Quaid: There's been a lot of press about this film over the last couple of weeks, and I saw the film myself last week. All I can say is, I've been a fan of disaster movies since Earthquake in the '70s, and this film is the mother of all disaster movies rolled into one. We have tornadoes that rip Los Angeles, a massive snowstorm that takes out New Delhi, hail the size of grapefruit that batters Tokyo, and New York, well, there's tidal waves. There's the mother of all ice storms. It's nonstop. But it's also filled with human drama. Jake Gyllenhaal and myself are in the film. We play father and son, and I'm a paleoclimatologist in the film. I had to learn how to say that. But it's basically someone who studies old weather. And I'm the first one to see it coming. ... This is a kick-ass film. I'm proud to be a part of it.You went from a historical epic [The Alamo] to this.

Quaid: Doing The Alamo was like a kid's dream. I grew up in Texas, and I used to play the Alamo when I was a kid. But doing this film, I've been a fan of disaster movies like Earthquake and The Towering Inferno since back in the '70s, and this is Roland Emmerich, who did Independence Day, and I knew that if there was anybody who could do something like this, it would be him. This is the mother of all disaster movies. It's incredible. I saw it last week myself with my son, and both of us were really knocked out.The movie also has a human element to it?

Quaid: Well, that's what really carries the film, you know, besides all of the disasters that go on. It's got a compelling story so that the audience can link into the film through the story of this father and son who are trying to find each other, this family trying to find each other in the midst of this disaster.What sets this apart from the other disaster movies?

Quaid: This movie has everything. That's what's going to set it apart. It's got tornadoes. It's got tidal waves. It's got the mother of all ice storms. It really is the mother of all disaster movies. Everything happens. Mother Nature really gets revenge.What was the most physically challenging thing for you?

Quaid: Well, for me, the most daunting thing was when we were shooting in Montreal, and it was 40 below outside, but we're shooting inside, where it's 80 degrees, and we're wearing arctic gear, and we've got this wind machine blowing shredded newspaper and soap in our faces. So it was tough.

Roland Emmerich, how accurate is the science in this movie?

Emmerich: Well, I'm a filmmaker, not a scientist. ... I had a very smart and intelligent screenwriter [Jeffrey Nachmanoff], who did a lot of research, and he tried to keep it as accurate as possible.So this could really happen in six days or eight days?

Emmerich: No, no, that's, like, a pure fiction. But global warming could lead to a new ice age. And it happened before, so we know that is a fact.What's the attraction for you in destroying cities?

Emmerich: You know what, I knew this question would come [up]. ... But I felt it was such ... an important thing to do, that I, because of that reason, did it again. Even after ... Independence Day, I didn't want to do it again. I didn't want to repeat myself. But I also thought, you know, I think, like, this movie's, like, very different than Independence Day. I hope that it is.Is it because of the message that's connected with it?

Emmerich: Yeah, exactly. ... When you find something that you can give people [a] message, but still make it an exciting movie, ... you kind of get very, very kind of excited about something. Then you probably, like, work harder than you normally do.Independence Day had a little bit more humor than this one does. Is it that the environmental message made it more serious?

Emmerich: Yeah. I couldn't see the same kind of tongue-in-cheek humor, you know? It's like Aliens. The movie didn't have to take itself too seriously. And this movie had some humor, too, but it's a little bit more subversive. It's a little bit more hidden.Was that huge water scene in New York the biggest challenge, or was it something small that we'd never think was your biggest challenge?

Emmerich: It was the biggest challenge. Well, there's like a rule in Hollywood: Stay away from water and stay away from snow. And I had both. I was quite nervous about it, but actually it worked pretty well, and the shooting went really well.Can you talk about the sensitivities of destroying New York after 9/11?

Emmerich: Well, we were very sensitive. If that much water would like hit the Statue of Liberty [in real life], it would crumble. But in our movie it still stands, and to me it's like a symbol that a lot has changed. You see, like, it's not really much destruction of New York, besides the weather. It's a natural force; it's like not any destruction.But Los Angeles gets leveled.

Emmerich: Well, that's my comment to Hollywood.How much of a political statement were you trying to make with the president and the vice president? You definitely, at least visually, referenced Bush and Cheney.

