Quantcast
Channel: interview
Viewing all 277 articles
Browse latest View live

Eros and Thanatos Collide in David Cronenberg’s Id-Driven Adaptation of J.G. Ballard’s ‘Crash’

$
0
0

 
By Koraljka Suton

As a young upstart filmmaker I felt that you were not a real filmmaker if you didn’t write your own stuff and it should be original. And that was beyond the French version of the auteur theory which was really meant to rehabilitate the artistic credibility of guys like Howard Hawks and John Ford. The French were saying a director could work within the studio system and still be an artist and that those guys were, even though they didn’t normally write their own stuff. And for years I said, no, no you have to write your own stuff. But then I got involved with Stephen King’s The Dead Zone, and it was more of a studio project, and there were five scripts that had been written, one of them by Stephen King himself, and frankly I didn’t think his script was the best of the five. In fact, I thought that if I did his script people would kill me for betraying his novel. I think what happened is that he just wanted to try something else. He wasn’t interested in just doing the novels, so he changed it quite a lot to the point where it was less like the novel than Jeffrey Boam’s script, which was actually more faithful. So I started to work with Boam, and I started to really enjoy the process of working with other people and on the script, and I thought, well this is interesting ’cause what it means is, if you mix your blood with other people’s, then you will create something that you wouldn’t have done on your own, but is enough of you that it’s exciting and feels like you. It’s kind of like making children. —David Cronenberg

David Cronenberg never was a crowd-pleasing director, being one of the originators of the body horror genre, thereby constantly pushing the envelope when it came to the depiction of the gruesomely transformative potential of the human body, its correlation to the psyche and its co-existence with technology. After having directed and written original scripts to visceral and genre-bending films such as Rabid, Scanners and Videodrome, this polarizing Canadian auteur started adapting from other sources, a process he was initially in resistance to, as described above. After The Dead Zone, Cronenberg made several other metaphorical children this way, bringing George Langelaan’s 1957 short story The Fly to the big screen, basing his 1988 movie Dead Ringers on the novel Twins by Bari Wood and Jack Geasland, as well as on the lives of Stewart and Cyril Marcus, adapting William S. Burroughs’ 1955 novel Naked Lunch and making a movie about David Henry Hwang’s play M. Butterfly. All of this before ultimately creating Crash (not to by mistaken for Paul Haggis’ 2004 Oscar-winning melodrama Crash, the title of which posed a considerable issue for Cronenberg and was a gaffe Haggis later apologized for), a 1996 genre-wise-ambiguous film adapted from English author J.G. Ballard’s novel of the same name that was published 23 years prior. It would be an understatement to say that Ballard’s Crash was highly controversial when it hit book stores—among the publishers that rejected it was even one whose first reader stated the following: “This author is beyond psychiatric help. Do Not Publish!” So unconventional was Ballard’s material that the fearless and unapologetic director himself had his doubts about the possibility of it being made into a feature-length: “I thought, ‘Well, it’s certainly very powerful, and it certainly does put you in a very strange space—one that you’ve never been in before—but I can’t see making it into a movie.’” But eventually, make it into a movie was exactly what he did, subsequently managing to polarize critics and viewers yet again, in true Cronenberg style.

 
Crash premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 1996 and received a Special Jury Prize, an award not given annually as is the case with the Grand Prize of the Jury, but only at the official jury’s request. The Jury president at the time was none other than Francis Ford Coppola, who proclaimed that the award was given to Crash “for originality, for daring and for audacity” and that the choice was a controversial one, with certain jury members abstaining “very passionately.” In the meantime, others felt very passionate about aggressive campaigning—The Daily Mail and The Evening Standard were very keen on getting Crash banned in the United Kingdom (‘Ban This Car Crash Sex Film!’). As a result, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) consulted with a Queen’s Counsel, to see if the movie breached the Obscene Publications Act, 11 disabled people, to determine whether the film’s portrayal of physically challenged individuals could be considered offensive, and a psychologist, to decide if Crash’s plot would inspire copy-cats. None of the above found any reason to ban it (the aforementioned group of 11 people was even pleased that a disabled person was portrayed as being both attractive and sexually active), so the BBFC released the uncut version with an 18 rating in March 1997. The movie was nonetheless banned by Westminster Council, making it impossible for Crash to be shown in cinemas in the West End. It was released in both NC-17 and R versions in the United States, with the NC-17 version being advertised as “The most controversial film in years.”

But why so controversial in the first place? Explicitly writing or making movies about sexuality and its many possible manifestations was, and still is, albeit to a much lesser extent, a trigger for both uproar and outrage, due to our imposed societal constrictions and the individual ones that follow suit. Many critics and viewers today argue that Cronenberg’s film was way ahead of its time, due to the treatment the main characters’ sexual desires and practices got, with the director passing no judgment in the process, but rather positioning himself in the role of an unbiased observer. During the course of the 90-minute film, we follow James Ballard—named after the author himself—played by James Spader, a man disconnected from his producer job and his wife Catherine (Deborah Kara Unger), who he is in an open marriage with. The only time either one of them can feel genuine arousal, and thereby connection, is when they describe their sexual escapades with other people to one another. Their lives start to change when James gets into a car accident. The driver of the other car dies immediately, but his wife Helen (Holly Hunter) survives and ultimately finds herself attracted to both James and the prospect of having sex in cars. In an attempt to understand why their shared car wreck resulted in such intense arousal, Helen introduces James to Vaughan (Elias Koteas), a man who does re-creations of famous car crashes and leads a cult of symphorophiliacs—people who are turned on by staging and watching catastrophes or car accidents. Soon enough, James, Helen and Catherine all become part of Vaughan’s group, masturbating to car safety test videos, taking photographs of car crashes and engaging in car-sex with members of the group, regardless of gender, with safety being the least of their concerns.

 
Many of those scenes were considered pornographic, obscene, disgusting and offensive by audiences and critics alike, but one that really struck a chord with viewers and rubbed them the wrong way was a scene between James Spader and Rosanna Arquette’s characters. One of Vaughan’s followers, the attractive and disabled Gabrielle, whose legs are covered in steel braces, sports a huge scar resembling a vulva on the back of one of her thighs. This element of Gabrielle’s appearance additionally arouses James who, upon getting in a car with her, penetrates into her scar, instead of her vagina. Audiences were both appalled and offended on behalf of disabled persons, but Cronenberg saw it differently: “She’s not saying, ‘I should hide myself away.’ She’s saying, ‘My disfigurement is not disfigurement, it’s a transformation and a mutation and it can be sexual.’ Scars have been sexy for years.” Other sex scenes turned out to be no less provocative, with the example of James and Catherine engaging in anal sex, while Catherine insists James describe to her Vaughan’s anus, as well as his presumably scarred penis and the taste of his semen. Due to the explicit nature of such scenes, Cronenberg had a policy on set of allowing actors to review their sex scenes on the monitors as much as they wanted to. “They could see exactly how they looked naked, how they looked talking, or where their ass was when their skirt was pulled up. If they were going to freak out and be upset then fuck it, they were going to freak out and be upset and we’d discuss it.”

Pornography is created to arouse you sexually and has no other purpose. It’s obvious ‘Crash’ is not pornographic. People say it’s sexual but not erotic, as though that was a criticism. The only time most people have seen sex scenes is in pornography. In most movies, the story stops, you have a sex scene, then the story continues. But there’s nothing to say you can’t use a series of sex scenes as a structural element—things evolve and character is revealed. Why not? It’s part of the narrative of one’s life. —David Cronenberg

 
What needs to be taken into account when examining Crash and the reasons why it makes for such captivating cinema, is precisely the way Cronenberg managed to make an id-driven movie, as opposed to a plot- or character-driven one. Instead of resorting to dialogue or outward events, Cronenberg uses sex as a narrative tool, a vehicle whose function is to propel the characters into their next course of action and the plot to wherever it needs to be headed. Here, character development (or deterioration, depending on the eye of the beholder) is a byproduct of sex and the influence sex has on those engaging in it. In any case, Cronenberg would rather show us, than tell us—and what he shows is explicit fetishist sex, but without any eroticism, let alone pornographic tendencies. Such scenes seek not to arouse the viewer, but to convey a sense of emptiness and mechanicality, because what the characters are really searching for is a thrill, an intense energy surge that will, for a brief amount of time, allow them to escape the void that has become their life, deprived of any genuine connection and sensuality and, therefore, lacking true eroticism.

The difference between approaching themes in art and in genre is a matter of comfort. And I think that it’s a matter of intellect. For example, what happens in ‘The Fly’ would be very hard to take in a normal drama. Basically, an attractive guy meets an attractive girl and then contracts a terrible wasting disease and the girl watches as he deteriorates and, ultimately, she helps to kill him. That’s really the plot of ‘The Fly’ on an emotional level and that would be very hard to take if it were just a realistic drama. But when it’s a sci-fi horror mix, it sort of allows the audience to have some distance and they still feel the emotional impact of those things, but it gives them a little bit of safety, you know? But in terms of a movie like ‘Naked Lunch’ or ‘Crash,’ it’s just a question of what people are used to and what they expect from a movie. And when they’re not getting the structure that they’re familiar with, or an aesthetic approach that they understand, then there is a distance there but it’s not a good distance. It’s off-putting to them. So at that point the appeal is to a much narrower audience that can understand you and engage with the movie that you’ve made. —David Cronenberg

 
Crash is a story with deep feelings of loneliness and separateness permeating its core, showcasing the characters’ inability to touch each other physically as a means of diving into another person’s internal world, as well as displaying the protagonists’ lack of know-how when it comes to approaching sex as a process of re-establishing connection with a partner, as opposed to it being a mere mechanical action that requires extra stimuli, eventually calling for ever-higher levels of intensity. And in a world where technological advancement is slowly but surely taking over every facet of our lives, this disconnect becomes even more apparent, with technology amplifying our separateness on the one hand, and giving us tools we can use as loneliness avoidance strategies on the other. In the case of Crash, its characters cannot manage to find genuine arousal in that which is familiar, in the person they had grown accustomed to, which ultimately results in them seeking refuge in the extreme, at the meeting point of Eros and Thanatos, provided by the technology in the form of the motorcar.

Most people would say now, if you said ‘I’m doing a movie about high-technology,’ they’d think you’re talking about computers and the Internet or something like that, and if you said you are using a motorcar to represent that they would be quite surprised because they don’t think of the motorcar as being high-tech. But it is, it’s incredibly high-tech ’cause of the way it has absolutely altered human existence and our perception of what power we have or don’t have. It really has compressed time and space and it really also, especially in America, but I think in every country, it represents to a certain extent a sexual freedom and power. And so, the car is a very potent representative of technology I think. —David Cronenberg

This potent representative of technology, as Cronenberg refers to the car, is an outward trigger that enables the characters to tap into their sexual energy, because of their ineptitude to connect with it intrinsically. This sexual energy that Cronenberg portrays is at the same time a creative and a destructive force, with the characters both literally and metaphorically crashing and colliding into one another for the purpose of losing themselves in la petite mort (the little death i.e., orgasm). For what they seek but do not understand why, is that moment of release where all thoughts and concepts cease to exist and the rush of energy through their entire bodies results in a brief loss of consciousness—a transition not unlike death. Due to their incapacity to achieve this through genuine emotional connection and without extreme external catalysts, the characters’ only way of reaching their personal little deaths is by either witnessing literal death or getting close to experiencing it themselves, finding both release and relief in the pain that is inflicted upon them and the ecstasy that is born within them once they realize that they had survived. The prospect of death, therefore, becomes synonymous with the moment of orgasm—both symbolizing the imminent unknown, the intensity, duration and outcome of which one can neither predict, suspend nor control.

 
The film’s all about dealing with mortality. I always do this in my films, it’s a rehearsal for my own death to see what my characters do with theirs. They’ve eroticized death, and that’s their triumph. It’s a good trick to pull off if you can do it. —David Cronenberg

To loosely paraphrase Holly Hunter, who allegedly “pestered” the director into giving her the role of Helen because she desperately wanted to work with him, movies often tell us how we should think and feel, without engaging any of our senses, our imaginations or capacities for expanding our individual perceptions. Just as life happens to some people, without their willingness to get involved in its creation, so do certain movies—they just happen to you, leaving nothing to be discovered, uncovered or deduced. Cronenberg’s films, Crash included, are on the exact opposite side of the spectrum, demanding our active participation. In serving as a wake-up call of sorts, Crash holds a gigantic mirror to those watching, casually and unrestrictedly projecting back to us our own lack of self-awareness, our own connection deprivation and our own potential for both self-destruction and immense creation, thus challenging us to be brave enough to withstand—our own reflection.

Written by Koraljka Suton. Koraljka is a member of the Croatian Society of Film Critics and has a master’s degree in German and English. For her thesis, she did a comparative analysis of Spielberg’s ‘Band of Brothers’ and ‘The Pacific’. Koraljka trained at a Zagreb-based acting studio for six years and fell in love with Michael Chekhov and Lee Strasberg’s acting techniques. She is also a contemporary dancer and a Reiki master who believes in the transformative quality of art. Read more »

 
Screenwriter must-read: David Cronenberg’s screenplay for Crash [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Crash is getting a brand-new 4K restoration and a spot at this year’s Venice Film Festival. Recorded Picture Company and Turbine Media Group have completed work on their 4K restoration of Crash that was supervised by the film’s writer-director Cronenberg and director of photography Peter Suschitzky. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
“I’m not sure you’re going to like anybody in Crash,” the director acknowledged in an interview. “It is a difficult film to access, but you can observe something from a distance and still be fascinated by it.” In making formula Hollywood films, he adds, “you know which buttons you’re supposed to push and if you’re professional enough to push them, you get the required response. Here I’m pushing buttons that nobody knew they had before, and I’m groping in the dark for those buttons. I’m not sure which ones I’m pushing.”



 
David Cronenberg, his collaborators, and his critics, discuss the controversial sensuality of Crash. Throughout the talk, Cronenberg shares his initial response of repulsion towards Ballard’s clinical and humorless approach to such a “medical sensuality,” and his sudden, impulsive decision to make the film (“I did have a Ferrari at the time, that might have had something to do with it,” he says).

 
In creating the prosthetics and scars for the injured characters in Crash, the production team turned to real-world inspirations. Hear from Stephan Dupuis as he discusses constructing the braces, body armour, and scars for the film. —Crash: Body Brace and Scars









 
In the 13-minute talk, Cronenberg delves into his perception of the film’s happy ending, getting into a car accident of his own, the complexities of translating J.G. Ballard, and racing vintage cars. Of particular interest is his comparison to his own body of work as that of a Ferrari, instead of a Ford, naturally, a perfectly Cronenbergian sentiment assuring his outlier reputation. He also talks about how he gained exclusive access to roads in Canada for Crash, and the logistics of finding unique ways to shoot someone inside a car, “without getting cute.” —Mike Mazzanti

 
In talking with Cronenberg, it’s hard to believe that this articulate, soft-spoken man is the creator of some of the most disturbing films of the past few decades. Speaking from his Toronto office, Cronenberg addressed the controversy surrounding his 1996 film. —Revisiting David Cronenberg’s Crash

 
Crash audio commentary with David Cronenberg.

 
Interviews with Cronenberg, and the stars of the movie, on Crash, from Sky’s Movie Channel.


Open YouTube video

 
Cinéma, de notre temps—David Cronenberg: I Have to Make the Word Be Flesh.

 

PETER SUSCHITZKY, ASC

The only long relationship I really had was with David Cronenberg. I shot two films with John Boorman but they were separated by 20 years, so it wasn’t exactly a marriage. Whereas with David Cronenberg it was very much a professional marriage. It was a wonderful opportunity to develop a relationship with him and shoot so many films together. Each one presented a different challenge. Each was quite different from the previous one. I found them all very stimulating to work on. For me, the key is to be stimulated by the project regardless of whether it’s going to be successful or not. I’m a firm believer in the importance of the context of what we cinematographers do. I think it’s pointless to think that you can do beautiful work on a bad film. Perhaps you can do good work on a bad film but it’s not going to have much meaning. Whereas if you do quite good work, maybe not great work, on a really good film, people will think you’re great and at the same time you’ll be stimulated. Actually I’ve found that I’ve done my best work on the most challenging films. Films which have been most stimulating to work on. They were all interesting. None were easy. I don’t make life easy for myself because I’m very tough on myself and I’m always trying to do something that I haven’t managed to do before, always pushing myself. Some of the most stimulating were Crash and Naked Lunch, I think. They were so unusual. It was very tough and the night exteriors were shot in the beginning of winter in Toronto. It got very cold and unpleasant. But I knew I was shooting a fascinating movie, so I was very happy. —Peter Suschitzky

 
Peter Suschitzky’s seminar in Cannes, as part of the ExcelLens tribute organized by Angénieux.

 
Scout Tafoya’s series about initially maligned films soldiers on with a look back at David Cronenberg’s best and most divisive film.

 
On 12 February 1971… the Radio Times announced, for 8.30pm on BBC2, ‘Crash!’. To be introduced by James Mossman. ‘For science fiction writer J.G. Ballard, the key image of the present day is the man in the motor car. It is the image that represents the dreams and fantasies that all too easily can turn into nightmares. In a film for Review Ballard explains the beauty and fascination of this potentially deadly technology.’ —Crash! Full-Tilt Autogeddon

 
J.G. Ballard on ITV’s South Bank Show.

 
J.G. Ballard: The Future Is Now.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of David Cronenberg’s Crash. Photographed by Michael Gibson & Jonathan Wenk © Fine Line Features, Alliance Communications Corporation, Recorded Picture Company, The Movie Network, Téléfilm Canada. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post Eros and Thanatos Collide in David Cronenberg’s Id-Driven Adaptation of J.G. Ballard’s ‘Crash’ appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.


‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ As a Testament to and an Exploration of Scorsese’s Own Faith

$
0
0

 
By Koraljka Suton

Ever since he was a little boy, director Martin Scorsese wanted to make a movie about the life of Jesus Christ. Being raised Catholic, the former altar boy even contemplated becoming a priest, but his passion for movie-making eventually trumped his initial desire for a clergy career. Nevertheless, his deeply rooted faith and fascination with religion always remained an integral part of who he was and who he would eventually become as a filmmaker, with redemption, guilt, faith and the crisis thereof becoming prevalent themes throughout his work, regardless of the subject matter at hand. Still, his wish to immortalize Jesus on celluloid never abandoned him, but rather started coming to fruition one step at a time. The first seed of what will eventually grow into a controversial, yet highly praised picture that will earn Scorsese his second Academy Award nomination for Best Director (the first one being for Raging Bull in 1980), was planted in 1961, when Scorsese’s fellow NYU student and future Raging Bull assistant editor John Mavros told the director about a 1955 novel entitled The Last Temptation of Christ, written by Greek author Nikos Kazantzakis. Although the filmmaker did not read it then, it seems as though he could not escape destiny, for the book re-entered his life in a rather unexpected way a decade later, on the set of Boxcar Bertha. The movie’s female lead Barbara Hershey, who had first read the novel when she was only nineteen, gifted Scorsese a copy and urged him to read it. She told him that he should make it into a film and cast her as Mary Magdalene. Scorsese then read what would eventually become his source material and was, in his own words, “enveloped by the beautiful language of it.”

He went on to option the novel in the late 1970s and wanted his Taxi Driver and Raging Bull screenwriter Paul Schrader, who came from a Calvinist background and minored in theology at a Christian Reformed Church college, to adapt it. The screenplay was finished in 1981 and later revised by The New Yorker magazine’s critic-turned-screenwriter Jay Cocks (who will go on to co-write Scorsese’s adaptation of Edith Wharton’s classic The Age of Innocence in 1993), although he remained uncredited because of contractual obligations, as well as the regulations of the Writers Guild of America (WGA), something Schrader would deem unfair. The project was brought to Paramount in 1983 and the studio was willing to finance it—with a budget of $14 million, shooting was to take place in Israel. In the fall of the same year, Scorsese met with Kazantzakis’ widow Eleni and the late author’s literary executor Patrolcios Strauru to discuss the adaptation, assuring them both of his admiration for the novel and his conviction regarding the subject matter at hand. Both of them ended up giving him their unconditional blessing and support, fully aware of the backlash Scorsese would experience after the movie hit theaters, due to the villainization the Kazantzakis’ went through in their country after the novel was published and subsequently proclaimed blasphemous. But little did Scorsese know that the proverbial hell would break loose much sooner than he anticipated, testing his devotion to and, dare I say, faith in the project itself.

My whole life has been movies and religion. That’s it. Nothing else.
—Martin Scorsese

 
As word got out that Scorsese was adapting the contested novel, the religious right community decided to take things into their own hands. An organization of Protestant women called the Evangelical Sisterhood distributed a newsletter calling all converts to write protest letters to Paramount’s parent company Gulf+Western in an attempt to sabotage the film’s production. Ultimately, they succeeded. As the corporation started receiving five hundred letters a day and as the budget for the movie started to increase, The Last Temptation of Christ was eventually canceled at the end of 1983. Scorsese’s passion-project had to wait and, in order to “get himself back in shape,” the director went on to make After Hours, a mix of screwball comedy and film noir about a computer word processor who desperately tries to get back home after a night in SoHo, but neither the people he encounters nor the absurd system he falls victim to allow him to do so. The plot of After Hours perfectly mirrored Scorsese’s own frustration with the Kafkaesque situation he found himself in, trapped in a bureaucratic maze, unable to move forward and reach the finish line he so badly craved. After Hours became, in a way, a cathartic and therapeutic experience for him, providing him not only with the creative “workout” he needed, but also with the chance to work through and come to terms with the void that was left after the cancellation of his Jesus movie. He then went on to direct The Color of Money, starring Paul Newman and Tom Cruise, in 1986, before Universal Studios gained interest in resurrecting The Last Temptation of Christ, under the condition that Scorsese also make a commercial movie for them, which he ultimately agreed to (Cape Fear in 1991).

When it came to playing the role of Jesus, the very first contender that Scorsese had in mind after the script was finished in 1981 was his go-to actor Robert De Niro. But the actor had almost no interest in religion and could not picture himself portraying a character wearing robes. He respectfully turned down the offer and, contrary to popular belief, the director understood and held no grudges. De Niro even proclaimed that if Scorsese would not be able to find a suitable enough actor or an actor brave enough to tackle the demanding role, he would take it on so as to honor their friendship. There was, ultimately, no need though. The director wanted to cast Christopher Walken, but the studio was unhappy with his choice, so Scorsese set his sights on twenty-four-year-old Aidan Quinn, a decision Paramount agreed with and approved of. Harvey Keitel was set to portray Judas (although Jeff Bridges really wanted the role and personally wrote to Scorsese), Sting was to play the role of Pontius Pilate and Barbara Hershey got the part she had wanted ever since her conversation with the director on the set of Boxcar Bertha—that of Mary Magdalene. But she did so not on account of her being the one to introduce Scorsese to the book in the first place, but rather earned the part fair and square, after undergoing three months of auditions. After the project got canceled and picked up again, only Hershey and Keitel were still game, Sting was replaced by David Bowie and a new Jesus was yet to be found. Willem Dafoe’s identity was, in his own words, “still working day-to-day at the theater,” despite having had some success with several movies up to that point. He was jealous because all of his actor-friends were auditioning for the role of Jesus, but he could not even get an audition, seeing as how he was off the producer’s radar. After he “did a movie in Thailand”, he came back and his agent told him that Scorsese wanted to talk to him about The Last Temptation of Christ. “So they sent me the script, I read it, I loved it, and I met with him [Scorsese], had a short meeting, we talked and that was basically it. There was no big decision, it couldn’t have been more direct. Of course, I would have done anything in that movie, it’s Scorsese,” Dafoe stated in a conversation with EW.

 
Filming was set for the fall of 1987, in Morocco. Scorsese had offered to shoot the movie in only 58 days, with a budget of $7 million. The difficulties he experienced while filming as well as a tight schedule led to the director developing a minimalist aesthetic. This lack of time resulted in frequent improvisations and shooting without much preparation or rehearsal. Dafoe stated that they were doing merely two or three takes per scene, which is far removed from the notion of Scorsese arguably doing up to a hundred takes for a single scene in New York, New York. Due to a lack of make-up artists, Barbara Hershey was tasked with re-applying her character’s mehndi tattoos time and time again. They discovered that a camera was faulty only after the film was processed, a result of which was the unintentional whiteout at the very moment Jesus died. According to the director, they were working in a state of urgency. But even while working in said state, Scorsese, together with his cast and crew, which included his longtime editing partner Thelma Schoonmaker and German director of photography Michael Ballhaus, managed to create a nuanced and probing cinematic masterpiece that is debated and revered to this day. Too bad not everybody could see it for what it was. Many did not even see it to begin with, yet took it upon themselves to not only judge it as the ultimate act of blasphemy, but also resort to extreme measures for the purpose of voicing their outrage, unwilling to reflect upon why someone else’s perception in the form of fiction is capable of endangering their own allegedly unwavering belief-system.

Several Christian groups took part in organized protests, advocating the movie’s boycott before and upon its release. 600 protesters picketed the headquarters of MCA. Evangelist Bill Bright of the Campus Crusade for Christ asked Universal to burn the negative and, if they declined to do so, offered to buy it from them and destroy it himself. Several theaters decided not to show the film as a result of the growing protests. Italian director Franco Zeffirelli withdrew his movie Young Toscanini from the Venice Film Festival upon finding out that Scorsese’s film was invited for a screening, describing it as “truly horrible and completely deranged” without having seen it. A Catholic nun, founder of Eternal Word Television Network, described Scorsese’s film as “the most blasphemous ridicule of the Eucharist that’s ever been perpetrated in this world” and “a holocaust movie that has the power to destroy souls eternally.” A Roman Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, never having watched it, deemed the film “morally offensive.” In 1988, fire was set to the Parisian Saint Michel cinema while the movie was playing, injuring thirteen people, with four of them ending up severely burned. In countries such as Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Turkey and Greece, the film was banned for several years, while still being banned in Singapore and the Philippines. Due to death threats, Scorsese was accompanied by bodyguards when appearing in public after the film was released.

 
I was driven to make ‘Last Temptation’ because I wanted to look at questions of faith and penance and redemption within the context of the world right now, with all the formalities stripped away. I’m constantly exploring this question in my pictures and in my life. (…) I was trying to start a dialogue. I didn’t want to just make a picture for people who were secure in their faith. Christ’s teachings are about all of us—the secure and the insecure, the powerful and the powerless, the down and out, the addicts, the people in real pain, the people caught in states of delusion, the ones who feel absolutely hopeless and see no possibility of grace or redemption. Because the afflictions of “the least among us,” as Jesus said, the inner circumstances that lead to their fall, are in everyone. I wanted to make a picture about a historical figure named Jesus, a spiritual guide, but also… a human being, surrounded by other recognizable human beings, as opposed to wax figures. Did I think it would be accepted by everyone? Not necessarily. But I hoped it would. I knew that everyone wouldn’t embrace it, but I thought they just might. And what happened was that the picture was vilified by people who made a cultural show of their vilification, and many of whom not only hadn’t seen it but vowed to never see it. And that saddened me. Martin Scorsese

It is indeed sad to bear witness to behavior that can and did genuinely harm and cause distress to others, only because a different, more relatable, humane view of a historical figure whose teachings of love, inclusion and compassion the abovementioned groups and individuals claim to revere and adhere to, was brought to life on the silver screen. For what Scorsese did was present us with a Jesus who is struggling with his humanity in order to eventually accept and incorporate his divinity. Scorsese and Kazantzakis’ Jesus is not the perfect, sinless, all-knowing Messiah, but a sad, tormented, temperamental, at times childish and often whimsical human being who hears voices, has hallucinations and feels drawn to fulfill his eventual divine purpose, one that he himself does not fully understand until the very end, therefore adjusting both his teachings and reassessing himself along the way. This Jesus is torn and fragmented, feeling the seductive pull of human desire on the one hand and immense guilt as a result of it on the other. This Jesus declines the love of Mary Magdalene, which ultimately leads to her becoming a prostitute. This Jesus confines mostly in Judas, urging his friend to betray him so that he could make the ultimate sacrifice, thereby accomplishing what is needed. And ultimately, this Jesus faces his last temptation on the cross, living out the life of a normal man in his mind’s eye, having children with Mary Magdalene and two other women, only to arrive at death safely and come to the realization that he wants to be the Messiah after all, a wish that enables him to complete his internal journey of willingly and gladly accepting his proclaimed divinity by releasing resistance to death.

 
Such a Jesus is absolutely relatable and reflects the process of the human consciousness when it comes to integrating both of its aspects, the human and the divine, without sacrificing the integrity and wholeness of either. But we as a collective have a hard time acknowledging both aspects within us as equally valid and worthy, and an even harder time perceiving that that which we have deemed divine (in this case, Jesus) can at the same time be immensely human. We have been led to perceive spiritual authority figures as merely divine, because we crave divinity, which is nothing more nor less than our inherent capacity for unconditional love, acceptance, compassion and creation, but do not believe we can find it within. It is therefore understandable why making a movie about a poster boy for divinity that paints him so painstakingly human and explores his deepest urges, desires, thoughts, doubts, idiosyncrasies, wants and needs was met with such uproar. We do not want to accept the humanity in Jesus, because perceiving him as “one of us” would imply that we would have to come to terms with the divinity within ourselves. We cannot accept the humanity in Jesus, for it would mean that we would have to stop resisting and shaming everything that makes us human. And such notions are not only scary (many would say blasphemous even) but also imply an immensely high level of not just (self-)awareness, but also personal responsibility towards ourselves and each other.

This inability of ours to perceive that which is beyond our individual level of awareness is perfectly depicted in The Last Temptation of Christ, where Jesus’ followers often misinterpret or outright do not understand what he is trying to convey, with them, for instance, wanting to start rioting and kill the rich after one of his sermons, leaving a perplexed Jesus shouting “Not death… I said love!” after them. For those who never experienced the inability to inflict pain upon another because that pain would, in return, be felt as their own, Jesus’s message of love being the answer and the way can only create a cognitive dissonance and an internal resistance of great magnitude, for the very concept of taking another being as a part of one’s self, which is what love is, runs counter to the way the people he was preaching to were living their lives and acting as a result of it.

 
What Scorsese does is offer us a complex, layered, respectful and deeply humble insight into internal conflicts that are akin to all mankind. But most of all, he provides a glimpse into his own. Just as After Hours was a movie that enabled him to channel his feeling of being stuck into a creative endeavor that appeased him and proved profitable at the same time, so is The Last Temptation of Christ his attempt at conveying, exploring, rediscovering and redefining his own ongoing, life-long dance with faith. But in doing so, Scorsese did not make a movie only religious people should see and contemplate. The filmmaker goes beyond religious doctrines and lands right into the very heart of what religion devoid of dogma should be about—the practice of love—and of what it means to be human, struggling with the numerous fragmented aspects of one’s individual self. And it is in this regard that Scorsese emerges truly triumphant. If we as viewers were to expand our perceptions wide enough, we could indulge in viewing the movie through various lenses and practice accommodating all of those diverging perspectives that present themselves to us—without the filter of religious conviction and an agreed-upon belief system, The Last Temptation of Christ is a portrait of a man who simultaneously struggles and acts in accordance with conflicting voices in his head and hallucinations that prompt his self-proclaimed enlightened state of being, thereby both verging on what mainstream society in this day and age would deem as insane and managing to inspire an entire movement, while doing inexplicable things in the process. Viewed through the filter of religious teaching, we are witnessing a man who came here to endure tremendous suffering so as to eventually grow into his inherent divinity. In either case, we are presented with a man. And all the struggles and temptations that go along with being one.

Written by Koraljka Suton. Koraljka is a member of the Croatian Society of Film Critics and has a master’s degree in German and English. For her thesis, she did a comparative analysis of Spielberg’s ‘Band of Brothers’ and ‘The Pacific’. Koraljka trained at a Zagreb-based acting studio for six years and fell in love with Michael Chekhov and Lee Strasberg’s acting techniques. She is also a contemporary dancer and a Reiki master who believes in the transformative quality of art. Read more »

 
“Oh, yes, we are feuding,” Mr. Schrader said cheerfully, “but we’re also talking about doing another movie. We’ve been feuding since we met. We’re both rather bull-headed people.” The option in Mr. Schrader’s Last Temptation contract caused some friction. “There was a period about three years ago when it looked like he was faltering,” Mr. Schrader said of Mr. Scorsese. “And I made some moves to get it. I notified Marty. I said, ‘I hear that your enthusiasm is waning, and there are some people in Egypt and France that might have some money. If you ever slacken I will walk over your back to get this movie done.’ And he wrote me back this long furious letter and said, ‘You will have to pull the script from my dying hands.’” Mr. Schrader went on, “I wrote back, ‘That’s all I wanted to hear—that you are moving.’” Mr. Scorsese, whose office in midtown Manhattan is just down the hall from Mr. Schrader’s, recalled the incident in a telephone interview. “Paul reminded me of that last week,” the director said. “I didn’t appreciate or like it in 1985 when he kept asking if I would give it up, and I kept writing these letters— ‘From the grave I’ll come back to direct it!’ So it caused a little bit of a misunderstanding. But it forced me to control the project, to raise the money to buy all the options so no one else could get it.” As Mr. Schrader had done previously, after he completed his script he stepped back. “It’s time to hand over the baby,” he said. Mr. Scorsese and the writer Jay Cocks then reworked the dialogue, preserving Mr. Schrader’s structure. No one disputes who wrote what—only who should get credit for it on screen. As Mr. Scorsese recalled, he asked Mr. Schrader if his own name could be included; Mr. Schrader said no and suggested taking it to the Writers Guild. Mr. Scorsese let the issue drop. Credit for Mr. Cocks was a more difficult issue. “That first script, with the exception of two scenes, is exactly, scene for scene, the movie that’s on the screen,” said Mr. Schrader, who won sole credit in a Writers Guild abitration. According to the guild rules, Mr. Cocks could not then receive any on-screen credit, not even the thank you Mr. Scorsese wanted to extend. —Paul Schrader talks of Last Temptation and his new film

Screenwriter must-read: Paul Schrader’s screenplay for The Last Temptation of Christ [PDF1, PDF2]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available from the Criterion Collection in a new, restored high-definition digital transfer, supervised and approved by cinematographer Michael Ballhaus and editor Thelma Schoonmaker. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Reworked version of the 3 September 1987 screenplay with handwritten notes by Martin Scorsese.

 
… And Blood, by Richard Corliss, from Film Comment, September/October 1988.

Two guys, tough guys, sit in the waiting room of Martin Scorsese’s Manhattan offices. Are they auditioning for Scorsese’s forthcoming Mafia movie? Are they a pair of Willem Dafoe’s roustabout apostles? No. They are not even waiting to see the director of The Last Temptation of Christ. They are waiting to see anyone who wants to see Scorsese. Lew Wasserman may have been depicted as a Christ killer, but his company only distributes the movie. Scorsese made it. And have people made threats? In a generous, full-disclosure interview of more than two hours, this is the one question he is reluctant to answer. “Well, let’s say there are a lot of people around. Privacy is gone, and everyone is very careful.” Very careful, and very open. Those attitudes marked both Scorsese’s ballsy adaptation of the Nikos Kazantzakis novel and his conversation with me, a week after The Last Temptation’s opening. ABC News’ Person of the Week was happy to discuss the film with someone who had logged as much time with the priests and nuns as he had. And to explain how personal and universal—how, even, paramount—was his quest to make this picture.

Was your family religious?
My parents grew up Americans, Italian Americans. Their idea was survival; my father went to work when he was nine years old; there was hardly room to sleep; you had to fight, you literally had to fight with your brothers and sisters for food and attention; if you got into trouble, you had to know enough to stay on the streets for two nights. It was survival. And I don’t think the Church figured into their life that much. Italian-Italian Catholics, like my assistant Raffaele Donato, who says, “We’re really pagans. Pagans in the good sense. We enjoy life, we put the Church in a certain perspective.” My parents were able to do that. When the Church wanted to delve into personal lives, how many children they should have, my parents shied away from that. They figured that wasn’t any of the priest’s business. I was the one who took the Church seriously. My grandmother was the one who had the portrait of the Sacred Heart. Also the niche with the statue of the Virgin Mary grinding the snake under her foot. Also the beautiful, gigantic crucifix over the bed, with Jesus in brass and the palms from Palm Sunday draped over the crossbar. And remember when you’d go into church and you’d see Jesus on the cross? And he’s bleeding from the wound on his side? And there’s this angel below him with a cup? And the blood is dripping into the cup? The most precious blood! A great title for a film: Most Precious Blood.

The scene where Jesus returns from his first temptations in the desert to open his robes and pull out his heart is right from that iconography.
Actually, that scene, which was not in the Kazantzakis book, was written by Paul Schrader, a Dutch Calvinist, and it was kind of nudged to me as Catholic. He also wanted to show that the supernatural and the natural exist on the same plane. But we were doing that all along. He wanted to show the angel at the end turning into a gargoyle, and slithering off a table. I leveled that all out. I wanted it to be like when I was growing up, and my grandparents and parents and aunts would tell me stories—ghost stories—that took place right in our apartment. The supernatural and the natural on the same plane. Only here you’re dealing with the Messiah. So if a snake goes by, the snake is going to talk. In voice over. Don’t even try to do Francis the Talking Mule. Or Leo the Talking Lion. Forget it! It’s Harvey Keitel’s voice, or mine, saying, “Do you recognize me? I’m your heart.” So when we got to do the Sacred Heart scene, here’s what I thought was more important. You have these guys bickering all the time, just like in the Gospels. It’s all there: “I’m the one, I’m the one, I’m gonna sit next to him when the Kingdom of Heaven comes. I’ll be at his right hand.” “No, I’m gonna be at his right hand!” Hysterical stuff! So they’re all bickering, and Judas is being a pain, as usual. And then Jesus shows up, and it’s party solidarity. It’s the Democratic convention, everybody getting together. Unity. And his presence is shining so strong at that moment that they have to be unified behind him. Then again, you could say that the apostles are seeing him just back from the desert, with the light from the campfire, and the music around, and the glow behind his head, just a little touch of DeMille. It could be mass hallucination, mass hypnosis. We don’t know. It’s a symbol to bring them all together—especially Judas, who kisses his feet and says, “Adonai!” All of a sudden Jesus is God? Wait a second! Yes—Judas needs this. So do the others, to be convinced that this is the man.

Is this Jesus God, or a man who thinks he’s God?
He’s God. He’s not deluded. I think Kazantzakis thought that, I think the movie says that, and I know I believe that. The beauty of Kazantzakis’s concept is that Jesus has to put up with everything we go through, all the doubts and fears and anger. He made me feel like he’s sinning—but he’s not sinning, he’s just human. As well as divine. And he has to deal with all this double, triple guilt on the cross. That’s the way I directed it, and that’s what I wanted, because my own religious feelings are the same. I do a lot of thinking about it, a lot of questioning, a lot of doubting, and then some good feeling. A lot of good feeling. And then a lot more questioning, thinking, doubting!

This Jesus is also a mortifier of the flesh, like the medieval flagellants and mystics.
I think mortification of the flesh is important. I don’t mean that you have to go around whipping yourself, but disciplining is important. This kind of movie, on a $6 million budget, that’s a discipline. When you’re in Morocco, and the sun’s going down, and the generator’s breaking, and the actor’s wig is coming off, and you know you don’t have $26 million and the ten thousand extras like Bertolucci—that’s discipline. You design it another kind of way. Except that, as [cinematographer] Michael Ballhaus would tell me whenever I got depressed, “That’s the way this picture has to be made.” You know, the Roman soldiers who surround the temple, at the end? Just five. Same five guys. They were also the guys who were rioting when Jesus starts throwing things. And they were the Levites who come down the stairs, and also the guys who go up the stairs against the Levites! Five guys from Italy. We had twelve uniforms, but we couldn’t afford the other seven stunt men. So it’s a strong punishment.

And the “fantasy” or “hallucination” that Jesus has at the end of the film, it’s really a diabolical temptation?
Exactly. You know, the one sexual thing the priest told Catholic boys they could not be held responsible for was nocturnal emission. It was like an involuntary fantasy. And with Jesus it’s the same thing. How can you hold him responsible for this fantasy? Of course, Catholic boys were taught that, if you entertained fantasy for a while, it became an occasion of sin. That’s another good title for a movie: Occasion of Sin!

Your apostles, they don’t speak like the holy figures we’ve heard in other biblical epics. They speak like characters from a Martin Scorsese picture.
Schrader said this to me: “Unless you have them speaking in ancient Aramaic with subtitles, whoever stands behind the camera is going to be doing his ‘wrong’ idea of the dialogue of the time. You’ll do your wrong idea. I’d do my wrong idea. Twenty years ago George Stevens did his wrong idea.” And he’s right. But I did want to break away from the sound of the old biblical epics, to make the dialogue plainer, more contemporary. That’s mainly what Jay Cocks and I did the last six drafts of the script. We rewrote 80 percent of the dialogue, arguing over every word. Jesus says to Judas, “You have the harder job.” “Job?” Is that the right word, the simplest, the most effective? Make it more immediate, so people have a sense of who these guys were, not out of a book or a painting, but as if they lived and spoke right now. The accents do that too. The apostles, most of them, were tough guys who worked with their hands. Peter, the fisherman, was like a rough guy from the docks; he had a Brooklyn accent. Vic Argo, who played Peter, would walk around the set with a cigar in his mouth all the time. And when it was time to shoot, he’d say to me, “I have to lose the cigar, right?”

And the bad guys, Satan and the Romans, they have British accents.
Anyone from the outside is going to sound different. And anyone in authority should have a British accent. It sounds authoritative to American ears. Just as any British actor is supposed to be better than any American actor. Don’t they tend to win the Oscars, just for sounding British? I love British actors, and I love American actors, but there’s a reverse-snobbism thing there. Also, the British Empire was a lot like the Roman Empire. They occupied America, and a lot of other places, just like the Romans occupied Judaea.

When people in theaters hear these accents, do they giggle at the wrong time?
Some critics called the movie unintentionally funny, but Jay and I don’t think so. Sometimes what’s said is serious, sometimes it’s ironic, and sometimes it’s meant to be funny. One of the elements we kept from the book is that Lazarus never quite heals properly. I mean, the guy’s been dead for three days. Forget it, he’s a little dull! That’s why Harry Dean Stanton [Saul] says, “How’re ya feelin’?” It’s all done with a sense of humor. And if you see it with an audience, they’re going with it. They’re laughing hysterically at the cast-the-first-stone scene with Zebedee, where Jesus says, “Take this rock—mine’s bigger.” An audience picks up on it. They pick up on it as a story. As a movie. Jay Cocks went to the first public showing at the Ziegfeld in New York, and there were two black ladies behind him saying, “Hallelujah!” and “That’s the way He said it!” And when the last temptation comes on, they say, “Oh my God, no! No!” And when he gets back on the cross: “It was a dream! It was a dream!” Which is exactly the way it should be.

The film has certainly made a lot of people think, for the first time in a long time, about Jesus and his message of love. You didn’t mean to be, primarily, a bringer of the Word.
No, but I’ve always taken that Word—the idea of love—very seriously. It may not be a stylish thing these days to say you’re a believer, especially to say it so often in the papers, as I’ve been saying it. But I really think Jesus had the right idea. I don’t know how you do it. I guess it has to start with you, and then your children, your wife, your parents, friends, business associates—you start branching out a little bit, it starts to spread, until you create a kind of conglomerate of love. But it’s hard. That’s why Judas’s line in the movie gets a great laugh: “The other day you said, ‘A man slaps you, turn the other cheek.’ I don’t like that!” Who does!? We agree with you, Judas. How do you do it?

Barbara Hershey, who plays Magdalene, gave you a copy of The Last Temptation of Christ in 1972. Did you read it then and know immediately you wanted to make a movie of it?
No! It took me six years to finish it! I’d pick it up, put it down, reread it, be enveloped by the beautiful language of it, then realize I couldn’t shoot the language. I read most of it after Taxi Driver [in ’76] and then finished it while I was visiting the Taviani Brothers on the set of The Meadow in October 1978. And that’s when I realized that this was for me. I’d often thought about doing a documentary on the Gospels—but Pasolini did that. Paul wrote two drafts of the script, and Paramount backed us. Boris Leven, the production designer, made a trip to Morocco and Israel, scouting locations, working out a look for the film—all those arches!—and making beautiful sketches. It was great, because he was one of the first people who made me conscious of design in films when I was a kid. My family didn’t go to the theater, so I’d never seen theater design. Then I saw The Silver Chalice in 1954, and it was the first time I’d seen a movie presentation of theatrical design, something that wasn’t supposed to be quite real. I’d seen movies with dream sequences, but nothing like this, where the whole film was done in an obvious style. And here we were thirty years later making another biblical epic. It’s such a shame Boris died before Last Temptation got made, but a lot of what he did survives in the film. By now it’s 1983. And the budget is starting to climb from $12 million to 13 to 16, and the shooting schedule is getting longer, and we’re going to shoot in Israel, where we’re a day-and-a-half’s flight from Hollywood if anything goes wrong, and they’re not exactly crazy about the casting—Aidan Quinn they could accept as Jesus, but some of the others made them nervous. And then the religious protests started, and a theater chain said it wouldn’t show the movie. Well, if you have a picture that’s pretty expensive by now, and you’re not sure it’s going to be profitable, and you can’t show it in a lot of theaters, and you’re getting flak from organized groups. So they dropped it. Then Jack Lang, the French Minister of Culture, tried to help finance it with government money. And there was a big storm over that, over there. Meanwhile, my agent, Harry Ufland, kept shopping it around to other studios. He kept the idea alive, he kept my hope alive, for three years. That’s why he’s listed on the credits as executive producer. He was great. But he was involved with other projects. Then I got Mike Ovitz in January of 1987, and within three months we had a deal at Universal.

Kind of ironic, since Universal has this rep as the black suits and black hearts of the movie business.
I never thought I could make a movie like this for a place like Universal. They represented a certain kind of filmmaking. But from the moment I met Tom Pollock and Sid Sheinberg, I felt a new attitude, a new openness. I’ve never felt such support from any studio. They never said change one thing. They made suggestions; everybody made suggestions. And they knew it was a hard sell. But from the very first screening of the three-hour cut, they were moved, they were teary-eyed, they just loved it. I just hope they get through everything. But the toughness you used to hear about Universal against filmmakers, that’s how tough they’re being in defense of this movie. The more they get slapped, the more they hit back.

Maybe they fought harder because of the charge that the film would fan the flames of anti-Semitism.
Of all the things that come out: anti-Semitic! I was totally shocked by this turn. I couldn’t believe it. I mean, if they have problems with a businessman trying to make money, then he’s a “businessman”! He’s not “Jewish.” It’s disgusting. Obviously it just shows them for what they are. And even Rev. Hymers later apologized for his tactics. But the whole point of the movie is that nobody is to blame, not even the Romans. It’s all part of the plan. Otherwise, it’s insane. I mean, the Jewish people give us God, and we persecute them for two thousand years for it!

At least the controversy helped bring your film to a wider audience.
I do hope the controversy doesn’t keep this movie from being shown on cable. When even Bravo, the very best cable channel, buckles under to thirty or forty protest letters and withdraws Godard’s Hail Mary from its schedule, you have to be concerned about the life of your movie. You have to be concerned about a lot of things when that happens.

Between 1983, when Paramount passed on the project, and ’87, when Universal said go, you made two other films that might be called commissioned projects.
After The Last Temptation was cancelled in ’83, I had to get myself back in shape. Work out. And this was working out. First After Hours, on a small scale. The idea was that I should be able, if Last Temptation ever came along again, to make it like After Hours, because that’s all the money I’m gonna get for it. Then the question was: Are you going to survive as a Hollywood filmmaker? Because even though I live in New York, I’m a “Hollywood director.” Then again, even when I try to make a Hollywood film, there’s something in me that says, “Go the other way.” With The Color of Money, working with two big stars, we tried to make a Hollywood movie. Or rather, I tried to make one of my pictures, but with a Hollywood star: Paul Newman. That was mainly making a film about an American icon. That’s what I zeroed in on. I’m mean, Paul’s face! You know, I’m always trying to get the camera to move fast enough into an actor’s face—a combination of zoom and fast track—without killing him! Well, in The Color of Money there’s the first time Paul sees Tom Cruise and says, “That kid’s got a dynamite break,” and turns around and the camera comes flying into his face. Anyway, that night, we looked at the rushes and saw four takes of this and said, “That man’s gonna go places! He’s got a face!” But it was always Work in Progress, to try to get to make Last Temptation. And now that Last Temptation is finally done, I’ll be doing another movie about the difficulty of defining love. It’s one of three New York Stories; Francis Coppola and Woody Allen are doing the other two. Richard Price has written the script for me, based on something I’ve been thinking about for maybe about fifteen years. It tells the end of an affair between a famous painter, about fifty, and his young assistant, whom he uses as a subject for his work. It’s based on the diaries of Anna Polina, one of Dostoyevsky’s students. It begins at the end of the affair and goes to the very end of the affair. The dialogue is very snappy, because Richard has that touch, but basically it’s about a guy’s relationship to his work and the people around him. Is he able to love? Is he a loving person? Is this his idea of love? And if so, is it valid? And then I’ll do a gangster picture, Wise Guy. I’ll be going back to my roots—it’s a real assault on these two guys living it up. And I’ll be working on style again. The breaking up of style, the breaking up of structure—of that traditional structure of movies. I like to look at that kind of movie; I don’t like to do them. I get bored.

In a way, it must be hard not to get bored, now that you’ve achieved this film that has obsessed you for so long.
I’d like to take a year off from my more personal projects and do a Hollywood genre film, with a good script, some wonderful actors. You learn craft. Every time you go on the set, even though you plan everything before, you realize how little you know. Or maybe I’ve just forgotten! The guys on the set ask, “What do we do now? Should we pan him over?” “I don’t know, I’ll probably lose it in the cutting anyway.” So what I’m doing now is thinking fast—I’ve always talked fast, but now I’m thinking fast. Always editing in my head: compression, compression, compression. Of course, I’ve just made a movie that’s two hours and forty minutes! I get stuck in between the European films of the forties, fifties, and early sixties and the American films. And I don’t know. I don’t know if I belong anywhere. I just try what appeals to me. And to get the money from America—which is very hard to do and stay within the system. I’m so glad Last Temptation was financed in Hollywood, that it’s an American movie, that an American studio was willing to take the flak. And I would like to do a movie with widescreen and a couple thousand extras, if I could keep my interest going. My everyday interest. Because I don’t enjoy shooting movies. There’s too many people around, too many things to go wrong, too many personalities, and you have to be very… rational. I don’t like being rational. I don’t like being held back.

Answer a few points of contention, if you will. Some people, seeing the early scene in Mary Magdalene’s brothel, think that Jesus is watching Magdalene perform in a sex show.
Jesus and the other men are not voyeurs. They’re waiting, they’re not really watching. Some of them are playing games; two black guys are talking; Jesus is waiting. Magdala was a major crossroads for caravans, merchants would meet there. And when you were in Magdala, the thing do to was to go see Mary. But the point of the scene was to show the proximity of sexuality to Jesus, the occasion of sin. Jesus must have seen a naked woman—must have. So why couldn’t we show that? And I wanted to show the barbarism of the time, the degradation to Mary. It’s better that the door is open. Better there is no door. The scene isn’t done for titillation; it’s to show the pain on her face, the compassion Jesus has for her as he fights his sexual desire for her. He’s always wanted her.

At the last supper, Jesus says, “Take this and drink this, because this is my blood.” And when the cup is passed to Peter, he tastes blood.
That’s the miracle of transubstantiation. And in a movie you have to see it. Blood is very important in the Church. Blood is the life force, the essence, the sacrifice. And in a movie you have to see it. In practically every culture, human sacrifice is very important, very widespread. When I was in Jerusalem, Teddy Kollek, the mayor, showed me the Valley of Gehenna, where the Philistines sacrificed their children.

The last temptation is one of a long, normal, and still basically sinless life. Except that Jesus commits adultery with Mary’s sister Martha.
I don’t know that it’s adultery. It might have been polygamy. There is some evidence of a Hebrew law at the time regarding polygamy for the sake of propagation of the race. But remember again, this is the Devil doing fancy footwork. “You can have whatever you want. And look, I’m sorry about what happened to Mary Magdalene. Really sorry, won’t happen again. In fact, this time, take two! You need more than one—take two!”

In the Gospels, does Jesus know from the beginning that he’s God?
Maybe, maybe not. There are hints both ways. In Matthew, the first time you see Jesus, he’s being baptized by John; and God’s voice comes out and says, “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” But I think that was more to emphasize Jesus over John the Baptist. Because John was the one getting all the attention. I mean, this man had a presentation! He knew how to draw the crowds. But except in Luke’s gospel, where the twelve-year-old Jesus is presented to the elders, the question of when Jesus knew he was divine is cloaked in mystery. So we’re not saying this is the truth, we’re just saying it’s fascinating, it’s so dramatic, to have the guy make a choice. As if he could make a choice—I mean, if he’s two natures in one, he has no choice. But the beauty is that it gives the impression of choice. And eventually he has to say, “Take me back, Father.” It’s wonderful.

The final words of the movie—Jesus’s final words—have baffled translators for centuries. How did you decide which words to use?
Very hard to translate and get the power and the meaning. “It is finished.” “It is completed.” “It’s over.” Can’t use that—too Roy Orbison. What was the translation we were taught in Catholic school? “It is consummated.” The Kazantzakis book used “It is accomplished.” Because Jesus had accomplished a task, accomplished a goal. I shot three different versions. What I wanted was a sense of Jesus at the end of the temptation begging his Father, “Please, if it isn’t too late, if the train hasn’t left, please, can I get back on, I wanna get on!” And now he’s made it back on the cross and he’s sort of jumping up and down saying, “We did it! We did it! I thought for one second I wasn’t gonna make it—but I did it I did it I did it!”

So how do you feel after a decade of trying to get this temptation on film?
I thought for one second I wasn’t gonna make it. But I did it I did it I did it!

 
Martin Scorsese on The Last Temptation of Christ.

 
Martin Scorsese provides insight into the two greats in his life—spirituality and film—with a look into films like The Last Temptation of Christ, Kundun, and Mean Streets.

 
Scene 37: Jesus in the desert. Shooting notes by Martin Scorsese, The Last Temptation of Christ.

 
Scorsese’s notes and sketch for a shot from The Last Temptation of Christ, courtesy of Will McCrabb.

 
Contact sheet from The Last Temptation of Christ. Scorsese directs David Bowie and Willem Dafoe, courtesy of Will McCrabb.

 
Filming the crucifixion.

 

WILLEM DAFOE

Below, the film’s star Willem Dafoe (who played Jesus) reminisces in his own words about meeting with Scorsese for the first time, working on the “most demanding” role of his career, and the controversy that’s followed the flick for two decades, as told to EW.com.

