts a bit more like a shrinking violet than you might expect.

“I get shy somewhat with these things,” Vaughn tells Variety. “I was fortunate years ago to be included in a Mann’s Chinese [handprint ceremony] and that was out of nowhere — and very nice as well. But it’s definitely something that is nice and a great chance to spend some time with some friends and family.”

Friends and family are the people with whom he’s done much of his best work. Vaughn first met actor and filmmaker Peter Billingsley, perhaps best known as Ralphie in “A Christmas Story,” in 1990 on the CBS Schoolbreak Special “The Fourth Man,” and their scripted relationship set the foundation for one in real life. “We were playing best friends, and he said, ‘We should really build a chemistry and maybe that will translate’,” Billingsley remembers. “And I was really impressed. Some people would throw this project under the bus, but from day one, he just thought anything we can do to make it better, he wanted to work on it.”

Billingsley later produced “Made” for Vaughn and Jon Favreau, and they have since collaborated on “The Break-Up,” “Couples Retreat” and “Term Life,” the latter two of which he directed. He says that the news of Vaughn’s star brings him back to their days when they were the barflies and club hoppers whose exploits would be immortalized in “Swingers.”

“We were literally Hollywood guys,” Billingsley says. “So we walked on those stars and looked down and read names and revered that Hollywood was this place where you can fulfill the dreams that you have as an artist. To be cemented on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is such a cool honor, and I think it is extremely well-deserved for him.”

Ahead of his Walk of Fame ceremony, which will be held Monday at 11:30 a.m., Vaughn sat down for a lengthy conversation about many of his most famous films, the twists and turns his career has taken, and his perspective as an actor, writer and producer after more than 30 years in the entertainment industry.

The body of work that you’ve created has made such an impact. Is this the path that you imagined for yourself when you started acting?

Well, I think we get the calling to be an actor, especially from the part of the country I was from originally. I had gotten a SAG card when I was still living outside of Chicago, so when I came out to Los Angeles at 18 right after high school, I thought it was cool when I got a line on a TV show. “That’s really cool — I can let my mom know!” I don’t know that I had necessarily a plan that I would even be the lead of films or television. It was just getting better, learning, having experiences, getting to participate. And when you would have something that would become the fabric of the culture, that was always exciting.

Obviously “Swingers” was a big breakthrough for you. Aside from you and Jon knowing each other, what about that character helped you lock in so well that it made such a remarkable footprint?

The thing that I think resonated was that there was a genuineness that the guys weren’t perfect. Some of the turns that happened, they would handle in a way that I think audiences could relate to because they weren’t guys that were necessarily seven steps ahead. And there was a bond of a friendship — you had guys that cared about each other and were trying to help each other as they were navigating career and dating and life. And when you’re in pursuit of stuff and dating, you’re lucky when you have good friends that are wanting what’s best for you.

To make sure that you weren’t immediately typecast, how calculated were you in choosing projects that followed like “A Cool, Dry Place,” “Return to Paradise” and “Clay Pigeons?”

I just picked material I liked. Those were character movies, and I wasn’t too focused on trying to sell tickets. I remember my agents at the time saying, “You’re turning down a lot of these studio movies,” and I just didn’t like the particular ones they offered. And sometimes I was wrong, but I was just as an actor trying to do parts that I thought were interesting. And then it kind of changed with comedy. When Todd [Phillips] came to me with “Old School,” it felt fun and interesting. But by then, I remember that he said, “the studio’s not sure that you can be funny” because I had done mainly dramatic, independent movies since “Swingers.” But obviously once I did “Old School,” it opened up this road to these movies that I was excited to participate in that also happened to be very commercial.

People have often taken a chance on you, like Todd Phillips and Craig Zahler, when there was some commercial doubt. Why do you think that is?

I had done some stuff when I was younger that weren’t necessarily larger hits, some of them the movies you mentioned, and so I was seen that way, interestingly enough. And I made up my mind as an actor that I wanted to try to do everything. Even doing “Freaky” with horror, I wanted to try to do all the different things that were out there. The Zahler stuff was great because that was another thing where you have these movies, again, that get into the culture. When we first released “Brawl,” reviews were obviously very strong, but at that time, the distributors were overthinking it, and so they were not willing to jump on board with something that I thought was really fun, good entertainment and a great story that’s challenging. But as time has gone on, those movies have really connected to an audience in a similar way that “Swingers” did. “Swingers” was not a big release when it first came out, but it stayed around and people started to connect to it in a more intimate way. I call the way that Zahler does stuff “outlaw cinema,” but they’ve connected to an audience in an odd path as well. And that’s fun for me. I like trying stuff that isn’t trying to go along with what people are going to like or what everyone’s trying to do at the time.