Emmerich: Well, yes, it's like, when you make a movie about global warming causing an ice age in America, you have to kind of portray a government. And if you want to make it real, you have to portray somewhat the political government which is in place right now. And it's a fact that they kind of don't do anything about the environment. They're going to think that it's all a big hoax.But you also take a shot at cheney, with the President deferring to the vice president all the time. Was that intentional?

Emmerich: Well ... think whatever you want. [Laughs.] I make movies, you know? I'm only a stupid filmmaker.What lessons did you learn from working on The Patriot, or after Godzilla was received poorly, when you were returning to movies on such an enormous scale?

Emmerich: I always ... felt, like, kind of Godzilla was, like, received too poorly. It's a much better movie than the critics think. ... I know for a fact that it's like the favorite movie of all my friends' kids. And they watch it over and over and over and over again, so that it cannot be all bad. ... I had all kinds of other subjects and interests in other things, and then I kind of discovered this book, The Coming of the Global Superstorm, written by these science-fiction guys [Art Bell and Whitley Streiber], and ... I ... first saw it totally as science fiction. But then I realized from researching it, ... how much was real science. And that, like, immediately made me want to do this movie. And then I ... said, "Let's use all the strengths, like the strongest aspects, of my movies to sell this to the audience. Because I felt compelled to sell this to the audience.How much are you hoping that this film creates discussion about these issues?

Emmerich: I hope it creates a discussion. It already [created] a discussion, you know what I mean? All of a sudden, like, every newspaper, you're like, "Look, there's like some guy from the right wing saying it's all f--k-ng b-lls--t, and then some other environmentalist says, "No, it's ... not. Global warming is real." And it's already caused, like, so much noise, I think I already accomplished it. ... It doesn't really matter if this movie's a success or not, because it's already out there. ... We are obsessed with entertainment. The whole Western world is obsessed with entertainment. ... So in that way, entertainment can do much more than probably a book or an article, you know?Jake Gyllenhaal, can you talk about the most challenging thing you had to do in this film? Was it being in the tank, or was there something else?

Gyllenhaal: The most challenging for me was making scenes that I think have very little subtext have some reality to them. You know, you have to get so much information in in such a short period of time that it's like making something seem like you're actually saying it, and it's not some plot device, was very, was really hard for me. I mean, yeah, I like sitting in a tank with 700 extras going to the bathroom in it, and then, you know, ... reusing that water to then shoot another scene where you're drowning in water is disgusting. And it's hard. But it's not as hard as trying to make, like, "He will come" work. That's really hard.Are you saying the script was a little thin on that kind of stuff?

Gyllenhaal: No, I'm saying that ... you have to be aware of what kind of movie you're making. And this is a movie that reaches a lot of people who, in a lot of different countries all over the world, who don't all speak English and who don't all understand Americanisms and things, and they need to be things that are simple that can be translated. And because of that, ... it's a help, because so many people see it, which means it's important for it to have a message, but it's also a hurt, because you don't, as an actor, ... get to play around as much. But it services this type of film really well, and you can't do it any other way.You and Dennis Quaid didn't have a lot of scenes at the beginning of the film to establish that father-son relationship.

Gyllenhaal: We did have a love scene that they cut out [laughs].Seriously, how did you guys work around that? So much of the film is you talking about each other rather than with each other.

Gyllenhaal: I was really gung ho at the beginning of the movie, ... trying to make the relationship really poignant, you know? I remember Dennis kind of sitting me down one day and being like, "You got to chill out. It's an action movie."Really?

Gyllenhaal: Kind of. He was funny about it, but ... he was like, "You know, you have to make this work, but again, it has to be in the vein of what it is."Is part of the reason you were so gung ho to kind of create that relationship that it was your first action film?

Gyllenhaal: Yeah, you should have seen me. I was "independent-ing" it. I was just, like, not hitting my marks and just being in the moment and doing whatever I needed to do. And they're like, "There are 800 extras behind you, dude. You got to, like, get down here." And Roland's like, "And there's like an enormous wave that I'm figuring out, so you need to be in the blue screen and not on the other [side]," you know? ... But I also think that that spirit needs to be in these movies, because ... if that's not in these movies, then they suck, and they're really boring to watch, and I think that you want people to be enthusiastic about their performance in the movie, even though people don't normally remember the performances in them. ... I know people will walk out of the movie going, "Oh, that wasn't stupid. That was actually scary and fun, and I believed that." Because we all had that attitude.Was there an awareness among the cast that you were in an action movie with a message?