Joining this movie was so simple, but it’s an interesting story, I think. All my friends, all the actors that I knew, were going in on this movie. Even though I had made some movies and had some success with them, my identity [at the time] was still working day-to-day at the theater. But I was jealous because I wasn’t even asked to be seen. I couldn’t even get an audition. I was off their radar. Then I did a movie in Thailand, came back, and got a call from my agent and he said, you know, Martin Scorsese wants to talk to you. He said he’s got this project, The Last Temptation of Christ. I said, I know I’ve been trying to get an audition! So they sent me the script, I read it, I loved it, and I met with him [Scorsese], had a short meeting, we talked and that was basically it. There was no big decision, it couldn’t have been more direct. Of course, I would have done anything in that movie, it’s Scorsese. But the fact that the role was Jesus was better—it was clear that he wanted to tell the story from the human side of Jesus, he didn’t want it all jazzed up. He wanted to bring it back into the body of a man and I felt like I was ready to do that.

I have so many memories from filming because it’s vivid in my imagination, still—I can remember very specific scenes and sensations because it was one of the most demanding roles, physically, for me. It was full-on. [The hardest part] was being on the cross. Regardless of your religious upbringing, you have a strong association of what that is, and then when you take it onto your body it’s very powerful. I was on this big hill in rural Morocco and could see for miles and the sky was blue, blue, blue. We were based in Marrakech a lot of the time, but we would go out to the countryside. Hollywood was far away, New York was far away. I did nothing but be on the set, which, if you know the movie, is a lot. What people forget is that it was a low-budget movie, so we had to work very fast, which wasn’t a bad way to do it because Martin Scorsese had it very clearly in his head. He had a great director of photography in the late Michael Ballhaus. We had very limited crew and resources, but I think that disciplined us not to get distracted and helped our very essential approach to the story. There was no off time, basically, I’d go home and read the Bible, read the text, I’d go to sleep.

And the atmosphere was that there were no trailers—I would arrive and I’d simply put on my clothes. There was minimal makeup and we were out in the weather, you know? There was no place to hang out or wait. Which I loved because it made things very fluid, I was always in the camera and I was always in the story. I come from the theater and I’m still a theater actor, so I’m used to working down and dirty. I remember when it was about to be released they started feeling that there was going to be pressure, some sort of controversy. We showed it in Venice [at the Venice International Film Festival] and they rushed it out to release so they could get the movie seen before the controversy would bury it. That’s my memory of it. And when it came out, the press tour was very blunt because the distribution was under fire, particularly in more rural areas there was a lot of pressure not to distribute the movie. The choice to see it wasn’t made available to people because there were threats against the movie, both physical and in terms of boycotting.

The one thing I do remember is a lot of the opposition to the film [came from people who] hadn’t even seen the film, so they basically didn’t like the idea of it. But I think that was a time also that the religious right—not necessarily the catholic church, but the political right—really saw this as a moment to attack Hollywood. It was a moment that they exploited to make a political move. I thought it was disappointing because it’s a beautiful movie. This was the strongest reaction to any film that I’ve been in, that I can think of. Movie releases are so strange because you deeply feel that how movies are received, or how they’re marketed, has so many factors—everything from what’s in the news to what happens to the people in the movies. They’re not judged solely on the content, there’s nothing objective. There are movies like Antichrist, which is a great movie but got a distorted reception, critically, when it came out. Some people tried to exploit its extremeness to try to make news. There have been movies where I thought they haven’t had their day in court, but I guess that happens all the time.

 
Audio commentary with Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, Jay Cocks and Willem Dafoe.

 

MICHAEL BALLHAUS, ASC, BVK (1935-2017)

In 1988, Ballhaus and Scorsese reteamed on The Last Temptation of Christ, which had been resurrected with a much smaller budget and a tight 60-day schedule. Shooting on location amid the soft, dusty light of Morocco, Ballhaus and the crew worked very long days to help Scorsese achieve his passion project. “It was tough, and we all worked really hard, but we did it for Marty because he wanted to make the movie so badly. There was a great atmosphere on the set. Every morning we started rolling with the first light, and we were still shooting when the sun went down.” Scorsese noted that he and Ballhaus relied on faith to capture one of the film’s most memorable shots, which approximates Christ’s point of view as he is raised up on the cross. “I designed that shot on paper, but then we had to figure out how to do it with the actual cross,” said the director. “Once we determined the best way to mount the camera, we had to hope for the best, because we didn’t have video assist and no one could look through the lens while we were doing it. I originally had around 75 setups planned for the crucifixion scene, but we only had two days to shoot it. When I sat down with Michael to discuss it, he said, ‘You’ve got to start thinking about what your most essential shots are. We can do it if we start exactly as the sun is coming up and if we assign a precise amount of time to each shot. If we find that a shot requires five minutes and we’re still shooting after seven or eight, we’ll have to abandon the shot and move on.’ We blocked out about 45 minutes for the longest shot, and the others ranged from five minutes to 20. Michael based this approach on what he’d done with Fassbinder, and he helped me cut 75 setups down to 50.” —Stephen Pizzello, American Cinematographer

 

THELMA SCHOONMAKER

“The footage wasn’t even developed yet because there were no labs over there at that point,” she recalls. “At least on Kundun it wasn’t quite so bad, also shot in Morocco. But it was quite moving for me because the landscape of Morocco, just the red of the soil, seemed to be about the blood of Christ that is so important in the movie. I started crying in dailies. That hardly ever happens.” Scorsese was having trouble reaching his editor by phone in those days from his location shoot, eager to know whether he was getting what he needed or not. When he finally got through, Schoonmaker just broke down and wept. “I couldn’t talk to him about it,” she confides. “He said, ‘Well, what’s the matter? Is it ruined?’ And I just kept saying, ‘It’s so moving! It’s so moving!’ And I wasn’t the only person crying in dailies; his development person was also crying. Finally I said, ‘No, no it’s very beautiful.’” “It’s such a religious movie,” Schoonmaker says. “And then we were attacked by the fundamentalists. We begged them to come see the movie. Everybody else came. Catholics, Episcopalians, the Bishop of New York supported us completely—the Episcopalian Bishop of New York. But the fundamentalists would not come. We had to have bodyguards for Marty. It was terrible. And we had to rush the movie out to defend itself. Then, you know, it just sort of died.” While the release of the film was a difficult experience, the actual production itself was no picnic either. “He had five stuntmen from Italy and they had to play the Romans and the Jews,” Schoonmaker explains. “So he would shoot, first, the Jews jumping down and then he would change them into the Romans. It was horrendous. And when they shot the crucifixion, there were weather problems and wild dogs running around. The guys who were playing the thieves were dancers from Casablanca and they were so grateful to have the part that they kept throwing kisses to Marty as he was trying to shoot the movie. And then they almost didn’t get it because the sun was going down. It was a nightmare.” “Marty just wanted to show that Christ was human and, you know, didn’t want the job,” Schoonmaker says. “I think that’s such a beautiful idea. ‘Not me! No, no, no! Get somebody else!’ And that wonderful moment when he says to Judas, ‘I’m gonna have to die’—what a realization. It was just a wonderful experience, to watch it all evolve.” —Thelma Schoonmaker recalls the heated controversy and moving testament of ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’

 
Cinéma, de notre temps: The Scorsese Machine—produced for German television, it follows Scorsese as he puts together his segment from the omnibus New York Stories, works with longtime collaborator, editor Thelma Schoonmaker, and more. And it’s all capped off with a visit to the director’s always entertaining parents, who weigh in on their favorite films by their son.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ. Photographed by Mario Tursi © Universal Pictures, Cineplex Odeon Films. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ As a Testament to and an Exploration of Scorsese’s Own Faith appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Moonbase Alpha, Moonbase Beta: Sam Rockwell Is the Secret VFX at the Heart of Duncan Jones’‘Moon’

$
0
0

 
By Tim Pelan

Ten years ago Duncan Jones’ Moon (2009) became the little science fiction film that could, an indie hit with a minuscule budget of five million dollars. After it premiered at that year’s Sundance Film Festival, a direct to DVD release was scrapped, Sony Picture Classics instead handling the international theatrical release, garnering a modest success that has snowballed critically, culminating in this year’s 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray re-release, with a lavish “making of” book imminent. Ironically, Moon sprang from Jones wanting to work with his leading man Sam Rockwell on another project, which became Jones’ Netflix film Mute, a mix of cyberpunk and film noir that has had a somewhat mixed reception. Had things gone differently, it is doubtful we would be discussing a ten-year retrospective of that film. Rockwell wasn’t sold, but said he’d be interested in working with Jones if he had any other ideas in mind (he since cameoed in Mute, a story connected loosely to the universe of Moon). So Jones, backed by long term producer Stuart Fenegan who’d worked with Jones in the field of commercials, developed the idea for Moon, with Nathan Parker writing the script. In the near future, lone astronaut miner Sam (Sam Rockwell) is nearing the end of a three-year contract harvesting Helium 3 for Lunar, the company solving the world’s energy needs from the moon (an actual theoretical consideration by scientists), and pining for his wife and daughter. With erratic communications from home and only computer GERTY (Kevin Spacey) for company, Sam starts to feel decidedly strange in his last two weeks on base. An accident investigating an errant harvester knocks him out. When he awakes back in the base, Sam is not alone, and he begins to question everything, from his contract with Lunar, to his very existence and relationship towards his family (SPOILER… Sam is a clone, one of many with a built-in three-year life span as a cost-cutting exercise by his “employers,” and the newcomer is a newer, brasher version of himself, a replacement awakened early. “Sick” clones believe they are entering hibernation before their trip home, when in fact their corpses are incinerated.)

From an interview with Psychology Today: “I grew up as an only child, as did Sam (Rockwell). That’s one of the things that we shared that gave us a good starting point for discussing how we were going to do the film. But I think the film kind of asks the question, ‘What would it be like if you met yourself?’ And over time, I think, I’ve become pretty okay about myself. But it did take a long time.”

As a sci-fi geek, Jones was probably in seventh heaven, shooting at Shepperton Studios, the home of Alien, and working with model maker Bill Pearson, a veteran of that film (he was Supervising model maker) and Outland. Moon was a last hurrah for the model unit. The blue-collar feel of those classics, along with the hard-sci-fi look of Douglas Trumbull’s Silent Running, was a major influence on Moon‘s aesthetic. Not just the look though, and the sense of a daily grind with beaten down environments and practical clothing and props—the sense of emotional vulnerability living in isolation too. In the film’s press release, he wrote, “I think over the last couple of decades filmmakers have allowed themselves to become a bit embarrassed by SF’s philosophical side. It’s okay to ‘geek out’ at the cool effects and ‘oooh’ and ‘ahh’ at amazing vistas, but we’re never supposed to take it too seriously. We’ve allowed ourselves to be convinced that SF should be frivolous, for teenage boys… I think that’s ridiculous.”

 
When we meet Sam, he’s scruffy, tired-looking, vaguely shambolic. He later alludes to not being a great husband, but now he’s itching to get home to make amends. He’s been keeping busy nurturing plants and building a matchstick church he can’t actually remember starting. Sam 2 is younger-looking, cocky, neat. Pissed off with home life, glad to get some distance. Obviously a programmed memory to aid his isolation. Snarky, like Bruce Dern’s fellow crew members were about his tree-hugging ways in Silent Running. They circle each other warily, and have to work out together how they fit into the scheme of things. The philosophical bent of the film, of a man alone with machines, crushed by isolation and distance from loved ones, communicating only with the base’s artificial intelligence named GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey) benefited greatly from Jones’ own experience. He has a doctorate specializing in artificial intelligence and sentient machines, and once had a long-distance relationship which influenced the film’s mood. “The moon base is called Sarang, the Korean word for love, because I was in a long-distance relationship with a Korean girl at the time,” Jones told The Guardian. “The frustration and sense of isolation that Sam Bell, the main character, feels is definitely something I was channeling.” The plot of Andrey Tarkovsky’s Solaris was also an influence on the question of what is real and what is not, and Blade Runner, for notions of what constitutes “humanity.”

Jones and long term collaborator (and flatmate) Gavin Rothery, his concept artist and design guru (and cost-saving stuntman!), knew that by tailoring Moon along the lines of the admired sci-fi films previously mentioned they could use old school techniques to keep costs down: model miniatures, an enclosed 360-degree set, and a layer of subtle CGI on top. It was a method honed over years of doing commercials. Visual effects were provided by Cinesite, a company used to doing cut-price but quality work on independent films. Rothery’s blog, They Never Went to the Moon, is a mine of information on the making of the film. “We wanted something that looked like it was built by Tonka,” Jones recalled. “Between Gavin’s concept artwork and what Tony (Nobel, Production Designer) brought having been on those old sets—whether it’s buying Ikea cutlery trays or using mesh plastic from gardening shops—they were able to source, spray paint and put insignia on things to make them look sci-fi. It was about how to make it feel retro but also do it on a budget.”

 
Bearing in mind Moon was made before face replacement technology, the initial 33-day shoot seemed a tad ambitious, as every scene with two Sams had to be shot twice. To make the best use of their time and budget, the decision was made to build the Lunar base from scratch and pre-light it. Fenegan recently told SFX Magazine, “Having the moon base fully built was a huge advantage for us. There was this interesting practicality informing creativity because everyone, including Sam, felt incredibly claustrophobic and was thrilled to be out of it at lunch—but we all cried like babies when it got ripped down at the end.” Because they were on such a limited budget, filming the Sams together came down to a few basic methods: keeping the two Sams separated from each other, and then keeping the camera static, and then just filming one side of it. Then a split was put between the two of them, and Jones filmed the other side. At some point he had to move the camera, but again, the Sams don’t physically interact with each other. That was more expensive and time-consuming, so was done less often.

“And then we saved the money shot version,” Jones told syfy.com, “where the camera’s moving and their physically interacting for just a couple of moments in the film. And because of our budget, we knew that we’re going to be spending more money on this, so let’s not do it too often, but let’s put it in the right place. So again, it was all about puzzle-solving and making sure that the audience never felt cheated, that we were trying to stop them from seeing that kind of interaction, make sure that they got it enough times throughout the film that it felt very natural and just part of the movie.” Spike Jonze’s film Adaptation where Nicolas Cage plays twins was also a source of technical inspiration for how to work out which Sam is driving the scene.

 
For Rockwell, Jeremy Irons’ performance in Dead Ringers was also helpful. As he told The Guardian, “There’s a part of every actor that wants to control every scene, so when you’re playing both parts you have that. But Moon was still daunting: a brainfuck, for sure. To differentiate the clones, I started improvising with an actor friend, Yul Vazquez, and Duncan would film us. I had been listening to Jeremy Irons’ DVD commentary on Dead Ringers, in which he played twins, and he talked about contrasting energies. That’s what we did: an alpha/beta thing. One clone had been there alone for three years, so he was a bit Robinson Crusoe, a bit batty. The other was full of testosterone.”

The elephant in the room is, of course, Kevin Spacey, who voiced GERTY, the base computer with interactive robotic unit that traverses the base on a rail system, displaying “emotions” via emojis. The disgraced actor, however, is but one component of an artistic whole. He signed on after seeing a rough cut. In the rough trailer for Cannes, Jones himself voices GERTY, and the female sounding automated voice (pitched higher) telling Sam he’s leaving the base perimeter. Jones knew people would think of HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey when they saw Sam interact with the base computer and its armatures, so he decided to play with their assumptions of what GERTY is up to. “There’s a kind of syrupiness to his (Spacey’s) voice,” Jones said. “It’s alluring but also malevolent at the same time. Using his voice helped sell that whole expectation that we’re able to take in a different direction.”

In Jones’ mind, GERTY wasn’t sentient. “Gerty is actually very, very simple in some ways. He has one through line which is I’m going to make sure that Sam is safe and looked after and returns home at the end of three years. That’s his job, and it starts when Sam wakes up and it ends when Sam is in the return vehicle going home. After having three years of not having anyone around, as far as Sam’s concerned, Gerty is his best buddy, someone he can rely on and treat like a human being. For Sam 2, he’s just a machine and for the audience he’s possibly Hal 9000. Everyone brings their own baggage to Gerty. But Gerty’s actually very simple. So I think that’s quite interesting from a psychological point of view, that Gerty is the sum of what people bring to him.”

 
Each Sam is invested in getting home, especially the “older” Sam 1. Even after the two Sams have been filled in on what’s happening by GERTY, he travels out past the jamming beacon to call home, getting his daughter Eve, now 15, who tells him his wife and her mother Tess is dead. As he tries to process this, her real dad, the progenitor of the clone line barks “who’s asking about mom?” Sam snaps off the comm device and utters, “That’s enough,” before crying and curling up in the cab. Clint Mansell’s evocative score is another keystone element of the film. Jones cut Moon to a temp track from Mansell’s compositions for Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain, before deciding to approach him to top his own work. With Moon the composer demonstrates a particular fondness for simply-arranged strings and grace notes, with piano melodies that often fade into the ether. “Are You Receiving?” is a simple piano-and-strings composition that cuts to the heart of Sam’s dilemma. The simple two-note piano riff from “Welcome to Lunar Industries” reflects Moon’s duality: the daily grind of working alone and isolated, and the flip sides of Sam’s perceived existence on Earth with his, and his compatriots’, programmed penury.

As a clean-up crew are ticking down to arrival (shades of Outland), the two Sams have to concoct a plan to smuggle one of them back to Earth via the Helium 3 container. The dying Sam 1 remains behind, observing poignantly from the crashed rover where the hitmen will expect to find him as Sam 2 is shot earthwards. The two combined clones have become a better version of their source code. GERTY, who volunteered to be rebooted and his memory wiped to aid the escape, wishes the transformed man, “I hope life on Earth is everything you remember it to be.”

Written by Tim Pelan. Tim was born in 1968, the year of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (possibly his favorite film), ‘Planet of the Apes,’ ‘The Night of the Living Dead’ and ‘Barbarella.’ That also made him the perfect age for when ‘Star Wars’ came out. Some would say this explains a lot. Read more »

 

I developed the story, about a man mining helium-3 on the moon who meets his clone—and Nathan Parker wrote the script. The moon base is called Sarang, the Korean word for love, because I was in a long-distance relationship with a Korean girl at the time. The frustration and sense of isolation that Sam Bell, the main character, feels is definitely something I was channelling. I also thought there was something interesting about having the opportunity to meet yourself from a different point in your life, to see how a mature version of yourself would interact with a rawer, more emotional one. That’s certainly how I’ve changed in the course of getting older. My flatmate Gavin Rothery did a lot of the concept art. He gave the moon base and Gerty, the robot voiced by Kevin Spacey, their look. While we were working on it in London, we ordered so much food from Mexicali on Fulham Road that we ended up using their takeaway boxes for Sam’s space rations. We built the moon base as a full 360-degree set and we would seal the cast and crew in at the start of the day. That set gave us confidence, though it cost close to a third of our $5m (£3.9m) budget. It’s hard enough to make a low-budget movie without fretting about: “Oh, I can’t pan here because I don’t have enough set.” We wanted to make stuff seem as real as possible. A lot of love and attention was put into the miniature vehicle models, but they needed extra visual effects, such as dust kicking up off the tyres. Then there was the problem of the interaction between the two Sams. Nowadays, that kind of multiple performance, achieved with CGI, is quite common, but it was much harder in the noughties. We picked scenes that would give the most impressive visuals featuring both clones so the audience never felt cheated. For the fight scene, Sam wrestled with a stunt guy who was wearing a green stocking over his head and we swapped it out digitally later. I don’t think Moon was negative about technology but it wasn’t particularly positive either. Right now, I’m desperately hungry for more optimistic sci-fi because we bloody well need it. How does mankind get itself out of this predicament? Can we see a future we can get excited about? Moon was 10 years ago and it’s crazy how much the world has changed. —Duncan Jones

 
Screenwriter must-read: Nathan Parker’s screenplay for Moon [PDF1, PDF2]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Psychology Today’s Matthew Hutson sat down with the movie’s director, Duncan Jones, to talk about filmmaking, artificial intelligence, philosophy, theory of mind, science fiction, and his childhood.

What would happen if you were stuck on a moon base with yourself?
Pretty much [what happened in the movie], because there was a lot of of me in it. A lot of me and Sam [Rockwell, the lead actor]. I grew up as an only child, as did Sam. That’s one of the things that we shared that gave us a good starting point for discussing how we were going to do the film. But I think the film kind of asks the question, What would it be like if you met yourself? And over time, I think, I’ve become pretty okay about myself. But it did take a long time. I’m 38 now so when I was younger I used to have a lot of concerns and I didn’t really know my place in the world and it took me a long time to feel comfortable in my own skin.

Do you think that the outcome would have been very different if you met a younger version of yourself in the movie?
Yeah, definitely. I think so. It might have been more like Sam 2 when he first turns up on the scene. He was a bit more aggressive and a bit more impatient. If there were two of them, I think it would have been a very different story. As opposed to having one guy who had three years to mellow out a bit and feel a bit more comfortable with himself.

You wrote the film specifically for Sam.
I did, yeah. We met up in New York a couple of years ago to discuss a different script and he loved that script but he wanted to play a different role than the one that I was interested in him playing, so we met up in New York and tried to convince each other and that didn’t happen. But we got on really well and we both had a love of science fiction and I really really wanted to work with him on my first feature. So I told him I would write something for him and that’s what Moon was.

What is it about his personality—or anyone’s personality—that makes you curious about what would happen if you put two of that person in a room together?
Well, as a performer, every time I’ve ever seen Sam, he just takes over the scene. There’s a real passion and an authenticity in everything he does. You always believe what he’s doing and what he’s trying to communicate. But also, there’s a real empathy there and you really feel on the emotional side what that character’s state is, whether you like him or don’t like him in any given moment. I’m not going to say that anyone is going to feel bad for the character he plays in Green Mile, but at the same time you can really get a sense of who that character is and why he’s doing the things that he’s doing. I think it’s just because he’s so honest and believable and I just really wanted to give him the opportunity to take on a real challenge, which I think this role was, to play multiple parts. I was quite excited to see what he’d do with that. And I tried to give him the differentiation between the two characters and see how the conflict occurs and how it resolves itself.

What was the original kernel of an idea for the movie?
It was a strange one, because, like I said, it was written for him. There was already this growing list of things that I knew we needed to do. It was a bit ass-backwards in some ways because we knew what the budget had to be before we knew what the film was going to be. Because it was going to be our first feature. And I had a background of doing commercials in the UK and the kind of commercials I tended to make were kind of live action, computer graphics hybrid commercials so they were quite effects-heavy and I had a pretty good understanding of what effects would be the most cost-effective to to. So it was basically this list [of criteria]: We knew we would have about five million dollars we should be able to raise for the film. We knew it was going to star Sam Rockwell. We knew that we wanted to keep the cast as small as possible, and then we also knew that we also wanted a controlled shooting environment so that meant we would want to shoot everything in studio if we could. So that kind of gave me an initial starting point of what the story should be. And then also my own life. I was going through a long-distance relationship at the time which actually kept on going right through the shoot. And that was having a pretty profound impact on me emotionally and it kind of gave me a lot of ammunition, as to real feelings that I wanted to communicate in the film. So all of those things sort of came together. And then the idea of cloning and it being based on the moon was almost secondary in some ways.

The idea of cloning has come up in other science fiction movies in the past but you take it to a higher level and explore it more. Are there other ideas you’ve seen in other movies that other directors haven’t taken far enough and that you would want to explore?
Cloning I’m not so sure about but having one actor playing multiple parts, that was obviously something we were very interested in researching and seeing what other actors had done. There was Cronenberg’s Dead Ringers with Jeremy Irons. We had the Criterion Editon of the DVD of that and there was a whole making-of section on that which was incredibly educational just on the technical side of how to do it, but also I think for Sam it was really useful to see what Jeremy Irons was doing as an actor to differentiate between the two characters. So that was a good all-around education. There was also Spike Jonze’s film Adaptation where Nicolas Cage plays twins, which for me was really interesting just on a technical level because they did a few things in that film which visually were great and I actually was very fortunate to have the opportunity to talk to Spike about that and how he did it. He gave me some really good advice about how you work out which Sam is driving the scene and you film that first.

Have you seen Multiplicity?
Multiplicity is a film that we consciously avoided.

It was slightly different in that the charactes in Multiplicity have slightly different personalities.
It was almost like a photocopy and each time the character got dumber and dumber, from what I remember. But in the buildup to making Moon we stayed away from Multiplicity mainly because it was a comedy and it was quite a broad comedy and Sam and I both wanted to make sure that our clones were fully rounded human characters.

Why is the question “would you like yourself” important?
I think it should be important to everyone. I think that to me what makes it a really good starting point for a science fiction film, is that it’s a very human question and a very important question. We all have relationships in the world but there is no relationship more important than having to deal with yourself and being aware of what you’re like as a person to deal with and I think that’s something that not everyone really does, not everyone takes the time to think about, what am I actually like and would I like myself if I had to deal with me. So I think it’s an important question, so if in any way the film gives people pause to have that little conversation or investigation with themselves, that would be really exciting.

It’s not such a far out thing. People have internal dialogues all the time so in some ways it’s a social experience just to be by yourself.
I think you’re absolutely right. I don’t think our film is that far out. I don’t think it even had to be a science fiction film in many ways. The location on the far side of the moon gives you isolation, and the science of the cloning gives you this unusual situation but really it could be a stage play. It’s a psychological and philosophical question really.

You studied philosophy in college?
I did, I was at college in Ohio doing philosophy and then I went on to graduate school at Vanderbilt in Nashville. It was general moral philosophy, but also I was trying to make some arguments for how you might possibly apply ethics to sentient machines when we get to that stage. It was a little premature.

The title of your undergrad thesis was “How to Kill Your Computer Friend: An Investigation of the Mind/Body Problem and How It Relates to the Hypothetical Creation of a Thinking Machine.”
That was pretentious bullshit, really. The paper itself was pretty good. It had some good ideas in it but it had a stupid title, sorry. When you’re in college everything seems much more important than it really is.

When you mix the mind/body problem with thinking machines something’s gotta come of that.
Absolutely. I was looking into Daniel Dennett’s work with the Cog project at MIT trying to create machines that were self-aware and just expanding on that from a moral philosophy point of view, where would we stand if and when Cog ever got to the point where it was self-aware and what are our duties to it? Can we turn it off? Just things like that. Daniel Dennett describes “functional equivalence:” If something always as far as you’re able to sense it is doing what you expect a sentient being to do, even if it’s completely artificial, it’s your duty to treat it as a sentient thing. That’s it in a nutshell. I didn’t need to write a paper, I could have just told you in a couple sentences.

It seemed like that also played a role in the plot of the movie.
In a way. Gerty [the computer in Moon, voiced by Kevin Spacey] was my antithesis to Cog. The idea was, Gerty isn’t sentient. Gerty is actually very, very simple in some ways. He has one through line which is I’m going to make sure that Sam is safe and looked after and returns home at the end of three years. That’s his job, and it starts when Sam wakes up and it ends when Sam is in the return vehicle going home. After having three years of not having anyone around. as far as Sam’s concerned, Gerty is his best buddy, someone he can rely on and treat like a human being. For Sam 2, he’s just a machine and for the audience he’s possibly Hal 9000. Everyone brings their own baggage to Gerty. But Gerty’s actually very simple. So I think that’s quite interesting from a psychological point of view, that Gerty is the sum of what people bring to him.

I think that goes with the general trend of anthropomorphizing things. People do that with their iPods.
Absolutely. That’s aboslutely the case. I do it with my laptop. You hate me, you hate me!

To me the limitations of Gerty came to the fore when I realized how easily he could be deceived. Sam said, “I’m just going outside to check on the thing, I swear.” And Gerty’s like, “Okay I believe you.” In any human, the bullshit detector would go off.
I think with Gerty, as infinetesimal as the chances were that Sam is telling the truth, he had to give him the benefit of the doubt. Because Sam is the guy that he is there to look after. And if there were micrometeorites or if there were some kind of damage to the base, Sam should go outside to check it. So even if it’s incredibly unlikely, he has to let him do it.

Do you think much about what aspects of social interaction are important to simulate in artificial intelligence?
It’s important that a computer system which is going to be able to interact with human beings be more than just like Eliza, you know that old computer program where you would type in things and it would give you crappy answers back. It would not pass the Turing test. Basically if you want to have a computer system that could pass the Turing test, it as a machine is going to have to be able to self-reference and use its own experience and the sense data that it’s taking in to basically create its own understanding of the world and use that as a reference point for all new sense data that’s coming in to it. That to me is really interesting. My old girlfriend a long time ago who I went to Vanderbilt with, she ended up on a psychology track at graduate school and one of the things I was always asking her is how much evidence is there that a human being is a purely physical system and that what we consider the mind is actually just a manifestation of a physical system, of a self-referencing system where you have sense data coming in and some kind of system in the brain which is referencing that and comparing it to experience and a little feedback loop. It seemed that there was at least some evidence that that might be the way things work. I’m certainly not a dualist, I believe that everything is a physical system, so to me that makes sense and the only way you are going to replicate a sentient being in a machine is to create that same system. I went off on a really big tangent there. To answer your question, yes.

Science fiction seems like a great way of exploring a lot of philosophical questions.
The beauty of science fiction is that it takes the audience’s guard down; they’re much more willing to open themselves up and allow themselves to be questioned and have their values questioned when they don’t think we’re talking about their world or them and what they’re used to. Put it in a science fiction setting and all of a sudden it’s an other, it’s something completely alien to them, but you can actually talk about something that’s incredibly close and incredibly human and very personal, but because their guard is down they’re more willing to accept it. Which is why I think a lot of the best science fiction literature is stories and ideas that really delve into human nature as opposed to the flash and the sexy sci-fi stuff which is maybe one of the reasons films these days may be taking a step away from that. It seems like the reason that I miss the science fiction from the late 70’s and 80’s is that at that period they really were doing interesting, introspective human stories that just happened to take place in science fiction settings. Now we’re not really doing that so much and that moved my attempts to make a film that had that kind of appeal.

Do you think people were more interested in the psychodrama aspects in the 70’s because of limitations of special effects or do you think there is some other factor?
I don’t think so. We’re talking about films like Alien and Outland and Silent Running. And 2001. These weren’t people who were scared off by how to create the visual, they knew how to do that, Ridley Scott and Stanly Kubrick, they could do whatever they wanted if they could imagine it. I think science fiction wasn’t considered an adolescent pursuit at that time. It was grown up. It was an acceptable way to challenge your audience. And I think now it is considered a bit more adolescent, in film, not in literature but in film. And I don’t know why that’s happened to be honest. Maybe it’s to do with summer blockbusters and science fiction having sort of an immediate appeal when you watch a trailer, it kind of lends itself to opening weekend grosses. But for whatever reason, people have shied away from getting too deep in science fiction in a movie. I think they find it a little bit embarrassing if you take science fiction too seriously. I’m of the opposite mind. I think there is no better [genre] to take seriously than science fiction.

Do you have more thought experiments planned that you hope to execute in science fiction?
Yeah, the next film I’m hoping to do is also science fiction. I’m not going to do science fiction forever, but it just so happened that these first two projects are science fiction. Again, it’s not intentional but this sense of isolation and alienation is interesting to me because I did grow up on my own a lot of the time. I had my dad [David Bowie], but he was traveling a lot and I spent a lot of time on my own. You can learn a lot about yourself and also just about people in general by putting them on their own. So my next film is about the alienation of actually being surrounded by people. So it’s actually the opposite of Moon. It’s a future city story and it’s about a character called Leo who’s mute and is unable to talk and about how he finds ways to communicate and what the world comes to expect of him and what they think he is. And again, it’s that idea that everyone brings their own baggage. And the way they interact with him is more of what they think he is than what he actually is. I’m very excited about it. I think it’s going to be really good.

Do you get a bigger budget this time?
Yeah, a little bit of a bigger budget. It’s a good step up. Moon was about $5 million and this is going to be about $20, $25 million. Still within the realms of indie-land but enough for me to know that I can make something pretty impressive, I think.

Is that with Sam Rockwell also?
Sam is going to be doing a cameo. We had a talk about it when we were out in Austin. I still want him for the role but he doesn’t feel comfortable doing it because it’s a villain and he kind of wants to move away from that, especially now that he’s doing Ironman 2, which is a big Hollywood film. I think he wants to get back to his roots a bit more. But we will definitely work again because we got on really well. But in the next film, basically we’re going to do a tiny epilogue to what happens at the end of Moon because the two films work in the same time line; they’re part of the same universe. So basically there is one scene where our lead character is in a cafe and the TV is on and there is Sam Rockwell giving his evidence to a big panel about what happened to him up on the moon. There’s a whole bunch of Sam Rockwells actually. So that will be great fun.

So one interesting thing that came up in the movie is whether you can fool yourself. It seems like, you know yourself inside and out so you would be able to see through all of your schemes. Like two mirrors facing each other, how many levels deep do you need to look? Okay, he thinks that I think that he thinks that I think that he thinks that I’m going to do this, so I’m going to do that.
[laughs] Well that’s a really interesting question, I mean, do you think you could fool yourself. I’m not sure that I would be able to fool myself. Maybe I’m naïve, but unless I have reason to believe that someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes, a lot of the time I may take them at face value. If they say something about themselves and I have no reason to doubt them, I’ll accept that.

I was trying to figure out whether Sam 2 was trying to fool Sam 1 and whether Sam 1 was willingly buying into it, believing he would survive the ride home. I didn’t know if he knew he was going to die but he’d get in the container anyway because part of him wanted to believe.
I see, when Sam 1 is trying out the little uncomfortable helium return container. Yeah, I think that’s actually him trying to go along with Sam 2’s plan because there’s not really a lot of options at that point. I don’t know if Sam 2 is trying to deceive anyone at that point.

The whole idea of theory of mind to the extreme.
Yeah. Do you think anyone will come out of it, asking that question of how they’d feel meeting themselves? Did you?

In the movie I was asking, what would I do in this situation? I think that’s hard to avoid.
Well that’s good. Job done.

Have you asked a lot of people how they would get along with themselves?
Well, I know my producer, when we were working on this together, he’s got a very different personality type than me and he was like, I couldn’t deal with myself all the time. I don’t think I’d have such a big problem. There were a few people involved in the making of it who commented how they would feel if they had to deal with it. A lot of them seemed to think they wouldn’t enjoy being in their own company, which I was a little surprised by.

Do you think that’s a sign that they aren’t emotionally healthy or is that a normal reaction for a lot of people?
I think it’s them maybe doing themselves a disservice and assuming that they are more difficult to be with than they actually are. And if they were on my side of a conversation and saw what they were like to deal with, they aren’t difficult to deal with. I think people on the whole are pretty sociable and good. Maybe I’m an optimist, I don’t know. I think there’s an innate goodness in people.

I think there are relationships, either in couples or mother and daughter, where two people are too similar to get along, like if they’re both too stubborn.
Yeah of course.

If you could meet another one of you from any age…
From any age, wow! Which one? Ooh, thats really hard. It would either be 14 because I’d just been sent to boarding school at 13 and I really didn’t like it and I did not take the opportunity to make the best use of that potential education that I would have had. So it would have been me then to just tell myself it would be okay, just deal with it. Or it would have been me, probably when I was in my mid to late 20’s when I was just finishing college and going off to graduate school and being completely unsure what to do with my life and feeling really down about that, really feeling like I’d let everyone down because I didn’t have a real passion about what I wanted to do. I’d just give myself a pat on the shoulder and say it was going to be okay.

What was NASA’s reaction to your movie.
We had a great time. We had a guy called Tom Jones who’s a working astronaut in the audience. About 80% of the people in the audience were either NASA employees or retirees. I was really so terrified and intimidated by the crowd but they loved the film and we had a Q&A afterwards and it went really well. And as opposed to all the other Q&As where people just talked about what’s it like working with Sam, and technically how difficult was it to do the effects, it was all about, “We think that the moon base could look like this and we’ll tell you why, cause we’re working on this kind of concrete using elements from the moon and frozen water,” and it was great. It was a real techie discussion about the elements of the film, so that was very exciting. Good reaction too, so I was relieved.

 

GARY SHAW

Gary Shaw’s debut feature film Moon, directed by Duncan Jones and starring Sam Rockwell, rocked the BIFAs in 2009, winning Best British Independent Film & the Douglas Hickox Award and going on to win the BAFTA for Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer. For his work on Ill Manors, Ben Drew’s (aka Plan B) directorial debut feature film, Gary won Best Cinematography at Dinard Film Festival in 2012. In 2014 Gary shot the US feature Life At These Speeds, directed by Leif Tilden and starring Billy Crudup and Tim Roth, with Sam Rockwell as Executive Producer. More recently Gary wrapped Jason Connery’s feature Tommy’s Honour, a period drama filmed on location in Scotland, starring Peter Mullan, Jack Lowden, Ophelia Lovibond and Sam Neill.

Gary Shaw discusses his cinematography for Moon.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Duncan Jones’ Moon. Photographed by Mark Tillie & Alex Kaye-Besley © Sony Pictures Classics, Stage 6 Films, Liberty Films UK, Limelight Fund, Lunar Industries, Independent. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post Moonbase Alpha, Moonbase Beta: Sam Rockwell Is the Secret VFX at the Heart of Duncan Jones’ ‘Moon’ appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Once Upon a Time… In the Philippines: Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘Apocalypse Now’ Is a Three-Time Prime Cut of Film-Making Largesse

$
0
0

 
By Tim Pelan

According to its director Francis Ford Coppola, Apocalypse Now was “a Los Angeles dream of war.” He told Empire‘s Ian Freer in the May 2011 issue, on the occasion of the Redux release, that anyone’s favorite lines or scenes all originated from enfant terrible and surf enthusiast John Milius’ original script. “The set up on the boat, the helicopter assault, ‘Charlie don’t surf!’, ‘I love the smell of napalm in the morning’, the tiger, the playboy bunnies, Do Lung Bridge–that’s all John.” The movie had drugs, beach parties, surfing and rock’n’roll. “Sayonara!” as Lance mocks the locals, spraying them whilst he waterskis behind the patrol boat. Mixed in with this wild ride is Coppola’s more esoteric, phantasmagorical reading of the source material, Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, a battered, annotated copy always about his person on location in the Philippines. Despite what he says recently on The Final Cut publicity circus, he never intended to make some straightforward war movie in the vein of The Guns of Navarone or some such—that was what his Japanese backers believed they were getting until he presented them with a stranger rough cut that weighed in closer to the Redux version from a few years back. He stepped back, trimming material, glad to see the infamous French Plantation sequence go, Willard and the gang stealing Kilgore’s surfboard, the further adventures of the bunnies, Kurtz reading to Willard from Time magazine—yet all or some of these remerged in either Redux form since there was so much curiosity about them, or this latest Final Cut, removing 20 minutes of fat (the bunnies leave, the Plantation stays!). Coppola supervised a clean-up crew who spent 2,700 hours over 11 months scanning, cleaning and restoring the film’s 300,173 frames. The 4K scan, combined with Dolby’s HDR processing, reveals new depth and detail in Vittorio Storaro’s stunning cinematography. As for the sound, Coppola’s American Zoetrope archivist James Mockoski and the film’s original sound designer Walter Murch located one of the 1979 film’s original six-track print masters (for Redux, the best they had to work off was a third-generation dub). Murch was able to adapt his ground-breaking 5.1 surround mix to Dolby Atmos and that infamous “ghost helicopter flyover” can now pinpoint sound anywhere, even the ceiling.

Sound and vision are all very fascinating and “a bit technical,” as they say (to be honest, I felt I needed a better seat at my packed screening to get the most out of it), but how does Apocalypse Now make one feel? Making it certainly put Coppola and his cast, crew, and wife Eleanor through the wringer. It is an immensely quotable, brilliantly schizoid, mind-fuck of a rock’n’roll war/anti-war movie, as entertaining for the tales of its creation as for the final flawed masterpiece(s) it became. Within five days of moaning to Walter Murch on the set of The Godfather Pt II about how exhausting the creative process was for him, Coppola announced he would be taking over a little project his friend and colleague George Lucas was originally going to make (in Vietnam, during the war, cinéma vérité style) called Apocalypse Now. “I’ll have no trouble financing it, everyone will want to see it. It’ll run like clockwork.” “The impulse on that level to make Apocalypse was for Francis to experience the case of making a normal film,” Murch recalled. Little did Coppola know the agonies of the production, recasting, rewrites and post-production that lay ahead. By early 1975, John Milius was already revising his screenplay. At one point Coppola told him, “Write every scene you ever wanted to go into that movie.” Ten drafts of the screenplay amounted to over a thousand pages. Everyone involved in Apocalypse Now expected that shooting in the Philippines would last no more than four months. Co-producer Fred Roos was even contracted to be paid $1500 a week for each week it ran over. It did do so, by 37 weeks. Late into 1976, things had spiraled out of control. A typhoon destroyed many sets and costumes, the leading man Harvey Keitel was let go, his replacement Martin Sheen suffered a heart attack, and Marlon Brando was totally unprepared. Once upon a time… in the Philippines was beginning to feel like time out of joint. The troubles piled up so high there you needed wings just to stay above it.

 
Probably the biggest trouble was the characterization of Willard, the sacking early on of Harvey Keitel, who Coppola realized did not have the requisite stillness, and the pushing of Martin Sheen as his replacement, ultimately leading to a heart attack and shooting carrying on with his brother Joe standing in for him where needed until he recovered. Willard has been ordered upriver to kill Marlon Brando’s renegade Colonel Kurtz. Coppola told Rolling Stone’s Greil Marcus in the November 1, 1979, issue, “I took Willard through many, many instances in which I tried to position him as a witness going on this trip—and yet give him some sort of personality you could feel comfortable with, and still believe he was there. Marty approached an impossible character: he had to be an observer, a watcher. A lot of reading dossiers, a totally introspective character. In no way could he get in the way of the audience’s view of what was happening, of Vietnam. That wasn’t going to work for Keitel. His stock in trade is a series of tics—ways to make people look at him.”

Keitel wasn’t even first choice for Willard—he got it after it was offered to Steve McQueen, Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan and Jack Nicholson, amongst others. When Coppola realized Keitel wasn’t right, Sheen was in Rome making The Cassandra Crossing. Sheen flew to L.A. to meet Coppola in the VIP lounge of LAX, but due to a delay, only fifteen minutes remained before Coppola’s plane left for the Philippines. Coppola quickly gave him a breakdown of the story and told him he was in contention for Willard. The next day he was told he got it, without even reading the script.

Sheen was a wonderful, warm human being, but as he acknowledged himself, he had his own demons at the time. He was also interviewed for the November 1 Rolling Stone issue, by Jean Vallely. Sheen identified with Willard. “Making that film was an ordeal, not just physically but emotionally,” he told her. “Francis had this way of directing,” says one crew member. “He would tell Martin, ‘You’re evil. I want all the evil, the violence, the hatred in you to come out.’ You tell that to a guilt-ridden Irish Catholic and he hasn’t a chance. Martin is so pliable.” “Francis,” the crew member continues, “did a dangerous and terrible thing. He assumed the role of a psychiatrist and did a kind of brainwashing on a man who was much too sensitive. He put Martin in a place and didn’t bring him back.”

 
We’re talking about the opening scene, filmed on Martin Sheen’s 36th birthday. In his most raw moment, awakening drunk in his Saigon hotel room. Only, he really was dead drunk, on a days-long bender, and in a very dark place. “I had no business being on screen. Francis didn’t want me to do it, but I insisted,” Sheen said. Joe Lowery, a Vietnam veteran, had told Sheen that the best way to practice martial arts was using a mirror, because “nothing is faster than your own reflection.” Sheen was too close and smashed the mirror with his fist, blood pumping out. He insisted on keeping the camera rolling, telling the documentary crew on the film’s disc extras, “I want to explore this.” From the footage used I doubt he was that lucid. The very public exposure of his private torment and his subsequent breakdown contributed to Sheen straightening himself out.

Eleanor Coppola was keeping busy documenting the filming in her Notes: The Making of Apocalypse Now (she also shot a load of footage, edited by George Hickenlooper and Fax Bahr and released as one of the most searingly honest documentary accounts of the filmmaking process, Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse). Here she writes:

“Yesterday Francis shot the scene in the hotel room. He let Marty get a little drunk, as the character is really supposed to be. He and Marty both knew they were taking a chance. The first layer of the character Marty played was the mystic, the saint, the Christlike version of Willard. Francis pushed him with a few words and he became the theatrical performer, Willard as a Shakespearean actor. Francis prodded him again and he moved to a street tough, a feisty street fighter who has been at the bottom, but is smart, knows some judo, is used to a scrap. At this point, Francis asked him to go to the mirror and look at himself and admire his beautiful hair, his mouth. Marty begins this incredible scene. He hit the mirror with his fist. Maybe he didn’t mean to. Perhaps he overshot a judo stance. His hand started to bleed. Francis said his impulse was to cut the scene and call the nurse, but Marty was doing the scene. He had gotten to the place where some part of him and Willard merged. Francis had a moment of not wanting to be a vampire, sucking Marty’s blood for the camera, and not wanting to turn off the camera when Marty was Willard. He left it running…”

 
A typhoon ripped the sets apart and Sheen and his family returned to the states for a timeous break from the madness. When he came back he was still in bad shape, and had a heart attack, willing himself out the door and propping himself up by the road, waiting for the bus to take him to hospital. The wardrobe bus spotted him and took there. “We drove to the production office and Dean Tavoularis, the production designer, stuck his head in the van, looked at me and started to cry. A doctor came in and he looked real worried. I just said, ‘Get me a priest.’ And he came and gave me the last rites. Here I am confessing and he couldn’t understand a word of English.”

Coppola, meanwhile, was frantically re-writing whole chunks of the script on an almost daily basis. John Milius was dispatched to get him back on track. “I felt like General von Rundstedt going to see Hitler in 1944—I was going to be telling him there was no more gasoline on the Eastern Front and the whole thing was going to fold,” Milius said. However, even he was powerless in the face of Coppola’s fervor. “I came out an hour and a half later, and he had convinced me that this was the first film that would win the Nobel Prize. I came out of the room like von Rundstedt: ‘Ve can win! Ve don’t need gasoline!’”

Coppola today underplays the sense of fear he felt as events and circumstances pushed and pulled at him back then. “I was scared because I knew I was getting into danger of financial ruin (he literally bet the farm, his Napa ranch, on securing funds). [But] I figured, ‘Hey, I was born poor.’ The idea of being poor [again] wasn’t scary to me.” He had to keep going upriver, mainlining all his creative nous to get the damn thing finished.

 
Denied materiel by then-Secretary of State for Defence Donald Rumsfeld, Coppola secured the use of army helicopters from President Marcos’ Philippine forces. Unfortunately, they kept flying off to fight the real-life rebels, and had to be constantly repainted in US colors and insignia. Coppola later claimed some of them were flying high on heroin. The Air Cavalry attack on the coastal village was three weeks of intense, hairy filming. When the huge gasoline-filled trench dug for the napalm drop sequence went up, the heat could be felt half a mile away. There was no aerial supervisor, so it was extremely difficult to get all the choppers in the shots.

Vittorio Storaro recalls: “When Robert Duvall was looking outside the helicopter, and down at the waves checking the surf, I was seated outside the machine on a piece of wooden board. I had just one belt holding me in place, and my key grip was holding me with the hand-held camera. I remember looking through the viewfinder, and I could see one machine behind me, so we could have something in the sky; I kept shouting to Dick (a Vietnam veteran pilot) ‘Can you come closer?’ And he said ‘Are you crazy?’ The rotors were almost touching.” Other veteran pilots were hired to do authentic improvised microphone dialogue in post-production. They viewed the footage with no sound other than authentic, ear-splitting Huey chopper sounds. After an hour, one wife came in to the control room to hear her husband, transported back to the war, say “I’m gonna get that dink bitch, and put the right skid right up her ass!” She started crying at this violent shadow of the man she loved.

The famous opening montage of helicopters whup-whupping across the screen in front of an exploding jungle, mingling with the ceiling fan of Willard’s room as he atrophies, “waiting for a mission,” was created from discarded footage. “That shot was a piece of junk film: napalm in the trees,” Coppola recalled. “When I saw it, I said, well, put the beginning against that. I began halfway through to really enjoy making-the movie that way: let it be this dream.”

 
The original opening image of Milius’ script, of a soldier emerging from a primordial swamp, the words “gook killer” across his helmet, was recycled for Willard’s famous approach to the Kurtz compound to terminate the errant Colonel, “with extreme prejudice.” The End by The Doors plays over both scenes. At the start, helicopter rotors swoop slowly, hypnotically in from the corner of the audience’s perception, then behind, over a jungle canopy that bursts into flame, like a deadly flower. This opening sound medley came to be known as “The Ghost Helicopter Flyover.”

Coppola had always wanted the film to be an aural revolution, to properly reflect the first “rock n roll war.” He was fascinated by a quadraphonic recording of Japanese composer Isao Tomita. Sound editor Walter Murch, designers Richard Beggs, Randy Thom and the rest of the sound team built their own Dolby split sound system, then had the mammoth task of editing around 236 miles of image and sound. Beggs recalled, “Despite all the time they had spent over in the Philippines, nothing beyond the basic production track had been recorded in terms of jungle, hardware, weaponry, munitions, etc. The environment on the production was horrendous too, from a sound point of view, with noises on the locations ruining a lot of the track. So we created it all in post here in San Francisco.”

One of Murch’s first assignments was to construct the opening of the film, “a strange nightmare, which blended reality and imagination.” The sound designers created a “quintaphonic track” he said, “because there were three channels of sound from behind the screen and two channels emerging from behind the audience—a left rear and a right rear.” Not to mention the low frequency sound for explosions and so on. Beggs created the first helicopter heard on a Moog synthesizer.

 
The tour de force sequence in the film is, of course, the aforementioned Colonel Kilgore’s (Robert Duvall) helicopter assault on the enemy-occupied village at the mouth of the fictional Nung river, ostensibly to deliver Willard and the PBR Street Gang crew’s patrol boat, in reality to watch famed surfer and boat gunner Lance do his stuff in that “outstanding peak.” A huge part of what makes it so memorable and awe-inspiring is the music. Milius said the idea “came from a vision I had of the exhilaration of war—right alongside the terror and the horror and the fear of being snuffed out. The glory of it!” Walter Murch told Nautilus the convoluted tale of how he hoped to secure the 1965 Georg Solti recording of Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries” to accompany the iconic helicopter attack.

The music was so ingrained into the visualization of the scene that it was a last minute shocker when Decca, the record company Solti recorded his iconic rendition under, conducting the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, said no to releasing it. What to do?

Murch was left to trawl through every available recording of Die Walküre in the hope of coming up with the goods, while the film-makers continued to plead with Decca, and also attempt to secure their own, fresh recording with the Los Angeles Philharmonic. According to Murch, his search was frustrating:

 
“It was the musical equivalent of ransacking every bottle of burgundy—Gallo to Romanée-Conti—from the nearest wine shop. But as soon as I uncorked many of them, nestling the needle into the grooves of the LP, I knew that they wouldn’t work: There was a vinegary tang to them—certainly in comparison to the Solti—that made my eyes water.”

What set Solti’s sublime recording apart from the others, Murch believed, was a “beating heart” that reflected our bodies “responding to neurological feedback between the heart, the brain, and the needs of the body for oxygenated blood… music that lacks this dynamic, quicksilver pulse is perceived, consciously or not, as lacking an essential spark of life. Solti’s conducting of the ‘Valkyries’ was instead a sublime example of what we might call ectopic music—a powerful embodiment of the living, pulsing heart and breath of Wagner’s composition.”

The editor/sound designer dropped the middle section of the piece, believing it would stop the energy flow of the sequence dead. Instead, the music drops out in favor of dialogue between Kilgore and the others in the chopper, and other radio chatter. The music picks up again as the choppers land and the men disembark (“I’M NOT GOING!”).

 
Murch went so far as to use a stop-watch to meticulously time Solti’s rhythm, hoping to emulate it in a found or new recording—his “ectopic pulse.” Only one other came close—Erich Leinsdorf’s 1977 Los Angeles Philharmonic recording. In the end, even this fell flat in Murch’s mind–where music would match image, Leinsdorf’s emphasized brass at a crucial moment, as opposed to Solti’s more sympathetic strings. The result was jarring, and Murch admitted defeat.

In the end, all it took was Coppola bypassing Decca and approaching Solti directly. Because the deal was struck so late in the editing process, the music used is a tape transfer from the LP recording, rather than a magnetic master.

The Playboy bunnies sequence was originally meant to be shot in daylight and the set had been built before Coppola had a change of mind about how he wanted to film it (at night, over water). As “luck” would have it, the typhoon destroyed the original set and a night time shoot it was. The lights and lens flare really add to the surreal impact of the scene. Coppola’s draft notes state “The playmates were never really meant to be sexy. They were always meant to represent home.” He didn’t count on the hormones of hundreds of pumped-up extras, among them Larry Fishburne, then only fifteen, as the bunnies gyrate pornographically with rifles between their legs. This was inspired by Raquel Welch’s remark on returning from a 1967 USO show with Bob Hope: “Sending girls like me to Vietnam to entertain troops is like teasing a caged lion with a piece of raw meat.” Carmine Coppola’s score tails off in a strange, woozy, haunting echo of the diegetic musical accompaniment, “Suzie Q,” as a spooked manager retrieves the girls and takes off whilst horny G.I.s storm the stage, impassive Vietnamese behind the fence blankly contemplating the incongruous entertainment. Thankfully the follow-up bunnies scene where they are stranded upriver and Willard effectively pimps them out to the crew for a couple of gallons of fuel has been discarded from the Final Cut. Perhaps Sofia Coppola’s influence, in this more enlightened time of #MeToo?

 
Of the footage restored for the Redux cut in 2001 and retained in the Final Cut, the most fascinating and divisive in terms of how it affects the narrative flow is the French Plantation sequence. As Willard and the boat crew progress further upriver it is as if they are slipping further back in time, passing from the French settlers still stuck in the 1950s and stubbornly refusing to leave, to Colonel Kurtz, squatting and waiting in his primitive Montagnard camp. The set, an old colonial-style house, was a real labor of love. It was filled with antiques, glazed figurines and potted plants, oil paintings and trophies, Persian rugs, fancy lamps and heavy mahogany and rattan furniture. Coppola took many pieces home since he stumped up the cash. He grew disenchanted with the scene, blaming the extravagant art department, bemoaning the difficulty in securing suitable western actors in his isolated setting (this is why he himself plays the TV reporter with the camera crew urging Willard “Don’t look at the camera, just keep going like you’re fighting!”).