Even in the making of “Swingers,” the early meetings we went through used to make us laugh. They were like, “Can there be a girl in the group?” And we thought, “Well, if there was a girl in the group, I don’t think these guys would be in the place that they’re in.” And we were really defiant at that age to tell the story we wanted to tell, thankfully, and we weren’t trying to check a bunch of boxes. And the same with the Zahler movie, there was offers to distribute those movies if they’d cut out six minutes or tone down some of the stuff. And it’s not what Craig’s doing. So, I find that a lot of times when you’re just trying to create something that you find unique, you end up having a lot more resonance with the audience.

You talked about turning down studio fare, but “Psycho” and “The Cell” were studio movies. What made them interesting enough to choose?

I saw “Psycho” as a Warhol painting almost. I didn’t take it as, we’re trying to capitalize and remake a movie, [thinking], “This will have a lot of box office.” I saw it as this interesting filmmaker loves this movie and he wants to explore it. And what was fascinating was that the aim changed. We were going shot for shot and then sometimes not, so it was a different exercise. And I wasn’t used to working that way, and I enjoyed just the oddity of that process.

And then “The Cell,” I really thought was interesting. There was some stuff for the character [I played] that ended up getting softened by the time we released it. I remember building in a backstory that my character had been molested when he was younger — because why is he driving so hard to go after this guy? And I was really committed to being a guy that was really in pursuit of this at the expense of his own health or self-awareness. And so, it was a really interesting piece visually, “The Cell.” And that was fun, to be a part of something that felt a little bit different than things I was doing. I always enjoyed the newness.

I read an anecdote from Bradley Cooper where he was admiring you on the set of “Wedding Crashers” because of your commitment to a bit — that he said was not working. What enables that fearlessness? Do you have a formal process for playing characters?

I think it changes as you go. There’s no one way to the waterfall. Part of the process of working with other actors is being a team player. I love Bradley, but I remember that day slightly differently. That was a scene where I came running out of the house after oversharing with the priest, and now the cover was blown. It was a grandmother with a shotgun, and I remember feeling like this could feel a little sitcom-y — almost a “these meddling kids” type of thing. So I did a lot of stuff that was not scripted and it came more from the place my character was in than it was the lines. I remember really spending my day thinking about how to go about that, I like sometimes when your feet can’t quite touch the water. It feels a little vulnerable, so now you have to overcommit.

Another scene that reminded me of that was from “Swingers,” which was scripted that Jon and I are in the old 101 Diner. We’re saying, “You’re money, baby,” and the crew was not necessarily thinking, “This is a great movie.” And I remember I had to do “my baby’s all grows up,” and doing that celebration of Jon, and I just took it further because I was going with the energy of the moment. And I felt some of the crew rolling their eyes at us like, “Oh God, look at these guys.” So, staying in the scene but also responding to it, that’s when I turned and said, “I’m the asshole in the place? I won’t eat here.” It was one of those scenes where you have to just commit to that moment and let it play out however it is. And sometimes in doing that, I’m sure for those watching, it doesn’t always land perfectly.

How easy is it for you to know the right number on the dial for each character?

Well, I think tone is everything. You’re telling the audience how to take something. So you really try to work from a place of who the characters are and what they want and justify their decisions based on what their goals are. But in a myth sense, if you have a trickster whose goal is something that we can connect to, then sometimes their means of doing it, we can be okay with if we like them. But Trent, the character in “Swingers,” for instance, I think is so beloved because he’s such a loyal friend and really does care about his friend, and he’s someone that is optimistic and positive. Even the dating advice was really about owning how you felt and good self-talk in a way. But it’s sometimes more entertaining if the characters make mistakes. I think it’s more interesting to allow the characters to be as authentic as possible. As an actor, you’re not making a health video. It’s not like you’re doing a manners course.

From Jon to David Dobkin to Ben Stiller to Peter Billingsley to Craig Zahler, how easy has it been to find people that give you that sense of freedom or protection?

It’s a bit like dating, isn’t it? Or making new friends. I don’t know anyone who’s like, “I really love someone making a character be as polite and evolved as possible.” If anything, it’s like, “Can we get away with this?” I remember when we first shot “Crashers,” we were going super [R-rated], and we would do stuff and it was fun because we were almost making a movie for ourselves to be funny and there was no “parents” around. I think that’s a big problem now — you’ve got to let young people go make a movie and leave them alone. They’ll figure it out in the end. And part of the fun is you meet people. Like the Zahler stuff. Look how much that has resonated, because there’s something that feels provocative, in the sense that it’s allowing itself to be what it wants to be. It’s not worrying about offending anyone. Like Kurt Vonnegut said, “If you open a window and try to please everyone, you’ll catch pneumonia.” I think the stuff that does resonate is always things that at least feel like they’re being authentic to the piece. They’re not trying to code it in a way that feels responsible. That feels like a snoozefest to me; a responsible comedy feels like a time to take a nap.

