It's notable solely for the performance of exec producer Harrison Ford, who shepherded the material to fruition after first discovering the story of John Crowley, who quit his job as a financial consultant, raised millions in venture capital to start a biotech firm that he sold for many millions more, all to find a cure for his children, Megan and Patrick, who suffered from the rare Pompe disease, which rendered them so weak they could barely breathe, much less move. Ford's character in the film, a University of Nebraska scientist named Robert Stonehill, did not exist in real life; Ford, itching for a good part, spent years researching the researchers to craft what he calls "a dramatic foil" for Crowley. Let's just let him explain.
Robert Wilonsky: What's interesting about Stonehill is that he is the very definition of unlikable—almost callous.
Harrison Ford: It's rare to find a character like that [in] those scripts that come across my desk. That was one of the fruits of those efforts as a producer — to create a character that I wouldn't likely be able to find.
RW: When you say the characters that come across your desk aren't necessarily the ones that most intrigue you, does that mean you have to seek them out independent of agents and studios?
HF: That system where the studio invests a lot of money in development? Those days are gone. For me, especially my age range of characters I can play, it's a worthwhile investment of my time. I can continue to feed opportunistically and find things to do. I have a film coming out in July [the romantic comedy Morning Glory] that [I] had nothing to do with.
RW: If a character intrigues you enough, would you want to play that regardless of how good the movie might be?
HF: Yes and no. I mean, I have done that in the past, and it's not the most gratifying way of doing things. Every once in a while, I've done something where I made the choice to not become involved in the script and not become involved, except with the character I'm playing. Show up, do my work, and go home. And I have not often liked the result.
I guess I'm more interested in having a more hands-on approach than simply being a gun for hire. But I like to be able to assure myself that the product that I'm going to be involved with is worthy of the audience that I'm lucky enough to work for, for the past 40 years.
RW: Is it worthy of the audience, or worthy of your time and effort?
HF: I always thought that what's given me the shelf life that I have is that I make films for the people who go see them.
RW: When it comes to options . . .
HF: I'm 67 years old. The option is to play those things that are age-appropriate. That's just a demographic reality of the business.
RW: You aren't your average 67.
HF: So I play 62. I'm clearly not 35 anymore. I haven't been 35 for a long time. That's okay. It's always been my ambition and my understanding that whatever the state of the movie business is, the key is being useful.
RW: What does that mean?
HF: Well, it means being useful to work, useful to the process, useful as an actor — not a pain in the ass. It means being useful as a producer in understanding and developing the material — just plain ol' useful. As compared to being useless or hard to work with or difficult.
RW: It's intriguing when you talk about character and storytelling ownership, because, of course, you have created a body of work full of icons. There are 6-year-old boys who adore a 67-year-old man. You will always be Han Solo and Indiana Jones as long as there are 6-year-old boys.
HF: The reason I'm still working is that succeeding generations of kids have been introduced by their parents to these films. The Stars Wars films, the Indiana Jones films — they're family films. As it becomes age-appropriate, parents are anxious to share their experiences with these films with their kids, and those kids become aware of who I am at a certain point. And that has been very, very good to me.