The dinner scene took five days to shoot, Coppola often waiting for exactly the right light. Vittorio Storaro shone a tiny pocket light through an expensive bottle of 1954 Latour wine, from Coppola’s own home. The lighting and bitter dialogue create a mood heavy with nostalgia and faded colonial frustration. Note how Carmine Coppola’s score segues briefly into a facsimile of the part of “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” where Judy Garland would sing, “Here we are as in olden days, Happy golden days of yore.” Willard and the widow Roxanne (Aurore Clement, who married Storaro) share a melancholy moment in her bedroom afterward, as she prepares an opium pipe for him. As she lowers the mosquito net around the bed, her silhouette pressing through the gauze fades into the river mist as the boat returns upriver, as if the encounter was all a dream. “Don’t you see? There are two of you. One that kills and one that loves.”

Coppola was increasingly coming unstuck when it came to the ending. He didn’t like the gung-ho version envisioned by Milius: “Attila the Hun [i.e., Kurtz] with two bands of machine-gun bullets around him, taking the hero [Willard] by the hand, saying, ‘Yes, yes, here! I have the power in my loins!’ Willard converts to Kurtz’ side; in the end, he’s firing up at the helicopters that are coming to get him, crying out crazily. A movie comic.” (Obliged to destroy the set, he had the base blown up for real, shot on multiple cameras and film stocks, including infrared). An overweight, unprepared Marlon Brando didn’t help matters either (you can see his lines on giant boards in the temple set behind Sheen in Hearts of Darkness). He and Coppola disappeared for three days to go over the source novella and discuss his part. Brando came up with Kurtz’s look, turning up with platform shoes for extra imposing height, his head completely shaven, recalling Joseph Conrad’s description. He conveniently forgot Conrad’s Kurtz was “withered” by the wilderness, which had “consumed his flesh.” Coppola had briefly considered Kurtz as a “Gauguin figure, with mangoes and babies, a guy who’d really gone all the way. It would have been great; Marlon wouldn’t go for it at all.”

 
Eventually the appearance of Kurtz evolved as a shadowy figure, looming in and out of the temple blackness. His scenes were shot as long rambling improvised pieces, which were then cleverly edited. Coppola was inspired by Creative Consultant Dennis Jacob to consider material such as T.S. Eliot’s The Wasteland, and Sir James George Frazer’s The Golden Bough. He used these to interpret the Montagnards’ devotion to Kurtz as the belief of primitive people that their safety is tied to a man-God figure. This personage must be killed as soon as his power is failing, and his soul transferred to a more vigorous body, such as Willard—the Fisher King myth. This duality is realized in the poster for the Final Cut, Willard’s head emerging from the water, his reflection that of Kurtz.

On 10 November 1976, Coppola recycled Milius’ “Gook Killer” head, having Production Designer Dean Tavoularis supervise 25 laborers to create a pool of water the camouflaged Willard could emerge from, smoke wreathing about his monstrous visage. The image symbolizes Willard becoming one with the jungle: “Everyone wanted him dead. The army… and ultimately even the jungle; that’s where he took his orders from, anyway.” Storaro told Empire in 2001, “He has to put on the colors of nature in order to enter nature and become Kurtz.” A further apposite metaphor for this was stumbled upon by Eleanor Coppola when she witnessed the native Ifugao, who played Kurtz’s tribe, ritually slaughter a water buffalo. Coppola filmed them doing this, and intercut the rite with the killing of Kurtz by Willard, brilliantly lit and photographed by Vittorio Storaro, and scored to the music of The Doors, mirroring Willard’s “flash-forward” at the opening of the film, intense eyes merging with the exploding treeline, hungry for a mission. But not quite the same—Willard staggers out to the silent waiting crowd and casts aside his weapon after killing, the evil spell on the compound broken. You can never step in the same river twice, as he and Roxanne exchanged earlier, a lifetime ago, ’cause it’s always moving…

Written by Tim Pelan. Tim was born in 1968, the year of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (possibly his favorite film), ‘Planet of the Apes,’ ‘The Night of the Living Dead’ and ‘Barbarella.’ That also made him the perfect age for when ‘Star Wars’ came out. Some would say this explains a lot. Read more »

 
When I was writing Apocalypse Now I wanted them to meet people and become involved in the war, but I could never think of anything that was appropriate. Every time I would get them into a firefight or an ambush or something it would degenerate into just another meaningless Vietnam war scene. They had to be thrown into the war at its most insane and most intense. —John Milius

Screenwriter must-read: John Milius & Francis Ford Coppola’s screenplay for Apocalypse Now [PDF1, PDF2]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film (newly restored from the original negative, experience Francis Ford Coppola’s award-winning contemplation on the Vietnam War in high definition 4k UHD with this extended 40th anniversary release) is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Apocalypse Now: A Soldier’s Tale, by John Milius. Published in Rolling Stone: The Seventies, ed. Ashley Kahn, Holly George-Warren and Shawn Dahl (Boston: Little-brown, 1998); pp. 272-277.

I didn’t get the full impact of Apocalypse Now when I saw it at the Hollywood screenings in 1979. I had been angry at Francis Ford Coppola because I thought he was trying to hog all the press. Then I took a bunch of people to see it at the Cinerama Dome here in L.A. The place was full. There was a trailer for 1941 with John Belushi—another movie I had been involved with—and it was a very raucous audience, yelling at Belushi and generally being loud. All of a sudden Apocalypse Now came on, with the helicopters and the Doors’ “The End” playing. The theater went silent. There was never a comment, not a fucking noise in the audience, until the movie was over. When the lights came up, I looked around and saw that people were sitting transfixed. Vietnam vets were there, too, weeping. I was stunned by how good the film was and what Francis had done. I was proud. I knew that we had accomplished something: whether it was good or bad, we had somehow kept the faith with those people.

Apocalypse Now achieved its highest aspiration: Not only was it immersed in the historical period and place—Vietnam—but it was an allegory of people facing reality and truth. The truth of life and the nature of war, of man, of civilization and of savagery. That is why the novel Heart of Darkness worked as a model. It’s a timeless story. Apocalypse Now has now attained Citizen Kane status and is revered as one of the great films of all time. It wasn’t always that way. Critics excoriated Francis and me when it was first released. It is certainly, though, my most famous, and one of my best, efforts as a writer. When I die they won’t say anything but “John Milius, who wrote Apocalypse Now, died this week.”

The screenplay started when I was in USC’s film school—the West Point of Hollywood—with George Lucas. We hadn’t met Francis yet. George and I were the two ringleaders at school, making student films and winning awards. George was sort of the good boy and I was the bad boy. I lived in my car. I was an anarchist surfer, a complete, consummate rebel and an anti-intellectual of the worst kind. I was threatened with dismissal every other day. I’ve always had a problem with authority. The specter of the Vietnam War was hanging over all our heads. I was the only one who wanted to enlist—everybody else wanted to go to Canada or get married. I figured sooner or later I was going to go. So I signed up for the Marine Air Program, but I had asthma so I washed out. Then I had to reconfigure my life because I hadn’t planned on living past twenty-six—nobody in the Sixties planned on living very long—and I had assumed my legacy would be a smoking hole in the ground over there.

 
Today in filmmaking there are mainly people who want to be famous, who aren’t driven by the need to tell a story. They just want the fame. Hack then. I never thought about the potential rewards of anything I did. I didn’t think about whether I was going to be paid, whether I was going to get a new BMW or a house in Bel Air or any of that kind of shit. I had what I needed. I had my surfboard. I was fit. I had girls. I was trained. I was a weapon. I just needed a mission. I was STRAC: Strategic. Tough. Ready Around the Clock. At USC I had a writing teacher. Mr. Irwin Blacker, who gave that mission to me. He’d tell us exotic Hollvwood stories, including one about how many filmmakers had tried to do Heart of Darkness—most notably Orson Welles—but that nobody had been able to lick it. I had read the book when I was seventeen and had loved it.

So that did it. I said. Not only am I going to do my Vietnam movie. I’m going to use Heart of Darkness as an allegory because if you’re going to be passing under the skeleton of an elephant, it will be much better if that skeleton is the tail of a downed B-52. I had the ambitious idea of going to Vietnam and shooting the film there. When George tells this story, exaggerating everything, he’ll say Milius was really insane. The truth is, they all wanted to go. Cinéma vérité had become a popular idea then with the emergence of films like Medium Cool which had been shot during the riots at the ’68 Chicago Democratic convention. We were going to do it dirt cheap: shoot a feature film in 16 millimeter in Vietnam while the war was going on. Who knows, maybe we would have been killed. It certainly wouldn’t have been the same movie—nor would it have been as good without Francis.

Alter USC I was a young, cheap screenwriter, hanging out at American Zoetrope, Francis’s company. Then I cowrote Jeremiah Johnson, which became a hit for Robert Redford. I was hot. I got offers to fix up other screenplays. So I was now at the crossroads where I could become a rewriter or I could go off and write my own stuff, do my Apocalypse Now. After The Green Berets it was unhip to do anything about Vietnam, because no studio wanted to touch the controversy. Yet in 1969 Warner Bros, struck a deal with American Zoetrope, and the screenplay for Apocalypse Now was part of that. I received fifteen thousand dollars for the script, and later, when the movie was finally made, another ten. That’s it. But you know, fifteen was enough. I was getting my surfboards at a discount anyway.

 
The title came from the buttons hippies wore that said NIRVANA NOW with a peace symbol. I made one with a tail and engine nasals, so that the symbol became a B-52, and read APOCALYPSE NOW. As a matter of fact, I put it on one of my boards. Surfing was inevitably going to be featured in Apocalypse Now. One of the movie’s themes is that Vietnam was really a California War. By the Seventies, California culture had become the leading edge of the world, of hip youth. Not only the hippies, the guys in the Valley with their cars, the Beach Boys, the whole surfing culture, but also rock & roll. The British—the Beatles and the Rolling Stones—had faded: the real hip people were listening to the Byrds and the Doors.

I was obsessed with the Doors. It was my idea to use their music in the film. I remember hearing “Light My Fire” while the Six Day War was going on. when Israel was trouncing the Arab armies and retaking the Wall. I always thought of the Doors in terms of war, though the bandmenibers were horrified by that connection. It just worked for me, though. Friends of mine who were in Vietnam said. “God. I was always plugged in to the Doors when there was a lot of stuff to be done.” One friend who was in a Special Forces camp said his group had put on “Light My Fire” and played it all night while being attacked.

Adults didn’t handle the Vietnam War very well. Remember, it was a war that was fought by teenagers, who hopped up their helicopters and put flame jobs on the gun pods. It became this sort of East-meets-West thing, an ancient Asian culture being assaulted by this teenage California culture. In Apocalypse Now you’re given a view of transplanted America in that scene in the compound of expandable trailers where Playboy bunnies are putting on a show for the soldiers. The depiction conveys the enormity of importing all this incredible American culture and power. You get that even with the film’s image of cows being brought in by helicopter.

 
A friend of mine, who requests anonymity, was an important influence on Apocalypse Now. He did three tours of Vietnam in the Special Forces, and he told me the greatest power we had over there was that we could call from the sky either fire or a cow. We could burn a village down from the sky. Or we could make a cow appear out of the air. This friend was the model for Willard (played by Martin Sheen) in Apocalypse. Remember the story that Marlon Brando tells about the Communists chopping off the inoculated arms of children? It’s a true story. My friend was a Special Forces adviser to a South Vietnamese unit when the Forces were doing civic-action programs. Inoculating people from a village not too far from Saigon. Afterwards, the Viet Cong came in and chopped off all the villagers’ inoculated arms. To retaliate, the Green Beret team and the Special Forces civic-action team rounded up a bunch of known Viet Cong leaders and killed them all. My friend and the others got in trouble for it. Though, because the dead had been the sources the Americans were buying intelligence from. It’s a harrowing true story that he will have to live with for the rest of his life. Every movie that I write contains a scene like it: Somebody tells a story of an event that is more harrowing than anything that can be depicted.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. I had been sure that that would be the first line taken out of the Apocalypse script. As leader of the First Battalion of the Ninth Cavalry Regiment. Colonel Kilgore was a wildly drawn character—straight out of Dr. Strangelove—who, I must admit, I didn’t think would ultimately work. But Francis left the role as it had been written, and Robert Duvall is such a good actor he made it work. He made Colonel Kilgore a professional military guy who has acquired this California surfer cool and never deviates. He’s still a warrior. He’s just a warrior who surfs. He isn’t just some fucking guy who says. “Yeah man. I like to surf. I wish I could find a good point here or something.” Duvall s approach was: “That’s Charlie’s point?” Yeah, well Charlie don’t surf. You know. “Fuck Charlie! I’m going to take this point and I’m going to surf it. I’m going to surf Charlie’s waves. I’m going to fuck his women and surf his waves.”

Of all the versions there have been of the movie, there’s one that is my favorite. Francis made a tape of it for me. It’s three hours and five minutes long and includes some of the famous cut out French scene, more footage on the beach and more of a resolution in the end with Brando. The version of Apocalypse most people have seen is what Francis calls the Modified Milius Ending, which hadn’t been his preferred ending. Francis’ ending shows Willard throwing down the sword, walking through everybody, getting on the boat and going down the river—that’s the end of it. No air strike. But I said. “This is Apocalypse Now. This place is evil, it has to be cauterized by lire.” Finally he came around to that idea and decided to have the air strike under the closing titles—his way of saving face but, in fact, it really worked.

 
Francis had the arrogance, the hubris, the ambition to make Apocalypse Now. Whenever I direct a movie. I say. “If i get sick, I’m willing to die here,” and that’s the same kind of drive Francis had. There’d be a terrible typhoon, and Francis would say. “Let’s shoot! Let’s do something! Get a camera! Let’s shoot! That’s what we came here for.” He became Kurtz. Francis’s personality is also the one most similar to Hitler’s that I know: Hitler could convince anybody of anything, and so can Francis. Francis is my Führer. I’d follow him to hell. Apocalypse took so much out of so many people that everyone who worked on it feels like a veteran. When they all came back from the Philippines, the same things that happened to Vietnam Vets started happening to them. They didn’t work for a long time and suffered intense depressions, they drank and had nightmares. Everybody who worked on that movie got post-traumatic stress disorder. They had messed with the war and it had stained them.

I think filmmakers don’t have that kind of push anymore. James Cameron with his Titanic is the only example I can think of from the last twenty years. I can just hear Cameron saying something like. “I don’t care how much this movie costs, they’re going to have to kill me to get me oil this movie.” That’s the only way great movies get made. I’m not saying you have to spend $200 million. You can make one for $2 million, but you have to be willing to push. You have to take the samurai attitude, be willing to die in the attempt. Today in moviemaking, there’s a pervasive fear of not being hip enough, not making the right corporate move, not having enough money. Corporate nazis have replaced individualism, dignity and ethics. Take the Heidi Fleiss scandal. It came out that executives at a major studio were hiring Meiss’ call girls, and the corporation was paying for them. Can you believe that, having vour corporation pay for your sex? The corporation telling you when and with whom and how long you could take your human pleasure? That’s lucking science fiction. Can you imagine Sam Peckinpah being given a whore and the studio saying. “We’ll pick up the tab”? He’d say: “Fuck you! I’ll pay for my own whores!”

In a way, Apocalypse Now is about a guy who decides to make his own decisions. The further he gets in his career the more he’s convinced he’s not going to listen to the crap. He says to himself. “I’m not going to fight the war they want. I’m going to win. I’m going to go out there and do what it takes to win.” And he’s willing to pay. In the Seventies our country still retained a tinge of idealism. It was a much freer society, where the individual was important. The Vietnam War made people evaluate their lives. If you were going to he drafted, either you went and fought for your country, or you had to make the decision to fight against that. But you had to decide. I knew one guy back then who went to every fucking riot there was and got the shit beaten out of him. I told him he could have gone to combat and done that and probably would have had less chance of being killed. But he fought the cops and loved doing it throwing himself into the middle of riot cops. He was a fucking warrior, just displaced.

 
One of my purposes in doing Apocalypse Now was to tell the story of the Vietnam War soldiers who had been treated with such incredible injustice and disrespect when they returned to America. I wanted to give them a sense of dignity and a place in history. In order to be great, a movie has to be true. It must stay loyal to certain ideals and challenge them at the same time. Apocalypse Now challenged the inanity, the total unreasonableness of war. Everybody in the movie has gone insane, and they’re all pointing to this madman at the end of the river, who’s the one that finally tells you the truth. Francis and I, we still talk like old veterans. “This was a great thing we did, shouldn’t we go to war again? I mean this is what we were made for. We should go make Napoleon or do something outrageous and great and challenge Hollywood and ourselves.”

As for the Vietnam War, my opinion hasn’t changed too much since then. My feeling is that, if we were going to fight the war, we should have won. The original mistake was made by Allen Dulles and the CIA. They got us into Vietnam because they fucked up the Bay of Pigs. It was also Kennedy-family machismo. Kennedy had the ability to get us out and didn’t do it. But l believe that once we were in and saying. “Okay, this is where we draw the line, we should have fought the war quickly and decisively. You don’t send young men to die in a war you don’t intend to win.

Besides Apocalypse Now and Platoon, I don’t think any of the Vietnam War films capture just how clearly ill-fated the conflict was, much as the Peloponnesian War was. It was a war that should never have happened, that became hideously immoral, and so there couldn’t he any correct political opinions about it. And yet, in a war, every opinion was right—it was simply the war that was wrong. Francis is a real artist. I don’t believe he’s made up his mind about the Vietnam War, so he didn’t let Kurtz have any answers. I think he wanted Apocalypse Now to be a work in progress, and every year he’d rerelease it.

 
Is Apocalypse Now anti-Vietnam War? Nearly all the people involved in making it, from Francis on down, were against the war and held what were considered politically correct views at the time. Except for me: I wasn’t for the war, but I was for the American soldier and I wanted the film to reflect that. I wanted the grunts to be the heroes, to make a movie that they would look at and say. “This is ours.” I believe that one of the only noble attributes of our society is its concept of the American Citizen soldier. I’m a militarist and an anarchist. But don’t expect that to make sense. As David Bowie once said when accused of contradicting himself. “Well—I’m a rock star.” What do you expect? I’m a movie director.

Meanwhile, the mystique of Apocalypse Now lives on. The Marine Corps invited me to Camp Pendleton to watch a demonstration of an aerial assault combined with an amphibious landing. As the helicopters came in, “Ride of the Valkyries” was playing over the loudspeakers. It’s become an anthem! I don’t think the United States can go to war without it. I went to Desert Storm to photograph the war for the Marine Corps, and just after the war ended. I went out to the oil fields in Iraq. The oil was burning where the manifold had been bombed and Saddam had released the oil into the gulf, so the sky was black. They put a perimeter up and these kids were out there in the minefields in their Desert Storm outfits. Every four hundred yards there was another American solider wearing a gauze mask because of the black smoke. It was nine o’clock in the morning. It was dark. Except for the fires of hell. A journalist friend and I walked out to the furthest guy, who was all alone in the far reaches of that hell. I said to this kid, “What unit are you with, son?”

“FIRST OF THE NINTH AIR CAV. SIR. YOU KNOW THE FIRST OF THE NINTH? HAVE YOU SEEN APOCALYPSE NOW?”

“Yeah—‘I love the smell of napalm in the morning’!”

“YOU GOT IT, SIR!”

The soldier gave me a high five. When we were walking back, my friend asked me. “Why didn’t you tell him?”

“I think he would have shot us.”

 
John Milius, the writer of Apocalypse Now, is interviewed by Francis Ford Coppola.

 
Journey Up the River: An Interview With Francis Coppola by Greil Marcus, Rolling Stone, November 1, 1979.

Francis laughed when he said that in July; he was clearly exhausted, in a good deal of physical pain, and it was one of the few laughs our talk had produced—certainly, it was the best of them. In September, Francis was full of energy: monumentally displeased by the shallowness of the critical reaction to Apocalypse, and just as happy about how the picture was doing in New York, Los Angeles and Toronto, the three cities where it had already opened. He’d recently taken the picture to the Moscow Film Festival; I asked about the reception there. “The reaction,” Francis said, “was very much the same as here—and the Russians, I think, are very much like us. At the first screening, when the lights went on, the audience was totally quiet, stunned, then there was a little applause, just like in America. Then I’d hear, ‘Great, great,’ and then, ‘Well…,’ and then, Vassily doesn’t like it at all…’ No different. I think half the people thought it was a masterpiece, and half the people thought it was a piece of shit” I asked how the North Vietnamese in Moscow reacted; for the first time in either of our talks, Francis pretty well closed off a question. “They were,” he said with a long pause, “favorably impressed.” “You don’t want to talk about that?” I asked. “No,” Francis answered. “There’s no mystery, no secret. But I just don’t think it would be right for me to characterize it beyond that.”

When we’d talked in July, Coppola was, as they say, philosophical about his own financial stake in the picture. If Apocalypse failed at the box office, he said, “It would prevent me from helping a lot of other people… I can always get a job directing another movie, so it would just mean that my plans would be stopped. I’d live the same—I’d have a lot less employees. It might he the best thing that ever happened to me.” If the movie succeeded, he said, “I’d get the freedom to start a whole studio and make twelve movies a year. The studio had already been bought—the old Hollywood General Studios in Los Angeles, “a beautiful Thirties studio, nine stages”—and even in July, Francis was eager to talk about his plans. There were, he said, many projects in various stages of development, from Carroll Ballard’s recently completed The Black Stallion to sketched-out proposals: “Ten that could happen, five or six long shots that look promising.” If the studio worked, it would mean an economically self-reliant, artistically self-sustaining group—directors, writers, editors, composers, sound designers, students—that could take chances without risking ruin every time: “We could have a horror-film program, or a Roger Corman division—because you’ve got to have a Roger Corman division!” The goal would be to enlarge the resources of film outside of the major studios, while at the same time cutting down “the baggage of individual pictures: to make them more quickly, with less waste, less indulgence, in a context of common endeavor—to make pictures, Francis said, less of an “ever-covering shroud.”

 
In September, Francis discussed the future of Omni Zoetrope not as a possibility, but as a fact. “It’s big,” he said of Apocalypse. “It could make a lot of money—and getting out of hock is in the bag. Everything will stay intact—people won’t be fired, I won’t have to give up my car. “I don’t know what I’m going to do next,” Francis said. “It might he the Tucker movie.” That will be much more outrageous than Apocalypse. It’s in the style—it’s always in the style. There are a lot of ways to show people things: and there are two ways of making it I’ve thought about. It could be treated as if Preston Sturges were making that movie, and it would be wonderful. A comedy, nicely paced—I thought of Burt Reynolds. But I thought—no, that’s not my way. What is it? And I’m thinking about that. “The Japanese project is even more outrageous. It will be about love and sex, romance, Japan and America as lovers—it treats cultures as if they were sexual elements. It’s based on Goethe’s Elective Affinities.

“Goethe is my idol… if I have an idol. He was a great poet, a physicist, a thinker. He was interested in painting. He’d devote five years of his life to studying something like the psychology of color; he was part of the Weimar government. And he kept falling in love—he was always in love. He had mistresses and mistresses. German schoolchil­dren hate them, because they have to memorize all their names, the dates of the births and deaths—because this poem was about that woman, that poem about this one…” As I got up to leave after our second conversation, I mentioned our earlier talk about the choice between endings for Apoc­alypse Now; given the choice that had been made, and a couple of months to live with it, I asked Francis if he was satisfied. “I am,” he said. “I have no regrets. And I’ll tell you how I finally bought it. It was when I saw it with the music—that music was so strange, so heroic, so sad. The rain. Wil­lard walking down the steps, taking the kid—it came together for me. I went for the warmth of his taking the kid away. I liked that.

“Too much, way too much, has been made of this business of the endings. We went through the same thing with Godfather II; it just wasn’t publicized. The same with Godfather I. Don’t they know by now I wouldn’t have put on an ending I didn’t feel was right?” I mentioned to Francis that when we had talked before, he’d spoken of the ending as a lie—in the sense that Heart of Darkness ended with a lie: in the sense of a comfort. “There may be… there may be a little bit of a lie, about what I think about human nature: the idea that he would throw down the weapon, refuse the power. I don’t know if someone would. In terms of what I’d like to think of human nature—well, I like to think human nature isn’t necessarily what I might at times think it is.” We shrugged off the conversation and walked down the stairs from Francis’ office. “Ahhh,” he said, with no little satisfaction. “I was always afraid I’d be the guy with The Godfather printed after his name.”

 
Inspired by the classic Joseph Conrad novella Heart of Darkness (already a lost project by Orson Welles), this Vietnam epic directed by Francis Ford Coppola began with a first draft by John Milius in 1969 entitled The Psychedelic Soldier. It took ten years for the ambitious project to reach the big screen after a turbulent, lengthy production as fascinating as the film itself. Apocalypse Now went on to win Oscars for its cinematography and sound, and today it is regarded as a supremely powerful war film and an unflinching look into the darkest recesses of the human soul.

Featuring highlights from the Margaret Herrick Library and the Academy Film Archive.

Seen here during production, the director expressed interest in making Apocalypse Now as early as 1974. George Lucas had previously intended to direct but was unavailable due to the production of Star Wars (which, according to editor and sound designer Walter Murch, incorporated some of the political themes from this script).

The reason our family owns ‘Apocalypse Now’ is because no one else wanted to finance it. When it was done it was a) long and b) weird, in most people’s opinion. But I was a kid who never had $100 to his name, who owed $20m or $30m at 25% interest. So I was scared stiff, and doubly so because I now had this place and my little kids. I remember being on that terrace right out there that Niebaum built, just depressed. “This is so beautiful and I’m going to lose it shortly because of this picture.” It turned out that ‘Apocalypse’ didn’t get into financial trouble after all. It opened respectably and then it never stopped. What happened is that the audience kept going and going and going, and, over time, we began to realize that the picture was going to actually make its money back. On the strength of the Cannes award, it did very well in France and in other countries. So what saved me is the picture itself. —Francis Ford Coppola: How winning Cannes 40 years ago saved ‘Apocalypse Now’

 
This trade announcement from 1976 featured numerous first choices for Apocalypse Now not cast in the final film.

 
As originally scripted, the first two scenes were conceived differently than what was seen in the final film (which opens with a more abstract jungle attack and Willard’s nonverbal introduction to “The End” by The Doors).

 
Apocalypse Now was primarily shot in the Philippines, after previous location scouting had covered other possibilities like Queensland.

 
The continuity of Apocalypse Now involved numerous different locations, costume changes, and alterations in the appearance of the main characters over the lengthy shoot.

 
This detail comes from an amazingly detailed map created for the filming of Francis Ford Coppola’s Vietnam War epic.






 
The documentarian and wife of Francis Ford Coppola chronicled the making of Apocalypse Now; her footage was used as the foundation for the 1991 documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse co-directed with George Hickenlooper and Fax Bahr.

 
Up to the time of filming, drafts of the screenplay for Apocalypse Now included an explosive firefight involving Willard and Kurtz. The final version of the film features a more stripped-down, introspective conclusion.

 
In May of 1976, a massive typhoon caused extensive damage to the sets of Apocalypse Now and left many of the cast and crew members stranded for up to three days.

 
Director Francis Ford Coppola, cinematographer Vittorio Storaro and other members of the crew prepare a shot for Apocalypse Now.

 
This storyboard drawing depicts a moment from the famous helicopter sequence scored with Richard Wagner’s ‘The Flight of the Valkyries’ in Apocalypse Now.















The attack was meticulously storyboarded by Coppola and production designer Dean Tavoularis. Empire asked Doug Claybourne, helicopter wrangler on the scene, to talk through the shoot.

 
The star and director of Easy Rider was brought on board to play an American photojournalist in Col. Kurtz’s camp; the film garnered him significant mainstream attention after spending the past several years working in Europe. Originally Hopper was intended to play Colby, one of Kurtz’s disciples.

 
The first test screening of Apocalypse Now in incomplete form was held on May 11, 1979 at the Mann Bruin in Westwood, complete with a personal note to the audience written by Francis Ford Coppola.

 
Influential illustrator Bob Peak designed the artwork for the U.S. theatrical one-sheet poster of Apocalypse Now. Some of his other famous poster art includes Excalibur, The Spy Who Loved Me, My Fair Lady and Superman.

 
The common two-channel audio format was still a recent innovation when Apocalypse Now was released in 1979 and had only been around for three years. Among its audio highlights, the ‘The Flight of the Valkyries’ sequence was often singled out for praise. For 70mm bookings, the film was presented with six-track sound.

 

 
The Japanese theatrical artwork for Apocalypse Now emphasized the action of the film far more than the American designs.

 

VITTORIO STORARO, ASC, AIC

Vittorio Storaro recalls the photographic challenges he confronted during the tumultuous production of Francis Ford Coppola’s hallucinatory Vietnam War epic Apocalypse Now. Interview by Stephen Burum and Stephen Pizzello. This article was originally published in the February 2001 issue of American Cinematographer.

After a grueling 15-month shoot in the Philippines, Apocalypse Now was finally released on August 15, 1979. At the time, critics were sharply divided in their assessments of the film, but Francis Coppola’s visionary Vietnam War epic is now regarded as a modern classic. The film’s spectacular images earned Vittorio Storaro, ASC, AIC, his first Academy Award and cemented his reputation as one of the world’s most brilliant and innovative cinematographers. Storaro’s philosophical approach to the picture incorporated the careful use of deeply saturated colors, silhouettes and artificial light sources that selectively pierced the darkness of the story’s jungle settings. He further enhanced the film’s dramatic look by flashing the negative. The result was an immersive experience that took viewers on a surrealistic and hallucinatory upriver journey through an array of wartime horrors.

What follows are some fascinating excerpts from a roundtable discussion held at the ASC Clubhouse, during which Storaro responded to questions posed by Stephen Burum, ASC, who supervised the second-unit cinematography on Apocalypse Now, and AC executive editor Stephen Pizzello. Also participating in the discussion were cinematographers John Bailey, ASC and Dante Spinotti, ASC, AIC, as well as AC associate editor Doug Bankston.

Vittorio, before I turn the floor over to Mr. Burum, I’d like to ask you how you got the assignment to shoot Apocalypse Now, which was your first collaboration with Francis Coppola.
Actually, I initially refused to shoot the picture, because I didn’t want to interfere in the relationship between Francis and Gordon Willis [ASC]. They’d done such wonderful work on The Godfather films that I thought it would be wrong for someone else to shoot Apocalypse. But when I spoke with Gordon about it, he assured me that he was not a part of the project, even though there was nothing wrong between him and Francis. Ironically enough, around the same day that [Apocalypse co-producer] Fred Roos came to Rome to speak with me about the picture, I met with Alejandro Jodorowsky; he was planning to direct Dune, and he offered me the chance to shoot it. I love Frank Herbert’s book, and at that time I thought Apocalypse Now was just another war picture. To Italians in the year 1975, the topic of the Vietnam War was not that compelling, because it was so far away from us. But Francis told me, “Read Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, because I took some of the spirit of Apocalypse from that book.” When I read it, I understood that the main theme of the story was the superimposition of one culture on top of another culture. I realized that the darkness mentioned in the book’s title did not belong to the jungle culture, but to the supposedly “civilized” culture that was making its way up the river. That idea became very interesting to me, and I ultimately accepted the job.

Steve, can you tell us how you came to serve as second-unit cinematographer on Apocalypse?
Stephen Burum, ASC: I’d been trying to get into the union for 13 years, and I got my chance by shooting television. I’d been doing that for about two years when I got a call from Fred Roos, who told me, “Francis wanted me to ask if you’d come to the Philippines to shoot second-unit footage for Apocalypse.” I’d been reading in the papers that the production had been shut down because the terrible typhoon had destroyed the sets, but I said, “Well, sure.” I went to an office at Samuel Goldwyn to talk to Francis, and he wanted to discuss the aerial footage. When I asked him who was going to direct those scenes, he said, “You will.” I suggested that maybe [director] Carroll Ballard should supervise the scenes with me shooting them, but Francis replied, “Carol told me that you should do it.” [Laughs.] I agreed to head up the second unit, so about a month later I got on a plane and flew to the Philippines. About a day and a half after I got there, I met Vittorio, who introduced me to Piero Servo, who would be operating the camera for me. Vittorio then said to me, “I want you to watch me shoot two scenes before you do anything.” So first, I watched Vittorio shoot [the military briefing] involving Martin Sheen, G.D. Spradlin, Harrison Ford and Jerry Ziesmer. Then I watched the filming of the picture’s opening sequence in the hotel room, when Willard is horribly drunk.

I was looking very carefully at what Vittorio was doing, because I knew I had to duplicate exactly what he was doing not only technically, but spiritually. I’d gone to school [at UCLA] with Francis, so I understood how he thought, but I didn’t yet understand how Vittorio thought, and it was very interesting to observe the way in which he used the light. Coming from the industry in Los Angeles, I was used to having all of this equipment; we had more gadgets and tools than anybody else in the world. Vittorio, on the other hand, was just using Brute arcs and Photofloods with blue gels on them. In the hotel room, he had two arcs coming in through the windows and a little cluster of lights bouncing up on the ceiling to provide a bit of fill. Then, back in this dark corner, he had a lamp on with a lampshade over it. By doing that, he made the black in the corner look better, because he had that bright reference in the frame. He also had this elaborate system of cutting pieces of paper or gels for the shades in order to block out the light coming toward the camera, and have as much of it as possible hitting the wall instead. From watching all of this activity on the sets, I immediately understood that the color black was very important to Vittorio. About two days after watching those scenes, we started working out this big sequence set at the Do Lung Bridge. [Special-effects coordinator] Joe Lombardi was going to demonstrate those parachute flares; he was planning to shoot them into the air, for they would hang and light up a whole, huge area. Well, the flares didn’t work, because the air was so humid that they wouldn’t even burn. Vittorio’s solution was to really use the black areas [of the scene] and the highlights provided by the arc lights and Photofloods that we did use in the scene.

Storaro: That sequence at the Do Lung Bridge really demonstrates the main photographic concept for Apocalypse Now, which sprang directly from this idea I mentioned of one culture superimposing itself on another. Every country that has ever conquered another country—whether you’re talking about Egypt, Italy, Spain, France, England or the United States—has always imposed its own language and culture upon the conquered region. Everyone from those conquering countries always believes that they’re only exporting the good aspects of their culture, but that’s simply not true. Everyone has a good side and a bad side—a conscious and unconscious. America was the same way in Vietnam, and in Apocalypse Now, Colonel Kurtz represents the unconscious, which we all have inside of us. He represents the dark side of the United States, which is why black is such an important color in the film. When I was planning the visual strategy for the film, I began thinking that I could convey the conflict of cultures by creating a visual conflict between artificial light and natural light. The first time I saw that we would be using colored smoke to convey specific military messages, I thought it was wonderful, because when these artificial colors were placed next to the natural colors of Vietnam, it created that sense of conflict that I wanted.

I also sought to create that type of conflict in the lighting. For example, consider the scene in which the Playboy girls put on their show in the middle of the jungle. The lighting I used for that scene came about for two reasons. First, at that point in my career, I had never used a really extensive lighting package; the biggest picture I had ever done was 1900, on which I used a single thousand-amp generator! When I arrived to do Apocalypse Now, I brought just one thousand-amp generator, without any backup—that’s how crazy I was! Given the relatively low budgets that I’d had, I was accustomed to simply using the minimum lighting I required. To light that huge Playboy sequence from beyond the stage area was basically impossible, so instead I came up with the idea of using lights set up within the stage area. I asked the production designer, Dean Tavoularis, to design a set that would incorporate a number of Photofloods. However, the second reason for doing the scene that way was that I wanted to create this intrusion of artificial light in the jungle—the incredible force of the light would serve to enhance the blackness of the Jungle. The same idea applied to the sequence at the Do Lung Bridge. When Francis showed me his idea for the scene—which involved panning from the patrol boats to the bridge, at night, on a river in the middle of the jungle—I thought to myself, “How in the world am I going to light such a huge amount of space with just one thousand-amp generator?!” My solution was to have the crew erect several towers, each of which had one arc on it. We had an electrician on each tower, and I would talk to them by walkie-talkie and tell them where to aim the light. I also remember asking Joe Lombardi to create some explosions in spots where I needed some light. But if you watch the scene, during the huge pan above the bridge, you can see only the silhouette of the two main characters against this explosion beyond them.

Burum: I find it interesting that you were able to take those technical limitations and use them to create a distinctive visual style.

Storaro: In my mind, the different scenes in the film became like parts of a puzzle. We would only show certain things amid all of the darkness, and we would reveal different pieces of the puzzle as we went further up the river.

Burum: Exactly. If you’d shown the whole jungle, it wouldn’t have been as effective.

Storaro: In Italy, we have a saying: “When the wolf is hungry, he will come out of his cave.” In other words, necessity will force you to come up with an idea! Back in those days, the Italian film industry didn’t have much money, so we did everything with very low budgets. In that regard, 1900 was really an exception; when I did The Spider’s Stratagem, we had no generator at all! On all of those pictures, I really had to work out the visual strategies with the director, because we couldn’t afford to do a master shot, an over-the-shoulder and then a close-up; that approach took too much time and money. We really had to have a good plan, because we knew we’d only have one chance to shoot each sequence. We could do multiple takes, of course, but we had to get the scenes right on the days when they were scheduled.

Burum: Don’t you think that in some ways you have more of an impact on the audience when you work with limited technical resources? You don’t have a safety net, so you have to present a vision that comes from your heart.

Storaro: No doubt. When you’re in that type of situation, you must push yourself a bit more and be very creative. You also have to think things through really carefully. Even now, when I have all of the time, money and equipment that I need, I always try to employ that type of creative approach. Sometimes, I have to fight with the director or the editor if they push me to get coverage “just in case.” In case of what? In case our plan is no good? That way of working costs the film industry a lot of money, and it drains the quality of the filmmaking. Today, unfortunately, editors are used to working on the Avid system or something similar. They have a very small screen in front of them, and it’s very hard to see an emotion from an actor, or a particular action. On some pictures, they don’t even print dailies anymore, so editors can’t even double-check footage on the big screen to make sure that the cuts, the rhythms or the emotions are right. They work only from a small monitor, so they’re probably editing the picture with television in mind, at least subconsciously. That’s the worst thing you can do to the film industry, because you’re reducing everything to video quality. Digital technology is a great tool, but in my opinion everyone should be able to look at their footage on big video projectors, or at least a large, television-sized monitor.

Which camera and lenses did you use on Apocalypse Now?
Storaro: We shot the film with Mitchell reflex cameras, which were modified by [the Italian company] Technovision to accept Cooke Hobson Taylor anamorphic lenses from England. Because the Italian film industry was so poor at the time, we could not afford Panavision equipment, and the only serious company over there was Technovision. I developed a really strong relationship with Henryk Chroscicki, who unfortunately died last spring. No matter what I needed, he was already ready to make any changes or adjustments to the camera.

Burum: We had the most wonderful Cooke anamorphic zoom lens on Apocalypse. It converted by just unscrewing the back and screwing on the anamorphic [attachment]. It was one of the best anamorphic lenses I’ve ever seen or used, and Francis eventually bought it.

Vittorio, let’s talk a bit about the way Francis handles people, because he does it in a very interesting way. When I got to the Philippines, I went into his office, and he said, “Steve, I’m in so much trouble now that the only way we can get out of this is to do everything perfectly.” I answered, “Francis, I’ve been waiting all my life to hear someone say that to me. We’ll do it.” I walked out of that office, down those stairs, and back to my hotel, and all the way I was thinking to myself, “This is going to be great.” Then all of a sudden, I began asking myself, “What is perfect? What am I going to do?” I sometimes wound up sitting on the riverbank for three days to get a shot, because Francis had told me not to shoot anything unless it was perfect!
Storaro: On any picture, when you meet the director for the first time, you have to have a very strong connection in order to share a truly spiritual collaboration. Going back to my meeting about Dune with Alejandro Jodorowsky, I remember that the tone of it was quite cold. I knew he had a reputation for doing everything on his pictures, including the cinematography, so I asked him why he had called me. And he answered, “I know that on this movie, I need much more in terms of the operating and the lighting, and I think that you can do better.” But I couldn’t tell if he was being sincere with me or not, which made me a bit hesitant.

On a picture like Apocalypse Now, you know right away that it’s going to be a long, expensive, dangerous shoot in a location that’s very far away. But from our very first meeting, Francis was so friendly that I felt as if I’d known him forever. In the professional sense, he also made me feel totally comfortable. He told me that he had admired my work on The Conformist, and he never let me feel that I was out of place, or too young, or that I didn’t know enough English. Apocalypse became my first picture outside of Italy with a foreign production company, because prior to meeting Francis, I’d never felt comfortable with any of the other foreign directors I’d met.

When I arrived in the Philippines, he wanted to show me some color sketches of the helicopter attack sequence—Francis had actually filmed these sketches in CinemaScope and edited them together with music, and he showed me this footage on a big screen! The camera operator, Enrico Umetelli, was sitting next to me, and Francis told us, “Remember, this is just a rough idea for the sequence; we’re going to do it much better when we really shoot it.” I watched that footage with my mouth open, and I whispered to Enrico, “Do you think we’ll be able to do that?” I thought there was no way I could meet those expectations, but I think Francis picked up on my concern, and he was very reassuring. Without his energy, we never would have been able to make Apocalypse Now.

Burum: I do remember that when I got to the Philippines, there was a general feeling that Apocalypse was going to be a great picture. I don’t think that anybody on the crew doubted that. I don’t think anybody knew how we were going to achieve that greatness, but there was definitely a sense that we were doing the best work we could do. To me, the whole project had an aura about it.

Storaro: Honestly, I never thought it would be great, because I was so scared to be working at that level! But Francis told me, “Vittorio, this is the first picture that I’ve really produced completely. I have total control, but I also have total responsibility. I have complete trust in your expertise with the camera, so please feel free to do anything you think is correct. We don’t need any go-ahead from anybody else, but please remember that all of the responsibility is on me personally.” I always take my work very seriously, but after Francis said that to me, I really tried to give a maximum effort with the minimum equipment that I needed.

Burum: The way Francis handles everyone on a set is worth discussing. For example, when I was shooting The Outsiders and Rumble Fish, he’d show me the scene and ask, “What do you want to do?” I’d tell him, “Well, we should do this, this and this.” If he liked what I said, he’d reply, “Okay, where do you want to start?” If he didn’t like what I was saying, he’d tell me some allegorical story! [Laughs.] At that point, I’d know enough to offer him an alternative, and he’d say, “I think that’s better.” But he always made me feel that I was really contributing, and that he valued my input. That type of director really knows how to get the best out of people.

Storaro: Francis is, without a doubt, the director who gave me the most freedom to express myself. But at the same time, he was also very clear about the main concepts for the film. The first day of any shoot is when you really begin to discover your relationship with the director, and what your contribution will be. On the first day of Apocalypse, Francis gave me an anamorphic viewfinder with my name on it, and he had one of his own. We were in this bar, preparing to shoot a scene that is no longer in the picture with Harvey Keitel, who was originally hired to play Martin Sheen’s part. We were both wandering around with these finders, and it probably looked a bit ridiculous. But he took me aside and told me his concept for that scene, and every morning after that, he would tell me his main idea for that day’s work, usually addressing things on a metaphorical level. I would then try to use my knowledge to figure out how to achieve those concepts technically. I would present my ideas, and if he didn’t think they would work, I would come up with something else. But once he was sure that I had come up with the best way to translate his concept onto film, he would give me total freedom to put together the entire sequence. He would sometimes make a few little changes to our plan while we were shooting, but usually we wouldn’t deviate much from the initial plan we had worked out in the morning.

What were some of your visual influences for the film?
Storaro: Just before I started Apocalypse, a very good filmmaker friend of mine wanted to do a movie about Tarzan. Unfortunately, that film was never made, but my friend showed me a book by a great illustrator named Burne Hogarth, who had drawn the Tarzan comic strip [in the 1930s and ’40s]. In 1972, just before we began working on Apocalypse, Hogarth had published two new books of his Tarzan art [Tarzan of the Apes and Jungle Tales of Tarzan], and they really focused on the principles of movement. I think Hogarth was very aware of an Italian style of painting known as Futurism, which is exemplified by the work of Giacomo Balla and Umberto Boccioni. The main aesthetic principles of Futurism are beauty and speed: Balla, for example, painted things like dogs with eight legs, in order to show their speed in one single image. A lot of comic-strip art was also influenced by studies done during the Italian Renaissance, particularly those by Michelangelo, who portrayed figures in a way that was very much like sculpture. The physical action of Tarzan in Hogarth’s art was unbelievably dynamic, and every color in the drawings was so strong and saturated that the overall impact became very surrealistic.

I became very fascinated with the images in Hogarth’s books, and I showed them to Francis during our early meetings. I told him that I wanted to portray the jungle in a similar way, with very aggressive colors. That style is really apparent in the sequence where the tiger jumps out at Martin Sheen and Frederic Forrest; I didn’t want the color of the jungle to be a naturalistic color. Francis and I were very much in sync on that concept; whenever he talked to me about the helicopter attack, the Do Lung Bridge sequence, or the explosion of the Kurtz compound, he would always say, “Vittorio, I don’t want to do something realistic. I want to create a big show, something that’s magnificent to see. Everywhere Americans go, they make a great show of things, and I want to create a conflict between beauty and horror.”

That approach is completely apparent in the Wagnerian helicopter attack and the subsequent scene in which Robert Duvall’s character says, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like… victory.” It doesn’t matter to him how many people are dying; he’s somehow enchanted by the beauty of napalm. This is the point of view that Kurtz is denouncing.

Was your use of dramatic silhouettes in the film also inspired by comic-book art?
Storaro: Yes. In that regard, Burne Hogarth was really my guide. However, the silhouettes were also inspired by the French naive painter Henri Rousseau. He did some paintings set in the jungle that had very aggressive colors, and in one that I remember there was a man in silhouette with a woman and a tiger behind him.

Burum: While I was shooting pass-bys on the patrol boat, Vittorio said to me, “We should see nature before we see man.” I would therefore compose those shots so that the boat was hidden in silhouette, and the first thing you saw was the wake of the boat—this little silver ripple. When the ripple broke the surface of the water, it symbolized man disturbing the natural environment.

Storaro: We always strove to show the conflict between the soldiers and both the jungle and the native people. That concept is conveyed very well in the shot where Martin Sheen is in the boat examining the confidential dossier about Kurtz. Larry Fishburne is dancing to the Rolling Stones song “Satisfaction” on the radio, and Sam Bottoms is surfing behind the boat. As he’s surfing, he’s spraying water on the natives, which reinforces that idea that the Americans are imposing themselves upon this culture in a rather arrogant manner. To me, the most important and powerful moment in the movie occurs just before the helicopter attack on the village, right after Colonel Kilgore turns on the Wagner music. We suddenly cut to a quiet shot of a teacher leading this group of children out of their school, and as a viewer you say to yourself, “Oh my God, are they going to attack those little children?” In most previous war movies, you always saw the cavalry arriving to save the day by attacking the bad guys.

Let’s talk a bit about the explosion of the Kurtz compound, which was only shown over the end credits of the initial 35mm release prints. That footage never appeared in the 70mm prints, and Mr. Coppola has acknowledged that its inclusion in the 35mm credits caused some confusion about the film’s ending.
Burum: Everybody tried to make a big deal out of that footage, but the only reason Francis included it in the 35mm prints was because Joe Lombardi got really upset when it was removed from the original cut. Francis arranged this work-in-progress screening for the cast and crew at the Bruin Theater in Westwood, and when it was over, Joe grabbed Francis in the lobby and jumped all over him: “Damnit, I had my effects guys all over the jungle to shoot that scene!” So in order to placate Joe, Francis put the footage over the credits, which led to all of this speculation about the film’s ending.

Of course, that footage was definitely a challenge to shoot. What do you remember about working on that sequence, Vittorio?

Storaro: It took nine nights to shoot that scene, and we set up about 10 cameras—a VistaVision camera, an infrared camera, a high-speed camera and normal cameras. Before we began shooting, I had constant nightmares that someone was going to get hurt. I kept asking Joe where we should put the crew members and the cameras to keep them safe, and at first, he couldn’t say for sure—the temple was built out of real stone, and he was planning to use real dynamite to blow it all up! He finally gave us the minimum distances where we’d be safe from the explosions, and we also built these moveable metal bunkers to protect the cameras and the operators. When the explosions went off, all of these big stone blocks were flying around, so you couldn’t even look through the camera.

Why was the temple set built with real stone?
Storaro: Dean Tavoularis wanted it to look authentic, of course, but I think it was simply easier to use real materials in that particular location rather than shipping materials in.

Burum: That temple was well-built, too. When we first attempted those shots, it simply wouldn’t go down! Finally, we attached these cables to both heavy-duty tractors and the set, and when the explosion happened we just pulled the temple down. I’ll tell you, when those explosions went off, they were so powerful they would lift you right off the ground. All of the air would be sucked away from you, and then this rush of hot air would come back at you. Joe also warned us, “Keep under cover, because once the blast goes off it’s gonna be raining snakes.” And it was! [Laughter all around.]

Storaro: In the end, not one person was hurt, which was a real testament to Joe and his crew. They kept everybody informed about what was going to happen every step of the way. All of the camera operators and effects guys were communicating with walkie-talkies, and I can still remember hearing the explosions going off in my ears.

Vittorio, can you tell us about the lab work and the special processes used on Apocalypse Now?
Well, I had several problems in that regard. For the first two weeks of shooting, the dailies were being sent to Technicolor Rome, which was just what I wanted. But then Gray Frederickson, the co-producer, said to me, “We only have one airplane a week that can go to Rome, but we have two or three that can go to Los Angeles, so we’re going to have to do the dailies at Technicolor L.A. from now on. Who do you want to deal with there?” Francis was very nervous, because he wanted to see dailies sooner than one week afterwards. But I told Gray, “Well, tell me who your next cinematographer is going to be, because I’m leaving. How can I have the same collaboration with the people at the lab [in Los Angeles] if I don’t know anybody there? They don’t know me, and they won’t know what to do.” Ernesto Novelli [of Technicolor Rome] had done The Spider’s Stratagem [1970], The Conformist [1971], Last Tango in Paris [1973], 1900 [1977] and several other pictures with me, so he knew exactly what kind of look I wanted. Fortunately, after I threatened to leave, they continued to let me send the dailies to Rome.

Also, around that time, Kodak had just introduced its new color negative stock [5247]. I did some tests with the new stock for 1900, but I didn’t really like it. When I did Scandal [1976] just before Apocalypse Now, Kodak Italy told me, “You have to use the new stock, because there’s none of the old stock left.” I therefore refused to buy the film in Rome, and we called Kodak in Rochester, New York. They had enough of the previous stock for us, so we bought it from them instead for Scandal. By the time I was doing Apocalypse, there was no way I could use the older stock again, because the [change to the new stock] was almost complete. I wasn’t happy with the contrast of the new stock, and when I did some tests in Rome with Ernesto Novelli, we decided to flash the negative of Apocalypse Now. After exposing the negative, we would sent it to Rome, where they would flash it before developing. Frankly, I don’t know how many other producers or directors would have allowed me to do something like that—Francis gave me his complete support.

After I came back from the Apocalypse shoot, we did the first timing of the film in Los Angeles with Ernesto Novelli and Larry Rovetti supervising the work. Later, in Rome, I told Ernesto that I was unhappy with the blacks in the film, because black was one of the most important colors in terms of the visual strategy. Black represented the unconscious, particularly in the sequences where we discover the true meaning of Kurtz; we were trying to show some portions of the truth emerging from the depths of the unconscious. Those scenes were designed to come together like the final pieces of the puzzle, we had created, and if the blacks weren’t black enough, that aspect of the story would not make as strong an impact visually.

When I told Ernesto I wasn’t happy with the blacks, he reminded me of an incident that had occurred several years earlier, during the filming of 1900. On that picture, we had used an original matrix dye-transfer system was the only way I could accomplish that strategy, and it looked wonderful. At one point, we were shooting in Parma, Italy, and every day we were sending dailies to Ernesto in Rome; occasionally, he would visit me on the set so we could discuss things. One day he came to me with a roll of film, and he said that it had been treated with a new process that he’d invented. I told him I didn’t want to see it, though, because I had settled on my approach for 1900 and I felt that this new process would distract me.

Well, later on, when I was having my problems with the blacks on Apocalypse, he finally showed me an example of this new process he had developed. He had me look at some images from Cadavari eccellenti [1976, a.k.a. The Context or The Illustrious Corpses], a film directed by Francesco Rosi and shot by Pasqualino De Santis. The movie was a crime thriller that required strong blacks and a very dramatic look, so Rosi and De Santis used Ernesto’s new system for all of the dailies; unfortunately, for the usual distribution reasons, they didn’t use the system on the release prints—they only used it for the dailies. It looked great, so I performed some tests during [the postproduction of] Apocalypse Now, and the dense blacks we got were exactly what I’d had in mind for the scenes with Kurtz. That process, of course, was what came to be known as ENR [in honor of its inventor, whose full name is Ernesto Novelli-Raimond]. While I couldn’t apply ENR to the first release prints of Apocalypse, I later used the process on Reds [1981].

What can you tell us about the current restoration of Apocalypse Now for theatrical re-release?
Storaro: This new version is being supervised by the film’s sound editor, Walter Murch, and it will have 55 minutes of footage that was cut from the original picture.

Burum: I’ll be glad to see that footage back in the film—especially the key sequence in which the soldiers get off the boat and stumble across a French plantation, where they have dinner with the people who live there. I was so ticked off when that was cut out of the picture, because it really addressed the central philosophical concept that Vittorio mentioned earlier—one culture imposing itself upon another. During the dinner, the French tell the Americans, “We’re not afraid of the Vietcong. These are our people.” A big philosophical discussion ensues, during which the French essentially denounce the Americans as colonialists.

Storaro: I think that scene was cut because of the line in the script that says, “Never get out of the boat.” When the men do get out of the patrol boat, they run into trouble, and after the scene with the tiger, Francis wanted them to stay on the boat. In my experience, that’s still a very good piece of advice! [Hearty laughter around the table.]

 
A marvelous documentary about legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, one of history’s ten most influential cinematographers (Apocalypse Now, The Last Emperor, Reds, Il Confimista, 1900). Vittorio Storaro talks about his work, along with collaborators like Francis Ford Coppola, Warren Beatty, Bernardo Bertolucci and peers like Nestor Almendros. On-set footage from Dick Tracy and The Sheltering Sky. Storaro explains his zany theories about light and colour, and gives a potted history of lighting in the cinema.

 

WALTER MURCH

By Sven Mikulec

After the Camerimage international film festival’s special screening of The Talented Mr. Ripley, Anthony Minghella’s wonderful and haunting 1999 film with Matt Damon in the starring role, I had the unique pleasure and honor of seeing and listening to probably the greatest film editor and sound designer of the last half a century. Walter Murch, the living legend of the filmmaking business whose career was built on films such as Apocalypse Now, The Conversation and The Godfather trilogy, was invited to Bydgoszcz, Poland to receive the festival’s Special Award to Editor with Unique Visual Sensitivity. This is the first time I’ve ever had the chance to see him in person and, besides coming off as a very nice and humble human being, to listen to him talk about filmmaking, editing and the history of film was incredibly inspiring and satisfying.