“The Break-Up” was one of the first movies where you had had a formal writing credit. When did writing and producing became a more active pursuit?

Improvisation is writing. You’re finding ways of advancing the story or serving the character. And I think a lot of actors have become good writers just out of survival as time goes on. Sometimes you get a script that’s really good and you just stick with it. But you’re really looking for what’s the best idea for this moment. So I had always written on a lot of these movies starting at the beginning, and “The Break-Up” was just an idea that was in my head because I had been offered a lot of rom-coms and they were always the same. And most of the relationships that I had at that point had not worked out. I wasn’t looking to get married. There was no long-term plan. So, I thought, I want to follow a break-up.

And then I thought, “Why don’t you do it where they’re both at fault?” And then, the guy normally doesn’t change, so what if he really changes and goes back and does the thing that these movies do where he has awareness and he apologizes and takes responsibility, but they’ve burnt out the relationship. And that’s complicated because he’s now really gotten to that place, and when they leave, they’re both better off than they were. But this tragedy is that they’re not meeting each other now. I wanted the fights to be real and some of the emotion to be real. It really allows itself to be super comedic in moments, but then also dramatic. So that was fun, and I wrote with two really good writers, Jeremy Garelick and Jay Lavender. We just wrote it on spec because it was not conventional, so we felt like, let’s get something on paper, and then that way we’d have a better chance to make the movie we wanted to ultimately make.

You have not done a lot of sequels. Not that there should be a “The Break-Up 2,” but follow-ups have been discussed about “Freaky,” “Wedding Crashers,” “Dodgeball” and “Old School.” Is there a particular reason none of them came to fruition?

I was always of the mindset of go make something new. But there was a script even for “Swingers 2” that Jon wrote that was really fun, but we didn’t feel like it was the right thing to do. Obviously when you have a commercial hit, there’s always a race to get the sequel out as soon as possible, but I always felt like it had to have its own story. So, there were talks at different times. “The Wedding Crashers” was something we were considering revisiting. It just never got to a story that felt right to everybody. “Dodgeball” is something that we’ve been exploring a little bit lately, being a sports movie, and as time goes on, it feels like there could be a fun story to come out of that world these years later, but we’ll see if it ends up coming to fruition or not. But I always was reluctant to do it just to do it. So, it would just have to be something that felt like it worked in and of itself.

After “Swingers” and “Made,” I remember a discussion of you guys doing a third film in that “trilogy” that was a Western?

It was “The Martial Revelation,” about a Hasidic Jew who was a gunfighter in the Old West. It was comedic, but it was played straight like “Swingers” or “Made.” It was a great script, but we never found the timing to do it. But “Made” was fun — we went a little darker with it and an ending that wasn’t as optimistic, which, to me, was the fun of exploring that. That’s another movie that’s really lasted that people really comment on because I think it’s different. So no, we never got to that one, but that was a good script as well.

You’ve done more TV stuff in the last couple of years: “True Detective,” “Curb Your Enthusiasm” and now “Bad Monkey.” How has that offered a different creative challenge?

I’ve known Bill Lawrence forever — we used to play in a poker game together 25-plus years ago. So, to reconnect these years later and get a chance to do something together is really fun. It’s a great book by Carl Hiaasen, and it’s a longer time to tell this 10-part story, which is exciting. And I still have a couple of movies in the can. This movie “Nonnas” will be going to the Toronto Film Festival in September with Steve Chbosky and a great cast of actresses: Talia Shire, Lorraine Bracco, Susan Sarandon, Brenda [Vaccaro]. And then I did a movie with the creator of “True Detective,” Nic Pizzolatto, with Al Pacino and Simon Rex, which was an original idea of mine about a lounge singer in Las Vegas. And I sang in that movie, which was fun to do. And I’m about to go do [“Mike and Nick and Nick and Alice”] for Fox, a bigger action movie. So I love movies. I like the community of it. And that’s never gone away. I think we’ve debated too much. Hollywood has gotten its own way with a lot of excuses about technology or viewing habits. And the reality is they’re just not placing bets on character pieces. But when they do, they seem to work. But I also have enjoyed “Bad Monkey.” So, to me, it’s less about which one. I think there’s room for all of it.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.