Gyllenhaal: Every day. We got together. We had meetings in the basement at Columbia University [laughs]. No, I think first and foremost we were all in it because we just wanted to make a lot [of money]. No ... [laughs again].

Whenever I would get down, or I'd be having a hard time, or I'd be in the middle of nowhere in the cold in Montreal, I'd always say to myself stuff like "At least this movie has something to say." ... I don't think it was, like, conscious. ... But ... we think it's an issue that's really important.Do you worry that you'll lose some indie cred by doing this movie?

Gyllenhaal: Whatever. Who cares, man? I mean, I'm doing what I want to do, and street cred is easily awarded again. I mean, you can find it anywhere. ... I think most of the people who like the movies I've been in before will really like this movie, too.What did you learn about acting in Day After Tomorrow?

Gyllenhaal: Learning how to relax was a really big thing. Like, to not take things so seriously. There'd be days where I'd come off set, before I did this movie, and I'd be like, "Oh, I sucked" and beat myself up all night and waste my free time, you know? ... And this movie, I think, because of the nature of it, because I knew, somehow, that a lot of it was not in my control, ... I'd just kind of walk off set and be like, "That's it." If I thought it sucked, that's fine. I have tomorrow. I'll figure it out. You know what I mean? And I'm going to take that into more character-driven, like, serious performance movies. Again, I think it really loosens me up. I think it really does.Emmy Rossum, this is your first big Hollywood movie. What was it like working with all those effects, and especially the water and the flooding in New York?

Rossum: Definitely different than anything I'd done before. I mean, I came out of much smaller, more independent, character-driven movie tradition. Then to go onto something like this, which is a complete 180 ... I was working on Mystic River and this movie simultaneously, and flying back and forth. ...

Working with [Mystic River director] Clint [Eastwood] was so much different, because it was very intimate and very quiet and very character-driven and very personal and one-on-one. And then the next day I'd fly and be on Roland's set, and he'd built four blocks of New York City in a Montreal warehouse, put taxis and buses in it [and] flooded it. There was pounding rain coming from the ceiling. Roland was directing us from a [mega]phone, his voice was coming out of speakers like God. ... It was the most bizarre experience I'd ever been on. But in a sense it was almost like being back at the opera for me. Because it was like a big spectacle. And it was ... fantastic. It was definitely wet and cold, and we were shivering a lot of the time, but you know, there's so much adrenaline behind it, and it was so important to me that, coming out of that small-film tradition, to see if I could bring that commitment [and] honesty and intimacy, at least within this love story with Jake's character. You know, that sense of honesty and that commitment to a bigger film, and see if I could do that.How many days did you have to shoot in that big tank?

Rossum: For that one sequence, two and a half weeks. But Roland's a perfectionist. He'll do everything 500 times in one day if he wants to. But I think that's also a trait that engenders a lot of trust within an actor. I think you work with so many directors that don't know what they want that when you finally go to a director and he knows exactly what he wants, I think that that's something that makes you feel safe. How was working with Jake?

Rossum: He's a fantastic guy. He's very intelligent. ... It was funny, because I was kind of like the only girl on the set. There was Mark Gordon, our producer; Roland; Jake; Dennis; and me. So, you know, he was like my big brother, ... the big brother I never had. So it was really nice. ... We work in kind of a similar way. We both put a lot of emphasis on preparation, but then we get there, we kind of let it rip and are intuitive in a lot of ways, within the bounds of the character and, you know, the arc. So I think we worked really well together.What was the most challenging scene for you to do in this?

Rossum: Probably the one with the water, because it was the most physically taxing thing I'd ever had to do in a movie before. I mean, when you run through water for, you know, 12 hours a day, two and a half weeks in a row, you know, at the same time ... trying to hold onto your character and trying to make a real person, all those strengths and those vulnerabilities about her, I think that that's the most difficult. And I think the hardest thing about doing the movie was holding on to your emotional level while they're resetting the rain in the ceiling.

—Todd Gilchrist contributed to this interview