Sitting at a small table on stage, with a glass of water at his side, Walter Murch engaged the audience and the crowded theater—mind you, many of the audience are filmmakers themselves—bombarded him with questions, seeking his advice and wanting to soak up as much wisdom as possible. Murch briefly discussed his relationship with Minghella, calling him an extremely collaborative director who wanted and accepted input from his crew (but “still had strong vision and ideas”), recalling how they met and how Minghella explained to him that, when he found a perfect T-shirt, he’d buy hundreds of them, never to have to set out on the risky task of finding new clothes. The message was clear—if Murch proved to be a capable editor, Minghella would want to work with him for the rest of his life. They did three films together (The English Patient, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Cold Mountain), and would definitely collaborate again had it not been for the director’s tragic death in 2008.

One of the most interesting parts of the conversation was when Murch explained one the things that inevitably changed with the rise of digital technology and its use in filmmaking. Back in the good old days, after a hard day’s work on set, the crew would gather and watch the ‘dailies,’ the material they filmed that specific day. With minds clear and concentrated on the film, they would immerse in their footage and have discussions on the material. Dailies became a part of history, as there’s no need for them when the crew can monitor what’s being filmed on set simultaneously on their screens. Since during filming people have tons of things on their mind and can hardly relax in front of the screen, Murch believes dailies should be brought back into practice, as they proved very useful in the past.

Walter Murch mixing Apocalypse Now in 1979

Walter Murch mixing Apocalypse Now in 1979

On the unsurprising question of what you need to have to be a good editor, Murch said you needed to be ready to spend 16 hours a day in a small, stuffy room with no windows, being repeated the same things over and over again like torture. Furthermore, a good editor has to have a good sense of rhythm because, after all, editing is basically choreographing a line of images. The other important thing is to be able to anticipate the audience’s reaction. According to Murch, the editor is the only representative of the audience in a film crew: his job is to predict how the viewer will respond to the movie, and to do so, he has to place himself in their shoes. Therefore, Murch tends to avoid seeing any part of filming, he visits the set only if really necessary, believing too much information would prove to be a burden, as it will distance him from the position of the viewer, who will see the film without any knowledge of the size of the set or the sort of sandwiches served in breaks. The editor, Murch continues, is one of the few people on set with great effect on the film who can completely isolate himself if he wants to.

What I did not know was that Murch had some influence on the script for The Talented Mr. Ripley. As he was sent the screenplay six months prior to filming, he made a couple of suggestions regarding the way the film should open and how it should end, and Minghella listened. But it’s not strange, Murch says, that editors get the screenplay months, or even a year, in advance: it’s actually common practice nowadays.

Needless to say, I left the theater impressed like a school boy, as I should be in the presence of a professional of such caliber. This made me a little more nervous during our interview, but it turned out there was no need whatsoever to feel uncomfortable. That’s who Murch is—an editing genius capable of making you feel as if he’s your friend from elementary school.

Fellow USC alums Walter Murch and George Lucas

Fellow USC alums Walter Murch and George Lucas

In an interesting interview you recently gave to Indiewire, you said that films are called motion pictures, but that they could be easily called emotion pictures since the point of every film should be to cause an emotional response in the audience. Do you think this should be top priority in any film?
Yes, with the proviso that it should be the correct emotion. Films are very good at stirring up emotion but you have to be careful about which emotion you’re stirring up. So in a sense the filmmakers, from the directors to anybody else, have to really say—what emotion are we going for here and why are we going for it? And how does that emotion relate to what we had in the previous and will have in the following scene? And can we also track not only the emotion but the logic of everything that’s happening, basically is the story understandable? So this dance between intellect and emotion, which is kind of basic to what human beings are, is something that we have to be very careful about. In a film, for instance, you could stage a murder in a very brutal way which would stir up emotions in the audience, but is that going to confuse things later on in the story?

You also talked about over-intentionality in movies, how it’s easy for the audience to feel manipulated into feeling something if things are edited in a certain way. How difficult is it for you not to cross that border, to cause an organic feeling in a viewer rather than a manipulated one?
It’s very difficult. Because films are evolving under our fingers, so to speak. And we want to communicate certain things and we’re anxious that the audience understands what we’re trying to say. And so many things are uncertain in a making of a film that you can sometimes hold on to a scene as being important, but you can learn later that, in fact, by removing that scene in a strange, sometimes mystifying way the whole film relaxes, and the audience gets everything you’re saying even without this very definite moment. I remember many years ago working on a film with Fred Zinnemann called Julia. These arrows began to point at one scene in particular at the beginning of the film. Maybe we should lose this scene, because again, there was this over-intentionality to it. And so we, meaning Fred and I, said let’s take it out. So I was undoing the splices, back in the day when we made physical splices, and he observed, you know, when I read the script of this project, when I read this scene, I knew that I should do this film. In other words, the very scene he connected with was the scene we are now taking out. So I asked myself, am I removing the heart of the movie? Or am I removing the umbilical cord of the movie? This scene was important to connect Fred with the film, but let’s say, once the nutrients have flowed into the whole film, not only now can you remove the umbilical cord, you have to remove it. We walk around with the belly button, but not with the umbilical cord. So there are scenes like that that deliver their message very particularly, but you should be suspicious of those very scenes and wonder if this film can ride the bike without these training wheels.

A lot of big American movies these days treat the viewers as if they are incapable of connecting the dots, explaining far too much in the process. Do you see that trend in American cinema today?
Yeah, I think so. I think that’s partly down to everything we’ve just been talking about. It’s also that, in quotes, American cinema is also global cinema, in that American cinema is more than Chinese cinema, more than Indian cinema, more than European cinema. It’s the one cinema that goes all the way around the world so it has to be understandable by the Chinese, Africans, South-Americans, Europeans. Inevitably, there is a coarsening of the message there because of trying to adapt to all these different sensibilities and different ways of thinking on the different continents of the globe. But very often it’s simply lazy filmmaking. It’s hard to make it the other way because of the uncertainty of it all, because it’s risky. I find it much more interesting to make things this way precisely because it does involve the audience in the film. And really the last creative act of any film is viewing by the audience. The audience are really the ones who are creating the film, it doesn’t really exist on the screen, it exists in a kind of penumbra between the audience and the screen, the interaction of those two things. And exactly what you’re saying allows that interaction to take place. Otherwise, the audience is just blasted by the things coming from the screen, and they just have to sit there and take it.

Since Return to Oz wasn’t a critical or commercial success, the film practically blocked your potential directorial path. But it must be nice to see what happened to the film in the decades that followed. How do you feel about the project now?
I’m very happy that it has this afterlife. The film was made in the early 1980s, really at the dawn of home cinema. VHS had just come in at that point, I think. So I made it not knowing everything that was going to happen in the next thirty years with DVDs, Blu-rays, streaming and all of these other things that allowed people to see the film in a variety of different circumstances. On the other hand, it has to be good enough for the people to want to see it. So I’m very pleased to see it has this afterlife to it. Ironically, one of the things that happened is that the studio, Disney, at the time of the release of the film had changed management, and the new management really had no interest in Return to Oz at all, really. It was kind of abandoned, but that meant ironically that I had more control over it because if they hadn’t abandoned it, they would have been far more aggressive with me, trying to bend it this way or that, kind of like what happened with Orson Welles on The Touch of Evil. The finished film is as much as any film pretty much as I wanted to make it.

But you said you had some projects you wanted to make, but you were force to abandon it. You stated one of the movies you wanted to make was about Nikola Tesla. Why him?
I’m just fascinated with him as a character. I discovered him in the process of doing research for Return to Oz because the inspiration for the Emerald City, this fantastic place, was the Columbia World’s Fair in Chicago in 1893. And that was the fair that Tesla appeared at, and he was the one that electrified the fairs. This was the first World’s Fair to be electrified with Tesla’s alternating current, and he was at the fair giving demonstrations. So he was arguably the living wizard of that festival, and he was called The Wizard. So I think L. Frank Baum, the author, who lived in Chicago, went to the fair and saw Tesla and Tesla was the wizard. But the more I learned about Tesla and his story, the more fascinated I became. I wanted to do a kind of Mozart-Salieri story on the tension between Tesla and Edison, who were two very, very different personalities, both competing in the same territory.

This story might have made for a great film.
Yeah.

You’ve worked with a lot of great filmmakers in your career. Which collaboration holds a special place in your heart?
It has to be Francis Coppola because the first feature film I’ve worked on was his film, The Rain People in 1969. And I worked with him in 2009 on Tetro, the last film. Which is… how many? Four decades of working together? And on some remarkable films. There’s a gap between Apocalypse Now and Apocalypse Now Redux. But he and I share many sensibilities and he gives a great deal of control to the people who work with him. Working with Francis, I was astonished how much control he gave. We was, like, just go and do something.

A lot of trust.
Yes, a lot of trust, but the surprising thing about trust is, if you’re given all of this trust, you repay it, you know how much he has given you and so you are anxious to fulfill and more the trust he has given you. And that works in opposite way with directors who are always controlling everything, did you do this, I want this, I want that… At a certain point you say, OK, let’s all do what you want. But this other way of working, the Francis way, is a wonderful way of working.

When we compare what editing used to be to editing today, with the development of technology and the trend that movies resemble music videos, what would you say about contemporary, modern editing?
There is a shift. On the other hand, also if you look at the decades, the fastest editing ever in a motion picture was Man with a Movie Camera, Dziga Vertov’s film from 1929. Well, not the whole film, but there’s a section of the film that’s so rapidly cut that you just kind of had to stand back the way you look at fireworks. We, meaning in the larger sense, are investigating the borderline between effect and comprehensibility. And it’s clear that, to achieve a certain effect, this kind of fireworks in editing—you can do that, but you lose comprehensibility. Things are happening on the screen and maybe you’ll capture a thing here or there. For briefs periods of time this is fine in any film. But as a general principle, it’s something to be wary of. Without question, music videos and commercials and even videos you see in clothing stores on video-screens, have all affected the way we see edited images, and they’ve worked their way into the theaters. And we’re looking at films on very different mediums, on iPhones or 20-meter screens in a movie palace, or on virtual reality goggles. So all of those are very different formats, and yet at the moment we have to edit as if they are all the same. This creates dissonances with the rate of cutting.

For example, the videos on screens in clothing stores. They are rapidly cut with lots of moving, so as to make you look at them. So you’re in a store that’s mostly static, people moving fairly slowly, and yet over here there’s a screen going like this (waves his hand frantically), forcing you to look at it. Taking that sensibility though and transposing it into a movie palace, where that’s the only thing we’re looking at and the screen is sixty feet wide, can create undesirable side effects, people get sick looking at it. In the long term, we’ll figure all this out, and it does change from decade to decade. Dialogue, for instance, in the 1930s and 1940s was said much quicker than it is today. The cutting was slower, but people talked much faster, quick, quick, quick. His Girl Friday, for instance. Films just don’t sound like that today. That’s the dialogue equivalent to quick cutting. You can’t see that today. The closest thing would probably be The Social Network, those scenes very quickly paced in terms of dialogue.

The experience of watching feature motion pictures in theaters is barely one hundred years old. Birth of a Nation came out in 1915, and it’s 2015. And I’ve been working in films for half that time. (laughs) We’re still learning how to do this, and adapting to different circumstances, so it’s natural for the pendulum to swing far in one direction, and then far in the opposite direction. Inarritu’s film last year had no edits in it, at all, there were technically concealed edits in there, but the experience of watching it was that there were no cuts whatsoever.

Francis Ford Coppola and editor/re-recording mixer Walter Murch (back) in the Philippines during the shoot of Apocalypse Now in March 1977. Photo by Richard Beggs. Courtesy of Walter Murch

Francis Ford Coppola and editor/re-recording mixer Walter Murch (back) in the Philippines during the shoot of Apocalypse Now in March 1977. Photo by Richard Beggs. Courtesy of Walter Murch

Would you say that The Apocalypse Now was the most troublesome project you ever worked on?
It was troubled, but in a good way. Meaning, it’s a very contentious subject matter, especially at that time. And we were investigating all the possible ways to tell this story. It was turbulent and maybe troublesome, but in a good, creative way. In any film you’re working on, there’s a great deal of uncertainty. Can we do this, is this going to work, do we have time to do this… Everyone is wondering how it is going to work. But it was certainly the longest postproduction of any film I worked on, I was on it for two years, Richie Marx was on it even a year longer. It was a long period and you have to also gage your own energy level and focus on something that lasts that long. That was another kind of an invisible challenge for all of us involved.

You mean coming back to ordinary life?
Sure, that’s an occupational hazard of any film, it completely occupies a great deal of real estate in your brain as you’re working on it, and then suddenly it’s over and all of that real estate is available, empty, and now you have to re-program your brain to get to normal. It’s the equivalent, I think, to a kind of sea sickness. You know you’re finished objectively, but you’re body is still working on something, but there’s nothing to work on. The collision between those two things, what you objectively know and what you feel… it usually takes from two or three weeks to two or three months for these things to come back in alignment.

How long a pause did you have to take after Apocalypse Now?
After that, I started writing a screenplay, one of the projects I was going to direct. So… six months. But at the end of those six months I started writing, which is different than making films, a different rhythm. So after Apocalypse, the next thing I did was Return to Oz. We began preproduction in 1983, so it was almost four years since Apocalypse. So, first I wrote an unproduced screenplay, then Return to Oz.

What was the screenplay about?
It was about an archaeologist in Egypt, a kind of a ghost story, but more along the lines of what you were talking about earlier, one that was ambiguous. There were not a lot of special effects in it, it was about a personality change. Was that down to an accident that happened, or did something spiritual happen to this person? But it ended up in a drawer somewhere.

Mr. Murch, thanks for your time. It was a pleasure.
Thank you.

Sound montage associate Mark Berger, left, diretor Francis Ford Coppola and sound montage/re-recording mixer Walter Murch mixing The Godfather II in October 1974. Photo courtesy of Walter Murch

Sound montage associate Mark Berger, left, Francis Ford Coppola and sound montage/re-recording mixer Walter Murch mixing The Godfather II in October 1974. Photo courtesy of Walter Murch

 
Flashback 1980: Apocalypse Now, Neon Magazine.



 

The most important thing I wanted to do in the making of Apocalypse Now was to create a film experience that would give its audience a sense of the horror, the madness, the sensuousness, and the moral dilemma of the Vietnam war. I tried to illustrate as many of its different facets as possible. And yet I wanted it to go further, to the moral issues that are behind all wars. [In making the film,] I, like Captain Willard, was moving up a river in a faraway jungle, looking for answers and hoping for some kind of catharsis. —Francis Ford Coppola, Apocalypse Now program notes, 1979

 

I have a lot of mixed feelings about Francis. I am very fond of him personally. The thing I love about him most is that he never, like a good general, asked you to do anything he wouldn’t do. He was right there with us, lived there in the shit and mud up to his ass, suffered the same diseases, ate the same food. I don’t think he realizes how tough he is to work for. God, is he tough. But I will sail with that son of a bitch anytime. There is only one other director I would go that far with, and that’s Terry Malick. You bet your ass. I won’t get to work with a Malick or a Coppola too many times in my life and, my God, I consider it an honor. I took some bumps. I just wish I had been about ten years younger. Eventually everyone has to eat some shit, and Francis, if he’s going to eat shit, at least it is going to be of his own making. He has such tenacity and I love that about the guy. I hope he breaks the bank on this one. Why the hell not? You’d rather give the money to some special-effects shark or some asshole swatting planes in the sky or some guy who flies? No. I’d rather deal with a moral question any day. This is the first war movie made that is a trip inside a man’s head. We have such a short period of time here, and there are two things I have accomplished in my professional life: Badlands and Apocalypse Now. If my grandchildren get interested in what I did, I’ll show them these. —Martin Sheen: Heart of Darkness Heart of Gold

 
A conversation with Martin Sheen and Francis Ford Coppola.

 
Roger Ebert interviews Francis Ford Coppola for 40 minutes at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival for Apocalypse Now.

 
Apocalypse Now workprint—uncut helicopter strike.

 
The below cut is a mix of Orson Welles’ reading of Heart of Darkness, Apocalypse Now and the documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse. Joseph Conrad’s story is about a boat captain named Marlow who travels along a river deep into “the heart of an immense darkness” in order to find a man named Kurtz. One of the many themes of Heart of Darkness is the idea that a person can lose their mind the further they travel away from civilization into the unknown. This theme is paralleled in Apocalypse Now and by Coppola’s own journey in completing his most personal film. The documentary, Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse is a compilation of Eleanor Coppola’s interviews, on-the-set footage and secret audio recordings of her husband at his most exposed moments. Coppola’s many struggles included an unfinished script, Marlon Brando showing up overweight, typhoons destroying entire sets and Martin Sheen having a heart attack during production. —Brian Carroll

 
Here’s a fascinating compilation of photographs taken behind-the-scenes during production of Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now. Photographed by Chas Gerretsen, Josh Weiner, David Jones, Dick White & Mary Ellen Mark © Zoetrope, Zoetrope Studios, United Artists. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post Once Upon a Time… In the Philippines: Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘Apocalypse Now’ Is a Three-Time Prime Cut of Film-Making Largesse appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

The Risk Always Lives: Words to Live by On the Set of James Cameron’s ‘Aliens’

$
0
0

 
By Tim Pelan

“My mommy always said there were no monsters—no real ones—but there are,” Carrie Henn’s hardened child Newt chides Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley in Aliens. There may not be piston jawed xenomorphs around the corner in real life, but for director/writer James Cameron, a monster success was brewing in his febrile mind. With the guerrilla success of The Terminator under his belt, the Canadian wunderkind, a former protégé of Roger Cameron, was first tasked with scripting a sequel to Ridley Scott’s “haunted house in space” smash hit. He hungered to direct it as well, and famously made a bold, simple pitch to the Brandywine Production triumvirate who held the keys to the kingdom—David Giler, Walter Hill and Gordon Carroll. Cameron walked into the room and simply wrote “Alien” on a chalkboard. The puzzled trio were allowed to ponder this briefly, before he added an “S”. Another pause, then he converted the “S” into a “$” symbol, turned and grinned. The deal with him to direct his own script was greenlit that day for $18 million. Cameron had wrestled with a title for “Alien 2” for a long time before the simplicity of it hit him like lightning bolt. “I was writing away and it was Aliens this and Aliens that, and it was just right,” he recalled. “It had all the power of the first title, and it also implied the plurality of the threat.” Fight or flight—Cameron’s Aliens would be an adrenalized thrill ride of a combat sequel that built on Scott’s world and delivered both elements in spades. So much so that when Cameron and his then wife and producer Gale Anne Hurd snuck into the first “civilian” screening of this “express elevator to hell,” Hurd was delighted to notice a young woman furiously gripping the armrest of her seat so hard it snapped off. Without noticing, she transferred her nervous energy to her poor boyfriend’s leg, smacking it with the armrest, her eyes never leaving the screen. There was no, “Close your eyes, baby” for her—she, and millions like her, was hooked. (Matt Zoller Seitz has a wonderful article on the thrill of watching Aliens through the lens of a bunch of 11-year-old first-timers at a slumber party.)

For Cameron, the key to the script was Sigourney Weaver’s return as Ripley, last surviving crew member of the Nostromo, who faced off against the titular threat before, and was to accompanying a cocky squad of colonial marines back to the site of the previous horror, planet designation LV426. There, amidst the warren of an overrun terraforming colony, “Hadley’s Hope”, she would face down her demons. “The story was about someone who has to regroup,” Weaver said, “who goes back because if she stays inside her room, she knows she will slowly unravel.”

 
Ripley was originally conceived as a male character—a one size fits all standard action hero. Cameron gave her a first name (in the director’s cut)—Ellen. And a daughter who outlived her to old age while she drifted for 57 years in hypersleep. But the daughter was not necessary to the bond she makes with Newt (“Nobody calls me Rebecca.”). When we first meet Ripley in Alien, she has no first name and is third in command of commercial towing vessel Nostromo: young, cautious, by the book. Just think, if Dallas had listened to her and not brought Kane back aboard with the alien embryo, or let Ash open the airlock, they would have lived.

Weaver told Empire magazine: “She was right. But for a young person to say that over people like Dallas she couldn’t be sure. That is what makes Ripley human. The reason I always loved playing her is that to me she is like all of us. She takes her job seriously because lives are at risk. She wants to believe there is an order to things. The series is about her coming to terms with the fact that there is no integrity, that it’s all about greed and people are expendable. Everything she thought about the world is turned upside down.”

Disbelieved by the company, Ripley is suspended in Aliens for destroying her ship and reduced to working Powerloaders, a skill that will come in handy in her epic confrontation with the alien queen later. Tortured by nightmares, she has one question for the slippery Carter Burke (Paul Reiser), the duplicitous company man who offers her a way to face down her demons. “You’re going there to destroy them right? To wipe them out?” She’s in.

 
Ripley is still unsure of herself, hesitant, deferring to the cocky marines. Until that is, they find Newt, and proceed to get their asses kicked by the alien horde. She seems to emerge from a waking dream and takes charge. Ripley sees a kindred spirit in Newt, and will move heaven and earth to protect her. It is Ripley who first says: “I say we take off, nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure,” to the appreciation of quiet-spoken but self-assured Corporal Hicks (Michael Biehn). “I think Hicks is one of the smarter characters,” Biehn considered, “because he’ll take a step backward before he takes a step forward. He realizes early on that he’s going to need—they’re all going to need– [Ripley’s] experience and expertise. It’s just a situation where you have a woman who’s very strong and dependable. Hicks realizes that and respects her for it.”

Again, hardship and trauma draw out her inner steel, while Hudson (Bill Paxton’s “Howling Commando”) has to be told to get his shit together. After being reminded that Newt survived quite well on her own, he whines “Why don’t we put her in charge?” Ripley snaps him out of his hysteria. “Just deal with it, Hudson, because we need you, and I’m sick of your bullshit.” She sets him a task and he gets on it. Ripley is a born leader.

Weaver tested Cameron, throwing out her own ideas which he politely listened to and negated, although he admitted she got him to think differently, seeing that she knew Ripley better than anyone. For her part, she realized he knew what he was talking about, and she was in good hands. “I always felt he trusted my instincts.”

 
She negotiated hard for a bigger paycheque, knowing the script was better with Ripley in it. 20th Century Fox dug their heels in. Cameron told them if Weaver wasn’t signed on for what she wanted, he was out. Still no give. So he called friend Arnold Schwarzenegger’s agent, who worked at the same firm as Weaver’s agent, and told him he was going with an older version of Newt as his lead. Later that day, Weaver was signed on for $1 million. A-ffirmitive. Weaver felt that only Cameron truly believed in the film at first. “I think it took someone as confident as Jim to attempt it.”

“This time it’s war” was the tagline. Cameron was writing the script for Rambo First Blood Pt II whilst both redrafting The Terminator and working Aliens into shape. Seemingly inevitably, elements from the Vietnam war began to bleed into the Aliens concept. Syd Mead, self-proclaimed “Visual Futurist”, and Ron Cobb, who had worked on Alien, developed a multitude of concept art for the film. Mead’s idea for the Marine dropship streamlined into a “cross between an Apache gunship and a Phantom jet.” The APC that it discharges was a former jumbo jet towing vehicle from Heathrow airport. Judicious camera angles hid the fact only a couple of people could fit through the door to the limited interior. “There was a definite parallel to Vietnam,” Cameron said, “a technologically superior military force defeated by a determined, asymmetric enemy” But getting through the production was almost a war in itself: on one side the unknown Canadian auteur, and on the other, the tea-loving Brits from Pinewood Studio.

 
Jim Cameron was an unknown element to the faithful Ridley Scott crew at Pinewood, who viewed him at first as a brash upstart, piggybacking on the success of Alien. He had only been in the movie business for less than ten years after being blown away by Star Wars (as was Ridley Scott, who was then inspired to make Alien). He learnt the hard way, grafting from the shop floor in Roger Corman’s New World Pictures and other films, working on models and matte paintings, amongst other things. His experience and success with The Terminator counted for naught with the Pinewood crew. Apart from their loyalty to Scott, the in-house, unionized crew were just used to doing things their own way, in their own time. Their craftsmanship and professionalism were second to none, but Cameron was on a tight budget and schedule. He later said:

“The interesting thing about shooting in England wasn’t just the culture clash. For me, it was also a transition from a non-union guerrilla-filmmaking mentality… to an actual union picture. They (the local crew) had permanent employment. A lot of people on the crew were, to use a charitable term, comfortable. If you did Pinewood, you had to use their people.”

The first casualty of war was director of photography Dick Bush. He didn’t see eye to eye with the headstrong director. As he saw it, it was up to him how the set was lit, not Cameron. The crunch came when Cameron wanted the marines approach through the devastated corridors of the repurposed decommissioned Acton Lane power plant to be eerily lit by only their shoulder-rigged lamps. Bush instead had multiple lighting rigs everywhere, showing off too much set detail. He also said there was no way he could meet the tough schedule, and he had no intention of trying. Hurd told her husband Bush had to go, and they parted by mutual consent. Adrian Biddle, Ridley Scott’s D.P., was able to take over, and he fortunately clicked with Cameron’s vision immediately.

 
To get the local crew’s trust and understanding of his vision Cameron would arrange screenings of The Terminator, which hadn’t been released in the U.K yet, but few bothered to turn up at first. Then when he and 1st Assistant Director Derek Cracknell clashed and he was also let go, it almost provoked a walkout. Lance Henriksen (android Bishop) didn’t get the local culture either. He recalled Cracknell saying “Bring on the artistes.” This after a previous minor confrontation. He told Cracknell “Man, you really are being a wise guy,” because he thought it was a put down, rather than typical “luvvie” speak so prevalent on English sets.

Speaking of “artistes”, actor James Remar was originally cast as Corporal Hicks, but Cameron felt he wasn’t right. He quickly replaced him shortly after filming began with Michael Biehn, who memorably played Kyle Reese in The Terminator. Remar can still be seen in several shots where the squad enter the alien den, although his face cannot be identified. In one of these shots, the camera pans seamlessly from a miniature “Alien-ified” roof down to the actors.

Possibly the biggest clash, although it may have been exaggerated over time, was over the infamous tea trolley. In the words of that late, great Englishman Noel Coward, “Everything stops for tea.” Frustratingly for the director, at 10 a.m. the huge studio doors would part, releasing painstakingly created atmospheric smoke, and in would trundle a “little old lady” as young Carrie Henn put it, with the tea and snack trolley. Henn would often help her, as the crew dropped whatever they were doing and rushed for refreshments. Somewhat understandable, as they had an early start with no breakfast. Cameron simply wasn’t used to this, but he was probably running on pure adrenalin. Apparently one day, the tea caddy was sabotaged, but it was swiftly replaced.

 
Carrie Henn was a US Army brat, her father stationed in England at the time. Together with her brother Christopher (who only appears in the extended cut as Timmy, with scenes of the pre-overrun colony) this was her only acting experience. Although a total natural, she had an impish sense of humor. During the scene where she slides down the chute as Ripley tries to grab her, she kept blowing the scene so she could slide again, until Cameron said if she did it right, she could slide later all she wanted.

Another practice that irked Cameron was recalled by Bill Paxton. “Jim was simmering—he’d got two shots done and it had been one delay after another. It happened to be a Friday night, when they go around with a jar and everyone throws in a pound for a raffle. And God, I remember this poor old geezer from Costume goes up to Jim. he says ‘For the whip, Guv’nor?’ There’s a long pause as Jim looks at the little jar. Then he slowly says ‘Does that have anything to do with what we are trying to accomplish here? Get the fuck out of my face!’”

From Starlog #126, January 1987—Bill Paxton recalls the intense atmosphere when the flamethrowers during the alien attack nearly sucked all the air out of the actors’ lungs:

 
“We were doing the sequence,” says Paxton, “where Drake has just been hit and his flamethrower shoots an arc of butane right into the ship and it’s total anarchy. Well, part of the set caught on fire, and it was this plastic stuff. Now, sometimes, we would improvise. There would be certain dialogue that we would have to say, and then the cameras would still be rolling and they would want us to keep playing the moment. So, I heard Jenette [Goldstein, who plays Vasquez] next to me go, ‘I can’t breathe!’ and I thought, ‘Wow, she’s really going into the whole smoke thinking. That’s good!’ But the very next second, I took a breath and was like something had just—whoosh!—taken my breath away. We didn’t pass out or anything, but they pulled us out of there and gave us oxygen. They let us go to lunch, and when we came back, it was supposed to be all fixed. On the very next take, the same exact thing happened. This time I really did need a little oxygen. I was hacking hard.” The crew eventually cut some ventilation into the ceiling.

“Vasquez is younger than the rest,” reads the Aliens screenplay, “and her combat primer was the street in a Los Angeles barrio. She is tough even by the standards of this group. Hard-muscled. Eyes cunning and mean.” She is the antithesis of Ripley, but comes to respect the civilian. Jenette Goldstein, like the other Marine actors, was encouraged to personalize her armor and weapon. On her Smartgun is the word, “Adios”, and on her breastplate she chose a quote from a book of poetry, “el riesgo siempre vive”—the risk always lives. Words to live by on any James Cameron set.

For the scene where Vasquez and Lt. Gorman (William Hope) are attacked by aliens in the air duct and she jams an alien’s head against the wall and shoots it, that is not Goldstein doing the shooting. Cameron knew Gale Anne Hurd was familiar with firearms (one of their first dates was on a firing range), and had her do it exactly the way he wanted, further reinforcing her tough as nails reputation among the grumbling crew. Goldstein felt, “I think Vasquez is just so angry that it has finally got to her. Rather than being scared, she’s pissed off she’s about to die.”

 
The most iconic moment in the film is probably when Ripley, previously hidden behind a huge locked door and thinking fast, stomps out in a previously viewed innocuous-looking “future fork-lift” to smackdown the looming Alien Queen chasing a scuttling Newt (Carrie Henn) around the Sulaco hold. Just how did writer/director James Cameron come up with the idea? A featurette on the Aliens 30th Anniversary Edition Blu-Ray elaborates to a degree. He wanted a human operator to be invisible behind Weaver, physically operating the thing. “The practical effects guys in England, they just thought I was nuts,” he says in the featurette.

The idea actually originated in a short uncompleted film Cameron did when he was younger, called Xenogenesis. According to Alien Series:

The two protagonists, a man and woman, are hounded by a gigantic robot. The woman manages to flee, but the other is forced over a precipice and hangs perilously over a chasm. The robot leans in to finish him, but a far-off wall panel is forced open, revealing the woman—now encased in a robotic vehicle and ready to do battle for her partner’s life.

 
That vehicle was known as “The Spider”, an exo-suit used for outer hull space repairs. “It was a four-legged walking machine that used a tele-presence-type amplification: you put your feet in things, you grabbed onto these controls, and however you moved and walked, it duplicated your actions,” Cameron recalled. He later refashioned and refined the idea for Aliens, changing it to a two-legged suit after seeing the Imperial Walkers from The Empire Strikes Back.

Cameron did not want Ripley to become a gung-ho warrior like the Colonial Marines—the climactic fight was to be a primal duel between two mothers, fighting, on the one hand in blind fury about its brood being incinerated, and the human opponent, protecting her own adopted child.

At one point he had considered the Marines having powered “battle suits” but felt this would be a tip of the wink too soon as to what’s to come. “Anyway, how would Ripley know how to operate a battle suit? They wouldn’t be teaching her. It was really critical to the story that she appears under pressure as the person who really takes control. They discredit her at the beginning; the last thing they’d do is hand her a gun and teach her how to use a battle suit.”

 
She had to be shown to at least know how to operate this thing, so the script made reference to her job post—Nostromo at the inquiry, and shows her loading missiles in the Sulaco’s hold to help out.

Special Effects Supervisor John Richardson was tasked with building the thing, under Cameron’s exacting gaze and hands-on approach. The full-scale power loader (there was a miniature as well, along with a miniature Alien Queen) was built out of aluminum, fiberglass and PVC plastic. The wrists were radio-controlled, the pincers operated by cables. A counterweight and rig alternately supported the weight. Stuntman John Lees operated the 600 lb exo-suit from behind the “operator’s seat”. Cameron: “I remember the English visual effects guys thinking we were crazy, the way we wanted to do it. And I said, ‘No, it’s the gag where the dad lets the daughter walk on his feet.’”

“There are two things missing when I watch a lot of action these days,” Cameron told Total Film. One is that I don’t care about the characters, and there isn’t a lucidity to what’s happening—what is the goal, what are these people trying to accomplish? It’s Narrative 101. The other thing that gets ignored is the length of time it takes a virgin pair of eyeballs and visual cortex to take in an image, assimilate it, relate it to images that have gone before. Lots of action films these days have many small cuts in a sequence. It’s just chopped salad.

 
I’ve found there’s a process by which the eye is already moving, ready for the thing that is going to happen next after the cut. So what I do is—and I’m giving away a little trick here—is I just flop the workprint in the projector and watch the film in mirror image. You really see where your eyeballs have been conditioned to look in a place, but now it’s happening over there, it’s like, ‘Whoa!’”

Cameron’s vision and hands-on oversight of every aspect of film production was also his curse. He knew exactly what he wanted, and expected others to deliver it. The film was being completed with edits, effects and music cues right up to the wire. James Horner had just two weeks to complete his score, for which he received his first Academy Award nomination. The first time many of the crew saw the completed film (there was no time for previews) was at the premiere. Grudgingly, many of the talented people who worked long hours would agree that the aggravation was worth it to create such a landmark film.

The identity of the tea caddy vandal remains unknown to this day.

Written by Tim Pelan. Tim was born in 1968, the year of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (possibly his favorite film), ‘Planet of the Apes,’ ‘The Night of the Living Dead’ and ‘Barbarella.’ That also made him the perfect age for when ‘Star Wars’ came out. Some would say this explains a lot. Read more »

 
What we did was we tried to deflect any possible criticism by making the film in our style, making it more thematically consistent with ‘Terminator’ than with ‘Alien.’ I think there’s an emphasis on action and character. Fast cutting. Good storytelling. Hopefully, trying to stay away from visual pretension as much as possible. Just go for fun and exhilaration andpeoplethat you can relate to as human beings, which I think is very important… because science fiction has a tendency to be interested in visual things and special-effects and be noninvolving, be sort of a passive entertainment. Whereas what Gale and I like to do is make a film that sort of pulls you in.
James Cameron

Screenwriter must-read: James Cameron’s screenplay for Aliens [PDF1, PDF2, PDF3]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Whilst waiting on his first full feature film, The Terminator, to enter principal photography, writer/director James Cameron took on several writing assignments. Among them was the sequel to Ridley Scott’s Alien.

When Levy left his post in 1984, Giler and Hill finally managed to make some headway. Giler attributes the revival of the project to a Fox executive who stopped him in the car park. “I told him the story that was a cross between Southern Comfort and The Magnificent Seven,” said Giler. “He said, ‘Great! That sounds fine.’ And we all had a meeting and we were on.” The producers then proceeded to band ideas about. “David and I sat down and had a discussion about what the sequel should be,” Walter Hill told Film International in 2004. “We figured the next one should be a straight action thriller—the military takes over—a patrol movie.” But though ideas had begun to materialise, Giler and Hill, who both confessed to sci-fi not being their area of expertise, made no headway on a screenplay for the film. The breakthrough came when Larry Wilson, a development executive working for the Phoenix Co. (Giler’s production company), came across a script called The Terminator. “It was electrifying,” he recalled. “I put the script on David’s (Giler) desk and said, ‘This is the guy.’” Giler and Hill, after perusing the script, had to agree that Cameron had talents worth investigating, and they arranged a meeting with the budding filmmaker to discuss ideas for a film, though not specifically an Alien sequel.

At this point in time Cameron was in a rut—his first directorial project The Terminator had been picked up by Hemdale and Orion Pictures, but shooting was put on an 8 month long hiatus due to Dino De Laurentiis pulling Arnold Schwarzenegger out of the movie to fulfill contractual obligations with a Conan sequel. Suddenly, despite having the entirety of The Terminator scripted, designed, cast, and ready to film, Cameron found himself with a lot of spare time to whittle away. So, not the type to sit on his hands, he sought new writing projects, taking on the sequel to First Blood as well as attending the meeting with Giler and Hill to discuss further projects. At first, the two offered him a take on Spartacus set in space which Cameron listened to with some bemusement. “It quickly became clear that David Giler wanted a swords and sandals-type film set in outer space,” Cameron said, “with literal swords and sandals.”

After some to’ing and fro’ing, the meeting stalled. “And I was sort of getting up and sort of making my way towards the door,” Cameron continued, “and David Giler said, ‘Well, we do have this other thing.’ And I said, ‘Oh, what’s that?’ And he said, ‘Alien II.’ And all the kind of pinball machines lights and bells went off inside my head.” The original movie had left an indelible impression on Cameron. “I saw Alien on its opening night in 1979 and it had a great effect on me… It created such a benchmark for visual design in science-fiction, as well as photography, acting, sound, and editing—all things that one did not necessarily associate with science-fiction.”

To aid him with the story, Giler and Hill pointed Cameron in the direction they thought it should take. “All they said was, ‘Ripley and soldiers,’” Cameron explained. “They didn’t give me anything specific, just this idea of her getting together with some military types and having them all go back to the planet.” The producers also imparted Cameron with their notes and story ideas. “I’ll never forget this,” commented Cameron, “The outline concluded with this sentence: ‘and then some other bullshit happens.’ Which I thought trivialised the entire process of figuring out what the story should be.” Cameron, a science-fiction fan since his childhood, had already made attempts at sci-fi scripts in the vein of Alien and Star Wars before, none of which he had developed, but could now mine for his Alien sequel just as Dan O’Bannon had amalgamated his own Dark Star with a myriad of other ideas and influences. One of Cameron’s unproduced screenplays, titled ‘Mother’, was extensively reworked and would come to form the many throughlines of Alien II.

“In 1980 or 1981,” he explained, “I wrote notes and an initial treatment for a science fiction story that I initially called E.T., meaning extraterrestrial, a commonly used term in science fiction literature. As I was writing it, I found out that Steven Spielberg was making a film called E.T. The Extraterrestrial, so I promptly changed the title of my story. I used Protein as an interim working title, but then switched the title to Mother, because the story concerned a female genetically engineered creature attempting to ensure the survival of its young.” “It featured a character very much like Ripley,” he continued, “had its own type of Alien Queen, and ended with a final battle between the protagonist and Mother while the main character was encased in what I’d later call a ‘power-loader’”. The ‘Mother’ screenplay also originated many other Aliens tropes, including a company (Triworld Development Corporation, generally referred to as ‘the Company’) that funds inhabitation and resource-mining of other worlds, the term ‘xenomorph’, as well as a strong maternal theme. “I’d felt that that fit like a glove in the development of [Ripley]. I just grabbed all the stuff that I’d already been thinking about and slammed it together. It felt very mercenary, at the time.”

Cameron stayed up for three nights drinking coffee and working on First Blood II and the Alien II treatment, deconstructing his ‘Mother’ script for the latter and injecting it with Giler and Hill’s mandate that the military be involved. Luckily, his research for First Blood II offered an insight into the Vietnam War that he figured would meld very well with the story of an elite fighting force confronting “a less technologically advanced but more determined enemy” which, in his case, would happen to be not Viet Cong guerillas but a horde of murderous biomechanoids. “I was kind of fascinated by Vietnam at that point and what a weird and surreal kind of war that was. So my approach to [First Blood II] was a lot heavier, a lot more character.” Frustratingly for Cameron, Sylvester Stallone’s rewrites obliterated much of the depth that he had tried to instil in the film. “They kept a lot of the action,” he said of the film. “They just kind of made it a Mission Impossible thing—for me it took on kind of a superhero-type quality. I thought it was much more interesting to kind of explore this traumatized character.”

Not wanting to let a good theme go to waste, Cameron realised that Ripley’s encounter with the Alien would undoubtedly have traumatised her in a way that would be powerful and lingering. “One of the things that interested me is that there are a lot of soldiers from Vietnam,” he told Time magazine in ’86, “who have been in intense combat situations, who re-enlisted to go back again because they had these psychological problems that they had to work out. It’s like an inner demon to be exorcised […] I used a bit of it in Aliens, having them come back from something they were traumatized by. There was a bit of that delayed stress syndrome stuff in Aliens they didn’t use in Rambo II.”

Another theme of Alien II would be one that James Cameron was fascinated with for some time: “Would you be willing to go into hell for someone, and if so, who would it be, and what would your relationship to them be?” Though the original Alien ended with what David Giler termed a “Sleeping Beauty… lyrical ending,” Cameron geared the sequel to encompass more than lyricism, but a sense of healing and catharsis for both Ripley and the audience. “The first thing I did was give Ripley a past,” explained Cameron, “a life back on Earth—it’s just barely sketched, but there are resonances throughout the story: she was married, she got divorced because her career took her into space, and she had a daughter who, in the time that Ripley was on the Nostromo, grew up and died of old age. So there’s a sense that Ripley survived what happened, but there is still tremendous loss—all this was taken from her.”

Cameron’s hopes for the cathartic experience were best put by Stanley Kubrick, who said, though he was talking in regards to 2001: A Space Odyssey, “The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent—but if we can come to terms with the indifference, then our existence as a species can have genuine meaning. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” But a snag came when Cameron, finally entering production of The Terminator in late ’83 and early ’84, had yet to finish the full Alien II screenplay. “Giler lost it,” Cameron recalled. “He actually said something I never thought I’d hear anyone say in Hollywood—‘You’ll never work in this town again!’”

Luckily, Walter Hill was of a cooler disposition and advised Cameron to send in whatever he’d written, and the resulting 60 page treatment, submitted on September 21st, 1983, pleased Brandywine enough to keep him on the project. In fact, Giler & Hill liked Cameron’s treatment so much, they added their name to it, placing Cameron third in the credits and earning themselves a pay cheque from Fox. “Walter and David got a cheque for my treatment, and I got nothing,” he said. “I was pretty pissed off about that one.”

Twentieth Century Fox, however, were not so impressed. “An executive told me he didn’t like the treatment because it was wall-to-wall horror and it needed more character development,” Cameron told the LA Times. As The Terminator went into production in March 1984, Fox made an attempt to sell the rights to the Alien franchise to producers Mario Kassar and Andrew Vajna, but the deal ultimately fell through. When producer Larry Gordon replaced Fox studio production head Joe Wizan in the summer of ’84 he came across the Alien II treatment. “I couldn’t believe it hadn’t already been done,” Gordon said. “In this business there are those decisions you agonize and lose sleep over, but this was so obvious. It was a no-brainer.” Gordon, who had worked with Hill on the 1982 hit 48 HRS, kept the Alien II project alive and rolling. Though Cameron was busy directing his first feature, Gordon allowed him to continue to refine and complete the first Alien II screenplay draft throughout The Terminator’s production, even throughout the editing phase. There was even another promise: that if The Terminator was successful, then Cameron could also direct the Alien sequel. “I agreed to write Alien II on the basis—and on the sole basis—that I direct it,” Cameron said. “I created the characters, I created the scenario, and I got emotionally involved. I had a large creative investment in what I’d done up to that point.”

The first public announcement that Cameron had written the sequel came in December 1984, when he told Starlog magazine: “I have written the screenplay for Alien II. It does exist. What will be done with it, no one really knows. I can’t really say anything more about Alien II than that it exists.” While drafting the screenplay Cameron, who had never intended for his sequel to imitate the original film, concocted a title that shed the roman numerals and allowed it to immediately air its own identity. “I don’t know Dan O’Bannon,” he explained, “but I read an interview with him that said he was typing away one night at four o’clock in the morning, and he was writing, ‘the Alien did this, the Alien did that,’ and he realised that the word ‘alien’ stood out on the page. It was very much like that for me on this film. I was writing away and it was ‘Aliens this and Aliens that’ and it was just right. It was succinct. It had all the power of the first title, and it also implied the plurality of the threat. It also implied, of course, that it’s a sequel, without having to say Alien II.” The first draft was handed into Fox in early 1984, and was received with enthusiasm by the studio. There was some sweat shed over the cost: Cameron’s partner and producer Gale Anne Hurd insisted the film could be made for around $15.5 million; Fox estimated it would total an unacceptable $35 million.

A bigger snag came when Cameron insisted that only Sigourney Weaver could play the lead. Fox protested that taking such a stance would allow Weaver a great deal of leverage over her pay, and that they would make Aliens without her if possible. In return, Cameron and Hurd left the project and, recently married, honeymooned to Hawaii. “We assumed it was a dead issue,” said Hurd, “and when we left for Hawaii we thought the movie was off.” But when they returned they found that the movie was still on, and that Weaver had been approached to resume her role of Ripley. Weaver, having found the script suddenly dropped in her lap, was impressed enough with Ripley’s characterisation to sign on. “The emotional content is much greater in Aliens,” she said. “I tried to imagine and comprehend something like that […] Coming back to a whole different world and haunted by the other one. Ripley’s personal situation is so bleak. I know I’m playing the same character, but I feel she has changed so utterly by what happens to her early in the film. I don’t think she’s the earnest young ensign she was when she went into space the first time.”

“To begin with, Alien happened in space,” Cameron told Prevue magazine in ’86. “The characters literally existed in a vacuum—they had no past or life beyond that film. Ripley, of course was the only survivor because she was a very strong female, and that impressed me very much. I wanted to take the character further, to know Ripley as a person, to see some depth and emotion. The movie is about her, every scene. It gets inside her mind, takes her back to face her own worst nightmare—and conquer it, so to speak. In a way, Aliens is about her revenge.” Weaver affirmed Cameron’s concern that a Ripley without catharsis would ultimately end up as a self-destructive person: “I play a character who, probably, if she stayed at home and the nightmares continued, she might end up with a loaded gun next to her bed.”

Ripley is very different [in ‘Aliens’]. The horrific experience she endured on the Nostromo changed her irrevocably from the eager young ensign to a really haunted person. And we must remember that she drifted in space for fifty-seven years… I firmly believe that Ripley’s mind never stopped working while she slept… she’s probably been over that experience in various nightmare forms through the years. Ripley has to start life over again and finds it very difficult to do so. There are so many ghosts in her life. And yet she agrees to face the horror once again… She feels she must finally lay to rest the ghosts and sadness of the past or there will be no future for her. But once on the planet and faced with the nightmarish situation, she finds a purpose… she finds she can identify with the little girl, Newt, who is the only other person to experience what Ripley experienced, and survive… She is a fellow creature who shares the same nightmare. When Ripley finds her, her life means something again. —Sigourney Weaver, StarBurst, 1987

Ripley’s actions on LV-426 were intended to serve as atonement for her (self-perceived) failure to protect her Nostromo crewmates. “Ripley still feels responsible for what happened on the Nostromo,” explained Weaver. “She has a feeling that she could have done more to help the crew to survive. It’s nonsense of course; but she can’t help thinking that she could have done a better job […] To me, it is the story of a woman who loses her whole life, and has to start over again,” she surmised. “I don’t think she’ll ever be the same again. I mean, she’ll never be that eager young ensign, but who’d want to be anyway? You’ve got to move on […] It’s been very satisfying to see how Ripley coped with what turned out to be a real tragedy in her life.”

Though the writing process was generally smooth, Cameron noted that “[Sigourney] tried to have an influence on Aliens, but it didn’t work! She said, ‘I don’t want to shoot a gun,’ I said, ‘No, you have to shoot a gun.’ ‘Oh, well, can I get killed?’ ‘No.’ When I saw the third film I cracked up, because it was all the things she’d asked for on the second film.” This isn’t to suggest that Cameron wasn’t accommodating to Weaver’s suggestions, as the latter praised his ability to interpret the character of Ripley correctly: “Jim is incredibly open to things. I always felt that he trusted my instincts and that he had his own very clear idea of Ripley. Whatever decisions I made about her mental and emotional attitude, he has tried to incorporate into scene changes, how we play them, and things like that. For the most part it has gone very well.”

Aliens finally went into production in September 1985, and would wrap in April 1986 on a budget of $18 million—half of what Fox had frightfully predicted. “If Jim Cameron hadn’t fallen in love with something about Alien,” stated Sigourney, “then a sequel wouldn’t have been made. No one really wanted to touch it… Luckily, Jim wanted to make his own movie.” —Writing Aliens

 
Aliens: An Out of This World Communication with Director James Cameron, by Victor Wells. From Prevue Magazine, August 1986.

“There are three kinds of pictures: high-budget movies, low-budget flicks, and no-waste films. I’m a no-waste filmmaker,” says James Cameron, underscoring the fact that, in a business where the average product costs more than $10 million, a careful, imaginative artist can generate maximum box office with minimal expenditure. The triple-threat entrepreneur began his career with Roger Corman, working in various capacities, art directed Battle Beyond the Stars, co-supervised special fx for John Carpenter’s Escape from New York, acted as production designer and second unit director for Planet of Horrors, and directed Pirahna II. Additionally, Cameron is an accomplished illustrator whose efforts have ranged from creating movie ad campaigns to storyboarding the films he directs. In 1984, besides co-scripting Rambo: First Blood II, he wrote and directed The Terminator, a breathtaking SF thriller that scored internationally with critics and audiences, catapulting the thirty-three-year-old powerhouse into the forefront of contemporary filmmaking. His latest project, Aliens, is the much-awaited follow-up to the 1979 smash hit, Alien. Sigourney Weaver reprises her role as Warrant Officer Ripley, the sole survivor of the spaceship Nostromo’s encounter with a deadly extraterrestrial. After more than a half-century in suspended animation, she returns to Earth where her story of the ordeal is not believed. The alien planet has since been colonized, and, with contact mysteriously lost, she undertakes a mission back, accompanied by a team of super-Marines armed with high-tech weapons. Realizing her greatest nightmare, she discovers the hostile world overrun with the terrifying creatures—including variations of the Face-hugger, Chest-burster, and a giant Queen alien, thirteen feet high and twenty feet long. Cameron discussed the genesis of the new film, his approach to creating a sequel to one of the cinema’s biggest blockbusters, and Ripley’s chances of surviving a second clash with science fiction’s most fearsome juggernauts.

Sequel-making is a dangerous undertaking, especially when the original is as effective as Alien. Obviously, you found a direction that will break new ground.
That was the idea; Aliens had to be completely different, while still being an extension of the first film—or the prequel, as I call it. The writer, Dan O’Bannon, and the director, Ridley Scott, established a set of elements which can’t be violated. But, they only created part of a universe, which primarily dealt with life and death within the confines of a spaceship.

What was your focus in opening up the concept?
To begin with, Alien happened in space. The characters literally existed in a vacuum—they had no past or life beyond that film. Ripley, of course, was the only survivor because she was a very strong female, and that impressed me very much. I wanted to take the character further, to know Ripley as a person, to see some depth and emotion. The movie is about her, every scene. It gets inside her mind, takes her back to face her own worst nightmare—and conquer it, so to speak. In a way, Aliens is about her revenge.

You were asked to make the film in October 1983, before pre-production had even started on The Terminator. A year later, you wrote a treatment, then submitted a finished script in February 1985. But, Sigourney Weaver didn’t get involved until a few months before filming began. Didn’t she modify some of the graphic violence you planned?
Let’s say she was helpful in recreating Ripley by advising me about what the character would or wouldn’t do. By the time she came to it, the screenplay was a fait accompli, but she didn’t rampage through it, saying this or that won’t work. She thought it was consistent with the character she had created.

You have Ripley lead a combat team against the aliens on their planet.
Yes, it was very physically demanding for Sigourney. At first, her character knows nothing about weaponry or fighting, but learns from the soldiers, ultimately becoming the center of the battle to survive. Now she’s faced with not only saving her own life, but others’ lives, too; people she cares about very much. At the end, she’s completely on her own, and must use what she’s been taught to stay alive.

Your fascination with weaponry really shows through in Aliens. They have a familiar look about them, but are modified with futuristic touches. The “Pulse” gun, for example, is a combination Thompson submachine gun and Franchi SPAS 12-pump action shotgun mechanism that can shoot both kinds of ammunition. The “Smart” guns, with the helmet-mounted sights like those designed for helicopter pilots, look like MG-42 Spandau-type machine guns. Could Aliens qualify as a science fiction combat film?
Among other things! I see it as a dark, action piece with a very human center. I like the idea of a futuristic military movie, but not with Star Wars’ Imperial Storm Troopers running around in fantastic costumes, just “ground pounders,” dog soldiers who’ve been around from the time of the Roman legions to Vietnam.

You’ve also managed to extract some humor from your warriors.
Actually, I had a hard time making it less funny, so it didn’t play like a comedy. There’s the constant wisecracking, defying authority, complaining about the job with military characters. But, hopefully, audiences will respond, because if they’re not sympathetic with the characters, they can’t be scared. And the quickest way to make them sympathetic is by being funny. Then, there’s the camaraderie between the people who put their lives on the line every day, which also interests me. Couple that with near-super weaponry, and you’ve got science fiction in the grand tradition—future war.

The conflict takes place on Acheron, a name Dante used in his description of the Ninth Circle of Hell. What’s your vision of the alien planet?
A raw, primal world, constantly windswept with freezing rain—unlike anything on Earth, except for certain familiarities, like clouds and mountains. The colors, the light, the contours, everything so harsh and hostile that even the rock formations have been eroded into tortured shapes, all dark and shadowy so that things sometimes appear to be there—even when they’re not. Ron Cobb, who worked on Alien and Syd Mead of Blade Runner both contributed conceptual designs, along with production designer Peter Lamont of Octopussy. All of us looked for logical reasons why things should be like they are, and the more real they are, the more the audiences will be involved.

And frightened, too.
Yes. Real fear has to touch a primal spot deep in the brain. Several scenes play on the fear of being trapped in a very tight space with a lethal presence nearby, but unseen—the intense, claustrophobic environment where characters build tension between themselves.

But enhanced by the same kind of cinematic velocity that made Terminator so explosive.
Well, there’s nothing quite as exciting as trip-hammer editing and the incredible forward momentum from an action sequence that’s really well-orchestrated—A follows B in a kind of domino principle where, once something starts, nothing can stop it. Of course, I underline the action aspect of the story, and the film’s last half is a real pressure cooker: the planet, the characters, the bio-mechanoid visuals, the new creatures plus the textural reality of the first film. It’s a two-hour roller coaster ride that begins with an electric shock—and never lets up!

 
James Cameron speaks to Film4 about the challenges of taking on the Alien franchise after Ridley Scott’s influential 1979 horror, and developing the action-packed sequel, Aliens.

 
Aliens: The Official Movie Magazine is a 1986 promotional magazine containing articles about the film, published by Starlog Press. The magazine includes an adaptation of the film in text form, along with articles on several of the principle actors and crew and their roles in the film. Alongside the written information, the magazine contains a wealth of exclusive behind the scenes images. Originally published in 1986, it is now available to read in its entirety for free via the Internet Archive.

 
The man behind The Terminator takes up the chiller challenge of the Alien sequell.

 
Lance Henriksen takes on a planet efface huggers and chest bursters in James Cameron’s explosive sequel.

 
For creature FX pro Stan Winston, putting Aliens on screen didn’t prove to be the easiest of tasks. First, there was his respect for the movie’s 1979 predecessor, Alien. “The original was a brilliant film—everything about it was memorable,’’ Winston observes. “For me, it was the horror film of the decade. I’m a big fan, and I have a great deal of respect for all the work that went into it, so it makes it that much more difficult for us.’’

From Empire, September 2016.

 
Superior Firepower: The Making of ‘Aliens’ is a 2003 making-of documentary directed by Charles de Lauzirika that details the production of the 1986 film Aliens. Created for the Alien Quadrilogy DVD release, it uses extensive interviews with the film’s cast and crew, as well as a wealth of behind the scenes footage, to detail the development, filming and release of the movie.

 
James Cameron interview on directing (1999).

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of James Cameron’s Aliens. Photographed by Bob Penn © Twentieth Century Fox, Brandywine Productions, SLM Production Group. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post The Risk Always Lives: Words to Live by On the Set of James Cameron’s ‘Aliens’ appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

‘In the Mouth of Madness’: John Carpenter’s Love Letter to H.P. Lovecraft and the Subgenre of Cosmic Horror

$
0
0

 
By Koraljka Suton

Director John Carpenter was always one to surprise, frighten and delight his audiences. After making Dark Star, a 1974 low-budget horror movie that went rather unnoticed upon its initial release, the now-cult filmmaker went on to direct films such as the 1976 thriller Assault on Precinct 13 and the 1978 slasher Halloween, which would mark the onset of one of the most popular horror movie franchises of all time and enable the auteur to sink his teeth into bigger projects—with bigger budgets. One such movie was The Thing (1982), the first part of what Carpenter would later dub the Apocalypse Trilogy. Over the course of the following twelve years, the director would go on to make the remaining two movies that would comprise his unofficial trilogy—Prince of Darkness in 1987 and In the Mouth of Madness in 1994. At first glance, the three films are completely unrelated, differing in narrative and style, cast and characters, with the only common denominator being Carpenter in the director’s chair. But upon closer examination, it is apparent that the extent of their interconnectedness goes beyond mere story or character arcs and encompasses a shared theme, one rather unsubtly hinted at in the trilogy’s very name: the end of the world as we know it. This motif that Carpenter thoroughly and viscerally explored in his trilogy places the films in question squarely in the realm of cosmic horror, a subgenre of horror fiction that underlines the terror of that which is unknown or unknowable. Often referred to as Lovecraftian horror, named after cult author H.P. Lovecraft, cosmic horror takes no interest in shock elements, gore or earthly threats and instead focuses on the mercilessness of an infinite universe that can, and will, chew the human race up and spit it out. Or as Lovecraft himself wrote in one of his letters: “Now all my tales are based on the fundamental premise that common human laws and interests and emotions have no validity or significance in the vast cosmos-at-large.”

Carpenter for one never made a secret of just how much he admired Lovecraft and how influenced he was by the author’s work even before making The Thing, which he showed by referencing the novelist in some of the names in his 1980 ghost movie The Fog. And although none of his movies are direct adaptations of Lovecraft’s novels or stories, In the Mouth of Madness is considered to be one of the most Lovecraftian films ever made. And for good reason. The third movie of Carpenter’s Apocalypse Trilogy follows former insurance investigator John Trent (played by the amazing Sam Neill) who we first meet in an asylum, as he gets locked away in a padded room while frenetically proclaiming not to be crazy. He is then introduced to Dr. Wrenn (David Warner) who wishes to hear Trent’s story about the events that led to his current situation. It is here that the protagonist’s tale begins, as we witness the path towards his alleged insanity unfold before us in a flashback. The man Trent once was, an ambitious, discerning, smart insurance investigator who successfully worked as a freelancer because he did not want anyone pulling his strings and dictating his destiny, is lightyears away from the incoherent mess whose life seemed to have spiraled out of control presented to us in the opening scene. And that is indeed Carpenter’s intent—to make us wonder about the scope of what had come to pass, the result being an independent and skeptical realist turning into a person in need of a straightjacket. Trent’s life begins to change when he is attacked in broad daylight by a man waving an ax, a man whose last words before trying to deal a fatal blow were: “Do you read Sutter Cane?” Surprisingly unshaken by the incident that almost cost him his life, Trent proceeds with business as usual and gets retained by a publishing house whose number-one author, the mysterious Sutter Cane, had gone missing. The horror novelist, said to be even bigger than Stephen King himself, is currently working on his latest novel called In the Mouth of Madness and the publisher (portrayed by Charlton Heston) wants the remainder of the manuscript on his desk at any cost. Trent must team up with editor Linda Styles (played by Julie Carmen) in order to locate Cane, for the author’s audiences are going mad with the anticipation of his newest work—quite literally.

What we as the viewers are in for next cannot be expressed in words, nor should it be. Carpenter takes us on a wild and fairly Lynchian rollercoaster ride, the outcome of which we can neither predict nor fully fathom, until it is much too late. Trent is a figure we are meant to relate to and whose shoes we are asked to walk for the entirety of the movie in. At first, he does not understand the craze surrounding Crane’s fiction and the effects it supposedly has on its readers, even though both Styles and the media inform him about the mob violence the author’s horror novels induce. The insurance investigator and the editor’s journey soon turns into the stuff a horror fan’s nightmares are made of, with Trent still remaining very hard to convince that the occurrences that take place and the people they run into are straight out of a Sutter Cane novel.

 
Written by Michael De Luca in the 1980s, In the Mouth of Madness was first offered to Carpenter, but the director rejected the job offer. In 1989, the film’s distributor New Line Cinema announced that the movie is going into production, with Tony Randel as the director. Later on, Mary Lambert was said to take over the job, until Carpenter eventually agreed to come on board after all. De Luca’s script is a combination of the screenwriter’s reverence for H.P. Lovecraft’s tales and his own night-time New York City experiences. Since he worked at New Line Cinema, De Luca had to walk to the Port Authority transit terminal every evening in order to take the subway home. During these walks, the huge amount of homeless people he encountered did not manage to go unnoticed by him:

It was a really scummy building and a scummy area and I just started to think that all the homeless people lying on the floor and hanging around the Port Authority, and a lot of New Yorkers in general, were a different species. Late at night it got pretty scary and I started to think, “What if everyone wandering around me is part of this otherworldly conspiracy to replace the human race?” So, I combined that with a Lovecraft myth about a race of ancient beings who controlled the earth at one point and then were banished and have been trying to claw their way back in ever since. It took off from there and the last thing to gel was the idea of this writer being like a combination of Stephen King and L. Ron Hubbard —so popular that his fans constitute a religion.Michael De Luca

 
In the Mouth of Madness is, therefore, not just a love letter to the late H.P. Lovecraft and his tales of cosmic terror, but also a thorough and thoroughly visceral examination of the influence fictional worlds can have on the internal world, or dare I say reality, of the consumer. Such an exploration is more relevant in today’s day and age than ever before, given the increase of content to obsess over and the cyber worlds of social media we devoutly build, thereby slowly but surely replacing our external realities with virtual ones. And while such fictional parallel universes can indeed have many therapeutic qualities and enable us to expand our imaginations, develop our empathy, deepen our emotional capacities, as well as provide us with comfort or representation we would not have gotten otherwise, the danger emerges when we latch onto fiction in an attempt to escape, reject, deny or suppress our internal voids. We start valuing fictional realities more than our external ones, leading to the former consuming us whole. In the Mouth of Madness quite emphatically showcases what happens when the consumer becomes the one who is consumed, after having sought escapism in a world far more exciting than the one that was left behind. And what is more, when a large group of people willingly shares the same reality, an entirely new microcosm with its own agreed-upon rules and structure emerges. Such shared fictional realities are the basis of every religion, a notion that Sutter Cane even overtly acknowledges. But although Cane references the Bible as a work of fiction that provided fertile ground for the creation of one such shared reality, the very plot outline of In the Mouth of Madness (minus the elements of cosmic horror) greatly resembles the trajectory of L. Ron Hubbard’s claim to fame, just as De Luca had mentioned. Hubbard, a pulp fiction novelist of the 1950s, went as far as founding an entire religion based on his fictional material. And his readers followed suit. The repercussions, influences and dangers of one such phenomenon are obvious to everyone and anyone who took the time to learn about Scientology, its methods and belief system, as well as its SF endgame. In that respect, it is rather unsettling to realize that a great many people in today’s world are, in all actuality, living out the premise of In the Mouth of Madness, making De Luca and Carpenter’s 90s movie as contemporary as ever. Meaning that not only did Madness age well, but it was also way ahead of its time.

When I was a kid watching television there were these documentaries on TV asking “Are foreign movies too violent?” This not really a satirical film, but it’s based on the idea that Sutter Cane is being told what to write by these creatures from the beyond and so when people read this stuff they become possessed, paranoid schizophrenics and run around killing people with axes. So in that sense, yeah, it is a take on the ridiculous premise that television, movies and books can create killers. Hopefully that isn’t the first thing on people’s minds. Hopefully you’re screaming rather than thinking.John Carpenter

 
As Carpenter himself said, the above mentioned premise is ridiculous, but only because the reasoning behind it is wrong—fiction in and of itself does not “create killers,” but what it can do and often does is bring out that which already exists within the consumers, serving as a catalyst for the inevitable growth of a seed already planted. Although the thought may seem comforting at first, such a notion actually makes In the Mouth of Madness all the more terrifying, for it not only implies that every human being has that seed planted within them, but also that all who come into contact with the catalyst, i.e. work of fiction will necessarily be triggered and become unable to control or prevent the commencement of a potentially cruel and violent fate that cannot be prevented. That was exactly what Trent was trying to avoid by being a freelancer and refusing to acknowledge the onset of events that indicated that his destiny was out of his hands, that his life was not his own, that every decision he made based on what he perceived to be free will was just an illusion guiding him towards the fulfillment of his creator’s work of fiction that ultimately became his reality. And everyone else’s. But the most interesting part is that the creator himself, in this case Cane, is eventually rendered obsolete, yet another theme that Carpenter’s movie oh so cleverly tackles. Once the author of a work of art has finished his creation, he is no longer of importance—his product takes on a life of its own, abandoning its maker and renouncing its belonging to him. Instead, the work of art in question now belongs to everyone who has exposed themselves to it. The consumers become those who take the creation and make it their own, engulfing themselves in this new reality. This is why the movie’s publisher does not care whether Cane is dead or alive, as long as his latest book remains intact and traceable. This is also why, in one of the movie’s most impressive scenes, Cane tears his face away only to reveal book pages underneath, thereby releasing his creation and what lies beneath it into the world. The unimportance of the author after the process of publication could not have been emphasized in a better way.

But that particular scene was initially rather different. The primary idea was to have the whole town swallowed up into Cane’s book. Seeing as how the budget came down from $15 million to $8 million, another solution needed to be found. That is when De Luca concocted the scene described above. Although working with a rather small budget, the special effects turned out to be terrifyingly fantastic. The Industrial Light and Magic team was responsible for the majority of the monster-ridden shots, with most of the Lovecraftian creatures featured in them, such as the infamous cosmic entity Cthulhu, part-dragon, part-octopus, part-human. Apart from the overall subgenre of cosmic horror and the visuals that go along with it, De Luca and Carpenter made sure to pay tribute to Lovecraft in various other ways. The type of narration employed, wherein a story is told in a flashback delivered by an insane person, is one frequently used by the author. Furthermore, the very title of the movie is a play on Lovecraft’s novella At the Mountains of Madness, whereas all of the mentioned Sutter Cane novels bear titles similar to those of Lovecraft’s books: Cane’s The Thing in the Basement is Lovecraft’s The Thing on the Doorstep; Haunter out of Time is either The Haunter of the Dark or The Shadow Out of Time; The Whisperer of the Dark is The Whisperer in Darkness and finally, The Hobbs End Horror is The Dunwich Horror. It would, therefore, be an understatement to say that In the Mouth of Madness is a homage to Lovecraft if there ever was one.

 
At one point, Styles tells Trent: “What scares me about Cane’s work is what might happen if reality shared his point of view. Reality is just what we tell each other it is. Sane and insane could easily switch places if the insane were to become a majority. You would find yourself locked in a padded cell, wondering what happened to the world.” And a padded cell was the place Trent eventually found himself in, for the madness that ensued would render everyone unable to distinguish between fiction and reality—even the viewers. This was precisely one of the points Carpenter was trying to make with In the Mouth of Madness, turning the movie into somewhat of a cautionary tale. Its goal is not just to display the power of fiction, but to convey the implications of such shared beliefs for our society at large. It very poignantly illustrates how stories, when firmly believed, can shape our reality, i.e. color the filter through which we perceive it. In the Mouth of Madness is the ultimate testament to the unwavering power of conviction, brilliantly showcasing how we, the audience, are the ones who perpetuate and reinforce whichever narrative we choose to believe in, thereby contributing to the creation of a collective reality. All the best movies do, after all, transport us into their fictional worlds so that we might emerge with a far greater understanding of our own.

Written by Koraljka Suton. Koraljka is a member of the Croatian Society of Film Critics and has a master’s degree in German and English. For her thesis, she did a comparative analysis of Spielberg’s ‘Band of Brothers’ and ‘The Pacific’. Koraljka trained at a Zagreb-based acting studio for six years and fell in love with Michael Chekhov and Lee Strasberg’s acting techniques. She is also a contemporary dancer and a Reiki master who believes in the transformative quality of art. Read more »

 
Mike De Luca showed me a draft about five years ago and it was a highly imaginative horror film with a premise I hadn’t encountered in the genre before. Overall, it was an homage to the work of H.P. Lovecraft, crossed with the detective genre and a few western elements. I had some other commitments at the time, but I got back together with Mike, looked over the script again and said “Let’s try it.” The script had been worked on a by a couple other people, but basically had the same story, so I stepped in and made it my own.John Carpenter

Screenwriter must-read: Michael De Luca’s screenplay for In the Mouth of Madness [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Interview with John Carpenter on In the Mouth of Madness, his reasons to make the film and future plans, Fangoria (no. 140).

 
The man who’s scared us with psychopaths, possession and more opens up his mind and soul for a career chat.

 
John Carpenter talks In the Mouth Of Madness.

 
Vintage featurette—the making of In the Mouth of Madness.


Open YouTube video

 
Post Mortem with Mick Garris: John Carpenter.

 
“Who writes reality? Who shapes our perception? Using genre theory, the works of Lovecraft and Carl Jung all while exploring the layers of the brilliant film, In the Mouth of Madness, we’ll try to find out.” —Real Dimensional Pictures

 

‘BIG JOHN’

In France, I’m an auteur; in Germany, a filmmaker; in Britain, a genre film director; and in the USA, a bum. These are the famous words of John Carpenter, one of the most influential horror film directors of all time, whose works such as Halloween, The Thing, The Fog and In the Mouth of Madness remain an inescapable part of every horror film encyclopedia. A talented filmmaker, a modest, humble and practical man, and, for this occasion equally important, a disarmingly, refreshingly honest interviewee. It was from France, to go back to the quote we started with, that the idea for this rare documentary came to life. In 2006 filmmaker Julien Dunand made a documentary film simply called Big John, a 75-minute exploration of Carpenter’s career, character and American film industry in general. The film lacks clips from Carpenter’s movies, most likely due to budgetary issues, but more than makes up for it with a series of enlightening interviews with both Carpenter himself (mostly filmed behind the wheel while driving around L.A.) and a whole gallery of his frequent collaborators, such as producing partner Debra Hill, the Assault on Precinct 13 star Austin Stoker, actress and ex-wife Adrienne Barbeau, the Christine protagonist Keith Gordon, Carpenter’s composing collaborator Alan Howarth, who also did the music for the documentary, and many others. The central value of this film, which is obviously made with a lot of love and respect both for Carpenter and the craft, lies in the one-on-one conversations between Dunand and Carpenter, which give insight into the life and work of a filmmaker whose golden days may be long gone, but whose significance for the art of film can’t be diminished. As on many other occasions, Carpenter leaves the impression of a sympathetic, straightforward fellow who feels he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. “Many of my film school colleagues were more talented than me,” he told us a couple of years back, “so you mustn’t underestimate the importance of sheer luck.” That may be the case, but through a career spanning four decades and eighteen movies, obvious talent and hard work was what kept him at the top.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of John Carpenter’s In the Mouth of Madness. Photographed by Shane Harvey © New Line Cinema. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post ‘In the Mouth of Madness’: John Carpenter’s Love Letter to H.P. Lovecraft and the Subgenre of Cosmic Horror appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

‘Kundun’: Martin Scorsese’s Serene Meditation on the Transient Nature of Life

$
0
0

 
By Koraljka Suton

It is no secret that Martin Scorsese is a devoutly religious man. His life-long quest to re-evaluate and come to terms with his faith was the driving force behind his highly controversial masterpiece The Last Temptation of Christ, the making and aftermath of which turned into Scorsese’s own way of the cross. After witnessing his movie being boycotted and protested against, theaters in Paris being burnt and people hurt, after having his film banned in several countries and personally receiving continuous death threats due to his “blasphemous” portrayal of Christ as a flawed human being, rendering the director unable to go to public events sans a bodyguard, one would imagine that Scorsese would not be all that keen on directing yet another religion-based movie and risking similar repercussions. And one would be mistaken. No less mistaken than those who found it baffling that Scorsese was first on E.T. screenplay writer Melissa Mathison’s list of directors she wanted turning her script about the 14th Dalai Lama into a motion picture. Having met Scorsese on several occasions and being well-aware of his Christian background and former desire to become a priest, Mathison thought the director would be perfect for the job of bringing the true story of a young boy destined to become the spiritual leader of Tibet to the silver screen. She either sensed or knew that Scorsese would approach this particular filmmaking process in a way that exuded humility, reverence and deep respect for both the subject matter at hand and the Kundun himself. A Tibetan word for “the presence” (of the Buddha) and the Dalai Lama’s alternative name, Kundun became the title of Scorsese and Mathison’s project, one that took several years and fourteen screenplay drafts to make.

Interestingly enough, Melissa Mathison’s motivation for writing the script did not stem from her interest in Buddhism or Tibet and its complex history. What fascinated her was the extraordinary story of a young child separated from its parents at a very young age and deemed the reincarnation of the previous spiritual leader. A boy who grew up surrounded by monks and treated as holy. A kid raised to take over a country that would soon find itself in great political turmoil, forcing him to make political decisions that would have a lasting impact on his people. At first, Mathison wanted to make a children’s movie, but eventually found herself overwhelmed by the complexities of reality that demanded the film be made for a more mature audience. The more she did her research, the further her newly acquired vision diverged from the initial path. She wrote to the Dalai Lama, informing him that she intended on crafting a screenplay based on his early years. And he responded with interest. They met in California, along with Dalai Lama’s advisors and Mathison’s then-husband Harrison Ford, and the screenwriter pitched the movie, telling Kundun she wanted “to cover the stages of life from infancy to young adulthood; that within the context of his upbringing and Tibet’s history, it was a microcosm for the ages of man, the ages of child.” The Dalai Lama’s response? “Okay, if you think this is a good idea, you can go ahead and try.” After that, Ford and Mathison were invited to spend several days with him and she took the opportunity to get the inside scoop on the spiritual leader’s life experiences. When the first draft of the script was finished, Mathison and Ford went to India to visit the Dalai Lama. He gave her corrections and she decided to interview the people of Dharamshala, where the headquarters of the Central Tibetan Administration and the Dalai Lama’s residence are located. She even visited Tibet later on. As her perception expanded and her horizons broadened, the material she was working on changed and deepened. Her initial disinterest in Buddhism and Tibet’s history dissipated and she found herself immersed in this beautiful spiritual practice, which in turn greatly influenced both her approach and her writing.

But she wanted the movie to show, not tell. The Buddhist practices were to be presented as a reality the monks and the Dalai Lama were living, not merely a philosophy to be elaborated on. And Scorsese was the perfect director to translate her intentions onto the screen. He came on board in 1989, yet it was not until 1996 that the movie could finally be made, courtesy of the director’s other engagements and contracts. But that does not mean that the said waiting period was a passive one—Mathison and Scorsese worked together on multiple drafts during those years, as revealed by the filmmaker: “It is about where you arrive. I must say that we had to go from the end back to the beginning, and it was quite a journey for us, too. First of all, Melissa Mathison’s writing: we went through fourteen drafts, and we knew we were on the right track when our last draft resembled the first and second drafts more.” Scorsese also met with the Dalai Lama several times and reported feeling good and relaxed in his presence, as well as “a very kind and compassionate aura around him,” describing Kundun as “not egotistical, and pretty much down-to-earth and realistic.” And what were the Dalai Lama’s thoughts on Scorsese? What is known is that he had not watched a single movie made by the director, for his pictures were deemed too violent for the eyes of the spokesperson for peace.

 
I grew up in a very tough environment. Very, very tough. Violence was a key form of expression. And it’s just a microcosm for the whole world—that’s all it is. I’ll report it as I see it—when they’re committing the violence, reveling in violence, because that’s part of human nature. That’s what interests me: how could we be that way? Read St. Augustine when he went to the arena. He was afraid to go back, because he liked it. You know, it’s part of our nature. Why? If we continue to go that way, there’s not gonna be any of us left. But why should there be? Dinosaurs became extinct, too.Martin Scorsese

Seeing as how Scorsese positions himself in the role of an observer whose career revolves around documenting the realities he exposes himself to, it should come as no surprise that one of those realities would turn out to be an alternative to the existing norm. And one which is much more in alignment with the director’s own pacifistic beliefs and values. In Kundun, he uses his diligence and discerning eye to depict a world where peace and compassion reign, with the concept of the sacredness of life permeating its core, much the same way he utilized his talents to realistically portray the violence he was surrounded with, in the movies he is best known for. But how does one go about truthfully documenting such a world, one enveloped in quiet contemplation, characterized by an air of peacefulness and serenity, which demands to be actively lived in and experienced so as to be fully grasped? By working with esteemed cinematographer Roger Deakins, Scorsese managed to achieve precisely that—he created an experience rather than a spectacle. The characters of Kundun are often framed against stunning landscapes and scenery, thereby enabling us to absorb the lushness of the surroundings that make up their secluded world. The dominant colors are brilliant yellows and reds, creating a mesmerizing effect and successfully lulling us into a sense of security and safety. The camera movements are restrained, following the action that is taking place as opposed to serving as a tool of expression in its own right. Deakins stated that the movie is “very much a poem, rather than a traditional narrative film,” more of a “mood piece” than anything else. Together with his regular editor Thelma Schoonmaker, Scorsese replaces the editing aesthetic that had served him thus far with a poetic one, extensively resorting to surrealistic cross-cutting and crossfades that evoke the French New Wave. In other words, Kundun was cut on an emotional level, with scenes from various sections of the picture frequently shuffled around, resulting in the movie being comprised of dreamlike states as opposed to strictly narrative scenes.

To put a Western audience in the middle of a farmhouse in Amdo in the middle of nowhere in Tibet, and then in the middle of this palace, and not explain any of it. Not to condescend, but to throw you into the middle of a culture and let you sink or swim. If it’s alien, if you’ve never seen anything quite like it, you don’t even know what they’re doing or even what the ceremony is sometimes—whether it’s religious, political, or just eating breakfast—what do you get, how do you hook on to the people? There’s only one thing—you hook on to the people, which is what it should be.”Martin Scorsese

 
But it would be impossible to hook on to the people were it not for the remarkable non-actors that were cast, thereby bringing even more unconventionality to his poetic and lyrical picture. Since the director wanted to cast Tibetans from the onset, his casting manager Ellen Lewis was tasked with taking a camera and going through Tibetan communities in the USA and India, trying to find people with the required physical characteristics and with a decent enough grasp of the English language that would enable them to channel the emotions the story was imbued with. Only three cast members (Sonam Phuntsok in the role of Reting, Tashi Dhondup as the adult Lobsang and Jampa Lungtok who plays the Nechung Oracle) are members of the Tibetan Institute of Performing Arts and the rest of the cast are not professional actors. When Lewis was introduced to Tenzin Thuthob Tsarong, the Dalai Lama’s real-life grandnephew, she knew she had found the right person to play the 18-year-old Kundun, describing the young man as having depth, enough confidence to handle the material, a sense of humor, as well as a lightness of spirit. In short, all the qualities they were looking for in a person who was to represent the Dalai Lama truthfully and without pretense. Several other cast members are also related to the people they portray in the film—Tencho Gyalpo plays her grandmother (Kundun’s mother), Tenzin Lodoe stepped into the shoes of his uncle (Kundun’s brother) and Gawa Youngdung was cast as her older sister (an old village woman). Tenzin Trinley was cast as Kundun’s tutor Ling Rinpoche, without Lewis knowing that the man had actually been Ling Rinpoche’s student. It is undeniable that casting not just non-actors, but also non-actors who were tasked with playing their own family members, conjured a special kind of magic, both on set and on screen. For they were meant to bring to life that which was already very much alive within them—the essence, tradition and humility of their deeply meaningful spiritual practice as a way of life. Mathison recalls how they would enter the room that was “portraying” the Potala, the Dalai Lama’s winter palace from 1649 to 1959 located in today’s Tibet Autonomous Region in China, and would start either crying or praying, a testament to the extent to which they were still moved by both the Potala’s significance and the opportunity to be a part of a movie that is meant to display their history, heritage and lifestyle for the world to see.

I was dealing with the details, rather than the major ideas. I always started out with the boy—What is he doing? How much does he know? What is he thinking? What aspect of the teachings has he got to at this point? Very often, the Tibetans had to show me what their behavior would be in a particular scene, and certainly what the rituals would be like. I already had angles planned, but I would improvise and work with them. I was being put into their world, you see, not the other way around.Martin Scorsese

 
It could be said that the on-set experience was unlike anything Scorsese had ever encountered. The movie was filmed in Morocco where he had previously shot The Last Temptation of Christ and most of the crew came from Italy, Morocco, Great Britain and the United States, but there were also people from other countries. The three working languages were French, English and Italian and many members of the crew were tri-lingual, with some of them also acting as interpreters from Arabic and Tibetan. The most beautiful part: Islam was practiced alongside Buddhism, the two religions and their practitioners co-existing peacefully and respectfully. It would not be inaccurate to state that the atmosphere and conditions on the set mirrored the theme that permeates Kundun’s core as much as it does the Buddhist religion—the notion of kindness, empathy and love towards all living things being not just a potential reality, but a feasible one. Unfortunately, not everyone appreciated the movie and its story for what it is, least of all China. Scorsese was banned from ever entering the country and the movie received a ban as well, along with all films by its distributor Disney. Due to the fact that the Dalai Lama is considered a threat and a separatist by the Chinese government, the movie’s portrayal of the Tibetan leader in a positive light was severely frowned upon. Disney then apologized for making the film, calling it “a stupid mistake” and appeasing the Chinese Prime Minister in 1998 by telling him that very few people in the world had seen it. And although Kundun received four Academy Award nominations—for Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design and Best Art Direction—many critics were not all that enthusiastic about it, deeming it boring and plotless, but praising the way it was made.

The intention behind Kundun was never to provide a compelling narrative in the form of eventful plot-developments or to take either a political or religious stance. What Scorsese and Mathison wanted was to offer us a glimpse into the world of a young boy born into a culture that considered him divine. A child who spent his days living in accordance with teachings that will later on define his political decisions i.e., his insistence on non-violence as the only viable option. A teenager whose biggest burden was, perhaps, the fact that his divinity was a given that was never brought into question. Kundun presents us with the unfolding of a young life destined for greatness, accompanied by beautiful imagery and a score that mimics the nature of life itself—cyclical, repetitive, without beginnings or endings, Philip Glass’ music is an auditory representation of life as an on-going process that never ceases to be, but rather continuously transforms without any regard towards our unwillingness for it to do so. Much the same way Tibetan mandalas made from colored sand are meticulously crafted, only to be purposefully destroyed the moment they are finished, becoming nothing more than dust in the wind.

Written by Koraljka Suton. Koraljka is a member of the Croatian Society of Film Critics and has a master’s degree in German and English. For her thesis, she did a comparative analysis of Spielberg’s ‘Band of Brothers’ and ‘The Pacific’. Koraljka trained at a Zagreb-based acting studio for six years and fell in love with Michael Chekhov and Lee Strasberg’s acting techniques. She is also a contemporary dancer and a Reiki master who believes in the transformative quality of art. Read more »

 
I had met Marty a couple of times. I grew up a Catholic, he grew up a Catholic. I knew he had actually studied for the priesthood at one point and I knew that he was really interested in the spiritual. I didn’t have a clue that he had any interest in Tibet, but I just knew that whether or not he wanted to make this movie, he would understand what it was about. Well, Marty is, of course, a great movie buff. He loves old documentaries and newsreel footage and he immediately told me how he remembered as a child seeing this footage of Tibet, footage of the Dalai Lama escaping, and how he was always intrigued, as we all are, by Tibet—the magic and the mystery of it all. Then he read the script and, to my great delight, he said he wanted to make the movie. He understood the destiny of the boy, basically a child carrying the destiny of his people. It’s a pretty grand subject. It all appealed to him. Then it took us three more years to get to make the movie! [Laughs.] He had no time, so I had to become the pushy person and convince him not to do something else but to do this movie. Then he had his own contractual dilemmas he had to work out, so it was always slow—slow and difficult. We worked together now and then for a couple of years on different drafts, and then finally he was free to make the movie.Melissa Mathison

Screenwriter must-read: Melissa Mathison’s screenplay for Kundun [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon (this title will be released on October 29, 2019. Pre-order now) and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Everything is Form, by Amy Taubin, Sight & Sound, February 1998.

Amy Taubin: I remember talking to you a few years ago, just before you started Casino (1995). You were already committed to Kundun, and I was trying to figure out why you wanted to make it. I had the impression then that your commitment was to the Dalai Lama, that he had had an extraordinarily seductive effect on you.
Martin Scorsese: I started getting interested in him in 1989, when he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Before that I didn’t hear anything about Tibet. Tibet isn’t interesting to us, they aren’t bombing anyone. But then I began seeing him on television a little bit. And I was beginning to understand the scope of the situation, and the way he was behaving fascinated me. Meaning that I think he was doing the right thing. I think he behaves the way we all should behave. And then I met him with Melissa, and what happens is that you want to be like him. And I don’t find that with many clerics in my own religion. I always wanted to make a film about priests and nuns who’ve had to overcome their own pride in order to deal with people, to have true compassion. In the modern world, they’re bogged down a lot of the time. Because the social problems, the emotional problems, the psychological problems are so rampant in our society now, particularly after the breakdown of the two superpowers, and with the world getting smaller. It’s a kind of spiritual and moral anarchy. So they’re just trying to hold everything together. Between baptizing a baby and performing last rites on a homeless man cut in half by a train when he fell on the tracks—I mean, how much can you take? So when I see anybody who really practices compassion, kindness, and tolerance, which most of our religions preach but don’t practice, and who practices the most revolutionary concept—nonviolence—that’s extraordinary. So that’s what attracted me to him. The Dalai Lama is in the process of handling one of the greatest catastrophes and tragedies, and he’s handling it in an extraordinary way. And I think anyone like that should be supported. I grew up in an area where the people, even though they try their best, are prone to the other way, which is destruction. So whenever I see anyone constructive—I mean basically the whole country has been smashed and all these pieces have splattered out into the diaspora, but they’re still alive. The younger generation is having problems continuing the culture, but it’s still alive, and who said Tibetan Buddhism was going to continue to exist the way it existed for fourteen hundred years? It changes. But that’s what I saw in him. I’m still Catholic, I’m not a Buddhist.

Did you ever try to meditate?
I find it very hard to meditate. But even though I got angry a lot doing the film—because of the weather, because the horses weren’t hitting their marks, I make a lot of jokes about it but the horses were a problem, they don’t care, they’re not interested—I found that there was a way you could tap into this meditation, to puncture this incredible package that you carry around of anger and semi-madness, and let it seep out, and just remain calm. There’s ways of doing it, and I used it a lot. The actual meditation is very hard for me. I even had that problem when I was an altar boy—you have to meditate. I didn’t know what to think about. Well, the idea is not to think about anything. I didn’t know that. Bertolucci called me when I was about to start shooting, and he said, “Have you learned that everything is form and form is emptiness?” No, I’m always the last to know. But thank God, I’ve got this information now [laughs].

Kundun is one of the rare films where the meaning is embodied in the form. When the Dalai Lama says that line about past, present, and future being one—it’s Buddhism, but it’s also about editing. It sounds like Dziga Vertov: “The Kino-eye is a victory over time.”
We shot the film according to the script, but then in the editing Thelma [Schoonmaker] and I really shuffled things around. I worked on the script with Melissa for a couple of years. At the fourteenth draft, we realized we were back in drafts one and two. I had tried to bring in some historical aspects and then realized we didn’t need that. It would only clutter it up and make it conventional: even though some masterpieces, such as Lawrence of Arabia, have been made as historical epics, it’s still a conventional form. I wanted to capture the essence of their spirit: who are they, their culture and their religion? So we went back to the early drafts, but made it even more from the Dalai Lama’s point of view. The only way I could do the film—because I’m not a Buddhist and I’m not an authority on Tibetan history—was to stay with the people. Stay with the kid [who ages from two to twenty-four in the film] and literally see things from his point of view. And then Thelma and I looked at the first cut, and I said, “We have to shuffle scenes.” We started shuffling scenes around without worrying about what monastery they were in and, to a certain extent, what part of the world they were in. And we turned certain scenes into dreams without marking where the dream started and ended. We just went with the emotion of the thing. There was a storyline but we just kept the basics of it. And as I did that, I realized that that’s the way to go in order to create a sense of Tibet—and not as a Shangri-La. I don’t know, I may be naïve, but there are some Tibetan mystics who push the limits of the spiritual and go further. That doesn’t mean there aren’t Catholics or Christians or Jews or Muslims who do that. But Tibet was closed in by these mountains and they couldn’t go outside, so they went inside. And there’s got to be something we can learn from that. So Thelma and I kept playing around with the picture, but it was very anxiety-provoking because you don’t know how it’s going to turn out. You’re flying without a net.

How long did it take you to edit?
The real heavy work was done from January to August last year, but we worked into October. The excruciating part was from August to October. Because it’s not traditional drama, we worried about how long will an audience hold. Will it hold till after he gets back from Peking [about two-thirds of the way through the movie], because all the violence comes after he gets back from Peking? And there’s no conflict until the Chinese invade [about half-way through] and then the conflict is so overwhelming that you can only deal with it on a personal or spiritual level. We could have shown conflicts within the Dalai Lama’s family or political conflicts with Retin Rinpoche [the Lama who discovers the Dalai Lama] who actually tried a coup d’état. That guy had a racket going. Human beings, there’s always corruption. But we wanted to take the audience and immerse them in this very serene world, and then disrupt it. But you’ve got to be immersed first. I don’t want to make movies anymore like Cape Fear (1991) that stick to a conventional plot. I’m getting bored, I don’t like working for someone else. Doing someone else’s movie is a hard job. But Cape Fear turned out to make the most money, so it gave me The Age of Innocence, it gave me this picture, it did a lot. But working for other people—I was talking to Brian De Palma over the holidays. And he said, “Do you find you’re getting a little bored with the entire process?” At our age, sometimes, yeah. That’s why each project has to be special for me. This one was very special. Even though the form itself was more created in the editing and in the writing rather than the shooting. But I had nonactors which was a very different thing for me. And that kept my interest.

They’re all amazing. The young man who plays the oldest Dalai Lama gives one of the best performances of the year. And it’s not that he’s doing an impersonation.
I went with what was genuine in that young man, Thuthob [Tenzin Thuthob Tsarong]. And I couldn’t do Mao [Robert Lin] as an impersonation either. The only thing I could do with Mao was to do what the Dalai Lama told me about him—that Mao spoke very slowly, as if every word was of great import. And he moved slowly, I think because of the medication he took, because his lungs had been ruined before the Long March. And that moment where he says, “Religion is poison.” That’s exactly what the Dalai Lama told us he said, and how Mao moved closer to him on the couch. And that the Dalai Lama couldn’t look at him any more, he just looked at Mao’s shiny shoes and knew that that man is just going to wipe everything away.

At that moment, Mao could have been a Hollywood mogul saying, “Art is poison.”
I wasn’t thinking of that. It was more that he was an incredible gangster. I always had a morbid fascination with gangsters. Some of them were my role models despite what my father told me. Obviously, I’m interested in the consolidation of power. But the Chinese never expected that the Dalai Lama would do so much after he got out.

Did you rehearse the cast as if they were actors?
Yeah. Two weeks before we started shooting, we did readings. The Tibetans also worked on the lines themselves, and they’d even drilled the kids. They had a lot at stake, they represented their whole culture. Some only had a few lines and that’s all they could do because they were very self-conscious. I thought of Robert Flaherty—Elephant Boy (1937), or Louisiana Story (1948)—or Rossellini’s Flowers of Saint Francis (1950) where he actually put strings on the nonactors. And he’d pull a string and the person would say a line. To a certain extent, there’s an awkwardness about them that I really like. What was very good was that in the first week-and-a-half the ice was broken, because we had to deal with the two-year-old in the breakfast scene. So we rehearsed and rehearsed and by the end of five days they understood about hitting marks, about repeating lines, about making sure the light was hitting them in a certain way. The idea was making them as comfortable as possible and not treating them like props. They aren’t actors, they’re not even a group of people who said it might be fun to make a movie for five months. No, they are really living it, they are it, their very being is there in the frame. They directed the picture, in a sense. They forced me to see things in a certain way—framing, camera movements, and when not to move but to hold on those faces and the incredible turmoil and emotion that’s going on beneath the surface. They grounded me. There were little things I didn’t know they were going to do. Like the throwing of the scarves at the end. I thought they were meditating but then they said, “And now we throw scarves.” Great, but let’s get a close-up of the mother throwing the scarf, and let’s do it in three different speeds, and let’s track on it. It was that kind of fun. It was so enjoyable to do. And that kid Kunga [Tulku famyang Kunga Tenzin, who plays the five-year-old Dalai Lama] was amazing. He was taking over the production. He was doing me. I’d see him walking with his hands in his pockets, and I’d say that kid is doing me. And then the twelve-year-old [Gyurme Tethong] had a different presence. And the eighteen-year-old [Tsarong]. But we’d have to watch him; sometimes he’d walk and he’d shuffle because he’s an eighteen-year-old kid. And we’d say no, the Dalai Lama doesn’t shuffle. But what a presence.

And the beautiful stuff he does with his glasses. Because his near-sightedness becomes part of the character, but it’s also a metaphor, it relates to the way you use the telescope. How when he’s inside Tibet, he’s trying to see out past the moun- tains, and then in the very last shot, when he’s exiled, how he tries to see back in.
Exactly, that thing with the eye and the lens.

What has the response from the Tibetans been?
So far, very positive. They were very moved. Maybe it is the kind of film that’s made more for people who already agree with the subject. I wanted to make a film for everybody to see, but also for them, something that they could feel was an expression of their culture, as if they made it themselves. It wasn’t a matter of going in and getting the real lowdown on the sociological set-up, on the real politics of Tibet. That’s another movie. And there are lots of movies you could make. You could make a movie on just the fall of Lhasa day by day. There’s a wonderful book on that and I’ve read all that stuff, but I wasn’t interested in that.

It seems as if there are more dissolves in this film than in any of your others. Those fast dissolves are what makes it seem like memory.
I knew from the beginning that some shots were going to wind up supering or dissolving. I knew it when I was shooting. Otherwise, it would have to be too concrete. We tried to think of the whole picture as memory. For example, Dante [Ferretti, the production designer] built a lot of the rooms as accurately as possible. But one of them—the room that has the giant Buddha, the room where he’s enthroned—that was part imagination. It’s the impression of a child. Last night I was in Corona, Queens, that’s where I was born. We lived there from 1942 to 1950. And I’ve never been back there since. So we drove around to the little two-family house that I grew up in. And it was dark, so it was very strange. And yet I immediately said, “That’s the house.” It’s still there. It came out of the darkness but I knew the look of the brick. It was amazing. So we tried to give the impression of the child’s memory through the whole look of the film.

There’s always a lot of music in your films, but this one is almost an opera.
I don’t really know much about modern music. But after I saw Paul Schrader’s Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters (1985) and then Godfrey Reggio’s Koyaanisqatsi (1983), I said that one day I would love to be able to make a film that would cry out for a score by Philip Glass. And then I went to a few Tibetan benefits in New York and he was always performing. I like the emotional power of his music, and yet the music is intellectually disciplined. Before I went to shoot the film, I sat down with him and I said I’m thinking of music here, here, and here. He sent me about ten cues. I called him up and told him this is perfect, just keep going in that direction. And he finally admitted that he had waited twenty years to do this. I knew that the last thirty minutes of the picture had to build emotionally with the music. It’s got to go. But then we had some real problems. Because we had to build there and then build again in the last shot when he looks through the telescope. While we were editing, he kept writing to our rough cut. We kept telling him not to because we’re going to change things. And he said it didn’t matter. So every time we changed it, he changed it. And it went back and forth until we came up with what we have in the film.

It’s all of a piece—you’re a westerner and you’ve directed this film from a western point of view, and Philip’s music is a western version of the Tibetan music that has always been important to him. But still, I could have used less of his arpeggio noodling.
We put that in. He felt it was boring, but Thelma and I felt it gave a certain emotional drive to those sections of the film. Sometimes it may be too much music, sometimes not enough, I don’t know. But that’s what we finally, how shall I put it, we didn’t finish the picture, we kind of abandoned it. That’s it, I’m not touching another frame. Although I just looked at a new print of the dupe negative yesterday and I’m still perfecting some of the color, in the last reel particularly.

Tell me technically about what everyone refers to as the Gone with the Wind shot—the nightmare image of the Dalai Lama surrounded by thousands of slain monks. Is it digital? Because the camera doesn’t only seem to pull up and out, it seems also to go more wide angle—like a combination of Renaissance perspective and a flat Tibetan art perspective.
It gets wider, but that’s the actual shot. We didn’t go wider digitally; we digitally duplicated groups of monks. The actual shot is just a circle of monks around him, and a lot of empty ground around them. So we digitally rephotographed the monks and put them in. To start with, there were two hundred monks. That dream and the dream of the blood in the fishpond were nightmares the Dalai Lama actually had at that time, and he told them to Melissa. And I said, that’s enough, we don’t need armies coming in. And of course, the puff of blood coming into the fishpond is this incredible moment in Mario Bava’s Blood and Black Lace (1964) [laughs fiendishly], when the woman is in the bathtub and she’s dead and she’s got black hair, a white face, and bright red lips, and it’s a white bathtub and this blood pumps up.

The response to the film is very peculiar.
Totally odd. Melissa and myself, Barbara [DeFina, the producer], and Thelma, we’re all very, what can I say, “This is what life is and it’s the business”—it’s very interesting. God. I think that for some of the critics, the film isn’t pure enough. It isn’t Flowers of Saint Francis. It doesn’t feel like you’re on the edge of documentary. One is aware of the big machine that made this film; it couldn’t be other than an American movie. So that makes the purists crazy. And on the other hand, it’s not dramatic enough to satisfy the ones who eat up big studio pictures. But what interests me about it is that it’s such a hybrid, and if you can’t have hybrids, then nothing will develop. By not letting in the influence of other cultures, of foreign films, we’re now feeding off our own entrails in this country. We have to have hybrids, to attempt to go somewhere else, maybe make some mistakes or maybe not, and we’ll see later on. And also we got thrown in with what the press calls “Tibetan chic.” Hollywood goes Tibet. Which is so cynical. It’s a disgrace. Because some people have a heart big enough to want to help out, the press makes fun of them. An absolute disgrace.

And the other stupid line is that Kundun isn’t critical enough of Tibet, as if the fact that Tibet was a theocracy excused that China marched in and murdered over a million people.
Apparently that’s the case. The Tibetans had a bad system of government and it had to be changed. In changing it, did you have to wipe out so many people and destroy almost every monastery? Is that necessary? Well look, we have a lot of business to do with China so we have to be careful. If we weren’t doing business with China, they’d be the worst—Mao would be like the Ayatollah. It’s a farce, in a country that seven years ago went to war for oil, blood for oil, so we could take an extra few flights to LA, or basically, for the Texas oil machine. It’s a total disgrace. But what’s hurt more is the cynicism of the press about people getting involved with the Tibetans. When Disney stood up to the Chinese and said, “Yes, we are going to continue making the film,” there was this piece in Time. It said that Disney stands by the life story of the Dalai Lama, and then, in dashes, “Now that’s a real blockbuster.” Who are these people? Show me a face. To say, “Now that’s a real blockbuster”! But Richard Corliss gave us a good review in Time. He came through for us on Last Temptation too. But the feature article John Leo wrote for Time on Last Temptation—that was disgusting. I have it framed on my wall, it’s so appalling—and I know for a fact he was going to write it without seeing the film. Then he saw it and hated it anyway. I’m laughing because it is what it is. I’m just getting this thing about Tibetan chic off my chest and how it’s grist for the mill. But when they say, “Now that’s a blockbuster,” well it’s not a blockbuster, OK. It’s a movie, it’s a little different from other pictures, we’re trying other things, but it’s not a blockbuster, it’s not Lawrence of Arabia. It’s something else. Maybe it’s Lawrence of Arabia when he gets up on top of the train and he opens up his robe and silhouettes against the sun. Maybe it’s that part of Lawrence of Arabia, I’m not saying it’s as good, but you know, maybe it’s a microscopic version. But this cynicism about Tibet, you wouldn’t do it with the Catholic Church, you wouldn’t do it with Judaism, you wouldn’t do it with the Muslims, not in the press. It’s very bad attitude. And it’s like, everybody’s heard about Tibet now for four months, it’s enough. It’s like we have blinkers on, and when it’s Asians, you can’t take them that seriously.

And David Denby’s review in New York Magazine, saying that maybe you just can’t make a movie about Buddhism because it’s too passive. What is he saying? That you’re only allowed to make action movies?
It’s like this conversation I had with Elia Kazan a few years ago. He said, “Yes, I can make pictures with plots and the normal traditional action. But what if you do something that’s passive? Can you make a film about passive characters, where inaction is action? Then you really see if you can go inside the mind and the heart.” Maybe we didn’t do it in this picture completely. I know for some people, we did. How many years more must we just do act one, act two, act three? Polish cinema has done something else. Kieslowski has. And Russian cinema. There’s a new Sokurov film that Paul Schrader told me about [Mother and Son]. This is also cinema. Why can’t America make cinema like that? And I know we’re also dealing with the marketplace, with LA. It’s a hard town. There was a time when we were worried that Disney wouldn’t stay with the picture. But they have and they’ve been very supportive. They even showed up at the premiere in LA. I turned around, and there was studio head Joe Roth, and he took pictures with us.

Given what’s happened, if you had it to do again, would you?
Absolutely. This is what you live for. I wish I could find another project like this one day.

 

ROGER DEAKINS CBE, ASC, BSC

“I think I said to you before, that was a very specific project,” Deakins says. “I think he asked me because of my documentary experience. Because Kundun was a film where we were basically working with non-actors. So I think he just wanted that somebody that could react to them and fade into the background, maybe. It was a very particular film.” The film was shot over a 103-day period in Morocco—the most exotic location Deakins can remember tackling over his 30-year tenure—with a pick-up day at an upstate New York Buddhist temple to boot. It was originally supposed to be 75 days but things went long. It also features an interesting—not so much staple Deakins shot, but certainly an image he’s come back to in a few other films: characters watching something projected. It pops up in Barton Fink, The Hudsucker Proxy, The Shawshank Redemption and Jarhead, for example. “It’s a great shot, isn’t it,” Deakins says. “And I love it in Citizen Kane. Sunset Boulevard was probably where it was done better than anywhere else.” It’s used to rather penetrating effect in Kundun, however. As the Dalai’s older brother asserts that Tibet must fight, images of the battle scene from Laurence Olivier’s Henry V flicker across his face. “It is unlike anything else he’s done,” Deakins says of Scorsese’s film. “I love that film. I loved the experience. I’d be surprised if he asked me again, because he’s also got a couple of regular people he works with. On the other hand maybe he will. I don’t know.” —Roger Deakins looks back on 1997’s ‘Kundun,’ his only Scorsese collaboration to date

 
The film presents the life of the 14th Dalai Lama in a series of lyrical, dreamlike sequences photographed with consummate skill by Roger Deakins, who combined naturalistic lighting with director Martin Scorsese’s penchant for kinetic camera moves. This archival article originally appeared in American Cinematographer, February 1998.

The year is 1959; high up in the frigid reaches of the Himalayan mountains, a bone-weary traveler on horseback slowly approaches an Indian border crossing, surrounded by a small phalanx of fellow riders. As he dismounts, this forlorn figure is stopped by sentries, who quickly realize the significance of the moment: the man standing before them is none other than the Dalai Lama. Expelled from his Tibetan homeland by Chinese invaders, the deposed deity has nowhere else to turn for sanctuary. Today, 39 years after his ouster, the Dalai Lama has yet to return to Tibet, which remains a near-mythical realm in the minds of most Westerners. Situated on a high plateau in southwest China, at an average altitude of 16,000 feet, this storied land is known as the cradle of Buddhism, a religion with millions of followers the world over. Since it was forcibly assimilated by the Chinese (who promptly rechristened it Xizang), Tibet has been shrouded in the melancholy aura of a lost civilization. Due to the persistent efforts of its spiritual leader, however, the region has remained alive in the public consciousness as the focus of an enduring political controversy. Thus far, the Chinese government has scorned the Dalai Lama’s attempts to rally worldwide support and restore Tibet’s independence.

Martin Scorsese’s latest film, Kundun (a term meaning “Ocean of Wisdom”), traces the life of the Dalai Lama from infancy to adulthood. The tale begins in 1937 at a small farmhouse in rural Tibet, where precocious, two-year-old Tenzin Gyatso has enjoyed an idyllic childhood with his loving family. The clan’s peaceful existence is forever changed, however, when a group of Tibetan scholars arrive at their door. Intent on locating the 14th reincarnation of the Buddha, the scholars soon determine, through a series of tests, that Tenzin is the new Dalai Lama. The boy and his dumbfounded family are immediately escorted to Lhasa, where little Tenzin is enthroned as the country’s spiritual leader. While adjusting to his new life, Tenzin is tutored by the best Tibetan scholars; in 1950, during his 15th year, these teachings are put to the test when the Chinese communist army of Chairman Mao Zedong invades the country, claiming it as part of China. The Dalai Lama’s attempts to resolve the situation through nonviolent diplomacy fail, and he is forced into exile nine years later, at the youthful age of 24.

In bringing this story of personal struggle to life, Scorsese and his crew faced an array of artistic, technical and logistical difficulties. Determined to lend their intimate film an emotional resonance, the director and producer Barbara De Fina cast the film with native Tibetans, none of whom were professional actors. The part of the Dalai Lama was played by four different boys (aged 2, 5, 12 and 18), and other key roles were assigned to actual members of the Tibetan leader’s family. In fact, the Dalai Lama himself served as a consultant on the project, working closely with script-writer Melissa Mathison and the filmmakers. Scorsese’s insistence upon picturesque locations presented further challenges. Denied permission to shoot in India, the production headed for Ouarzazate, Morocco. Over the years, this small municipality has developed into a staging post for tourists headed into the Sahara Desert; it also offers a motion picture facility, the Atlas Film Studio, located just 15 minutes from the center of town. But as director of photography Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC notes, the working conditions in Morocco were a far cry from the luxuries of a Hollywood studio. “I went to Morocco for about 10 days with Marty sometime in June of 1996,” recalls Deakins. “It was a bit of a scramble to find the locations we needed. We saw some locations we knew we weren’t going to use, and we also saw the Atlas Film Studio, which was built years ago when a James Bond picture shot there. The studio ‘entrance’ consisted of a mud wall with this door in the middle, and when you went through, there was one small ‘stage’ really just a warehouse surrounded by an expanse of desert. It was really surreal.”

The rough working conditions did little to deter Deakins, who has earned the admiration of both critics and his peers with outstanding work on such features as The Shawshank Redemption (which earned him both an ASC Award and an Academy Award nomination see AC June 1995), 1984, Courage Under Fire and Dead Man Walking. The cinematographer is probably best known for his collaborations with the Coen brothers: the ASC- and Academy-nominated Fargo (AC Mar. ’96), as well as The Hudsucker Proxy (AC April ’94), Barton Fink and the upcoming feature The Big Lebowski. However, it was his impressive photography on the scenic dramas Pascali’s Island and Mountains of the Moon (see Scorsese interview on page 58) which actually caught the director’s eye. To ease his burden a bit, Deakins brought some of his key crew members from the United States: gaffer Billy O’Leary, dolly grip Bruce Hamme and camera assistant Andy Harris. “The key grip, Tommaso Mele, came from Italy, and he was wonderful,” Deakins enthuses. “The rest of the grip crew was also Italian, as were the balance of the electricians. They were all really helpful. We also had a great English operator named Peter Cavaciuti, who handled the B-camera and Steadicam work.”

The cinematographer says that careful planning and his detailed discussions with Scorsese helped prepare him for the arduous nature of the show. “Marty had the script very clearly in his mind, and he had a very definite concept about how he wanted the film to feel. Even before going to the location during prep, he had broken down each scene into a specific style. If he wanted a particular scene to be a long, moving camera shot on dialogue, he would have that down, maybe along with a couple of close-ups he wanted to use to heighten specific parts of the sequence. On another scene, he might have things broken down into a much more conventional series of close-ups on dialogue. He did this even before locking down the locations or actually seeing the final sets! “Those sketches were what we primarily worked from,” he continues. “The day before we shot a scene, we might have a brief conversation about the next day’s work, but we basically worked from his initial conception. Of course, sometimes, given the practical realities of a set or location, we couldn’t achieve the precise shots that Marty wanted; if I saw that something wasn’t going to happen the way we’d planned it, I’d talk to Marty and we’d come up with an alternative.

“I don’t know if that’s the way he’s worked before, but for me it was great,” he maintains. “Generally, I was surprised at how often I was left to my own devices in terms of lighting the shots and choosing a lens. After seeing the sets and locations, I would take Marty’s script notes and transform them into little diagrams showing where the camera would be for each shot, which order to shoot things in, and so on. Overall, I felt as if I had a lot of input; Marty gave me quite a bit of his trust, and I did the best I could to get what he really wanted.” The cinematographer says that his earliest strategy sessions with Scorsese revolved around their use of the Super 35 format for widescreen compositions. “I shot Air America in Super 35, so I was familiar with it,” he notes. “I feel that there are good and bad aspects to the format. Technically, it’s pretty good these days, though there is a definite loss of color intensity because the whole Super 35 process involves an optical. On balance, though, I think Super 35 was the best way to go on this film; the slightly less saturated colors actually add to the naturalism we sought. Most of the interiors take place at night, and our only practical sources in those scenes were butter lamps little wicks in bowls of butter fat. In general, I like to make a light source look as if it’s really working, instead of overpowering it with an artificial source. I do use gag lights, but I like the sources themselves to be very bright within the scene. In this particular respect, the Super 35 format has the advantage over anamorphic, because it allows you to use faster spherical lenses.”

Deakins opted to shoot most of Kundun with Zeiss Superspeed and standard-speed lenses. For closer shots, his favored lenses were the 40mm and 50mm in keeping with the cinematographer’s oft-stated preference for focal lengths which simulate a human eye’s actual field of view. “A lot of times, though, I put on a wider lens than Marty had imagined,” he admits. “We were occasionally shooting with a 14mm to see the scale of some of our sets often because we couldn’t float the walls. Even if we could, the ‘stage’ wall might only be a few feet behind the set wall.” The production did carry a Cooke 18-100mm zoom lens, but it was used sparingly. “I like using prime lenses because it forces you to move the camera and think about where the camera needs to be,” he maintains. “That’s the way Joel and Ethan Coen work, and Marty is very much the same way. We really only needed the zoom for this one specific shot that we did, which occurs within a dream sequence that we’d talked about well in advance of the shoot. The camera starts in really close on the Dalai Lama’s eyes, and then pulls back and tilts down to reveal him standing amid this array of dead monks in red robes. The camera then begins rising straight up until he’s back in frame at full figure, surrounded by this sea of bodies. There was no way of tracking with the 75′ Akela crane we used, so in order to get the size we wanted on the Dalai Lama’s face at the beginning, and still have a move with a fluid feeling, we used the zoom to widen out at the end of the move. As the camera neared 50′ and rising, the perspective shift on the wide end of the lens became very slight; this allowed the effects people at Dream Quest Images to continue the move even further while adding extra bodies to fill the outer edges of the frame.”

Hewing to his desire to let real sources do as much work as possible, Deakins shot most of the film at an aperture of T2.2 or 2.5. “If you shoot at 5.6, the candles aren’t going to do anything,” he says. “We had some big night exteriors where I would have dearly loved a deeper stop, but using all of the HMI lights at my disposal, I could only manage a stop of 2.4 and still keep a thick negative. I always try for a thick negative because I don’t like to lose richness in the blacks. I always overexpose a little, and I’m usually printing in the mid-40s. “During day interiors, I was probably lighting to a 2.8 or even 3.2, and when high-speed work was involved in a scene, I would light the whole scene higher in order to make the matching easier. On exteriors, it really depended upon the kind of depth of field we wanted. In those types of situations, I like to have good depth, because to me that seems to be the more natural way of seeing things. I tended to use a .3 neutral-density filter and shoot at about 8 or 11 for bright exteriors.”

The cinematographer exploited Eastman Kodak’s Vision 500T 5279 stock for all of his interior and exterior night work; he switched to EXR 5293 for day interiors or dusky exteriors, and EXR 5248 for day exteriors. “The 79 is terrific, because it’s so fast; it really is 500 ASA. I began rating the 79 at 400, but I found I could really rate it at 500 and not worry about losing the blacks.” Deakins notes that Kundun relies heavily upon its atmospheric staging and locations. “I think this film is very much a poem rather than a traditional narrative film,” he opines. “It’s more of a mood piece involving a specific time and place in history, so our main challenge was to capture that. Morocco is not at the same altitude as the spot we’d initially chosen in northern India, and the mountains aren’t quite as present; it’s also much more arid, which was kind of nice. The Tibetans were constantly saying how much it reminded them of their homeland, and they got a bit tearful at times, which was a pretty good gauge of our location’s appropriateness.”

Of course, Deakins wasn’t alone in his quest to transform Morocco into Tibet; also joining the caravan was expert production designer Dante Ferretti, who did double duty as the film’s costume designer. Over the course of his long and illustrious career, Ferretti has earned four Academy Award nominations (Interview With the Vampire, Hamlet, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and Scorsese’s The Age of Innocence). His impressive list of credits also includes another successful collaboration with Scorsese (Casino), as well as five films with Federico Fellini (The Voice of the Moon, Ginger and Fred, And the Ship Sails On, City of Women and Prova d’Orchestra) and a half-dozen pictures with Pier Paolo Pasolini (120 Days of Sodom, Arabian Nights, The Canterbury Tales, Oedipus Rex, Decameron and Medea). Once the production had selected the town of Ouarzazate as its primary location, Ferretti supervised the construction of a second, larger soundstage at the Atlas Film Studio. “It was really just another warehouse,” the production designer admits, “but we did all of our interiors there: the Potala Palace, where the Dalai Lama spent his winters; Norbulingka Palace, also known as the ‘summer palace’; Dungkhar Monastery, the Throne Room, and so on. The stage we built was 300′ by 200′, and about 50′ high. We also built a passageway to connect it to the smaller existing ‘stage’.”

Ferretti and his multinational team (“We had Italians, Moroccans, English and Americans in key crew positions”) redressed an existing street to resemble the Tibetan capital of Lhasa, using the concrete shells of unfinished houses as facades for their exteriors. The production also hired hundreds of Moroccans to help fashion the entrance to Norbulingka Palace and its walled gardens, which were built on the shore of a large reservoir located 40 minutes from Ouarzazate. Later scenes set within Mao Zedong’s Peking headquarters were shot at an existing building in Casablanca, while a field study center in the High Atlas Mountains, some 90 minutes from Marrakech, was converted into the exterior of the Dungkhar Monastery. Ferretti concedes that his budget was not lavish; accordingly, he spent funds judiciously while still striving for sumptuous sets and costumes. “I did have a very low budget, but Morocco is not a very expensive place,” says the designer, who first worked there 30 years ago on Pasolini’s Oedipus Rex. “This is the kind of movie where the audience has to believe that they are actually in Tibet, so we built everything to be as real as possible. We used real flagstones for the floors of the sets, and I went to a factory in India to get the types of brocade, silk and fabric normally bought by Tibetan people. To do the construction, we hired a lot of Moroccan carpenters, plasterers and sculptors who did everything the old-fashioned way. Sometimes we had as many as 300 people working at once, but we could afford it because their fees were very low. There would have been no way to do it otherwise, because we had to build the big sets in about 14 weeks.”

“Absolute authenticity” was Ferretti’s ultimate goal. “I read a lot of books in preparation, and I had very good technical advisors. Namgyal Takla, the widow of the Dalai Lama’s brother, helped with the costume research, and I even had some meetings with the Dalai Lama himself; he did some sketches and floor plans for me. I didn’t want to make any compromises, and Roger did a good job of shooting and setting up his lights so that we could keep everything authentic.” Deakins admits that the meticulous accuracy of Ferretti’s approach came with a price. “Because of the relatively low budget, it was difficult to have optimal setups,” he says. “With the sets built in warehouses that passed for stages, there were no rigs, no gantries, and no greenbeds up in the ceiling. The roof just wouldn’t support any real weight. I have to say, those sets were the most difficult I’ve ever dealt with, because of the situation we created. Dante really didn’t have the money to construct the sets the way I needed to build roofs that I could work on, platforms I could light from, or structures to which I could rig lighting fixtures. The sets were built as inexpensively as they could be and still look good, but they weren’t specifically structured to accommodate a director of photography. I sympathized with Dante, because he just didn’t have the money to do it.

“When I got there toward the end of prep, I had the crew strengthen the ceiling in certain places, and put in trusses or wooden beams where I needed to place lights. I didn’t see any alternative; we couldn’t light those scenes from the floor.” The cinematographer says that the Kundun shoot required a very large lighting package. He initially planned to leapfrog his lights from one set to another, but modified this strategy to accommodate a schedule which to some extent reflected the chronology of the script. This meant that the composite Potala set stood for a large part of the schedule, while the appropriate lighting fixtures remained rigged and ready for shooting. Deakins explains, “I didn’t want to be fussing with the lights while the actors were there preparing for a scene. On most of the sets, there were only minimal lighting changes from shot to shot, because I pre-lit the sets using the platforms that had been prepped beforehand.

“I did have a large lighting package, but it wasn’t because I needed a lot of units on any particular set in many cases, I simply couldn’t de-rig one array of lights and get it onto the next set in time to shoot.” Deakins felt that it would be better and more cost-effective to use tungsten sources on the sets, while maintaining a separate HMI kit for exterior work, night work and the few location interiors. He ordered his basic package from Cartocci in Rome, and made sure to schedule in the two-week delivery time to Ouarzazate. “I wanted to have the equipment in Morocco two weeks before we started shooting so we could do our pre-lights,” he notes. “Working off of Dante’s plans, I came up with an overall lighting package, and I added some extra gear to cover any problems, which I knew we’d encounter at some point.”

The complete lighting package for the Atlas Film Studio stage work included approximately 58 Maxi-Brutes, 32 blondes, 24 10Ks and two 20Ks. “It was probably even more,” Deakins hedges, “and that was just for the stages. We mounted 20 of the Maxis on the wall of our Potala courtyard set, and they stayed there for 10 weeks. We also had to have two generators. I couldn’t have gone much further with the lighting package, because I wouldn’t have had the generating capacity. At one point, we had everything burning, and both of the generators were in trouble! It was right on the edge of what they could handle, and I was still only shooting at T2.5.” Depending on the scene at hand, Deakins altered his lighting approach for stagebound setups to reflect the appropriate dramatic tone. “The first time we see the Tibetan assembly room is during a sequence in which the young Dalai Lama is walking around the monastery and checking things out,” he relates. “He hears these voices from the assembly room, and when he looks in he sees all of these older men discussing the fate of Tibet in this huge, amazing room. I wanted our first view of the room to be really gray and kind of mysterious, so we used a soft, cool toplight; to get a soft wrap, I installed wide-flood bulbs in a number of Maxi-Brutes. We then bounced these lights off large Griffolyns which we tied to the roof rafters of the ‘stage.’ This light was then softened and cut as it entered the ceiling of the set itself, only 10′ below. It was all a bit of a struggle; I must have lit that particular scene five times before achieving something that I was happy with.

“For a later scene in which the Dalai Lama is meeting with a Chinese general in a French-European-style living room, I wanted more of a low, direct sunlight look. I was basically using the same units, Maxi-Brutes, but I switched to narrow-beam spot bulbs to obtain a harsher look. A light brushed-silk diffusion erased the multi-shadow problem caused by the bulb array. If I was using a Maxi for a different kind of situation bouncing light off a Griffolyn or something I would occasionally install medium-flood bulbs.” The scarcity of state-of-the-art equipment made the film’s larger night shoots a bit problematic particularly a key sequence in which the disguised Dalai Lama leaves his palace for the last time and wends his way through a throng of people beyond the gates of an ornamental garden. “There are no lifts or Condors in Morocco, and you can’t have a Musco light with the type of budget we had,” Deakins submits. “The only way to do that shot was to build a 60′ tower rig, partly out of scaffolding we managed to find in Casablanca. All of that material had to be brought 400 miles from the coast to Ouarzazate. It took the crew two weeks to build the rig; there was no way it was going to move once it was up, so we basically had to light this entire series of shots with one high source.

“We built the tower in a very specific spot so it would be hidden behind the garden wall when the camera panned, tracked and craned around. I think we had six 12K HMIs up there to create a blue ‘moonlight’ effect. Those were not corrected at all, as I was going for a more colorful look than I normally would at night. We also placed some little oil lamps actually 1K bulbs on dimmers beneath the archway to add some contrasting color to the shots as the Dalai Lama and his companions went through the gate. “We had an original HMI package of four 12K and four 6K Pars, but for the night shoots we had to bring in two extra lamps from Rome and a couple more 12Ks from this little commercial company in Casablanca. After we finished each night, we had a day crew move everything lights, generators and cables to the next location so that we could maximize our shooting time.”

Smaller tower rigs were used for a subsequent nighttime sequence in which the Dalai Lama departs from Lhasa in a small boat. “We were shooting on an open lake, but it was meant to be a broad river in the story, so I tried to find a spot where I could have the feeling of a far bank. We found a place where the landscape curved so I could have a headland, about three-quarters of a mile distant, in the back of the shot. “I was under some restrictions lighting-wise, because we were shooting on a dirt path by a lake; I didn’t have a crane, and we couldn’t build any large towers down there. Besides, all of the scaffolding we could find in Morocco was already in use at the palace location. When I first thought about lighting that scene, I was going to put all of my lights on a hill and just have a big wash. But then I thought, ‘That’s going to be one hard source, and I’m still going to have to fill faces as I move the camera.’ There were quite a lot of moving shots, and a lot of shots to do [in general], so we didn’t really have the time to mess about. I lit the background with Par lights aimed from the top of a hill, which gave us this gray wash on the far hillside. To light the characters in the boats and on this nearby jetty, I came up with an idea. There was one area of beach that I didn’t have to have in the frame, so I put up four little 10′ towers, each with an 8′ by 8′ reflector on top. Each tower had a 12K or a 6K HMIPar underneath it. Depending on where the camera was, I could line these reflectors up quite quickly to give a somewhat soft directional source. I was shooting wide open at about T2.1 with one of the slower, 32mm Zeiss lenses. It actually worked very well. Of course, if it had been windy I think I’d have been screwed!”

Deakins notes that the scene was later enhanced by digital artists at Dream Quest Images, who added mountains in the background and stars in the sky. “I looked at some of the test composites, and they were pretty good,” he says. “The trick was to match the lighting of the background plate to my lighting in the foreground. Trouble was, I couldn’t light the foreground with the same quality of light that could be created with the freedom of the computer. The computer-generated background looked softer and better than my foreground, and the difference between the two was a giveaway. To even it out, they had to make the lighting in the background a little more directional and from the side, rather than the beautiful soft moonlight that they started off with. “There was no way we could have lent that scene a feel of the distant mountains before this sort of technology came along,” he maintains. “We could have done a static bluescreen-type shot, but we’d have been very restricted. Digital technology has really freed us up; my only regret at this time is that we were unable to adjust all of the shots within that scene.”

Thankfully, the film’s daylight exteriors proved to be a bit less labor-intensive. “We basically shot with very hot light,” Deakins says. “I suppose we made an advantage of the fact that we were shooting in midday sun; every day was hot and bright. We really didn’t shoot anything in the morning or evening; I think low, golden sunlight tends to be a bit overused. We used the bright exterior light as a nice contrast to the interiors of these monasteries, which are naturally very dark.” Because Morocco’s altitude is not as high as Tibet’s, Deakins found himself dealing with the country’s dustier atmosphere on exterior shots. “I tried to get rid of that with Pola screens, and I didn’t filter anything because I wanted to keep everything as sharp as possible. There isn’t a single diffused shot in the film; I did use the odd grad, but not too much.” Deakins did make frequent use of gels on his lights, however. His use of color is illustrated by a scene in which the Dalai Lama moves through a snowswept passageway and enters the Throne Room, which was decorated with a huge golden statue of the Buddha and cylindrical cloth tapestries known as thangas. Within this majestic space, the young boy is officially enthroned.

The passageway in question underwent several changes during the course of production. In addition to serving as the entrance to the Throne Room, it also doubled as a corridor in both the Potala Palace and Dungkhar Monastery. The passage was open to the elements on each side, and also featured three skylights along its 70′ length one large opening, and two smaller versions. “If I had been in a studio, I probably would have put a big white bounce cove above the skylight and bounced the light from outside the set walls,” Deakins says. “There was no way I could do that on this show, because there was no place for me to rig that kind of setup. I talked about that with the key grip, Tommaso Mele, but it would have involved rigging up this huge construction, and the wind probably would have blown the whole thing down. There were 20 miles of flat desert on either side of our corridor, and every afternoon at three o’clock, 50 mile-an-hour winds would come howling across the desert, blow our lighting frames away, completely trash my rigs and fill the whole corridor with dust! In the end, we erected a more modest grid above the skylights a wooden truss surrounded by some piping. The only way to get the look we wanted was to hang Maxis above the skylights. We had six Maxis over the biggest skylight and two over each of the smaller openings. The Maxis generally had 1/2 CTB on them, and the mixture of this light and the natural daylight that percolated through these openings was further softened and corrected by two layers of 250 diffusion and 1/2 CTO gel.

“For the scene in question, however, I wanted the passageway and the Throne Room to offer sharply contrasting color temperatures. We had a snow effect coming from overhead in the passageway, and the floor was covered with piles of the stuff. For that part of the sequence, I created a cooler look by removing the 1/2 CTO gel on the skylights. The mixture of 1/2 blued tungsten and raw daylight from above looked great on the fake white snow, and heightened the dawn effect.” The Throne Room, by contrast, was lit to be completely warm. When the Dalai Lama reaches this area, he discovers a crowd waiting to witness his coronation. “The people were sitting on benches, facing the Buddha,” Deakins recalls. “It was going to be hard to light the set from below, and the roof of our ‘stage’ wouldn’t hold very much weight. I rigged up a bunch of lightweight 10Ks on dimmers, just hoping the room could take them. These lamps were bounced off some 8′ by 8′ gold reflectors positioned in the rafters. Each lamp carried 1/4 CTO and was dimmed to about 60 percent to create a warm, golden look. I also positioned gag lights behind butter lamps on the floor 1Ks or 500-watt bulbs dimmed down to around 2200°K.

“Of course, we could have lit everything straight tungsten and printed warmer, but I never think that really works as well. When you do something like that, you’re exposing the emulsion in the wrong balance. Attempting to change that balance in printing will only alter the contrast and grain in the final print. “When I’m told about a set, I draw it out and sort of sketch in what I think I should do,” he adds. “On that particular set, I thought I was going to use a direct-light effect, but when I looked at the actual space, I decided that I wanted it to be a bit softer, so I wound up bouncing all of my lights.” Deakins says that the nature of the shoot, and its authentic sets, led the filmmakers to use Steadicam more often than expected. Although Scorsese has used this device sparingly in the past (mainly for meticulously staged sequences like the bravura tour of the Copacabana club in Goodfellas), he and Deakins decided to take advantage of English operator Peter Cavaciuti’s considerable expertise. “Prior to shooting, when Marty and I went through the script and talked about camera moves, there were only two preplanned Steadicam shots. I had worked with Peter on The Secret Garden, though, and I knew he was a great operator; I had a feeling we’d be using him more on the actual shoot. We eventually worked out that he would be there the whole time, and we also negotiated to have his equipment there all the time. Once Marty saw how good Peter was, he gained an enormous amount of confidence in him. The moves didn’t have the floaty feeling that Marty doesn’t like; when Peter ends a move, it’s rock-solid.

“The sets, by their nature, were built to look very real,” he points out. “The floors were stone; we couldn’t do the old trick of pulling the rails away as the camera passed by, because there was no place for the people to get out of the way in these narrow corridors. Quite often, the only way we could do a sequence was with the Steadicam and the Moviecam SL.” The value of the Steadicam is illustrated in a key scene near the end of the film, when the Lord Chamberlain informs the Dalai Lama that foreign governments have refused to support Tibet as an independent nation, in effect siding with China. The sequence was blocked out as a Steadicam shot that would move backwards as the two characters walked through a long, winding corridor and into a study, where other Tibetan noblemen awaited them. “That sequence was initially broken down into a lot of different shots, some involving the Steadicam,” Deakins notes, “but we wound up doing one Steadicam shot walking backwards in front of the guys, and another little piece of Steadicam over their shoulders as an intercut.

“We pre-lit the entire corridor for that,” he explains. “There were some small side windows in this monastery set, and we also had several skylights to work with. The whole thing was lit in this soft, gray, cool and naturalistic way. I didn’t use a lot on the floor at all, although I occasionally put some butter lamps down there with gag lights around them. We used big soft sources like Maxi-Brutes for the overall lighting through the windows. You need a big soft light outside the window so it wraps through the window; if you put a small unit directly through the window, you’ll just get a shaft of light in one spot. Outside the windows I’d have a 20′ by 20′ light gridcloth with a row of Maxis going through it. The scene started off in darkness, lit just by butter lamps, and then the actors went through this side light from a little terrace area, which became a backlight as the camera pulled back. Next, they passed beneath a little skylight; we had some Maxi-Brutes aimed down through a gridcloth and then through another, lower piece of diffusion to provide a really soft toplight. After moving down some steps, the actors came into this much bigger and softer toplight source. Ironically, it can sometimes take longer to set up if you’re trying to do something naturalistic, because you have to use more light! You’re not trying to be stylized with fewer units and some hard shadows.”

For other scenes designed to simulate the young Dalai Lama’s POV, the Steadicam was used in low-angle mode. “A lot of the film is seen from the child’s point of view. We did a lot of the earlier scenes with our main camera, an Arri 535B, at a really low angle, and we also followed him quite a bit with the Steadicam. We used other motion systems to get that effect as well. There’s a big scene where the boy is pronounced to be the new Dalai Lama in this outdoor ceremony under a tent. All of the people from the surrounding countryside have come to see him, and he walks down this red carpet with rows of people along either side. Marty wanted one POV shot that started on the blue sky and then tilted down past the tent and this throne, which are glimpsed in the distance. The shot continues down until we see the kid’s feet walking along the carpet, and then it tilts back up again to reveal these people looking at him. We had the camera offset on a little PowerPod remote head on an Aerocrane jib arm, and we used a slightly wider lens to catch all of the people in the frame.”

To lend a dreamlike effect to certain scenes involving the Dalai Lama’s point of view, Deakins executed a number of old-fashioned speed/aperture changes with his camera of choice, the Arri 535B. “It’s harder to do than a shutter change, but I liked the idea of doing those shots with a stop change,” he says. “If you change the running speed of a 535A, the shutter will change to compensate the exposure, and it doesn’t affect the depth of field; when you change the aperture, it does. I like slow motion where you’ve got a very shallow depth of field, because it sort of isolates the thing that’s slow in the frame.” Reflecting upon Kundun‘s overall visual style, Deakins notes, “This picture really isn’t an epic; it’s more of an intimate look at the life of an extraordinary person. During the prep period, Marty and I talked about The Last Emperor a bit, and how it was so vast and overpowering. I hope that our film is somehow more naturalistic and earthy. The story is really about the child, and it’s seen primarily from his point of view. We generally didn’t show much that he didn’t experience firsthand. The invasion of Lhasa, for example, is mostly heard in the distance; we do have some shots of Chinese soldiers marching along, but that’s it. As the Dalai Lama grows older, he becomes more aware of the political situation around him.

“In general, I used a lot of sidelight and toplight on this picture,” he adds. “I started off thinking about creating shafts of sunlight through windows, but quite honestly, it was just impractical. Instead, I chose specific scenes that I would light hard; there are some scenes where people are sitting and talking amid this light that is just blasting in. Overall, though, the lighting is less showy and more subdued. “Working on this show reminded me of some of the documentaries I’ve worked on,” concludes Deakins, whose work on Kundun recently earned him awards for Best Cinematography from the New York Film Critics Circle and the Boston Society of Film Critics. “It was a bit like camping: we just had to make sure we took everything we were going to need! We had a complicated schedule, difficult sets, and a remote location. But in the end, I’m very pleased with what we accomplished.”

 
Barry Norman talks to Martin Scorsese about his film Kundun. From 30th March 1998.

 

IN SEARCH OF KUNDUN WITH MARTIN SCORSESE

I’m always interested in people who really have the guts to stand up and do things through non-violence. ‘Cause I’m so much aware of the other way of doing it, through violence, and it’s so much sanctified in our world. —Martin Scorsese

The making of Martin Scorsese’s Oscar-nominated film Kundun was an historic event, the first feature film treatment of the life of the 14th Dalai Lama. Michael H. Wilson documented this emotion-filled encounter of Scorsese and his Italian and American team with the Tibetans who portrayed the key figures in the tumultuous recent history of Tibet. Featuring compelling interviews with Scorsese, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, screenwriter Melissa Mathison, and production designer Dante Ferreti. Filmed on location in Morocco and India. Rare archival footage from Tibet.

 
In loving memory of Melissa Mathison (1950–2015)

Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Martin Scorsese’s Kundun. Photographed by Mario Tursi © De Fina-Cappa, Dune Films, Refuge Productions Inc., Touchstone Pictures. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post ‘Kundun’: Martin Scorsese’s Serene Meditation on the Transient Nature of Life appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Run Through the Jungian: Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Full Metal Jacket’, a Phenomenological Treatise on War

$
0
0

 
By Tim Pelan

“It’s not pro-war or anti-war. It’s just the way things are,” Stanley Kubrick said of Full Metal Jacket, his 1987 adaptation of Gustav Hasford’s novel, The Short-Timers. Hasford was a combat correspondent with the Marine Corp in Vietnam, and Matthew Modine’s character Joker, who we follow through basic training and the battle of Hue during the 1968 Tet offensive, was shaped by his experiences. Kubrick signed up another ex-war correspondent, Michael Herr, the writer of the narration for Apocalypse Now to work with him on the script in what Herr wryly described as “one phone call lasting three years, with interruptions.” The point of the material to Kubrick was how the system breaks down and restructures young men into killing machines, as exemplified by R. Lee Ermey’s antonymously named Sergeant Hartman: “Your rifle is only a tool. It is a hard heart that kills.” Effectively, the film can be divided into two segments, harsh, brutalizing training in the first, and Vietnam in the second, although, strictly, the final segment, known as “The Sniper,” makes it three. Modine had recommended an old friend, Vincent D’Onofrio, for the role of gormless Leonard, aka Gomer Pyle (after the initial introduction, none of the marines are referred to by their actual names. The fact that they retain their nicknames or adopt new ones suggests a part of their old identity has been subsumed by the “lean, green, killing machine”). Pyle’s ineffectual inability to keep up has him singled out for particular attention and Joker is made to make him shape up. Ironically, Kubrick’s taskmaster approach fed resentment between the two actors. The one thing Pyle has going for him is he is an excellent marksman, which will have a tragic outcome. Once the others make it to Vietnam, Hartman has indoctrinated them so much that they can barely talk in little more than cliches of the “phony tough and the crazy brave,” sussing each other out in terms of point-scoring and domination. Joker tries to stay out of the shit by being assigned to the forces magazine Stars and Stripes, but the war comes for him anyway, and he will be forever changed by it.

Full Metal Jacket treats war phenomenologically, as Kubrick explained at the beginning of this piece. It just accepts wars as an unfortunate fact of human nature. Joker pisses off the brass by writing “Born to kill” on his helmet whilst wearing a peace badge on his uniform, expressing the “Jungian thing,” the duality of man. “Vietnam was such a phony war,” Kubrick told Alexander Walker, the Evening Standard critic, “in terms of the technocrats fine-tuning the facts like an ad agency, talking of ‘kill ratios’ and ‘hamlet pacification’ and inciting the men to falsify a ‘body count’ or at least total up the ‘blood trails’ on the assumption they’d lead to bodies somehow.” Joker comes up against this bullshit in his journalistic cushy number, cracking wise to his commander after the news of Tet, “Sir, does this mean Ann-Margret isn’t coming?” Jan Harlan, Kubrick’s brother in law, stated that Kubrick, without explaining it too broadly, wanted to suggest that everyone in the film wore a mask, to survive, to get through what war requires them to do. Nathan Abrams in his piece for Forward suggests that Full Metal Jacket could be Kubrick’s “stealth Holocaust movie” (famously, Kubrick pre-planned for so long on The Aryan Papers that he was beaten to the punch by Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List). In Hasford’s novel:

 
“Arguably,” Abrams writes, “Jewishness remained beneath the surface in two key characters. Joker (played by Mathew Modine) is a cerebral writer who’s smarter, more sensitive, streetwise and sympathetic than those around him. His spectacles denote his intelligence. He’s an insubordinate, wise-cracking smartass who clearly delights in showing how much cleverer he is than his superior officers. He’s also a mensch who helps the gormless Leonard ‘Gomer Pyle’ Lawrence (Vincent D’Onofrio) through his basic training. Joker can posture as only ‘phony tough.’ He feels real remorse at having to shoot a sniper, an act that he eventually performs as a mercy killing.

And by removing any suggestion that Pyle was the redneck of Hasford’s novel, Kubrick allows us the possibility of reading him as Jewish as well. Kubrick retained the name ‘Leonard,’ possibly because interwar Jewish parents, like his own, chose such regal-sounding names in trying to give their sons a boost toward upward mobility in America. Leonard was Kubrick’s own father’s middle name as well as the given name of the Jewish doctor Clam Fink in Norman Mailer’s 1967 novel Why Are We in Vietnam?”

D’Onofrio was asked by Kubrick to “Pyle” on 70 pounds to portray the character as a shy, flabby child-like innocent, out of his depth, the target of Hartman’s ire, a stain on his Corp. This equal opportunity bigot has it in for him. To further the Holocaust subtext further, Hartman berates him during PT to give him “One for the Kommandant.” The sergeant threatens to sterilize Pyle so that he “can’t contaminate the rest of the world.” And the blanket party beating, where his frustrated platoon take turns to beat him in his bunk across the stomach with bars of soap in towels? Holocaust survivors, upon arrival in Israel after the war, where disdainfully referred to as the Hebrew word for soap, sabon.

 
Hasford described the Parris Island training facility in Carolina as “symmetrical but sinister like a suburban death camp.” To double for this, Kubrick used the Territorial Army barracks in Enfield. Here, the camera slowly tracks around the room, following Hartman around the carefully regimented, symmetrical bunks, lockers, and recruits. For the sequence where he jogs them around their bunks, repeating “This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this (groin) is for fun” Kubrick was insistent they all were precise and uniform in their movements. “Guys”, he would say, “some of you are only jerking (your groin) twice. In time to the rhythm of the words, please.” The recruits are like insects, scuttling around the polished floor. Later, in Vietnam with green combat gear and hugging the blasted urban landscape, the transformation will be complete. As if they are cockroaches, the only survivors of the apocalypse around them.

Ermey was a former Marine Corp drill instructor who also served in Vietnam, He had initially settled in the Philippines after being medically discharged and acted as a technical advisor there on Apocalypse Now. Kubrick had envisioned him acting in the same role on FMJ but he had second thoughts when he saw Ermey tear into Territorial Army extras. His endlessly inventive invective cracked Kubrick up, and much of it found its way into the notoriously regimented director’s final script. “I’d say 50 percent of Lee’s dialogue, specifically insult stuff, came from Lee,” Kubrick admitted. However, with no acting background, Ermey had trouble remembering all his lines. Leon Vitali, Kubrick’s former actor turned dedicated assistant, had him drilled on videotape, hurling obscenities as he was pelted with oranges and tennis balls. The training sequence was shot after the combat at Beckton gas works in East London, standing in for the pummelled city of Hue. When Kubrick was dissatisfied with the hair clippers used to cut the recruits’ hair down to the scalp, Ermey called an old Marine buddy who revealed that at Parris Island they actually used clippers meant for shearing French poodles. The actor originally intended for the role of drill instructor, Tim Colceri, got compensated with the small but memorable role of helicopter door gunner, and a second unit trip to Norfolk flying over palm trees to boot.

Hartman has succeeded too well in training Pyle. We see him subsequent to the blanket party with a disturbing intensity to his face and voice—reciting the Credo in his bunk as he swears before God that he will kill his enemy. Pyle has Hartman in his sights. He has somehow squirreled away a full clip of live rounds, the eponymous “full metal jacket”. On their final night in hell, which they have seemingly passed through unscathed, his full volume drill instruction in the toilets has attracted Joker, on night watch, and the incongruously dressed Hartman in his smoky bear and shorts. “What in the name of Jesus H. Christ are you animals doing in my head?” he yells. Pyle is about to do for the animal in his head, by shooting Hartman, then turning the rifle on himself, obscenely sucking on the barrel to further hammer home the pornographic imagery of war that has been drilled into the recruits.

 
Jeff Westerman, “Animals In My Head”: “Hartman, when he realizes he’s going to have to put his life on the line to stop Pyle, smiles to himself in a strangely elated way, before he speaks his final sentences. He seems to be pleased, recognizing that Fate is allowing him a great moment in which to distinguish himself as a valorous Marine. And Pyle, too, smiles, at the same moment of realization—he has engaged his enemy head-on, and they are both now consciously stepping forward to play out their ultimate roles. It’s a smile of recognition which passes between them, rank against rank, life against life, authority versus individual will. One man will only give up his power by dying, and the other can only gain it through killing.”

For the shot of Pyle’s brains being blown against the white tiled wall behind him, Matthew Modine came up with the solution. He told Kubrick about William Friedkin’s To Live and Die In L.A., and the scene where William Petersen takes a shotgun blast to the face. They obtained a print and watched it slowed down with no sound. Rather than using a squib, which Kubrick’s crew had been attempting, they realized the solution here was someone flinging guts into the actors face with a catapult. Friedkin then spliced several frames to hide the effect coming from off camera. Kubrick used a three-foot long pipe, propelling a mixture of pasta and fake blood via pressurized air. At that speed, only one frame had to be removed. (Incidentally, it is extremely unlikely a recruit could sequester ammunition like this. The Marine Corp are fanatical about accounting for every round during training. Instead, real-life Parris Island veterans testify how they were intimidated on the best ways to commit suicide if they can’t cut it, told to open a vein with a razor blade lengthways down the arm.)

The shoot ran for thirty-nine weeks, over twice the estimated eighteen. Kubrick achieved the impossible, and made the abandoned Beckton gas works in East London stand in for the bombed city of Hue. He even shipped in two hundred palm trees from Spain, kept hydrated by the fire brigade. After the harrowing training segment, the sequences in Vietnam are full of grim humor until the agonizingly drawn out sniper sequence. Although Joker’s John Wayne act (“A day without sunshine is like a day without blood”) is shaken when the NVA attack his base during the night. In the novel, Joker and Rafterman, his photographer, hook up with his old pal Cowboy and the Lust Hog squad in a cinema, mocking John Wayne’s film, The Green Berets, full of “the phony tough and the crazy brave.” In the film, they meet in a courtyard, and Joker and Animal Mother (Adam Baldwin) square off as if they are overgrown schoolboys, albeit Lord of the Flies style—armed to the teeth, with no parental control. As Crazy Earl says, revealing his “friend”, a dead enemy soldier, “We’re jolly green giants, walkin’ the Earth, with guns!” Dig his smile of surprised delight later as he catches a second NVA soldier run across his sights in the ruins and lets rip with a burst, bringing him down, before Surfin’ Bird kicks in. The upbeat pop music a deliberate ironic counterpoint to the bizarre hellscape around them.

 
Bilge Ebiri: “I noted the bizarreness of the architecture of where Cowboy’s group was camped outside of Hue—specifically, the setting of the scene where Joker first meets them and they show them the dead Vietnamese lounging in a chair. The place seemed to be made up of circular entrances. I was in Vietnam last year and I tried to think if I had seen any architecture resembling this. Then it hit me—I saw this kind of architecture at one of the Imperial tombs, on the outskirts of—you guessed it—Hue, the ancient capital. It’s a wonderfully subtle move from someone who was working primarily from photographs.” Kubrick got ill-informed flack for filming in London, an ignorance born by clichéd views of Vietnam as primarily jungle and bamboo huts. In actual fact, the buildings closely resembled the basic architectural layout of the 20th century aspect of Hue—“all in this industrial functionalism style of the 1930s, with the square modular components and big square doors and square windows,” he recalled. Many of Beckton’s buildings had coincidentally been designed by the same French architect who had built in Hue. Production designer Anton Furst sent his team to the US Library of Congress to scour Vietnamese magazines. Adverts were microfilmed, blown up into signs and posters for Vietnamese verisimilitude. Kubrick secured three period-authentic M14 tanks from a sympathetic Belgian military (the US Army deferred). Six weeks of demolition work knocked off corners and blasted windows to resemble a war zone.

Kubrick’s precision applied as much to the seeming chaos of the Hue war scenes, his camera hugging the “blasted heath” as it prowls along with the crouching Marines. He once had the crew dig through solid concrete for one such shot. Gas heaters used to eliminate un-Vietnam like foggy breath caused breathing problems for the actors, out in the rubble for weeks on end, working on the same scene. “Beckton Gas Works on the Isle of Dogs was, besides Ground Zero during 9/11, the most toxic place I’ve ever had the displeasure of being,” Modine recalled. “We all knew we were crawling around in asbestos and we understood the dangers of that. But we had no understanding of the heinous chemicals that were in the soil. During tea breaks dust was always settling on the cakes and biscuits, floating on top of our tea. God knows how much we ingested and what effect it’s had on our bodies. When we got home and took our baths, the tubs would turn a cobalt blue from the dirt that was in our hair and on our bodies.”

Modine documented his time filming in what became known as the Full Metal Jacket Diary, now turned into an app. He also took many photographs on an old camera which Kubrick chided him about, knowing he was hoping to impress the former LOOK photographer. The Beckton set was surrounded by multi-colored cargo containers to obscure unwanted elements creeping into shot. “The containers are timeless and colorful,” Modine wrote. “Rusty red. Dull yellow. Orange. Plain steel. An efficient and inexpensive way to block out England.” The actor felt transported. “One corner has metamorphosed into a typical street in Da Nang. A beautiful pagoda is being constructed off in a field. In another corner is the destroyed city of Hue.”

 
Interviewed during a lull in fighting by a CBS news crew, the squad offer up their thoughts on the war. Joker lulls them with a seemingly cultured take on his enforced “tour”, straight from the book—“I wanted to meet interesting, stimulating people of an ancient culture, and kill them. I wanted to be the first kid on my block to get a confirmed kill.” The complexity of the location shoot and Kubrick’s perfectionism began to take a toll. “Days can’t be measured by the rise and set of the sun but only by the next call sheet,” wrote Modine. Kubrick was stuck on the ending, where a young female sniper has Eightball (Dorian Harewood) shot and used as bait to draw the squad out of cover, Adam Baldwin’s Animal Mother enraged and leading the charge across the square. Kubrick brought the actors into his motorhome. “You know, I’m not sure how I want to end this film. Do you guys have any ideas?”

There were already a couple of scrapped suggestions. Joker was to die, and his death would be intercut with clips of him as a young boy. The ending of the book was filmed, then discarded, with Animal Mother hacking off the sniper’s head and hoisting it aloft on the end of his weapon. Kubrick wanted the reveal of the sniper as a young girl to be shocking. As she begs for death’s release from her wounds, Joker reluctantly gets his interview wish, finishing her off. The final minutes of the film bring us full circle. The same eerie music plays over the sniper’s final moments as when Pyle shoots Hartman, and when Pyle receives the barrack-room blanket beating. Joker, upon delivering the coup de grace, is “born again hard” as he kids himself in voice over, reborn into a new world of shit, the valorous soldiers marching through the smoke and flame to the regressive marching rhythm of the Mickey Mouse Club song. Joker’s thousand-yard stare tells the true tale of how he feels though. As Modine put it, “It is the moment that Joker dies and has to spend the rest of his life alive.”

Written by Tim Pelan. Tim was born in 1968, the year of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (possibly his favorite film), ‘Planet of the Apes,’ ‘The Night of the Living Dead’ and ‘Barbarella.’ That also made him the perfect age for when ‘Star Wars’ came out. Some would say this explains a lot. Read more »

 
The more highly paid you were, or the closer to the actual shooting, the more enslaved you were likely to be. If you were right there on the set with film running, the pressure could be amazing, or so I was convincingly told by many of the cast and crew of ‘Full Metal Jacket.’ I wasn’t the cameraman or the art director or even a grip, or, thank God, an actor. I was only even on the location two or three times, so maybe I wasn’t properly enslaved at all. I may have rewritten a few scenes 20 or 30 times—I would have done that anyway—but I never had to go through the number of takes Stanley would require. It was everything anyone ever said it was and more, and worse, whatever it took to “get it right,” as he always called it. What he meant by that I couldn’t say, nor could hundreds of people who have worked for him, but none of us doubted that he knew what he meant.Michael Herr, Grove Press, 2000

Screenwriter must-read: Stanley Kubrick, Michael Herr & Gustav Hasford’s screenplay for Full Metal Jacket [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Having based his treatment on Gustav Hasford’s 1979 novel, The Short-Timers, Kubrick then met with Michael Herr—Vietnam war correspondent and author of Dispatches (1977)—to break the treatment down onto index cards, before Herr wrote the first draft of the screenplay. Michael Herr wrote the narration for Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979), then co-wrote Full Metal Jacket (1987) with Stanley Kubrick, which contained elements of Dispatches. Kubrick, Herr, and Hasford would all receive a screenplay credit in the end. [Bonhams]

 
The cover of Kubrick’s draft of Full Metal Jacket and additional page of the script with Kubrick’s handwritten notes.


 
The Rolling Stone interview: Stanley Kubrick in 1987, by Tim Cahill. This article appeared in the August 27, 1987 issue of Rolling Stone.

He didn’t bustle into the room, and he didn’t wander in. Truth, as he would reiterate several times, is multi-faceted, and it would be fair to say that Stanley Kubrick entered the executive suite at Pinewood Studios, outside London, in a multifaceted manner. He was at once happy to have found the place after a twenty-minute search, apologetic about being late and apprehensive about the torture he might be about to endure. Stanley Kubrick, I had been told, hates interviews. It’s hard to know what to expect of the man if you’ve only seen his films. One senses in those films painstaking craftsmanship, a furious intellect at work, a single-minded devotion. His movies don’t lend themselves to easy analysis; this may account for the turgid nature of some of the books that have been written about his art. Take this example: “And while Kubrick feels strongly that the visual powers of film make ambiguity an inevitability as well as a virtue, he would not share Bazin’s mystical belief that the better film makers are those who sacrifice their personal perspectives to a ‘fleeting crystallization of a reality [of] whose environing presence one is ceaselessly aware.’”

One feels that an interview conducted on this level would be pretentious bullshit. Kubrick, however, seemed entirely unpretentious. He was wearing running shoes and an old corduroy jacket. There was an ink stain just below the pocket where some ball point pen had bled to death.

“What is this place?” Kubrick asked.

“It’s called the executive suite,” I said.

“I think they put big shots up here.”

Kubrick looked around at the dark wood-paneled walls, the chandeliers, the leather couches and chairs. “Is there a bathroom?” he asked, with some urgency.

“Across the hall,” I said.

 
The director excused himself and went looking for the facility. I reviewed my notes. Kubrick was born in the Bronx in 1928. He was an undistinguished student whose passions were tournament-level chess and photography. After graduation from Taft High School at the age of seventeen, he landed a prestigious job as a photographer for Look magazine, which he quit after four years in order to make his first film. Day of the Fight (1950) was a documentary about the middleweight boxer Walter Cartier. After a second documentary, Flying Padre (1951), Kubrick borrowed $10,000 from relatives to make Fear and Desire (1953), his first feature, an arty film that he now finds “embarrassing.” Kubrick, his first wife and two friends were the entire crew for the film. By necessity, Kubrick was director, cameraman, lighting engineer, makeup man, administrator, propman and unit chauffeur. Later in his career, he would take on some of these duties again, for reasons other than necessity.

Kubrick’s breakthrough film was Paths of Glory (1957). During the filming, he met an actress, Christiane Harlan, whom he eventually married. Christiane sings a song at the end of the film in a scene that, on four separate viewings, has brought tears to my eyes. Kubrick’s next film was Spartacus (1960), a work he finds disappointing. He was brought in to direct after the star, Kirk Douglas, had a falling-out with the original director, Anthony Mann. Kubrick was not given control of the script, which he felt was full of easy moralizing. He was used to making his own films his own way, and the experience chafed. He has never again relinquished control over any aspect of his films.

And he has taken some extraordinary and audacious chances with those works. The mere decision to film Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita (1961) was enough to send some censorious sorts into a spittle-spewing rage. Dr. Strangelove (1963), based on the novel Red Alert, was conceived as a tense thriller about the possibility of accidental nuclear war. As Kubrick worked on the script, however, he kept bumping up against the realization that the scenes he was writing were funny in the darkest possible way. It was a matter of slipping on a banana peel and annihilating the human race. Stanley Kubrick went with his gut feeling: he directed Dr. Strangelove as a black comedy. The film is routinely described as a masterpiece.

Most critics also use that word to describe the two features that followed, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and A Clockwork Orange (1971). Some reviewers see a subtle falling off of quality in his Barry Lyndon (1975) and The Shining (1980), though there is a critical reevaluation of the two films in process. This seems to be typical of his critical reception. Kubrick moved to England in 1968. He lives outside of London with Christiane (now a successful painter), three golden retrievers and a mutt he found wandering forlornly along the road. He has three grown daughters. Some who know him say he can be “difficult” and “exacting.” He had agreed to meet and talk about his latest movie, Full Metal Jacket, a film about the Vietnam War that he produced and directed. He also co-wrote the screenplay with Michael Herr, the author of Dispatches, and Gustav Hasford, who wrote The Short-Timers, the novel on which the film is based. Full Metal Jacket is Kubrick’s first feature in seven years.

 
The difficult and exacting director returned from the bathroom looking a little perplexed. “I think you’re right,” he said. “I think this is a place where people stay. I looked around a little, opened a door, and there was this guy sitting on the edge of a bed.”

“Who was he?” I asked.

“I don’t know,” he replied.

“What did he say?”

“Nothing. He just looked at me, and I left.”

There was a long silence while we pondered the inevitable ambiguity of reality, specifically in relation to some guy sitting on a bed across the hall. Then Stanley Kubrick began the interview:

I’m not going to be asked any conceptualizing questions, right?

All the books, most of the articles I read about you—it’s all conceptualizing.
Yeah, but not by me.

I thought I had to ask those kinds of questions.
No. Hell, no. That’s my… [He shudders.] It’s the thing I hate the worst.

Really? I’ve got all these questions written down in a form I thought you might require. They all sound like essay questions for the finals in a graduate philosophy seminar.
The truth is that I’ve always felt trapped and pinned down and harried by those questions.

 
Questions like [reading from notes] “Your first feature, Fear and Desire, in 1953, concerned a group of soldiers lost behind enemy lines In an unnamed war; Spartacus contained some battle scenes; Paths of Glory was an indictment of war and, more specifically, of the generals who wage it; and Dr. Strangelove was the blackest of comedies about accidental nuclear war. How does Full Metal Jacket complete your examination of the subject of war? Or does it?”
Those kinds of questions.

You feel the real question lurking behind all the verblage is “What does this new movie mean?”
Exactly. And that’s almost impossible to answer, especially when you’ve been so deeply inside the film for so long. Some people demand a five-line capsule summary. Something you’d read in a magazine. They want you to say, “This is the story of the duality of man and the duplicity of governments.” [A pretty good description of the subtext that informs Full Metal Jacket, actually.] I hear people try to do it—give the five-line summary—but if a film has any substance or subtlety, whatever you say is never complete, it’s usually wrong, and it’s necessarily simplistic: truth is too multifaceted to be contained in a five-line summary. If the work is good, what you say about it is usually irrelevant. I don’t know. Perhaps it’s vanity, this idea that the work is bigger than one’s capacity to describe it. Some people can do interviews. They’re very slick, and they neatly evade this hateful conceptualizing. Fellini is good; his interviews are very amusing. He just makes jokes and says preposterous things that you know he can’t possibly mean. I mean, I’m doing interviews to help the film, and I think they do help the film, so I can’t complain. But it isn’t… it’s… it’s difficult.

So let’s talk about the music in Full Metal Jacket. I was surprised by some of the choices, stuff like “These Boots Are Made for Walkin’,” by Nancy Sinatra. What does that song mean?
It was the music of the period. The Tet offensive was in ’68. Unless we were careless, none of the music is post-’68.

I’m not saying it’s anachronistic. It’s just that the music that occurs to me in that context is more, oh, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison.
The music really depended on the scene. We checked through Billboard’s list of Top 100 hits for each year from 1962 to 1968. We were looking for interesting material that played well with a scene. We tried a lot of songs. Sometimes the dynamic range of the music was too great, and we couldn’t work in dialogue. The music has to come up under speech at some point, and if all you hear is the bass, it’s not going to work in the context of the movie. Why? Don’t you like “These Boots Are Made for Walkin’”?

Of the music in the film, I’d have to say I’m more partial to Sam the Sham’s “Wooly Bully,” which is one of the great party records of all time. And “Surfin’ Bird.”
An amazing piece, isn’t it?

 
“Surfin’ Bird” comes in during the aftermath of a battle, as the marines are passing a medevac helicopter. The scene reminded me of Dr. Strangelove, where the plane is being refueled in midair with that long, suggestive tube, and the music in the background is “Try a Little Tenderness.” Or the cosmic waltz in 2001, where the spacecraft is slowly cartwheeling through space in time to “The Blue Danube.” And now you have the chopper and the “Bird.”
What I love about the music in that scene is that it suggests postcombat euphoria—which you see in the marine’s face when he fires at the men running out of the building: he misses the first four, waits a beat, then hits the next two. And that great look on his face, that look of euphoric pleasure, the pleasure one has read described in so many accounts of combat. So he’s got this look on his face, and suddenly the music starts and the tanks are rolling and the marines are mopping up. The choices weren’t arbitrary.

You seem to have skirted the issue of drugs in Full Metal Jacket.
It didn’t seem relevant. Undoubtedly, marines took drugs in Vietnam. But this drug thing, it seems to suggest that all marines were out of control, when in fact they weren’t. It’s a little thing, but check out the pictures taken during the battle of Hue: you see marines in fully fastened flak jackets. Well, people hated wearing them. They were heavy and hot, and sometimes people wore them but didn’t fasten them. Disciplined troops wore them, and they wore them fastened.

People always look at directors, and you in particular, in the context of a body of work. I couldn’t help but notice some resonance with Paths of Glory at the end of Full Metal Jacket: a woman surrounded by enemy soldiers, the odd, ambiguous gesture that ties these people together…
That resonance is an accident. The scene comes straight out of Gustav Hasford’s book.

So your purpose wasn’t to poke the viewer in the ribs, point out certain similarities…
Oh, God, no. I’m trying to be true to the material. You know, there’s another extraordinary accident. Cowboy is dying, and in the background there’s something that looks very much like the monolith in 2001. And it just happened to be there. The whole area of combat was one complete area—it actually exists. One of the things I tried to do was give you a sense of where you were, where everything else was. Which, in war movies, is something you frequently don’t get. The terrain of small-unit action is really the story of the action. And this is something we tried to make beautifully clear: there’s a low wall, there’s the building space. And once you get in there, everything is exactly where it actually was. No cutting away, no cheating. So it came down to where the sniper would be and where the marines were. When Cowboy is shot, they carry him around the corner—to the very most logical shelter. And there, in the background, was this thing, this monolith. I’m sure some people will think that there was some calculated reference to 2001, but honestly, it was just there.

You don’t think you’re going to get away with that, do you?
[Laughs] I know it’s an amazing coincidence.

 
Where were those scenes filmed?
We worked from still photographs of Hue in 1968. And we found an area that had the same 1930s functionalist architecture. Now, not every bit of it was right, but some of the buildings were absolute carbon copies of the outer industrial areas of Hue.

Where was it?
Here. Near London. It had been owned by British Gas, and it was scheduled to be demolished. So they allowed us to blow up the buildings. We had demolition guys in there for a week, laying charges. One Sunday, all the executives from British Gas brought their families down to watch us blow the place up. It was spectacular. Then we had a wrecking ball there for two months, with the art director telling the operator which hole to knock in which building.

Art direction with a wrecking ball.
I don’t think anybody’s ever had a set like that. It’s beyond any kind of economic possibility. To make that kind of three-dimensional rubble, you’d have to have everything done by plasterers, modeled, and you couldn’t build that if you spent $80 million and had five years to do it. You couldn’t duplicate, oh, all those twisted bits of reinforcement. And to make rubble, you’d have to go find some real rubble and copy it. It’s the only way. If you’re going to make a tree, for instance, you have to copy a real tree. No one can “make up” a tree, because every tree has an inherent logic in the way it branches. And I’ve discovered that no one can make up a rock. I found that out in Paths of Glory. We had to copy rocks, but every rock also has an inherent logic you’re not aware of until you see a fake rock. Every detail looks right, but something’s wrong. So we had real rubble. We brought in palm trees from Spain and a hundred thousand plastic tropical plants from Hong Kong. We did little things, details people don’t notice right away, that add to the illusion. All in all, a tremendous set dressing and rubble job.

How do you choose your material?
I read. I order books from the States. I literally go into bookstores, close my eyes and take things off the shelf. If I don’t like the book after a bit, I don’t finish it. But I like to be surprised.

Full Metal Jacket is based on Gustav Hasford’s book The Short-Timers.
It’s a very short, very beautifully and economically written book, which, like the film, leaves out all the mandatory scenes of character development: the scene where the guy talks about his father, who’s an alcoholic, his girlfriend—all that stuff that bogs down and seems so arbitrarily inserted into every war story. What I like about not writing original material—which I’m not even certain I could do—is that you have this tremendous advantage of reading something for the first time. You never have this experience again with the story. You have a reaction to it: it’s a kind of falling-in-love reaction. That’s the first thing. Then it becomes almost a matter of code breaking, of breaking the work down into a structure that is truthful, that doesn’t lose the ideas or the content or the feeling of the book. And fitting it all into the much more limited time frame of a movie. And as long as you possibly can, you retain your emotional attitude, whatever it was that made you fall in love in the first place. You judge a scene by asking yourself, “Am I still responding to what’s there?” The process is both analytical and emotional. You’re trying to balance calculating analysis against feeling. And it’s almost never a question of “What does this scene mean?” It’s “Is this truthful, or does something about it feel false?” It’s “Is this scene interesting? Will it make me feel the way I felt when I first fell in love with the material?” It’s an intuitive process, the way I imagine writing music is intuitive. It’s not a matter of structuring an argument.

 
You said something almost exactly the opposite once.
Did I?

Someone had asked you if there was any analogy between chess and filmmaking. You said that the process of making decisions was very analytical in both cases. You said that depending on intuition was a losing proposition.
I suspect I might have said that in another context. The part of the film that involves telling the story works pretty much the way I said. In the actual making of the movie, the chess analogy becomes more valid. It has to do with tournament chess, where you have a clock and you have to make a certain number of moves in a certain time. If you don’t, you forfeit, even if you’re a queen ahead. You’ll see a grandmaster, the guy has three minutes on the clock and ten moves left. And he’ll spend two minutes on one move, because he knows that if he doesn’t get that one right, the game will be lost. And then he makes the last nine moves in a minute. And he may have done the right thing. Well, in filmmaking, you always have decisions like that. You are always pitting time and resources against quality and ideas.

You have a reputation for having your finger on every aspect of each film you make, from inception right on down to the première and beyond. How is it that you’re allowed such an extraordinary amount of control over your films?
I’d like to think it’s because my films have a quality that holds up on second, third and fourth viewing. Realistically, it’s because my budgets are within reasonable limits and the films do well. The only one that did poorly from the studio’s point of view was Barry Lyndon. So, since my films don’t cost that much, I find a way to spend a little extra time in order to get the quality on the screen.

Full Metal Jacket seemed a long time in the making.
Well, we had a couple of severe accidents. The guy who plays the drill instructor, Lee Ermey, had an auto accident in the middle of shooting. It was about 1:00 in the morning, and his car skidded off the road. He broke all his ribs on one side, just tremendous injuries, and he probably would have died, except he was conscious and kept flashing his lights. A motorist stopped. It was in a place called Epping Forest, where the police are always finding bodies. Not the sort of place you get out of your car at 1:30 in the morning and go see why someone’s flashing their lights. Anyway, Lee was out for four and a half months.

He had actually been a marine drill instructor?
Parris Island.

 
How much of his part comes out of that experience?
I’d say fifty percent of Lee’s dialogue, specifically the insult stuff, came from Lee. You see, in the course of hiring the marine recruits, we interviewed hundreds of guys. We lined them all up and did an improvisation of the first meeting with the drill instructor. They didn’t know what he was going to say, and we could see how they reacted. Lee came up with, I don’t know, 150 pages of insults. Off the wall stuff: “I don’t like the name Lawrence. Lawrence is for faggots and sailors.” Aside from the insults, though, virtually every serious thing he says is basically true. When he says, “A rifle is only a tool, it’s a hard heart that kills,” you know it’s true. Unless you’re living in a world that doesn’t need fighting men, you can’t fault him. Except maybe for a certain lack of subtlety in his behavior. And I don’t think the United States Marine Corps is in the market for subtle drill instructors.

This is a different drill instructor than the one Lou Gosset played in An Officer and a Gentleman.
I think Lou Gosset’s performance was wonderful, but he had to do what he was given in the story. The film clearly wants to ingratiate itself with the audience. So many films do that. You show the drill instructor really has a heart of gold—the mandatory scene where he sits in his office, eyes swimming with pride about the boys and so forth. I suppose he actually is proud, but there’s a danger of falling into what amounts to so much sentimental bullshit.

So you distrust sentimentality.
I don’t mistrust sentiment and emotion, no. The question becomes, are you giving them something to make them a little happier, or are you putting in something that is inherently true to the material? Are people behaving the way we all really behave, or are they behaving the way we would like them to behave? I mean, the world is not as it’s presented in Frank Capra films. People love those films—which are beautifully made—but I wouldn’t describe them as a true picture of life. The questions are always, is it true? Is it interesting? To worry about those mandatory scenes that some people think make a picture is often just pandering to some conception of an audience. Some films try to outguess an audience. They try to ingratiate themselves, and it’s not something you really have to do. Certainly audiences have flocked to see films that are not essentially true, but I don’t think this prevents them from responding to the truth.

Books I’ve read on you seem to suggest that you consider editing the most important aspect of the filmmaker’s art.
There are three equal things: the writing, slogging through the actual shooting and the editing.

You’ve quoted Pudovkin to the effect that editing is the only original and unique art form in film.
I think so. Everything else comes from something else. Writing, of course, is writing, acting comes from the theater, and cinematography comes from photography. Editing is unique to film. You can see something from different points of view almost simultaneously, and it creates a new experience. Pudovkin gives an example: You see a guy hanging a picture on the wall. Suddenly you see his feet slip; you see the chair move; you see his hand go down and the picture fall off the wall. In that split second, a guy falls off a chair, and you see it in a way that you could not see it any other way except through editing. TV commercials have figured that out. Leave content out of it, and some of the most spectacular examples of film art are in the best TV commercials.

 
Give me an example.
The Michelob commercials. I’m a pro-football fan, and I have videotapes of the games sent over to me, commercials and all. Last year Michelob did a series, just impressions of people having a good time—

The big city at night…
And the editing, the photography, was some of the most brilliant work I’ve ever seen. Forget what they’re doing—selling beer—and it’s visual poetry. Incredible eight-frame cuts. And you realize that in thirty seconds they’ve created an impression of something rather complex. If you could ever tell a story, something with some content, using that kind of visual poetry, you could handle vastly more complex and subtle material.

People spend millions of dollars and months’ worth of work on those thirty seconds.
So it’s a bit impractical. And I suppose there’s really nothing that would substitute for the great dramatic moment, fully played out. Still, the stories we do on film are basically rooted in the theater. Even Woody Allen’s movies, which are wonderful, are very traditional in their structure. Did I get the year right on those Michelob ads?

I think so.
Because occasionally I’ll find myself watching a game from 1984.

It amazes me that you’re a pro-football fan.
Why?

It doesn’t fit my image of you.
Which is…

Stanley Kubrick is a monk, a man who lives for his work and virtually nothing else, certainly not pro football. And then there are those rumors…
I know what’s coming.

 
You want both barrels?
Fire.

Stanley Kubrick is a perfectionist. He is consumed by mindless anxiety over every aspect of every film he makes. Kubrick is a hermit, an expatriate, a neurotic who is terrified of automobiles and who won’t let his chauffeur drive more than thirty miles an hour.
Part of my problem is that I cannot dispel the myths that have somehow accumulated over the years. Somebody writes something, it’s completely off the wall, but it gets filed and repeated until everyone believes it. For instance, I’ve read that I wear a football helmet in the car.

You won’t let your driver go more than thirty miles an hour, and you wear a football helmet, just in case.
In fact, I don’t have a chauffeur. I drive a Porsche 928 S, and I sometimes drive it at eighty or ninety miles an hour on the motorway.

Your film editor says you still work on your old films. Isn’t that neurotic perfectionism?
I’ll tell you what he means. We discovered that the studio had lost the picture negative of Dr. Strangelove. And they also lost the magnetic master soundtrack. All the printing negatives were badly ripped dupes. The search went on for a year and a half. Finally, I had to try to reconstruct the picture from two not-too-good fine-grain positives, both of which were damaged already. If those fine-grains were ever torn, you could never make any more negatives.

Do you consider yourself an expatriate?
Because I direct films, I have to live in a major English-speaking production center. That narrows it down to three places: Los Angeles, New York and London. I like New York, but it’s inferior to London as a production center. Hollywood is best, but I don’t like living there. You read books or see films that depict people being corrupted by Hollywood, but it isn’t that. It’s this tremendous sense of insecurity. A lot of destructive competitiveness. In comparison, England seems very remote. I try to keep up, read the trade papers, but it’s good to get it on paper and not have to hear it every place you go. I think it’s good to just do the work and insulate yourself from that undercurrent of low-level malevolence.

I’ve heard rumors that you’ll do a hundred takes for one scene.
It happens when actors are unprepared. You cannot act without knowing dialogue. If actors have to think about the words, they can’t work on the emotion. So you end up doing thirty takes of something. And still you can see the concentration in their eyes; they don’t know their lines. So you just shoot it and shoot it and hope you can get something out of it in pieces. Now, if the actor is a nice guy, he goes home, he says, “Stanley’s such a perfectionist, he does a hundred takes on every scene.” So my thirty takes become a hundred. And I get this reputation. If I did a hundred takes on every scene, I’d never finish a film. Lee Ermey, for instance, would spend every spare second with the dialogue coach, and he always knew his lines. I suppose Lee averaged eight or nine takes. He sometimes did it in three. Because he was prepared.

 
There’s a rumor that you actually wanted to approve the theaters that show Full Metal Jacket. Isn’t that an example of mindless anxiety?
Some people are amazed that I worry about the theaters where the picture is being shown. They think that’s some form of demented anxiety. But Lucas-films has a Theater Alignment Program. They went around and checked a lot of theaters and published the results in a [1985] report that virtually confirms all your worst suspicions. For instance, within one day, fifty percent of the prints are scratched. Something is usually broken. The amplifiers are no good, and the sound is bad. The lights are uneven…

Is that why so many films I’ve seen lately seem too dark? Why you don’t really see people in the shadows when clearly the director wants you to see them?
Well, theaters try to put in a screen that’s larger than the light source they paid for. If you buy a 2000-watt projector, it may give you a decent picture twenty feet wide. And let’s say that theater makes the picture forty feet wide by putting it in a wider-angle projector. In fact, then you’re getting 200 percent less light. It’s an inverse law of squares. But they want a bigger picture, so it’s dark. Many exhibitors are terribly guilty of ignoring minimum standards of picture quality. For instance, you now have theaters where all the reels are run in one continuous string. And they never clean the aperture gate. You get one little piece of gritty dust in there, and every time the film runs, it gets bigger. After a couple of days, it starts to put a scratch on the film. The scratch goes from one end of the film to the other. You’ve seen it, I’m sure.

That thing you see, it looks like a hair dangling down from the top of the frame, sort of wiggling there through the whole film?
That’s one manifestation, yeah. The Lucas report found that after fifteen days, most films should be junked. [The report says that after seventeen days, most films are damaged.] Now, is it an unreal concern if I want to make sure that on the press shows or on key city openings, everything in the theater is going to run smoothly? You just send someone to check the place out three or four days ahead of time. Make sure nothing’s broken. It’s really only a phone call or two, pressuring some people to fix things. I mean, is this a legitimate concern, or is this mindless anxiety?

Initial reviews of most of your films are sometimes inexplicably hostile. Then there’s a reevaluation. Critics seem to like you better in retrospect.
That’s true. The first reviews of 2001 were insulting, let alone bad. An important Los Angeles critic faulted Paths of Glory because the actors didn’t speak with French accents. When Dr. Strangelove came out, a New York paper ran a review under the head Moscow could not buy more harm to America. Something like that. But critical opinion on my films has always been salvaged by what I would call subsequent critical opinion. Which is why I think audiences are more reliable than critics, at least initially. Audiences tend not to bring all that critical baggage with them to each film. And I really think that a few critics come to my films expecting to see the last film. They’re waiting to see something that never happens. I imagine it must be something like standing in the batter’s box waiting for a fast ball, and the pitcher throws a change-up. The batter swings and misses. He thinks, “Shit, he threw me the wrong pitch.” I think this accounts for some of the initial hostility.

Well, you don’t make it easy on viewers or critics. You’ve said you want an audience to react emotionally. You create strong feelings, but you won’t give us any easy answers.
That’s because I don’t have any easy answers.

 
Thanks to the great folks at Movie Geeks United!, Tim Cahill’s 1987 interview with Stanley Kubrick, published in Rolling Stone magazine, is now available in its taped entirety. Enjoy two hours with Kubrick discussing his latest film Full Metal Jacket. For more exclusive Kubrick-related audio materials, visit The Kubrick Series.

 
Kubrick’s casting note in his draft of the Full Metal Jacket script, courtesy of Will McCrabb.

 
Kubrick’s daughter Vivian—who appears uncredited as a news-camera operator at the mass grave—shadowed the filming of Full Metal Jacket and shot eighteen hours of behind-the-scenes footage for a potential ‘making-of’ documentary similar to her earlier film documentary on Kubrick’s The Shining; however, in this case, her work did not come to fruition. Snippets of her work can be seen in the 2008 documentary Stanley Kubrick’s Boxes.

 
Matthew Modine, star of Full Metal Jacket, has published a digital recreation of his limited edition (now out of print) book. Full Metal Jacket Diary iPad app includes over 400 high-res photos from the set, five chapters from Modine’s book, and a four-hour audio experience that takes you through the production, beginning to end.

 
A Pinewood Dialogue with Matthew Modine offers rare insight into Kubrick’s techniques in directing his actors.

 

DOUGLAS MILSOME BSC, ASC

Douglas Milsome BSC, ASC, who had pulled focus for John Alcott BSC on The Shining, stepped in as cinematographer for Stanley Kubrick on this film, which the director again opted to shoot with ARRIFLEX 35BL cameras. Despite being set in Vietnam, the entire film was produced and filmed in England—at Pinewood Studios, Bassingbourn Barracks and Beckton Gasworks. Milsome experimented with different shutter angles for battle scenes, a technique Janusz Kaminski borrowed for Saving Private Ryan.

 
September 1987 issue of American Cinematographer, detailing the making of Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, by Ron Magid.

It has been exactly thirty years since Stanley Kubrick’s first “war movie” Paths Of Glory, laid the foundation for his undisputed status as a world class filmmaker. The film is at times naively ideological but full of power and passion in its belief that the common man is merely a pawn in the game of war. Now, on the thirtieth anniversary of Paths Of Glory, Kubrick has presented us with what is arguably his most cynically Produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick Director of Photography, Douglas Milsome despairing, grim and disturbing film ever: Full Metal Jacket. The common man may still be a pawn of the government’s war machine, but this time around the price of obedience isn’t his life—although that may become forfeit-but his humanity. The title refers to a type of bullet commonly used in the Vietnam war, but it might also reflect the icy documentary-like detachment that characterizes the film’s sardonic tone.

Kubrick is definitely a team player, so it comes as no surprise that the man he chose to shoot Full Metal Jacket, Douglas Milsome, has been a participant on every one of his films beginning with A Clockwork Orange, where he served as the late John Alcott’s focus puller. Milsome quickly moved up through the ranks, becoming Alcott’s first assistant on The Shining. lt was on this film that he was allowed to shoot some first unit footage after Alcott left to work on another project. On his own after fifteen years with Alcott, Milsome has proved himself a worthy successor to his great mentor, whose style and meticulous attention to detail he tries to emulate. “I’d like to carry on where John stopped, actually,” he says. “I thought he was a great photographer and I learned a lot from him working with Stanley. I use the Alcott System all the time now. He taught me how to use black and white Polaroids to measure a great deal more than just exposure—it gives you the balance and allows you to go much higher or lower than the meter would otherwise indicate against film speed. The Polaroid film delineates very well between light and shade, and also gives a tremendously good idea of how windows are going to look if they’re over- or-underlit. The passing of John was such a blow to me that I’ve determined to try to perpetuate what he was trying to do. He lit like no other cameraman, so effectively with little or no light. Most of his lighting went into one suitcase, and that’s what I like and it’s what Stanley likes too.”

Although Kubrick’s films take notoriously long to shoot, nothing is left to chance and much of that time is spent in pre-production with the cinematographer. “Although I was actually on the film for a year and a half,” Milsome points out, “the shooting actually took a lot less time than people believe. The actual shooting took just over six months and we had to shut down for some twenty plus weeks due to injuries and accidents. My period of pre-production, however, was considerably longer than most. There’s always an awful lot to discuss with Stanley during pre-production because there’s so much involved with his films. They’re always big subjects, so the cinematographer is often brought in quite a bit earlier than usual, not just to check the equipment but to check every single aspect of every possible situation to the nth degree. It involves painstaking time for discussion. He’s just as methodical in his prep as he is in his shooting. Sometimes his prep takes as long as his shooting, often longer. He gives a new meaning to the word meticulous’ and the word ‘methodical’. As far as the lighting is concerned, that’s open to discussion. We build models of our sets and discuss how to light them and then we do extensive testing.”

Nearly all of the equipment used by Milsome on Full Metal Jacket was owned by Kubrick, who maintains stores of the most up-to-date and advanced equipment available. For many of the large tracking shots that comprise much of the film’s action footage, a variety of cranes and Steadicam were employed. Primarily, Milsome used the Arri BL camera and Zeiss high speed lenses. For some extreme slow motion effects, Kubrick purchased two of Doug Fries’ high speed cameras adapted from standard Mitchells, which were used in combination with numerous Nikon lenses. From its inception, Kubrick and Milsome agreed that Full Metal Jacket should have the desaturated, grainy look of a documentary. “We did that by using the high speed Kodak 5294, which we rated at 800 ASA all the way through,” Milsome recalls. “It should’ve been 400, so we were pushing it a little beyond where it would’ve given us a really solid black. By pushing the film all the way, we were able to bring the fog level up, and there was a natural lean toward the milkier, less solid blacks and grays, which documentary film tends to have. The film helped us a lot in achieving that look, coupled with the fact that we were working wide open. Even on days where it was fairly hazy but sunny, we used a lot of neutral density filters on the camera purely as a means of reducing the light transmission through the lens, which took some of the contrast out of the image and flattened it a little more. Also, we shot without an 85 correction filter for daylight, which gave us an extra % of a stop in hand. We pulled the blue out to make it look less cold, but we were able to correct for this color shift on the set. It just enabled us to get that little extra half hour or hour’s shooting at the end of the day.”

That extra bit of time can be crucial. Though Kubrick’s films have lengthy schedules, it isn’t because he tends to work at a leisurely pace. Kubrick’s demanding perfectionism is both a strain and an extremely rewarding attitude for those used to working with directors who expect less, Milsome explains: “I’ve actually had a lot harder time working for a lot less talented people than Stanley. He’s a drain because he saps you dry, but he works damn hard himself and expects everybody else to. Sometimes it becomes a plod because it’s so slow and intricate, but he loves to do things quite differently than what’s ever been done before. You can’t really do that sort of thing off the top of your head, so you work very hard to get it together and make something different which bears his mark. That can be a little overbearing and it tends to zap you and take up nearly all of your time. Sometimes the relationship can get a little strained because you’ve got to be devoted to him. You eat, drink and sleep the movie, and you’re under contract to Stanley body and soul. But he allows you the time to get everything absolutely right, which is what I find so rewarding.”

It is this insistence on achieving perfection regardless of how many takes are necessary for which Kubrick is most infamous. “Stanley always has done many, many takes” Milsome says, “but in fact, the many takes are not just repetitions of the same thing, they are often building upon a theme or idea that can mature and develop into something quite extraordinary. The whole structure of the scene can actually change during the operation of filming it. Also, Stanley gets a lot more out of his actors after he works with them a lot longer. It’s especially valuable in bringing out something in actors who may not be exactly up to the part, but Stanley works on them jolly hard until they produce the goods. That’s why he’s so good with actors: in the end, he’ll rehearse and rehearse them until they’re word perfect, and when they’ve got the words perfect then the rest has to happen—they then have to act. The large number of takes are used mainly to get something out of the actors that they’re not willing to provide right away. Of course, it’s demanding on the crew as well, but it’s a lot harder for the actors than it is for us. Once you’ve done an eight or ten minute scene a number of times, after take thirty or thirty-five, you’re really into it!” Milsome laughs. “Actually, it doesn’t always go that many takes. There were occasions on Full Metal Jacket where we went a few more than twenty-five or thirty takes, but we usually didn’t average more than ten to fifteen takes, although sometimes we’d go back and reshoot certain scenes later.”

Full Metal Jacket was shot entirely in England on sets ranging from a meticulously reconstructed Marine Corps, barracks to a blasted coke plant that served as the background to the Tet Offensive at the end of the film. The two part structure of the film necessitated recreating the Marine training camp at Parris Island in great detail for the basic training of the “grunts” that comprises the film’s grueling first half, while the second half of the film had to look like Vietnam location footage. Surprisingly, Kubrick found the ideal location for both sets in three different locations in the Northeast London area, not more than thirty miles apart. Parris Island’s training camp was a real military base in Bassingbourne, the barracks were built at Enfield, and the vast rubble and blasted buildings of the Tet Offensive were to be found in an East London gasworks.

The film opens inside the practical barracks set Kubrick had constructed at Enfield, as Milsome’s camera dollies along with Gny, Sgt. Hartman, played by Lee Ermev, as he indoctrinates the new “grunts” into the harsh, contradictory realities of Marine Corp life. Ermey, who is not an actor—he was actually the film’s technical advisor and a real life drill instructor—went through the sequence again and again, as Kubrick coached him on the precise inflections and mannerisms he wanted. All told, there were twenty-five takes or so the first time around. Ermey suffered injury in a car accident during shooting, after which “he’d improved no end as an actor,” Milsome relates. “I think he polished up his part quite well, so we did that particular scene all again. It was well worth it because he was so much better.”

In order to accommodate Kubrick’s proposed 360° shot. Milsome had to place all of his lighting outside the set, where it streamed in like cold sunlight through the large windows on either side of the barracks. Milsome had become accustomed to the director’s need for total freedom on the set, and so emulated Alcott’s daytime interior look for the palaces of Barry Lyndon and the lobby of The Shilling’s Overlook Hotel. “You can’t restrict anything Stanley wants to do by having a light source which shouldn’t be in the shot in the way,” he confirms. “Stanley likes the total freedom of being able to go anywhere at any time, so we reproduced the look of sunlight streaming through the windows. The lighting was all totally outside—there were no lamps inside anywhere except for the warm white deluxe daylight flourescent tubes in the overhead strips which were featured as a source light anyhow. So we just let the sunlight bleed in through the windows, which gave us a very natural single source light with a very soft fill, roughly about 3:1 on the shadow side. For this effect, we used the Par 600 watt lamps—each light has six 100 watt bulbs on it. We put four of these lamps outside each of the seven window’s in the set, so we had 24,000 watts burning outside each window. We had them filtered through the Rosco plastic 216 fibre, which gave us a very nice soft warm look.

“We used a very old moviola dolly with pneumatic tires which we let down so they had only a minimal amount of air in them. Although the floor of the barracks set wasn’t that smooth, we were able to wheel the dolly about the floor because the fairly flat tires actually made the shot very smooth. “The Louma crane was a great tool to us,” he says. “We did a lot of low angle tracking shots that ended with the camera soaring up into the sky as the troops were drilled. We had a remote hot head rig we could operate from below so we didn’t have to actually sit on the crane. We also mounted our camera on a Tulip crane with a Skycam extension, so we could get our lens over thirty feet up. We were able to use both types of crane rigs to create some really interesting camera moves that enhanced the training sequences. With this equipment, when they went over the obstacle course, we could go up with them, so there were quite a lot of shots of them climbing ropes and over barriers and things where we just followed them up.

“Because we were using the Louma crane quite often, we decided to have the crane ready assembled on a track always,” Milstone continues. “Although the crane itself is not that heavy-about a thousand pounds—it does take some hours to put together. We got a sixty seat coach, left the cab as it was, sawed the coachwork off and made the rear end into a thirty foot long tracking platform on which we laid our rails. Our crane was always completely assembled on this tracking coach, so we could drive it into any position within minutes, secure it with hydraulic jacks and be ready to do our shot very quickly.”

The climax of the film’s boot camp segment is carefully orchestrated in two powerful and disturbing nighttime scenes in the barracks, where the harsh blue moonlight filtering in through the windows is in sharp contrast to Milsome’s warm pink daylight look. The first sequence consists of the ritual beating of Gomer Pyle by his fellow recruits after they are forced to do push-ups when Hartman discovers a donut in the overweight private’s trunk. The sequence is eerie and frightening, and Pyle’s pain and horror are well served by Milsome’s objective photography and stylized lighting.

“We wanted to introduce a strong moonlight effect, which I think worked and gave a weird feeling to it all. It’s similar to the blue light we used in the maze in The Shining. For this scene, we used an open Fresnel Brute, which gave us very sharp shadows, and four 10K HMIs, white flame without condensers so they also cast very long and definite shadows. The Brute was placed at one end, giving a much wider, brighter beam, and the other four windows were each lit by one of the 10K HMIs. We then put half blues over them to give us a kind of Hollywood moonlight glow. Again, all of our light came from outside, and we used polystyrene to bounce the light or we bounced light from a 1000 watt snooted Lowell off the ceiling just to reflect a little bit of white light into the shadow side. We had a key of F.2, so we probably had about .70 on the shadow side, which meant we were working at roughly a 4:1 ratio.”

That same combination of naturalism and stylization pays off handsomely in the gruesome max of the film’s first half, wherein Pyle goes quietly mad after becoming a full-fledged Marine killing machine. Eyes rolled back into his skull and glowing with a strange inner light, he turns his rifle—with its full metal jacket shells—first on an outraged Hartman and then on himself. “That scene was very powerful,” Milsome agrees. “D’Onofrio flashes what people are now referring to as the ‘Kubrick crazy stare’. Stanley has a stare like that which is very penetrating and frightens the hell out of you sometimes—I gather he’s able to inject that into his actors as well. The light in D’Onofrio’s eyes was achieved quite naturally: the bathroom was tiled out quite white, so there was a massive amount of light coming back off them onto his face, which helped. “Again, the lighting was fairly straightforward. We had the same configuration as in the barracks, except with 5Ks in this case, placed four flights up shooting down through the bathroom window and throwing patterns on the wall, and we introduced the blue element again. The action part of the sequence didn’t take as much time as getting a performance. The pattern of Pyle’s brain on the wall after he shoots himself didn’t take all that long to get right, and for Hartman’s death, Ermey just shot straight back—I think he’s been hit before, because he bounced back well!’

Fade to black. When the lights come back on, we’re on a surdit street somewhere in Vietnam, following close on the heels of a voluptuous Vietnamese hooker as she propositions a couple of our boys. This shot typifies the style of the remainder of the film, as Milsome’s roving camera prowls through one vast urban landscape after another. “We used the Louma crane to a large extent on our exteriors,” Milsome says. “We had no exterior light apart from daylight and we used that right up until the eleventh hour. There was no day for night at all. We shot night for night lit by these Wendy lights, which each hold about two hundred bulbs. When hoisted up over a hundred feet on a cherry picker, they can light an enormous area from over two hundred yards away. They each took about 1200 amps, and we could actually light an area of 400 square yards quite easily at a light level of T1.4.”

Milsome also made use of a rather unusual dolly for many of the battle sequences: a camera car with its engine removed. “Stanley bought a Citreon Mahari, which proved to be quite useful,” he recalls. “It’s a very good, soft suspended tracking car, on which we mounted two cameras. We ripped the engine out of this one and pushed it along—it was fairly easy to push—and we did a lot of our tracking shots with that. We used it on Barry Lyndon to do many of our tracking shots across fields. It worked much better than a dolly because, tracking that fast, a dolly would have meant an unsteady picture, and I don’t think a Chapman crane could’ve tracked that fast with stability on a non-metallic surface. The car had an extremely soft ride and we were able to push it quite fast. We often had about six people pushing, one steering and three or four cameramen.”

The Tet Offensive, which compromises the primary focus of Full Metal Jacket’s grim second half, began quite treacherously at dusk on a Vietnamese holiday, during which time both sides had agreed there would be no fighting. Kubrick decided to stage the first wave of the offensive outside an American army base, where soldiers are holed up behind sandbags in flimsy tents. This set, called “the hooches,” was built at Bassingbourne, across from the camp that doubled as Parris Island. Milsome remembers the inherent difficulties in photographing huge scale special effects for this sequence: Choreographing our camera movement was extremely important, otherwise we’d waste a lot of money on effects we wouldn’t catch on film if we’d missed our mark. It became a question of rehearsing a number of times to insure we got it right.”

The lighting source for the night for night sequence were four Wendy lights posted in different corners of the training camp, which greatly facilitated quick changes from one angle to another. “If we wanted to change the direction in which we were shooting,” Milsome explains, “we’d just save one lamp and switch another one on so we always had a moonlit backlight source illuminating the scene. Once the Wendy lights are in position, they’re a hell of a job to maneuver, especially on soft ground, so having four saved us a great deal of time we would have spent moving them about, which enabled us to get our night work done that much faster. The lamps, from over 250 yards away, were able to give us a fast 1.4 backlight on the 94 Kodak film. We’d shoot at F.2, which was about one stop under. It was quite enough, and the rest of our light we would fill using sheets of styrene. We black velveted the actual trucks and the jib arms the lights were on so you couldn’t see them if we panned across them.”

The last twenty minutes of Full Metal Jacket comprise Private Joker’s “dark night of the soul,” as he and his photographer, Rafterman, played by Kevin Major Howard, are caught in an ambush along with the platoon they’ve been assigned to cover. The platoon leader has been killed, so leadership now falls to one of Joker’s fellow “grunts” from boot camp. Cowboy (Arliss Howard), who is ill suited to the task of negotiating his way out of the deadly situation. The tension is evident as the recruits huddle in fear behind a blasted wall as buildings blaze hellishly around them. “The final ambush sequence was shot over several afternoons around the tow end of the day, when the exposure wedge was dropping away,” Milsome recalls. “It was a good time to do that because we were wide open so we got the maximum effect from the flames. If you underexpose them, you don’t get the maximum effect. This way, the flame looked so much brighter and had a glowing quality, which was helped by the fact that they were all shot around magic hour-dusk time. We carried on with our shooting from late afternoon as it turned into evening, before it actually became night, for days. We were working with fast film and fast lenses at 1.4 going way down until the exposure level just went.

“Although we had exposure from the sky,” he continues, “we still needed to throw some light on the actors’ faces. We mainly did that using kicker lights that glanced off their heads or gave us a ¾ backlight. We primarily used Lowells or Redheads from quite a distance away, spotted up so they had a very directional beam that wouldn’t spill anywhere else. We introduced flame red into the color of the lights too, to give them a warm glow.” Interestingly, the scene of the troops awaiting Cowboy’s decision is as formally framed as Kubrick’s handheld-style battle footage that follows, which Milsome finds remarkable; “Stanley’s composition is very stylized. The way he places people is just amazing. You’ll never find a Kubrick setup where the actors’ feet are cut off every shot is either from the waist up or full length. Every one of his movies has that look; very square, very level and symmetrical. Things are placed exactly right every time. I use that style a lot even when I’m not working with him because that’s the sort of thing that I like myself. The use of extreme wide angle lenses is distinctive, too, and allows us a great area in which to manipulate the action. We used a lot of wide angles to compose interesting shots, as well as a lot of very close angles on the same shots, and then Stanley would cut from one extreme to the other.”

For the intensely visceral battle sequence that ensues, in which members of the platoon are mercilessly, repeatedly wounded by a hidden Vietnamese sniper in a largely successful attempt to draw the other members of the company out into the open, Milsome employed a great deal of Steadicam shots following the Americans across the battlezone. For the bloody closeups of the massacre itself, in which two soldiers are literally blown to pieces, Kubrick utilized exteme slow motion to emphasize the pain and the horror. “We had two high speed Fries cameras going at five times speed as the soldiers were shot,” Milsome remembers. “We just tore them open with lots of squibs and ran our cameras at very high speed. We used Nikon lenses to a very large extent in this sequence, not only for their extremely sharp definition and clarity, but for their many varying focal lengths. The range of the focal lengths go from five mil every mil up to one- or two hundred. The long focus lenses go up to 1200mm, which we could double and make 2400mm. They’re slow, but with the fast p stock we still had the aperture we needed on location without losing any of the quality—they don’t look like regular telephoto lenses. I think they have the supreme edge for optimum definition throughout the whole focal range.”

Milsome’s clinical, detached photography of Full Metal Jacket’s visceral battle footage lends Kubrick’s film a distant, yet poignant quality, which the cinematographer was afraid might be lost when he used the finely honed Nikon lenses. “I was hoping that detached documentary look would come across, but I worried that those Nikon lenses tend to bit into so much that there’s almost nothing you don’t see, whereas in documentaries, you can’t always see everything,” Milsome says. “I wanted the camera to seem detached—that’s exactly what the idea was. I did that by making the subject come to me, rather than going to them. There’s an intermediate distance where lenses become very detached, although over a certain focal length you can get too close or too wide and become very integrated into the action. We were aiming for the middle distance where we could reach a focal length that would allow us to remain slightly more divorced from the action and still see it all.”

The surviving G.I.s ultimately confront the sniper inside one of the bombed out buildings, in what appears to be some sort of decimated temple. The sniper is at first unaware that her enemies have entered the stronghold, but as soon as their presence is detected, the killer of half the platoon whirls about madly to do battle with the rest. The film’s supreme shock moment—the revelation that the sniper is merely a teenage girl—is poetically served by Milsome’s unusual stroboscopic slow motion cinematography. “We used a take where she looks very strange as she turned around,” he says, “where the fires blazing in the room seem almost to eat into her face as they bleed in from the background. This wasn’t just achieved by slowing the film down. We actually put the shutter of the camera out of phase with the movement of the film, which created a slight vertical strobe. As she was moving up and down and turning around, the flames seem to be standing still, and when she moved into the flames, they didn’t move with her but seemed to bleed onto her face. The film is actually exposing as it’s moving, which is what gives it that strobe effect. Normally, the film stops when the shutter opens, which freezes the picture., but in this case, the film’s still moving while the shutter’s open. Only slightly out of sync—maybe 25%—but it’s enough to give the effect of light lasting that much longer in the shot.”

The resolution of Private Joker’s moral ambiguity—as symbolized by the “Peace” button and the “Born To Kill” moniker he paradoxically sports on his helmet—is evidenced when he kills the young girl who so ruthlessly attacked them. Afterwards, he and the remaining soldiers march through the blasted concrete and twisted metal, a truly hellish landscape of angry orange and red flame, and Milsome’s camera captures the film’s final action with eloquent simplicity. “We really seemed to be lighting that sequence with calor gas and napalm,” Milsome wrily points out. “The buildings the soldiers march past were lit with a tank filled with 3000 gallons of burning gas, and we had oil burning Dantes which created the big fires that glowed in the background. The calor burns very red-yellow and the Dantes burn with a black smoke combined with a lot of color. Together, they produced a strong red glow. We did the final shot with a Louma crane, but it wasn’t shot from a great height. Instead, we extended the Louma crane some twenty feet away from the track, and we actually used it to get closeups of our actors on the march without making them come to camera. We also used a Python crane and a straight dolly on this same track, which was a thousand feet or so in length. We had a Brute lamp aimed at our actors and tracking with the camera from a long way off-fifty or sixty feet from the lens.”

The ending of Full Metal Jacket is the most disturbing, despairing and cynical of any Kubrick film. In the three decades since Paths Of Glory, the brilliant but naive young filmmaker has apparently lost whatever faith he may have held in the humanity of the human race. At the end of Paths Of Glory, Kubrick’s soldiers are able to rediscover their souls, but in Full Metal Jacket, they have lost theirs irretrievably. When Joker says he faced the enemy and “felt no fear,” we know that the bullet that ended the Vietnamese girl’s life also killed the Joker that resisted the Marine Corp training for so long. As the Americans march through the burning Hell they’ve made, singing a perverse rendition of the “Mickey Mouse Club Song,” the image goes dark and the Rolling Stones beg us to “Paint It, Black.” Films don’t get any blacker than Full Metal Jacket.

 
Working closely with Stanley Kubrick, who seemed to have a thing for hats, illustrator Philip Castle created the iconic posters for two of his key films, Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange. Here, Castle opens some old boxes filled with treasures and shares the experience.







 
One of the longest dolly tracks in the history of movies for the Mickey Mouse March in Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket.

 
Through interviews with Kubrick’s collaborators and cast members, including Vincent D’Onofrio, Lee Ermey and Adam Baldwin, this documentary reveals how Kubrick’s brilliant visual sense, astute knowledge of human nature, and unique perspective on the duality of man came together to make Full Metal Jacket an unforgettable cinematic experience, taking its place in his “war trilogy” alongside cinematic landmarks Fear and Desire and Paths of Glory.

 
The most difficult and challenging thing about directing a film is getting out of the car.
—Stanley Kubrick (inside his Mercedes, one morning during the filming of Full Metal Jacket)

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket. Photographed by Delton Anderson & Matthew Modine © Natant, Stanley Kubrick Productions, Warner Bros. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post Run Through the Jungian: Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Full Metal Jacket’, a Phenomenological Treatise on War appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.


‘The Conversation’: Francis Ford Coppola’s Paranoia-Ridden Tale of Surveillance, Guilt and Isolation

$
0
0

 
By Koraljka Suton

Between his masterpiece The Godfather (1972) and its 1974 sequel, esteemed filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola decided to seize the opportunity to do a small-scale movie that was very personal to him, one that he had been narratively developing since the previous decade. A conversation with director Irvin Kershner about surveillance gave rise to an idea that would soon blossom into a palpable story, resulting in a 1969 first draft of what would later become known as The Conversation. Kershner had mentioned the common misconception that the best way to avoid being overheard was to converse in a crowded place, since microphones with gun sights on them that could record selected voices in a crowd were not common knowledge at the time. Coppola was fascinated by the idea of a private conversation between two people being documented in such a way but decided that he would much rather focus on the person doing the eavesdropping than on those whose privacy was being violated. This interesting decision could, perhaps, be attributed to the self-proclaimed science geek’s own former inclination towards eavesdropping devices, which he used to plant around the family home in his youth, so as to be privy to his family’s conversations. We could even take it one step further and assert that his choice of protagonist was an auto-referential one, for it implies placing the focus on the voyeur whose perspective gives him the feeling of having a greater amount of control than those who are being spied on, much the same way a director functions as an observer of conversations, motions and emotions unfolding before him. But, unlike the surveillance specialist, the director really does exert complete control over the process and its development.

This notion of having control, wanting control and, ultimately, falling under the illusion of being in control, is just one of the themes Coppola’s The Conversation brilliantly tackles. We the audience are given the opportunity to follow and gather information about Harry Caul, a surveillance expert hired to record a conversation between two young people in the crowded Union Square. Being the best of the best, Caul is successful in his endeavor, but given the scope of the task at hand, he is left with three incomplete recordings that he must combine into one usable tape, a process which requires a lot of technical sound play if he is to acquire bits and pieces of crucial information. One particular sentence he manages to uncover leads him to believe that the two are in danger and he quickly realizes that his handing in the tapes is the very thing that will get them in harm’s way. What follows is a slow and detailed unraveling of both the puzzle Caul is trying to piece together and of Caul’s internal world. Although labeling himself a man whose job does not require him to understand human nature, but rather just to procure information, Caul’s conscience inevitably catches up with him, as he finds himself not only caring for the fate of the people whose lives his work might have endangered, but also trying to prevent the seemingly inevitable tragedy from happening. Ironically enough, it is precisely his lack of emotional intelligence that renders him unable to correctly interpret the sentence that puts him on his guilt-ridden path of no return, resulting in him going from spy to the one being spied on.

 
Caul’s inability to fully grasp that which is right in front of his nose, that is to say, in his ears, is fantastically conveyed by The Conversation’s use of sound. In Coppola’s neo-noir thriller, the method used for the disclosure of information is repetition, rather than exposition. We are made to listen to the conversation as many times as Caul decides to play it, either as a recording or in his mind’s eye, which in turn enables us to draw our own conclusions. But there is a catch—we hear the conversation as Caul hears it, we see through his eyes and listen through his ears. Yet, we are unaware of the fact that we have fallen victim to the protagonist’s unreliable perspective, even though it is overtly stated just how poor of a grasp he has on human nature. It is near the very end of the movie that we hear the sentence as it was recorded, and not as Caul had heard it time and time again, a fact that editor and sound-editor Walter Murch corroborated in Gene D. Phillips’ Godfather: The Intimate Francis Ford Coppola. Coppola stated that he actually wrote many scenes to be sound-oriented because he had Murch in mind as sound editor. Having gone to the USC Film School with George Lucas, Murch was a frequent collaborator of both Lucas and Coppola, having done the sound for the former’s American Graffiti and THX 1138, as well as for the latter’s The Godfather, The Rain People and Apocalypse Now. And since Coppola was busy working on The Godfather Part II, he hired Murch in one other capacity: “Although the film was about privacy, sound would be the core element in it. So I suggested that he [Murch] edit the picture as well, which he hadn’t really done before and didn’t think of as his specialty. He agreed. And that was when I got to know Walter as a filmmaker, because of his editing both the picture and the sound.”

Murch’s work did not go unnoticed—he won a BAFTA for Best Film Editing together with Richard Chew and received an Academy Award nomination for Best Sound Editing (with Art Rochester), along with Coppola who was nominated for Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture, but ended up losing to himself, with The Godfather Part II winning him Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay. And while Coppola trusted one person with two jobs in the case of editing and sound editing, he found himself ultimately using two people when it came to cinematography. The initial cinematographer was Oscar-winner Haskell Wexler (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf), but he did not manage to keep the job because of creative discrepancies between himself and the director, so Bill Butler (Grease, Jaws) was asked to fill in for him. As a result, all of Wexler’s work had been reshot. That is, all except the opening Union Square sequence, arguably the most impressive and memorable one in the entire movie.

 
(…) you don’t know what the point of view is at the opening. It’s clear only that you are high up looking down on Union Square in San Francisco, hearing those soft, billowy sounds of the city at lunchtime. Then, like a jagged red line right across the view, comes this distorted—you don’t know what it is—this digital racket… you will learn what it is soon enough, and you will learn that what you assumed was a neutral God’s-eye point of view is in fact the point of view of a secret tape recorder that is recording all of this, picking up these distorted sounds that are the imperfectly recorded voices of the targets, the young couple’s conversation sometimes muffled by the sounds of the square.Walter Murch

Along with the aforementioned nominations and wins, The Conversation was also rewarded with the Palme d’Or at the 1974 Cannes Film Festival and was selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the National Film Registry as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” in 1995. With a budget of $1.6 million that, according to Coppola, “went about 3 over and came in at $1.9.”, the film earned $4.4 million in the United States. Despite grossing more than was invested in it, The Conversation was not considered a commercial success—the director is even prone to the idea that the movie’s reception would have been much better had Watergate not come to pass. Although Coppola’s picture hit theaters just a couple of months before President Richard Nixon resigned, the director was sure that audiences saw his film as a reaction to the political scandal. But the script was written long before Watergate happened and the actual break-in occurred while Coppola was shooting a scene which is two-thirds through the movie, meaning that the scandal, which would soon become one of the main hot topics, had nothing to do with his artistic process and that the theme of surveillance was one he was interested in long before the public at large was ever aware of its relevance. But as far as influences go, the filmmaker does not shy away from naming those artists whose work helped give his idea the form it would eventually take on. Michelangelo Antonioni’s 1966 adaptation of Argentinian author Julio Cortázar’s 1959 short story Las babas del diablo entitled Blow-Up, about a fashion photographer whose impromptu photo of two lovers gets him in more trouble than he bargained for, definitely served as inspiration for Coppola, in particular a scene in which the main character enlarges the photograph only to discover a third person hiding in the trees.

 
Coppola was fascinated with the notion and decided to do the same thing, only with audio recordings and Caul’s attempt at recovering the sentence hidden underneath the distortion. His other well of inspiration was Herman Hesse’s Der Steppenwolf, a 1927 novel he was reading at the time he wrote the screenplay, leading to him basing the character of Harry Caul on the Swiss-German author’s protagonist Harry Haller, a lone wolf who does not feel a sense of belonging in the world he inhabits. The director confessed in an interview with Marjorie Rosen that it was not an easy task to have such a protagonist, a lonesome figure you follow for almost two hours, who rarely converses, lives alone and steers clear of human interaction. He therefore tried to give the character of Harry more nuance, so as to make him as relatable as possible. This was also achieved thanks to the main actor doing his job right. The incredible Gene Hackman, although not the first choice for the role (Marlon Brando declined the offer), made it his own, despite having a hard time creating the character due to Harry being nothing like the actor himself, as Coppola stated in the DVD commentary of The Conversation.

This started with a concept and not a character. And that was a source of great difficulty for me. And one that I found unpleasant in that I could never feel anything for the character. But I think it’s much easier for me to write characters, either what I can remember from people I’ve known or ones which are based somewhat on my own feelings. I could not relate to Harry; I could not be him. So I kept trying to enrich him—but starting from a total cipher, a kind of Harry Homer from “Steppenwolf,” a middle European who lives alone in a rooming house. That kind of cliche. Realizing that I had to flesh the man out and make him real, I hoped the actor would help me. Ultimately, though, I drew on my own past, and in the scene where he’s in the park and tells all that stuff about his childhood and the polio—those are things that actually happened to me. That was almost a desperate attempt to give him a real character that I could relate to.Francis Ford Coppola in an interview with Brian De Palma

 
Another trait that the director gave his protagonist was his spirituality. Although the initial intent here was not necessarily to deepen the character, but rather to have a confession scene, because Coppola thought that “confession was one of the earliest forms of the invasion of privacy–earliest forms of surveillance” that he could think of, the fact that he made Caul Catholic actually added a very important layer, turning the movie into as much of a character study as it is a neo-noir film. For his religion enables Caul to have an internal conflict of interest, which makes him and his emotional progress all the more interesting and oddly cathartic to witness. On the one hand, he is fantastic at a job that has, in the past, resulted in other people’s deaths. On the other, he feels sorry about it and the prospect of someone else dying because of him doing what he does best haunts him the entire movie. In confession, he claims to have a guilty conscience, but to not feel responsible, which only reflects the desperate need of his ego to rationalize the consequences his job might have for the wellbeing of others. Even his name denotes staying shielded and separated from the rest of the world (a caul is an amniotic membrane that encloses a fetus), although Coppola initially called him Call—the transcriber mistyped his surname and the director decided to keep it that way. It is, therefore, not actually true that Caul does not intrinsically “understand” human nature—he just made the conscious decision not to. Secluding himself, not engaging in meaningful relationships, sharing as little information about himself as possible and, ultimately, intentionally distancing himself from the material he is paid to record, are all deliberate attempts to avoid feeling. If he does not feel, his guilt has a small chance of catching up with him. But catch up with him it does, as he embarks on a journey to try to save the people he endangered. And yet, the fact that he voluntarily avoids feeling eventually turns him into a person unable to read both people and between the lines. That is why he listens to the tape over and over again, desperately trying to make himself understand the true meaning behind the words spoken, seeking to decipher emotion conveyed in the pauses and inflections. And at this, he fails miserably. Caul’s decision to evade feeling so as to keep himself safe and sane has backfired, for feeling (i.e. truly listening) turned out to be the only way to solve the puzzle, ease his conscience and potentially save a life.

All of this makes Caul a tragic hero trapped inside a prison of his own making, for his choices ultimately make him go from hunter to prey. At least Caul’s victims do not know that they are being listened to and can thus remain under the illusion that privacy is not a thing of the past, but rather a right that can be enjoyed and callously taken for granted. But Caul has the misfortune of not only knowing what the invasion of privacy entails from the perspective of the person doing the invading, but also has the opportunity to experience being on the receiving end—and knowing all too well that he is on it. Thus, the paranoia that permeates every segment of Coppola’s picture and of Caul’s life, conveyed by him shielding his privacy in every way possible, turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy, proving to the protagonist that his secrecy was not uncalled for. But, ironically enough, it was his invasion of other people’s privacy that paved the way for him to fall victim to his own vocation. And his tragedy is that he is to remain fully aware of it every second of every day.

Written by Koraljka Suton. Koraljka is a member of the Croatian Society of Film Critics and has a master’s degree in German and English. For her thesis, she did a comparative analysis of Spielberg’s ‘Band of Brothers’ and ‘The Pacific’. Koraljka trained at a Zagreb-based acting studio for six years and fell in love with Michael Chekhov and Lee Strasberg’s acting techniques. She is also a contemporary dancer and a Reiki master who believes in the transformative quality of art. Read more »

 
I wanted to be a guy who made films like ‘The Rain People’ and ‘The Conversation.’ I didn’t want to be a big Hollywood movie director. ‘The Godfather’ was an accident. I was broke and we needed the money. We had no way to keep American Zoetrope going. I had no idea it was going to be that successful. It was awful to work on, and then my career took off and I didn’t get to be what I wanted to be.Francis Ford Coppola

Screenwriter must-read: Francis Ford Coppola’s screenplay for The Conversation [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Francis Ford Coppola interview (1974), by Marjorie Rosen, Film Comment, Vol. 10, No. 4 (July-August 1974).

How did you first become interested in the idea for The Conversation? I would think that it would take a certain amount of knowledge about surveillance equipment.
I’ve always been interested in technology of all kinds. About eight years ago I was having a conversation with Irvin Kershner, the director; we were talking about surveillance. He mentioned that the safest place for two people who wanted to have a conversation in private would be outside in a crowd. Then he added that he had heard of microphones that had gun sights on them that were so powerful and selective that they could, if aimed at the mouths of these people in the crowd, pick up their conversation. I thought what an odd both device and notif for a film. This image of two people walking through a crowd with their conversation being interrupted every time someone steps in front of the gunsight. From just a little curiosity like that, I began to very informally put together a couple of thoughts about it, and came to the conclusion that the film would be about the eavesdropper rather than the people.

Did you alter your script at all while Watergate was happening?
Not really. The actual break-in, as you remember, was not considered a big deal at the time. It happened around the time we were shooting the warehouse scene, which is about two-thirds through the movie. We knew about it, but we never knew it was of such significance. Generally for the last few years, I had been aware of any stories that had to do with eavesdropping, looking for little details that might be good. The political references in the picture, which are very slight, are all in the old script. It’s just a matter of common sense that if people were using taps to bug business companies, they would be using it in political elections. Watergate is a funny accident. I never meant it to be so relevant. I almost think that the picture would have been better received had Watergate not happened. Now, you can look at it, even if you know it was written before Watergate and say, “Oh, look at that. Of course, well, sure.”

Cashing in?
Not even cashing in. Of course, that’s a relevant and topical theme that we’ve been reading about in the paper all the time. But when I wrote it, no one was thinking about it. Same as with The Rain People. The Rain People, which is a totally ignored film—it never even played long enough to be seen—was about a woman leaving a husband she loved because of what her role in the marriage was. It came out four years before there was a really articulated women’s liberation movement as we know it in modern times. The same thing happened there. I was writing about something four years before it became relevant.

 
Can’t you get The Rain People revived?
Movies are like old girlfriends: Once you’ve done them and you’re finished with them, you don’t go back.

That’s not true. At least with movies.
That’s true from the filmmaker’s point of view. There’s a lot of the same reasons. There’s so much emotion that you’ve invested that you just don’t want to open it up again. I fought that battle. I already went through that disappointment of having nobody like it. People accused it of being an imitation of Easy Rider, of all things. That’s what people said at that time. It’s no more like Easy Rider than it’s like Mary Poppins. A lot of people have said it’s so relevant now, why don’t you bring it out again. The thought of even getting into it again…

You wrote the script of The Conversation eight years ago?
I started it around 1967 and I finished around 1969. Then I rewrote it just before I made it.

There seem to be a lot of little religious implications.
It’s very tricky to deal with a man who is your main character who you’re watching for two hours or whatever the life of the film is, that doesn’t talk to anybody, who lives alone, and who doesn’t relate to anybody. I had given myself a very difficult assignment. I gradually tried to deepen him and find ways to get inside of him. I had wanted to have, right from the beginning, a confession scene because I thought confession was one of the earliest forms of the invasion of privacy—earliest forms of surveillance—that I could think of. I wanted the film, in its own way, to touch on every method of surveillance that there was in a hard technological sense and in a human sense. Confession, at first, was something I thought related to the central theme. The fact that he went to confession made him a Catholic. In a character that’s so sparsely drawn, you look for any hint you can as to what he’s like.

 
It seemed very right. He’s kind of a repressed being.
The whole Catholic sense of guilt is related also. But that just evolved. I didn’t do it so deliberately.

What do you think of the comparisons made between The Conversation and Blowup?
I think The Conversation was very influenced by Blowup—in that one scene where David Hemmings is blowing up the photograph. It’s very similar to the scene in which Hackman goes through the tape. I knew that. It was definitely inspired by or influenced by Blowup. That one scene. But the movies as a whole are not at all alike. The scenes of revelation through technology are very similar, but if you look at Blowup again, you realize that the best scene—that scene—is, in a sense, the movie. There really isn’t a hell of a lot more. People are very funny about influences. They look at a movie, and they see something that’s obviously related to a previous film, and they say, “Aha! That’s from Blowup!” That’s been going on for thousands of years. They didn’t go reading Hermann Hesse and say, “Ah, that’s Thomas Mann! Look at the influences!” Of course, Antonioni influenced me. I like that film, and I like his other films even more. I should hope that I would steal from him. Stealing from people you admire—there’s a long tradition of that. It’s part of art, I think. I was reading Steppenwolf at the time I wrote The Conversation, and I was very impressed with this kind of character, Harry Horner. Hence, my guy’s name is Harry. He lives alone in an apartment like the character in Steppenwolf. I was influenced by that too. I could name twenty things that the film’s influenced by.

Do you think The Conversation owes a debt to Hitchcock?
Anyone who intends to make a film in the thriller genre is a student of Hitchcock. He invented it. I began to realize that the only way I could get the money to do this picture would be if it worked on some level other than just an inquiry into this man. I didn’t think that anybody would go see a movie that was just a mundane story of just a wiretapper. I felt, very early on, that it had to be a kind of horror film—a Hitchcockian horror film. I reviewed the Hitchcock films and tried to understand why they work so well. Ultimately, I think I’m a lot different from Hitchcock in my approach. Hitchcock seems to be almost entirely interested in the design of his films. I’m much more interested in performances. I don’t care for most Hitchcock films because they’re terribly acted. My favorite Hitchcock films are the ones that are well acted, like The Wrong Man and Strangers on a Train. I identify much more with Clouzot, who works not only on a thriller level but has some other matter to his films. I remember, when I was in high school, Diabolique was showing. If anything, I would hope that The Conversation would have that kind of effect.

The use of sound in the film is incredible.
Yes. That has a lot to do with the fellow who edited the film: Walter Murch, who is a contemporary of George Lucas. They went to the USC Film School. He’s been associated with George and myself for the last seven years. He had been a sound artist. He did the sound for The Rain People, THX 1138, American Graffiti, The Godfather. As I was writing this, I had it in mind that Walter would do the sound. So I wrote many scenes to be sound-oriented, like a murder occurring in another room that you don’t see but you hear. But then, since I was working on Godfather II, I asked Walter to edit the film. So, a lot of The Conversation is due to his ability.

 
When I spoke to you two years ago, you were very interested in sound as a possibility for erotic films.
Sound works on such a sneaky level. You can do things with sound that the audience doesn’t know you’re doing. With a picture in front of them, they’re very aware of it. I just think that sound is very effective. I have certain prejudices about how films are made. I feel, for example, that nowadays all movies are shot too close, and it’s getting worse. You go to the movies and you’re looking at people’s heads. I saw Jesus Christ Superstar, which was a musical, and most of the time I was looking at their noses or their chins. It’s a prejudice about what’s being done wrong. I really went out of my way in Godfather II—to cut most of the people at their knees.

I understand you once directed a porno film.
No, never a porno film. They were nudie films in those days. But I may do a porno film. It was about twelve years ago when I was starting, it was when they first had nudie films.

What were the titles?
The first one was a short called The Peeper. It was a cute little premise about a little man who discovers that they are shooting pin-ups near his house. The whole film dealt with his attempts to see what was going on. Every method he used would backfire. He would haul a gigantic telescope up to his room—twelve feet long—and he would focus it but all he would see would be bellybutton. Then he would do something else, and that would backfire. That film was bought by a company that had made a nudie western about a cowboy who had been kicked in the head and saw all the cows as naked ladies. It was terrible. They hired me to combine my film with that film, and that was called the wide open spaces. Then I made another film. A company hired me for a few days to take a dumb German black-and-white film and add five three-minute color, 3-D nudie sketches to it. That was called The Belt Girls and the Playboy.

Do you think there’s a market for short porno films?
I don’t know. People always talk about it and no one’s done it. Maybe I’ll do it. They talk about high-quality, serious film that uses pornography as a real element. Last Tango in Paris was that, except it wasn’t pornographic.

 
Do you see the films you make in separate categories? The Conversation being separated from Godfather II?
I have always supported one kind of filmmaking with the money from another. Perhaps, at times, the two have bled together. Obviously, The Godfather was a book which people bought, which I was assigned to do. The Conversation was something I evolved from scratch. So The Conversation has a lot more in common with The Rain People than The Godfather. But you can’t make a film without putting whatever you’ve got of yourself that’s relevant into it. It’s true that I’m operating on two different levels, but they bleed through.

Do you have a sense of doing something less than your scope say by doing The Godfather II rather than The Conversation?
The Godfather II started… it was an interesting situation. I really had made so much money on The Godfather, it was irrelevant for me to do a film for any other reason than because I wanted to do it. I didn’t like what was then a script called Death of Michael Corleone. What they were essentially saying to me was that they’d let me do anything I wanted. I began to think of letting The Godfather format subsidize me in doing something more ambitious in the sequel than they wanted. It was then I made my bargain with them to let me bring back all the original actors that were relevant to my story that I hadn’t figured out yet. If it could be a real continuation as though it were really part of the first film and be called The Godfather, and if I could have total control over it, I would do it. They said yes and therefore, Godfather II falls more in the category of a personal film, although it cost twelve million dollars, than the first one. I have to make it relevant or tie it into the first film, but it’s very ambitious on other levels.

What do you regard yourself as mostly, a director or a writer?
I feel that I’m basically a writer who directs. But I think I’m a good director. I felt that, especially, in this last picture, Godfather II. I think it’s really beautifully directed. Maybe I think that because I feel, “Jeez, I got all these nice performances and it’s really fantastic looking and it works—it goes together. Jeez, I hope the script is good because, in the end, that’s what really will determine it.” But I like to think of myself as a writer who directs.

I’m surprised that you consider the work of the writer more important than that of the director.
When people go to see a movie, eighty percent of the effect it has on them was preconceived and precalculated by the writer. He’s the one who imagines opening with a shot of a man walking up the stairs, and cutting to another man walking down the stairs. Then you know there’s going to be some kind of tension. A good script has preimagined exactly what the movie is going to do on a story level, on an emotional level, on all these various levels. So, to me, that’s the primary’ act of creation. The writer’s the guy who started with nothing and dreamed this all up. Then the director and the actors and all the other interpretive artists take this preconception and bring it to life. They sometimes change it to make it work better, but ultimately the content was put in by the writer. So I have to think that he is the main guy.

 
Do most writers indicate cuts, and how long a specific scene should run?
That’s all the specifics of putting it on the screen. But what it’s about and who the characters are. how it’s built and how it’s constructed—the writer did all that.

Do you think a very solid script and a very unimaginative director who is a craftsman of a mediocre order can get together and make a decent film?
They can make a terrific film if—and here’s the rub—the director will follow the script. The politics of filmmaking is such that the writer doesn’t have any power. The director can totally disregard what the writer has done. If the director disregards what the writer has done or changes it, then the writer’s construction could be lost or it could be improved.

How many directors can understand that a script is good and not tamper with it?
Theoretically, a good director would know when something is good and just direct it. Directors sometimes get confused about who’s creative and who isn’t, and like to think of themselves as the prime creator. In some cases they are—when they come up with an idea and then guide a couple of writers through the actual writing of the script. In that case, I consider that director a writer as well. Usually in a film, there is a person who conceives and designs it, like a composer writes music. A conductor is a great interpretive artist but you wouldn’t compare the conductor to the composer. But if the conductor had the power to change the music at will and then the music is very bad, it’s not the writer’s fault anymore. This is the way most directors work, ironically, even the ones who’ve written their own scripts. Who’s the composer? The composer is obviously an amalgam of everybody. That’s what film is like.

When you first studied film, did you want to direct or write?
I always wanted to write. I got into directing a long time ago in 1956. I directed a little play. It was received very well and it was very good, so I decided since I couldn’t be a writer, I would be a director. I don’t enjoy the directing process. Gatsby’s a good point because if you had asked me the question whether I was a writer or a director before Gatsby, I would have said I was a writer and I just direct sometimes. But I was so impressed with how badly Gatsby worked that I started to put more credit to what a director does. He changed that script all around and that’s one thing. Aside from that, there were scenes in there that, in my opinion, had the wrong objectives and they were, in my opinion, ruined. The same scene would have worked terrifically if another person had directed.

 
Do you think in any of your films, like Godfather, you have been less than the prime mover, even though you wrote the script?
I wrote the Godfather script. I did the adaptation. I credit Mario completely with creating the characters and the story. On the other hand, his book took in a lot more than what the film took in. I feel that I took the right parts. I also did a lot of things in that movie that people thought were in the book that weren’t. The art of adaptation is when you can lie or when you can do something that wasn’t in the original but is so much like the original that it should have been.

How do you feel about the comparisons between The Godfather and Mean Streets, Mean Streets allegedly being the realistic film and The Godfather being the…
Romanticized film. That’s quite right. Mean Streets is realistic and The Godfather is a romanticized account. They’re just different types of films. Mean Streets deals with characters in little Italy on a very low level and it’s very realistic about their level. The Godfather is a classic epic about the head guys. They both give a very honest indication of the textures of the life pattern.

Were you disappointed when Brando couldn’t do Godfather II?
Yes, at first I was, because I had really planned it that way. Then when I got into working with Bob DeNiro, obviously it meant that he could play the character much younger, which is what I had wanted. I think it worked out really well.

How do you feel with a twelve million dollar budget? Don’t you feel nervous?
You tend to adjust, and just go on blind faith that what you’re doing is right. It’s scary. You know how many people have to go see that movie? Godfather II has to earn something like thirty or twenty-five million to break even. You know how many pictures in history have even grossed thirty million dollars? How many would you say? About twelve? I think Godfather II will—because people want to go and see those characters. You know, I took my kid to see a forty-five minute assembly of some of the stuff of the old Godfather, and I said what parts do you like better? He said, “I like when the guy got shot.” Everyone is like that. Even when you’re shooting the film. The second you’re going to do a throat cutting or something, everyone including the crew crowds around.

 
Do you as a director ever feel intimidated? By actors or by the kind of movement you have to choreograph on the set?
Oh sure. Less so, now. On this last film, I’ve been very relaxed and enjoyed more of the production aspect. Making films is such a logistical, a social problem, as well as artistic one. A lot of it has to do with the people you’re working with and dependent on—that you’ve made your peace with them and have a way of dealing with them. If it’s the first time you’re working with that photographer or those actors or that art director, half of the energy that you expend is just trying to jockey for what the relationship is going to be. It was such a pleasure on the Godfather II. Many of the key people were people I had worked with before. Some of them were now in new guises. Some actors, who on Godfather I were kids grateful for the chance, are now big movie stars. So there’s a rejockeying for position. But still, on Godfather II, I had made my peace with most of those people and much more of the energy went into the film than into all of the ambient politics and sociology. Like the photographer. Buddy [Gordon] Willis—on Godfather I, I didn’t get along with him at all. Artistically I got along with him completely. We had the same concept. But socially, he’s such a cranky, grumpy guy and I always took it as criticism. Then I would get defensive. When we did the second film, I realised that he’s just a cranky, grumpy guy and it had nothing to do with me. He can also be really a sweet guy. As a result, the relationship we had on Godfather II is the most pleasant I’ve ever had. He’s a guy who really sees things not only in the same way that I do but very often better. So when I say What about this?, he says What about something like this? It’s really what I meant. That happens with actors too. Brando does this all the time. You tell an actor you’d like this out of a moment. He says, “O.K., watch this.” He gives you what you want but better. That is the joy of directing, when it happens. It can only happen between people who have really gotten comfortable with each other and have made their peace. The art director on Godfather II, who was also on The Conversation, I don’t even talk to anymore because I trust him so much. I just say so-and-so like such-and-such and the guy comes up with exactly what I wanted but better.

Was it any different working with Pacino this time?
Yes, sure, sure. But basically Pacino is a very, very intelligent person. He’s sometimes a little bit of a kid and that can get in the way especially when he’s a kid with a lot of power. When Serpico came out and was a big success, it was a pleasure to work with him. He was so self-confident that all his emotional silliness was out of the way and it was just his intelligence and his talent that we were working with. Before Serpico came out, he was nervous about it. He was a pain in the neck.

He has an incredible intensity on the screen.
Oh yes. He’s very talented. He’s really a sweet person. All of the people on this film are very good people. Some are cynical and some are childish, what have you. All of them were caught in the whole Godfather syndrome of knowing that they had been part of something that had made a lot of money and they didn’t get very much.

 
But you yourself made money out of the film. Does that financial independence give you more options to make your own kind of films?
Yes, fortunately, I made a lot of money on The Godfather. But if I were a little hungrier after making the rain people and the conversation. I’d say screw this. It’s like Billy Friedkin said after The Birthday Party and The Boys in the Band: “I know how to do it: how to, for an hour and a half, just constantly throw everything I have at an audience and give them a real thrill. That’s what they want. They don’t want to go into a theater and treat it like a book. They don’t even read books!”

I think Friedkin has the ability to make good films.
He can make terrific films. But he didn’t do well at it, he was getting washed up. He was broke and suddenly The French Connection came along, and he said. “I’m going to blow their heads off. I’m going to give them an electric shock.” And he did. And he made a lot of money. Then he adopted it as his philosophy and said, “O.K., if that’s what people want, that’s what they’re going to get.”

I think he made a mistake when he…
What mistake did he make? What mistake did he make?

I think it’s very insulting when a director says, “There are three things that matter: laughter, tears, and fear.”
But he’s right! That’s the point. What mistake did he make? The guy’s going to make five or six million dollars out of The Exorcist. He didn’t make any mistake—maybe, with The Conversation, maybe I made the mistake! Understand one thing. Essentially, all movies coming out—whether it be The Exorcist, Bergman, The Godfather or Pound or Putney Swope—all movies are basically done in the same way. If you were to take the most stylistically divergent films—an Elvis Presley film and Cries and Whispers—they represent a teenie, teenie bit of what can happen with movies. Movies are all made the same way and the reason they’re made the same way is because the audiences want them that way. The films cost so much that to really veer from that way of telling a story, you have to be independently wealthy and subsidize it. I read a review of The Conversation that describes the two characters, the boy and girl walking, as skimpily drawn. Well, here I am deliberately trying to not unveil their characters in a conventional way. I’m trying to give you an impression of their characters, the only film on those two characters is the same dumb conversation. It’s my attempt at trying to find another way to give character to an audience instead of just a classic playwright’s way of giving you a little background and unveil traits and show you the contradictions. I’m just showing you the same moment over and over. I’m using repetition instead of exposition. The second I do it, someone says it’s skimpy. That force, that inertia that holds movies is partly responsible for movies being all the same. You can’t break out of it unless you are so rich, you start making films that are thirty minutes long and some films that are fifty-two-and-one-half minutes long and some films that are fifteen hours long. All the movies that come out are the same.

 
Are you near the point where you can do what you want?
I’m not that rich, but I’m get-tin’. I have to go through a lot of agonizing decisions because I can always say why don’t I just go and make money. I could sit down and write the most commercial movie ever made. I feel I could pull it off. Just make a hundred million dollars and spend the rest of my life… I’m now thirty-five and that’s what I thought I was doing with The Godfather and then with Godfather II, I was making a film that would also appeal to an audience. At some time you’ve got to cut off and say,”O.K., I’ve made enough money.”

What would you ideally do next?
What I’m going to do next is nothing. I’m going to do some writing and some reading and get something into my brain. You’ve got to understand that all I’ve done for thirteen years is try to have a career. I went right from school to film school to a career and here I am without ever stopping.

If you had your choice, which kind of film would you make?
I’m finishing Godfather in a couple of weeks, so I’m a free man in that I have no commitments, I have no job, I don’t need to work for money anymore. I intend to take a lot of time now to do some writing and thinking about exactly what it is I want to do. I may not make any more films or I may make a lot films. I don’t know. Anything I do will be just what I think of. I did The Godfather because I was broke and in debt. I even did The Rain People and The Conversation because I wanted more than anything to be a writer. I began working on a premise that I wondered if I could pull off. I finished and made those films more as a dare to myself to show myself that I could do it, that I could write original material. Anyone who’s written knows how you doubt that. Especially a person who’s known for adaptations. Now I’m, in a way, finished with all of that. I’m not going to write original stuff to prove to myself that I can do that. I’m not going to work for money. I’m not going to make a film to have a big hit because I’ve already had a big hit. I’m at a very mid-point.

A very special point.
It’s terrific if you can do it. I just hope that I make use of it.

 

FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA BY BRIAN DE PALMA

The most personal of all films in Francis Ford Coppola’s repertoire was born between two big projects that helped Coppola gain the reputation he enjoys today, the first two parts of The Godfather trilogy. Two huge, big-budgeted movies, and a tiny personal story filmed between them, but an expertly made film that captured the nation’s state of mind and emotion after the Watergate scandal. The Conversation, starring the great Gene Hackman, is a subtle and restrained film about a professional eavesdropper, lonely and alienated, who uses his nifty gadgets to invade the privacy of the people around him. Coppola began meddling with the idea in 1966, but the first draft was penned three years later, with the film hitting theaters as late as 1974. The impact it made at the box office was negligible, even though it was hardly a failure. But with time, the film’s reputation grew, and today it’s considered one of Coppola’s very best.

One of the perks of managing this website is definitely the challenge of finding rare treasures. This delightful discovery, a Filmmakers Newsletter interview from May, 1974, conducted by Brian De Palma, illuminates the process of this little masterpiece’s creation. And who’s more qualified to conduct such an insightful conversation with Coppola than a passionate fellow filmmaker. Filmmakers Newsletter was a well-respected magazine with articles abounding in technical information, as well as extensive analyses of both contemporary films and those who played significant roles in the historical development of the art and business. This particular article can be classified as an impressive read thanks to the sheer quantity of interesting details regarding the development and production of The Conversation, but also to Coppola’s honest answers to De Palma’s perceptive questions. The fact that we’re talking about a piece of journalism virtually lost to the rest of the world only enhances the value of the interview, a six-page exploration of Coppola’s filmmaking technique, personal preferences, inner motivations and desires both before and after he steps onto the film set.

If you care to find out the nature of the connection between The Conversation and Henry VIIIth, why Coppola’s not in awe of Hitchcock’s artistry or why the acclaimed director admits the commencement of shooting often finds him in a “pants down” position, we urge you to read this wonderful interview as soon as possible. You can download the PDF version.





 
Coppola, who directed The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, revealed that his earliest films—like The Rain People and The Conversation—were more like what he’d hoped to do over the course of his career. But then money and life got in the way. “I had to get a job, and of course, the job was The Godfather,” he says. “That made me be something I didn’t know I was going to be. I became a big-shot director. If you take a young Long Island Italian guy and give him endless possibilities, then you’ll see what kind of crazy things I did in the course of my career.”

 
Unseen photos from The Conversation—filming the famous opening scene in Union Square, courtesy of the edit room floor.

 
Francis Ford Coppola’s 40-minute talk on The Conversation at the 2016 TCM Classic Film Festival.

 
A vintage featurette, Close-up on The Conversation, contains on-set interview with Hackman and Coppola and shows the two men rehearsing a key scene. Sensational stuff.

 
Francis Ford Coppola interviews David Shire, composer of The Conversation.

 

WALTER MURCH

The thought of Walter Murch brings a smile to my face. I’m not sure exactly why. It must be the combination of his unique personality, the security inspired by his competence, and his gentleness and wisdom. Gerald MacBoingBoing grown up, still playful and enigmatic, but grounded by an immense intelligence. Perhaps it’s also because he was the essential collaborator on what are probably the best films I worked on: The Conversation and The Godfather, Part II. I have a very soft spot in my heart for those films, and The Rain People, because only they were the closest to the goal I had set for myself as a young man: to write original stories and screenplays only. This is something Walter always encouraged me to do, and was best achieved working with him. But Walter is a study unto himself: a philosopher and theoretician of film—a gifted director in his own right, attested to by his beautiful Return to Oz. Nothing is so fascinating as spending hours listening to Walter’s theories of life, cinema, and the countless tidbits of wisdom that he leaves behind him like Hansel and Gretel’s trail of bread: guidance and nourishment. I smile also because we are so different from one another: Whereas I make instantaneous decisions relying on emotion and intuition only, Walter is also thoughtful and careful and methodical in every step he takes. Whereas I alternate between the ecstatic and despondent like Tesla’s alternating current, Walter is constant and warm and reassuring. Every bit as ingenious and intuitive as I am, he is also constant. Walter is a pioneer, as I would like to be, and the kind of person who should be listened to carefully and enjoyed. For all this, I imagine you would think that I love and respect Walter Murch very much—and I certainly do. —Francis Ford Coppola

 

BILL BUTLER, ASC

Coppola’s fascination with gadgets and technology seemed to fuel Butler’s imagination for The Conversation, about a forlorn wiretapper-for-hire. Butler thought of covering a party scene with a slow-panning camera that moved back and forth like a surveillance lens. “It didn’t work for that scene,” Butler notes, “but it inspired us for the film’s final shot, where it really worked. I think I like this film, of all my work, the best.”

I like to work with directors who like to sit down before we make a film, and discuss the philosophy of the film and what it should look like. We may go to museums and look at paintings, or someone’s work, or a book of someone’s work. We will unquestionably screen a lot of footage by other filmmakers, other directors, other cameramen, and discuss what we did like and what we did not like about that work until we both understand what’s in the other person’s mind. You cannot communicate well with words when you’re speaking of a visual image that someone has in mind. It’s very hard to describe, almost impossible. And when you’re working as I like to do, you try to get on film what the director has in his gut, as well as what he has in his mind. So you have to find out what the man’s all about. To some extent, you have to psychonalyze him. I am fortunate to have a mechanical aptitude and an artistic background, and I try to blend them together and make them work for me. But in order for me to work well, I have to be working in a congenial atmosphere. Nothing creative can really come out of you if you’ re not in a creative atmosphere. But when you’re with someone like Coppola or Friedkin, and it’s all bursting loose, then you can let it all out and do your thing. If you don’t understand the director, if you don’t have a direction to go in, you will fail. Creative people, when they get together, won’t work well unless they literally get married and are of one mind. This has happened to me a few times. It certainly happened to me when I was working with Francis, and the results of that all just added and grew, because every idea that he had I was on top of.

You get to the point where you do not have to talk to one another. Once you’ve done your homework, far in advance of shooting, you can go out there feeling secure. You know the images you want and what you’re reaching for. Haskell Wexler started shooting The Conversation with Francis, and the very opposite of what I’m talking about took place. They’ re both highly creative people. Haskell is a wonder. The things he does I admire very much. But he was off doing his thing and Francis had another idea altogether. They were not together on it, so they had to part company. Francis called me because I had worked with him on Rain People. He said, “It’s all coming apart at the seams. Have you finished your show? Could you come up?” I said, ”Well, if Haskell and you are splitting and it’s all over, let me come up and talk to you, and find out what it’s all about, and see if there’s any possibility.” So I went up to see Coppola and he was depressed. It looked like he was carrying the world on his shoulders. I said, “Well, to start with, you’re too serious about all of it It’s got to be fun or it isn’t worth doing.” He’s rich enough that he doesn’t have to suffer that way. So I said, ”Hey, Francis, loosen up. If you can have some fun with this thing, then I’m game to come in and see what I can do. We’ve got to get so we can talk to one another.”

Gene Hackman was every bit as depressed as Francis was. He sat for eight hours one day while Haskell lit a set. An actor can’t sit for eight hours and then do his thing. It’s all right if you say, ”It’s going to take eight hours, come in later.” That’s OK, that’s cool. He’ll come in, he’ll come up for his part, and he’ll do it. But the type of part that Gene Hackman was playing in Conversation was very heavy. I’ve got to admire an actor who can carry it off to the extent that it just permeates the crew and everybody around him. He played this character with a lot of power. I don’t know what it does to an actor’s mind to be able to do that. So we were able to get the ideas down firmly in mind before we started. The show really hadn’t gotten into any principal scenes and Coppola wasn’t hesitant about throwing away any old material. I got the vision firmly in mind that he was trying to put forward. I felt I could contribute, so I took on the task and it went very well. It was a good shoot and it was a happy thing. Gene Hackman also let up. He bought a still camera that he played with alI the time. Remember, if you don’t set the pace going in, and if you feel friction going in, and it’s not happening, you’ re better off to say an early good-bye than to try and suffer through it. —A conversation with a Cinematograher: Bill Butler

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Francis Ford Coppola’s The Conversation. Photographed by Brian Hamill © The Directors Company, The Coppola Company, American Zoetrope, Paramount Pictures. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post ‘The Conversation’: Francis Ford Coppola’s Paranoia-Ridden Tale of Surveillance, Guilt and Isolation appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

‘Miller’s Crossing’: A Lamentation of Losers by the Coen Brothers

$
0
0

 
By Tim Pelan

After the success of Raising Arizona, Joel and Ethan Coen were given the chance to do something a little more ambitious, with a budget of somewhere between $11 million and $15 million. They settled for a labyrinthine period gangster film loosely based on Dashiell Hammett’s The Glass Key, with elements from the author’s Red Harvest thrown in for good measure. Gangster movies of the 1930s were a secondary template, films Ethan referred to as “dirty town movies.” The first image that cemented in their heads was that of “big guys in overcoats in the woods—the incongruity of urban gangsters in a forest setting.” Perhaps not surprisingly, they took a while to get past this and shelved Miller’s Crossing for two months whilst they wrote Barton Fink, ironically the tale of a screenwriter with writer’s block. In the opening scene of Miller’s Crossing, before the recurring dream motif of Tom’s hat blowing through the titular wood to Carter Burwell’s gorgeous Irish tinged theme and the title reveal, Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito), a mob boss ball of repressed fury, “negotiates” with his nominal superior Leo O’Bannon (Albert Finney) and his right hand Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne). Here is demonstrated the other recurring motif of doublespeak and rich underworld slang—tipping off on an already rigged fight goes against Caspar’s “ethics.” But Leo’s not the lead, Tom is, and he doesn’t even speak until after five minutes. He moves through the office to stand silently behind his boss as Leo turns to gauge his opinion on the matter of Casper’s demand to rub out Bernie Bernbaum (John Turturro) for the aforementioned ethical divergence. The script describes his response as “an almost imperceptible shrug.” Tom silently expresses surprise as Leo turns Casper down—Bernie pays Leo protection. He’s also the brother of his mistress, Verna (Marcia Gay Harden), who we later find out Tom is also seeing. Tom’s first words as Caspar and his menacing right hand Eddie Dane (J.E. Freeman) leave are, “Bad play, Leo.” Tom’s loyalty, despite his personal treachery, is both his strength and weakness. “Nobody knows anybody,” he tells Verma, obliquely also referring to himself. “Not that well.”

“When I read that script, I was just like anybody I think who read it, just really impressed by how visual and literate and how complex those relationships in the story actually were,” Gabriel Byrne recalled. “When you unravel what that movie is about, it’s even more audacious that someone could base a storyline on that single conversation between Steve Buscemi’s character and mine at the bottom of the staircase. All the twists and turns, the betrayals… There were certainly Machiavellian traits in the character and as much as the film is about gangsters, it’s also a film about big business and about the nature of morality. I think when the film came out it was really underrated. There’s laugh-out-loud moments in that movie, whereas on paper, it didn’t necessarily read that way. When Albert Finney turns around says ‘They took his hair, Tommy. They took his hair!’ And of course, we’d just seen the kid run off with the guy’s rug in the earlier scene. I asked the Coens what their inspiration was to write the film, and I forget whether it was Joel or Ethan who said to me: ‘You always see gangsters in the street, but you never see them in a forest.’ I just thought that was so brilliant. Plus, there’s so much amazing imagery: the hat floating by the camera through the forest, which is one of the most original images in film history.”

 
The Coens were persuaded by Byrne to let him play Tom with his natural accent, which works for the story—he’s an outsider, an observer and a mover through muddied loyalties (Leo’s an Irish American mobster, Casper’s Italian American, Bernie and Verna are Jewish—amongst the other slang, period epithets fly thick and fast). He won’t allow Leo to pay off his mounting gambling debts to Lazarre. His loyalty can’t be bought, partly because of his self-disgust at cheating on him with his girl. More “ethics” or simply a man who thinks if he plays the long game all will right itself in the end? “He’s the quintessential Hammett guy,” says Joel. “You’re not let in on how much he knows and what exactly he’s up to. He tests the other characters to see what they want and uses that to his advantage.”

Tom’s convinced a losing streak has to end at some point of its own accord. David Thomson reflects that “There are some who find Miller’s Crossing too clever by half, but I think that misses how far the Gabriel Byrne character recognizes the curse of intelligence that hangs over him and the duty it imposes—of always being driven to nose out the cons of others, while hoping that his own subterfuges are going unnoticed. It’s kill or be killed (although Tom’s a long time reluctant to get his hands dirty) and the air of life is smartness. Take it or leave it.”

All of the main characters are betting on chance, and the shifting tectonic power plates of mobster rule echo societal power-grab politics and backroom deals. At one point, Tom enters Leo’s office to find him powwowing with the Mayor and Police Chief, a scene mirrored later when Tom finds the same pair sitting with Caspar, recently installed as town boss. The heightened Depression-era setting makes it clear why everyone is most interested in self-preservation. It’s why Verna gravitates towards Leo as a way of protecting her brother, Bernie, and why Tom is eager to cast off Bernie because he correctly notes Casper’s tired of always “gettin’ the high hat,” and wants more. Tom keeps things close to his chest, or under his hat, so no-one ever quite knows what he’s thinking. While Tom is playing both sides off each other, he questions the parlous state of his own soul, or heart. But if he can just keep his hat on his head, he’s one step ahead. “Look into your heart!” the manipulative weasel Bernie begs of him for his life at two different points in the story. Depending on what has transpired in the overarching rumpus, he gets a different (and final, on the second occasion!) answer from Tom each time.

 
Byrne also recommended “Limerick’s Lamentation,” to the Coens, the traditional Irish song from which Burwell built his score. “Gabriel gave us a whole list of stuff,” Joel said. “The tone and feeling of the music seemed really appropriate to the movie—the melancholy feeling that it has.” It also works as a counterpoint to the humorous undertone of the rat-a-tat lingo and wisecracks that sidle up to you just as someone gets an almighty whack to the face (or “one in the brain”). Even the Dane has murderous, mordant humor—“It ain’t elves,” he cracks, when there’s some dispute over who’s responsible for the fixes.

The film, for all its convolutions, hinges on three love triangles—Leo, Tom and Verna; Tom, Verna and Bernie (it’s implied the siblings sleep together); and between Mink (Steve Buscemi, who appears in one scene only, given the role because he could speak the shifty lines faster than anyone else), the Dane and Bernie. After he’s been cast out by Leo, Tom sows seeds of mistrust in Casper to the Dane’s disgust that Mink (“The Dane’s boy”) is in league with Bernie to rip him off. It’s part of his masterplan to save the thick-headed Leo from himself, and his stubborn pride. Casper too is torn by his own self-imposed rules. The Dane knows in his black heart that Tom is fixing to double-cross, but Casper is conflicted. “Ya double-cross once, where does it all end?” he muses. “An interesting ethical dilemma.”

Barry Sonnenfeld’s camera work is classical and stately in style, the better to not distract from the complex rhythms of the dialogue. “Never Pan. It is boring. I never let the Coen brothers pan,” was one of his rules. Miller’s Crossing is set in an unspecified American city circa 1929, and the Coens specifically chose New Orleans for its untouched Jazz­ age architecture. From the production notes: “The pre-planning for Miller’s Crossing began with four single-spaced pages of location descriptions written by the Coens to communicate to their early collaborators the precise look, feel and camera needs of each location in the film. (The most laconic was the description of Verna’s place: ‘Modest one-bedroom apartment, large living room. Verna doesn’t care where she lives, and neither do we.’)” “The 1.85:1 aspect ratio frame is filled with evocative lighting, moody contrast, and natural colors that draw from a tobacco palette of earth tones (The Directors Series). Being a film with Irish protagonists, the color green is extremely prominent throughout (appearing in the opening titles, wall sconces, desk lamps, etc.).” The Coens referenced several films throughout Miller’s Crossing. The opening scene with Johnny Caspar and Leo evokes the beginning of The Godfather, as another smaller man pleads for intervention from the powerful boss behind the shadowed desk. The climactic forest scene references Bernardo Bertolucci’s The Conformist, and the final funeral of Bernie, as a disgusted Verna takes the car and leaves Leo in the lurch, reflects the ending of The Third Man.

 
Leo’s home, which is the scene of a spectacularly composed nighttime attack by a pair of hitmen, was put together out of four separate locations, including Northline, a street in the Old Metairie section of town where the filmmakers blew up a car, and two constructed sets. The screenplay sets the scene: “Leo—stretched out on his bed, wearing a robe over his pajamas, smoking a cigar, listening—but only to the phonograph. Its sound covers any other noise in the house.” This sequence was broken down in Premiere magazine. “As the sequence begins, we see Leo’s just-slain bodyguard, his cigarette setting his newspaper on fire. Leo doesn’t hear the approaching gunmen over the strains of ‘Danny Boy’… But the sight of smoke (through the cracks of the floor) alerts him. Leo dives under the bed, and the gunmen are shown from his point of view. (This was shot on a stage built 3 feet off the ground, so Finney’s character would be even with the camera lens). “We put squibs on Leo’s mattress,” says Joel. “Feathers were shot from an air gun. This shot we did twice.” Leo escapes to another room, jumps from a window to the ground, and pumps bullets into the back of a gunman. “The guy from behind is Jerry Hewitt, the stunt coordinator,” says Joel. “To hold the gun while it’s firing, with squibs going up your back, is hard.” “It was a lot of fun blowing the toes off,” says Joel. Adds Ethan: “What sells the hit is the dance—shown in a 22-cut sequence.”

This scene was always going to be cut and perfectly timed to the song. The screenplay states, “Faintly, from another room in the house, we can hear a phonograph playing John McCormack singing ‘Danny Boy’.” To emulate the incomparable McCormack the Coens recruited Frank Patterson, known as ‘Ireland’s Golden Tenor’. They directed Patterson’s performance to be precisely timed with the events on screen, even if the rapid progress of the flames and Leo’s bottomless drum of bullets stretches credibility. From IMDb: “In the scene where Leo uses the Thompson sub-machine gun he should have had to reload at least 6 times. Assuming the gun is a 1928 model the rate of fire is 700 rounds per minute and has a 100 round can of ammunition. The gangster walks into the bedroom and fires for 5 seconds for a total of 58 shots fired, Leo takes his gun and fires at the window for 20 seconds for 233 shots fired, then Leo fires at the car for about 20 more seconds for another 233 shots fired. That is a total of 524 shots fired from one Thompson with no reload.”

“Albert was really cool,” says Ethan. “He had to back up, hit his mark, and aim as the cartridges would eject.” According to Ethan, Finney became a neighborhood favorite. “After each take, they would applaud Albert, and Albert did a real elaborate curtsy in his robe and PJ’s.”

 
Finney was actually a last-minute replacement for the actor originally envisioned for Leo, American Trey Wilson, who’d appeared in Raising Arizona. Shortly before filming began, however, Wilson dropped dead at age 40 from a cerebral hemorrhage, and Finney found himself packing a bag for New Orleans. Mike Scott elaborates further on the night they raided Old Metairie:

Harden at the time remembered Finney as a leader of the production’s ‘party contingent’ while in New Orleans. She would know: she, too, was part of that after-hours crew. “The first thing he bought was a guide to restaurants, and he was always saying, ‘Look, darling, here’s another one we should try,’” Harden told The Times-Picayune at the film’s premiere. He dined at Brigtsen’s. He was a frequent patron of The Bistro, where Chef Susan Spicer worked at the time. He, Byrne and other members of the cast reportedly took in a performance of Spud McConnell’s one-man show “Kingfish” at the Toulouse Cabaret Theater. And nearly every Sunday, which was his day off from filming, found Finney at the Fair Grounds, where he happily indulged in one of his off-camera passions: horse racing.

(“Here I am, the son of a bookmaker, trying to pick a winner, and there she is picking a $36 winner in her first try,” Finney playfully groused on one such Sunday after one of his guests got lucky at the track.) He had so much fun in town that even after his scenes were completed, he stuck around to contribute a cameo to Miller’s Crossingdonning a dress to play a female attendant in a women’s washroom.

With such a great script and polished production, no wonder he stuck around. To paraphrase Terry McGill to Byrne’s Tom, “The Coens are still artists with a typewriter.”

Written by Tim Pelan. Tim was born in 1968, the year of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (possibly his favorite film), ‘Planet of the Apes,’ ‘The Night of the Living Dead’ and ‘Barbarella.’ That also made him the perfect age for when ‘Star Wars’ came out. Some would say this explains a lot. Read more »

 
After a film noir and a madcap comedy, the Coen brothers were again, according to Ethan, making ‘a conscious effort not to repeat ourselves’ when they undertook the writing of ‘Miller’s Crossing.’ They started from a genre they wanted to do, the gangster film, and an image: ‘Big guys in overcoats in the woods—the incongruity of urban gangsters in a forest setting.’ ‘We weren’t thinking so much of gangster pictures,’ adds Joel, ‘just novels.’ And while their first film had been inspired by the plot-driven pulp fiction of James M. Cain, for this one they turned to Dashiell Hammett: ‘He took the genre,’ Joel explains, ‘and used it to tell a story that was interesting about people and other things besides just the plot. In Hammett, the plot is like a big jigsaw puzzle that can be seen in the background. It may make some internal sense, but the momentum of the characters is more important.’ —Miller’s Crossing production notes

Screenwriter must-read: Joel and Ethan Coen’s screenplay for Miller’s Crossing [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
A Hat Blown by the Wind, From Positif, February 1991.

One of your actors, questioned about your collaboration on the set, explained that: “In reality, Joel is the director—and Ethan too!”
JOEL COEN: That’s true, we codirect. The division of labor suggested by the credits is pretty arbitrary.

Are there sometimes conflicts between you two during shooting about the best method of directing?
ETHAN COEN: No, we write the scene together, we imagine it the same way. Everything happens in the most straightforward way.

Do you make any changes during shooting to the script, and do you let the actors themselves improvise or provide changes?
JOEL: In Miller’s Crossing the actors didn’t change one single word of the dialogue. We follow the script very faithfully, and a large number of the production elements are already included. That said, in the middle of shooting we rewrote the whole second part of the script.

Do you think that situation of two directors can sometimes unsettle the actors?
JOEL: I don’t think so. Like Ethan said, we’re generally agreed on the type of interpretation we want. We didn’t have any surprises on the set because we had a lot of rehearsals beforehand. When we auditioned the main actors, they read not just one scene or two but the whole script.

Albert Finney is a last-minute choice…
JOEL: The part had been written for Trey Wilson, who died just before the beginning of shooting. We had to delay it for ten days. It just happened that Finney was available and could commit himself for a few months. We didn’t rewrite the dialogue for him, but the result would undoubtedly have been very different with Trey.
ETHAN: What’s strange is that the part would never have been written without Trey in mind, whereas now it’s impossible for us to imagine any other actor than Finney in the Leo role.

Who had the idea of making Finney and Gabriel Byrne speak with a strong Irish accent?
JOEL: The characters are of Irish extraction, but their parts weren’t planned to be spoken with an accent. When Gabriel read the script he thought it had a style, a rhythm that was authentically Irish, and he suggested trying the lines with his accent. We were sceptical at the start, but his reading convinced us. So Finney took on the accent too.

The film is out at the same time as other gangster movies.
JOEL: It’s a coincidence. It’s very different from the others, in any case from Scorsese’s Goodfellas, the only one I’ve seen. I love it but the story and the style are completely different, like day and night.
ETHAN: When they describe all those movies as gangster movies, it suggests a wider community that doesn’t really exist. It’s the type of situation journalists like to exploit, because they always try to identify fashions, trends. It makes good copy but doesn’t mean a lot. Anyway, Miller’s Crossing is really closer to film noir than to the gangster movie.

The film unfolds in New Orleans, a city one doesn’t usually associate with the genre. What dictated your choice?
JOEL: We had to shoot in winter, and we didn’t want snow for the exterior shots, so we had to choose a Southern city. New Orleans happens not to be very industrially developed and many districts have only slightly changed since the twenties.
ETHAN: We took care not to show the picturesque or tourist aspects of the city. We didn’t want the audience to recognize New Orleans. In the story the city’s an anonymous one, the typical “corrupted town” of Hammett novels.

In your interviews you always give the impression that you avoid the issue when asked about the symbolism of the images, the motivation of the characters, the social implications of the film, etc.
ETHAN: Apparently, nobody wants to be satisfied with the movie, as if they absolutely need explanations beyond the images, the story itself. That always surprises me. But if you don’t comply, journalists get the impression that you’re hiding something from them.

In his New York Times review Vincent Canby complains that Gabriel Byrne is often hard to understand and also complains about the obscurities of the film: some characters are only names in the dialogue and what happens to them is not clear. Are you sensitive to that kind of criticism?
JOEL: Not really. It doesn’t really concern me if the audience sometimes loses the thread of the plot. It’s not that important to understand who killed the Rug Daniels character, for instance. It’s far more important to feel the relationships between the characters. The question of intelligibility concerns me more, but, until now, I haven’t received any bad reactions concerning that.

The relationships between characters are rather obscure: Leo and Tom, for instance. It’s a friendship that degenerates into rivalry.
JOEL: Because of Verna’s character. It’s the heterosexual triangle of the movie.

You spoke in your press conference about a homosexual triangle—Bernie, Mink, Dane—balancing the other one. The homosexuality of those three characters is scarcely evident (except perhaps for Bernie) and their relationships even less. How important is that triangle?
JOEL: It’s difficult to say what made us think of it. It’s not very important, it’s a pretty minor point but it’s somehow satisfying to us, a kind of symmetry or counterpoint maybe. It introduces a certain variety, and the process seems legitimate to us insofar as we don’t do violence to the story or the characters.

Tom, the hero, cheats, lies, and manipulates throughout the entire film. Does he nevertheless have ethics?
JOEL: Yes, I think there’s a certain purity in his intentions, but it manifests itself in a very twisted way. He has principles that are in conflict with themselves.
ETHAN: It’s everybody’s problem, in fact. The movie is a gangster story because it’s a genre we’re attracted to a literary rather than a cinematic genre, by the way—but the conflicts of the characters, the morality, have a more universal application.

What got you started, a theme, the idea of a character, or an element of the plot?
JOEL: Certainly not a theme. In reality the starting point of the script was an image, or a series of images, the desire to make a movie whose characters would be dressed in a certain way—the hats, the long coatsand would be placed in certain settings that were unusual for the genre: the countryside, the forest…

The hat is more than an accessory in the film, it’s a recurrent theme as soon as the credits start, with that hat blown by the wind in the forest. What is the significance?
JOEL: Everybody asks us questions about that hat, and there isn’t any answer really. It’s not a symbol, it doesn’t have any particular meaning…
ETHAN: The hat doesn’t “represent” anything, it’s just a hat blown by the wind.
JOEL: It’s an image that came to us, that we liked, and it just implanted itself. It’s a kind of practical guiding thread, but there’s no need to look for deep meanings.

In a sense, Tom himself puts us on our guard against interpretation when he recounts his dream: he specifies that the hat doesn’t change into something else, it stays a hat.
ETHAN: Sure, you can take it like that. Verna wants to give a meaning to Tom’s dream, and it’s gratuitous. Tom remains objective.

How long did you take to write the script?
JOEL: Much longer than for the two previous movies. All in all, eight months more or less, but we stopped to write the script of the next one, which took two months.

Would you contemplate shooting somebody else’s script?
ETHAN: No, I don’t think so, we’ve grown so used to working like this since the beginning. For us, creation really starts with the script in all its stages; the shooting is only the conclusion. It’d be very difficult for us to direct a script written by a third person.

You’ve changed designers for Miller’s Crossing.
JOEL: We like to work with the same collaborators, but Jane Musky, the designer of our first two movies, wasn’t available. David Gassner, who worked with Coppola, helped us a great deal in the choice of colors. The colors are more controlled than in the previous movies.
ETHAN: David had the idea for the building columns, to have the architecture reflecting the trees in the forest … He was our designer again for the movie we just shot, Barton Fink.

What is Gabriel Byrne’s musical contribution?
JOEL: He suggested a certain number of traditional Irish songs. We’d already decided to use “Danny Boy,” but the other song, on which Carter Burwell based the main theme, is an old ballad suggested by Gabriel.

What relationship do you have with Circle Films?
ETHAN: As you know, it’s the independent distribution company which distributed Blood Simple and which later produced Raising Arizona. Fox contributed to Raising Arizona‘s budget and were the distributors, as they are for Miller’s Crossing and the next one, Barton Fink, but our relationship with Circle remains the same. Ben Barenholtz as a distributor has always been interested in independent cinema, American and foreign, he’s always taken risks. We’re on the same wavelength.

 
Gabriel Byrne on Miller’s Crossing.

When I read that script, I was just like anybody I think who read it, just really impressed by how visual and literate and how complex those relationships in the story actually were. When you unravel what that movie is about, it’s even more audacious that someone could base a storyline on that single conversation between Steve Buscemi’s character and mine at the bottom of the staircase. All the twists and turns, the betrayals… There were certainly Machiavellian traits in the character and as much as the film is about gangsters, it’s also a film about big business and about the nature of morality. I think when the film came out it was really underrated. There’s laugh out loud moments in that movie, whereas on paper, it didn’t necessarily read that way. When Albert Finney turns around says ‘They took his hair, Tommy. They took his hair!’ (laughs) And of course, we’d just seen the kid run off with the guy’s rug in the earlier scene. I asked the Coens what their inspiration was to write the film, and I forget whether it was Joel or Ethan who said to me: ‘You always see gangsters in the street, but you never see them in a forest.’ I just thought that was so brilliant. Plus, there’s so much amazing imagery: the hat floating by the camera through the forest, which is one of the most original images in film history.

 
John Turturro on Miller’s Crossing.

The big “look into your heart” scene in the woods. How many takes was that?
I don’t remember how many takes. I just know it was 13 degrees, that’s all. It was really cold. You know, it was a long time ago. It was a hard scene. Sometimes you think about movies, and you say, “Well, I want to try to do something that’s not exactly in a movie.” If you’ve ever been in a very dangerous situation, you know that people will do all kinds of things to keep themselves alive. It was very well-written, but you want to imagine what it’s really like to be in that kind of situation. It depends on what you’re willing to do, and in real life you would do a lot of different things. I tried to capture a little bit of that. I had a couple close encounters throughout my life before that, and you store that stuff in the back of your mind. It’s how you do it, but it’s what they choose and how they put it together too. But that was my goal when I did that, was to do something that was almost a little difficult to watch, because people aren’t trying to be heroic at those moments.

When you first came across that scene in the screenplay, was it obvious to you that it would be so central and important to the movie? They even used it for the poster.
I guess maybe, but not completely. I kind of knew it was important, and they kept telling me it was. But you don’t want to put too much pressure on yourself, because then it’s like going to bed with somebody the first time or something. You’re like, “Oh God, I got to be great.” [Laughs.] You just don’t want to put too much pressure on yourself. I just thought about it in the context of the story, that’s it. Because you can overthink something, too. It all felt really good when they did it, but it was hard to do. —John Turturro

 

BARRY SONNENFELD

“I only did the first three movies with them. Ethan and Joel directed together and were on set together for every shot. Ethan did not speak to the actors though. I always knew when I lined up a shot who to choose to look through the camera to get the shot I actually wanted. Ethan always liked wider shots and Joel always chose the tighter shots.” Before shooting each movie the Coen brothers and Sonnenfeld had a ritual. They would watch Dr. Strangelove and The Conformist. I thought he was kidding, “No… we watched both movies… We didn’t learn anything from the movies we just really liked them and felt like we were doing research and taking the process seriously.” Sonnenfeld admits that is not quite true, “When we shot Blood Simple the lighting in the movie The Conformist influenced us. The screen in the woods in Miller’s Crossing with Gabriel Byrne was homage to The Conformist.” —Barry Sonnenfeld: How I do what I do

 

CARTER BURWELL

As my first orchestral score, ‘Miller’s Crossing’ required learning many new skills. One, of course, was how to write orchestral music. I had no training in this, and studied orchestral scores while Joel and Ethan were shooting the film, including Max Steiner for the classic Hollywood sound of the 1930s. And I was introduced to Sonny Kompanek, an orchestrator, who effectively became my orchestration teacher. Another skill was how to hire an orchestra. Asking around, we were introduced to the legendary Emile Charlap, the man who contracted essentially all the orchestral recording dates in New York City. Another was how to record an orchestra. We were introduced to Mike Farrow, who had recently transitioned from being a commercial pilot to an music recording mixer. We ended up working together for another 30 years. And lastly—what is a music editor? They have a multi-faceted job that’s hard to define in a single sentence. In 1990 they typically took notes of the spotting sessions, provided timing notes to the composer, made sure the recordings were in accord with those notes, and then placed and edited the music mixes into the film. I was introduced to Todd Kasow, and as with Mike Farrow we continued to work together for decades.Carter Burwell

 
The strangest part was that Joel and Ethan came to me and said they wanted an orchestral score—they knew perfectly well that I had no experience writing orchestral music or any experience in classical music at all. So it was amazing—it still is amazing—to me that they wanted me to do it. Maybe it was out of loyalty, I don’t know. My wife thinks it’s because they don’t like meeting new people! So while they were shooting I was studying orchestral music, just trying to get some grounding in orchestration. I remember watching a rough edit and without any music to it the film is really cold and brutal. Gabriel Byrne is constantly getting beaten up and hit in the head, and you can’t always figure out why he’s doing what he’s doing. So I suggested trying to do something warmer with the music, to suggest that Gabriel Byrne’s character actually has some love for Albert Finney’s character and that any betrayal is motivated by love. They didn’t seem to like that idea. So I asked if they wanted something with a little more mystery, that was harder or colder and then they just said, ‘How about neutral?’ As a composer you are usually one of the last people hired; Joel and Ethan had lived with the film for years at this point, so to have someone come in and say, ‘I’ve got a new idea that’s probably going to change the film in some fundamental way,’… it’s hard as a filmmaker to be open to suggestions like that. That said, when I actually played them my idea they got it immediately, but I’ve now appreciated since then that it’s difficult for filmmakers to bring their film to a composer and keep an open mind about what they might do.Carter Burwell on writing the soundtrack to the Coen brothers’ career

 
The 2013 The Art of the Score discussion hosted by Alec Baldwin and featuring the Coen brothers plus their long time composer Carter Burwell. A great meeting of the minds which dares to examine film music from a psychological perspective. Highly entertaining and worth every minute.

 
Masterclass movie storyboarding with Coen Brothers’ storyboarder J. Todd Anderson.

 
The Directors Series’ half-hour video that dives into three of the Coens’ most appreciated works, Miller’s Crossing, Barton Fink, and The Hudsucker Proxy. Written, edited and narrated by Cameron Beyl.

 
The Film Society of Lincoln Center held an hour-long discussion between Joel and Ethan Coen and fellow filmmaker Noah Baumbach. Some of the topics covered include how the Coens open their movies, their use of voice-over, how they use misdirection, and how their films compare to Baumbach’s. The interview is also worth watching because the Coens rarely speak about the films and instead prefer to let them stand on their own. People continue to speculate on the symbolism of the hat in Miller’s Crossing.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of the Coen brothers’ Miller’s Crossing. Photographed by Patti Perret © Circle Films, Twentieth Century Fox. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post ‘Miller’s Crossing’: A Lamentation of Losers by the Coen Brothers appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

How Robert Altman’s Anti-Western Classic ‘McCabe & Mrs. Miller’ Aged Like Fine Wine

$
0
0

 
By Koraljka Suton

The legendary director Robert Altman was given an Academy Honorary Award in 2006, “in recognition of a career that has repeatedly reinvented the art form and inspired filmmakers and audiences alike.” Although he never won a competitive Oscar, despite having been nominated seven times—two times for Best Picture and five times for Best Director—it is safe to say that the Honorary Award was an accolade that had been long overdue. The highly praised “maverick” who stubbornly went against the current of Hollywood-style filmmaking was forty-five years old when he directed the 1970 movie M*A*S*H, a black comedy war film that cleverly subverted the military comedy genre and paved the way for its director to continue delivering the unexpected by challenging the pre-existing genre tropes, a trait which he would eventually become both known and revered for. The project that fell into his lap after the surprise (s)mash hit was, therefore, right up his alley. Instead of taking up offers for big studio productions which he was advised to do and now finally could to, the auteur decided to stay true to his unique voice and continue playing with that which had not been played with before. In 1968, producer David Foster optioned a pulp Western entitled McCabe, written in 1959 by author Edmund Naughton. But Foster was not actually looking to buy the novel, as he stated on the 2009 Movie Geeks United podcast. His primary goal was meeting with French feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir, so as to get the movie rights to The Mandarins. Although many others had tried, it was Foster who sealed the deal, despite never having made a single film before. On his way out of Paris where the meeting took place, the novelist’s agent Ellen Wright gave Foster Naughton’s McCabe, which she also represented, and allegedly told the producer that John Huston and Roman Polanski were interested in it, a notion which prompted him to immediately read the book on his plane ride home. Having landed, Foster had his attorney close the deal in regards to both de Beauvoir and Naughton’s novels. Soon afterwards, screenwriter and documentarian Ben Maddow got the job of adapting Naughton’s fiction into a script.

But what Maddow’s two drafts succeeded in doing was turning the inherently anti-Western McCabe into a pretty much traditional Hollywood Western. So, when Altman got on board, Maddow was replaced with Brian McKay who was to revise the screenplay together with the director. McKay, who had previously been incarcerated for stealing money orders, was introduced to Altman through the director’s wife Kathryn Reed, who McKay was in contact with. After getting out of jail, he started working with Altman and had a draft ready after only five weeks. But during this period, the two collaborators had a falling-out, as was a common occurrence throughout Altman’s professional life, resulting in them ultimately parting ways. In McKay’s draft, the atypical elements of Naughton’s story were restored and his version was dubbed The Presbyterian Church Wager, a title that remained throughout all the subsequent versions, before ultimately being changed to McCabe & Mrs. Miller. This was due to a complaint issued to Warner Brothers by an official in the Presbyterian Church, asserting that the church was not very fond of being mentioned in a movie that depicts whorehouses and gambling. The infamous title referred to the inhabitants of the town of Presbyterian Church making a bet on whether the movie’s main character would survive the refusal of a tempting business offer made to him. The protagonist is John ‘Pudgy’ McCabe, a gambler who comes to the aforementioned town, named after its unused chapel. Rumored to be a dangerous gunfighter, McCabe quickly finds fertile ground for his intense personality to flourish on, with the town’s alcoholic miners proving themselves ready to be at his service. McCabe decides to open a poor man’s brothel and purchases three prostitutes from a nearby town. His small-scale (and rather unhygienic) business soon becomes a profitable one, thanks to the arrival of one Constance Miller, a cockney prostitute who brings several other ladies with her and offers to run the establishment for him. Although at first unwilling to admit that the standards he had set with his brothel were far from high, Mrs. Miller manages to convince him that she would be a much better candidate to tend to the girls, their needs and their hygiene. These two diametrically opposite individuals soon become both successful business partners and occasional lovers (provided McCabe pay Mrs. Miller’s fee of $5, the highest one there is), but their bliss is short-lived. After McCabe refuses to sell his property to a mining company from a nearby town, the odds of his survival start to diminish.

 
I get to draw from the whole world. When we did ‘McCabe’ somebody asked, “Why are you doing this? This is the most standard Western.” I said, It’s the most standard Western story we could find that has all the elements that everybody has already seen. So, I’ve got the three killers, the giant, the half-breed, and the kid. I’ve got the whore with the heart of gold. I’ve got the slimy merchant and then this kind of blustering hero who wasn’t really a hero—that was the only difference. So the audience knows the story, and they’re able to just go in. And I’m able to go in and say, “Yeah, you’re comfortable in this story, but let me tell you maybe they wore these kinds of clothes and maybe this sort of thing happened. Maybe they didn’t all wear big hats and speak with a drawl. Maybe the hero was just this normal, well-intentioned, blustering kind of guy who stumbles on the right thing to do.”Robert Altman

Apart from saying that Naughton’s novel was “the most ordinary common Western that’s ever been told,” Altman also called it “no great piece of writing” on the DVD commentary. And while he claims to be the one who had turned a clichéd, conventional Western into the subversive classic cinephiles had come to know and love, it has been argued that the director’s comments had not given the novel credit where credit was due, with certain critics claiming that those seemingly innovative parts of the story—like the very notion of an incapable hero—were there from the get-go. And yet, what Altman did with his cast and crew was nevertheless a true piece of cinematic art. Although the screenplay was finished and the title changed, what we saw on screen still managed to differ from that last draft, as many others were said to have worked on it during production—Death of a Gunfighter screenwriter Joseph Calvelli, Chinatown screenwriter Robert Towne and actress Julie Christie, who portrayed Mrs. Miller herself and wrote a lot of her own dialogue. Lead actor Warren Beatty credited himself as one of the main contributors and while it is true that iconic lines such as “Money and pain. Pain, pain, pain.” and the winged frog riddle were his, McCabe’s other well-known quotes were in fact taken directly from the internal monologue Naughton had written for his main character. Also, the wager that found its place in the old title was omitted from the movie and the meeting between McCabe and the hired assassin named Butler was added. All of this turned McCabe & Mrs. Miller into an ever-evolving project, with improvisations during rehearsals and additions right before the actual shooting forming the movie’s very core, thereby contributing to its magic and authenticity that left such a lasting impact on audiences, providing them with a visceral depiction of the everyday lives of plain, unheroic and in every way unextraordinary cowboys.

 
Altman works in such an interesting way, letting things occur in the film even if he didn’t particularly plan them. We lived in that town, you know. Everybody lived there. We were up to British Columbia and built the town as the movie was made, all raw lumber and mud in the streets. And the cast and crew lived in the buildings. It was uncanny; I think perhaps Presbyterian Church seems like a real place to the people in the movie because it was a real place for all of us.Julie Christie in a 1971 interview with Roger Ebert

And when it came to conveying the aforementioned authenticity—and reminding us just how artificial conversations in movies usually are—Altman’s frequent usage of overlapping dialogues proved to be the missing link that, when inserted, gives McCabe & Mrs. Miller a realistic feel that many filmmakers strive for. Thanks to the technique of layered dialogue cutting, that makes it so that several characters often speak at the same time, we are forced to pay close attention, if we are to make out what they are saying. Ultimately, we give up, as we are intended to, for the purpose of such a practice, one which will become prevalent in Altman’s movies, is precisely to undermine dialogue and instead turn it into background noise. In doing this, the town of Presbyterian Church becomes a living and breathing entity, along with its characters who we come to know so little about. But that lack of information turns out to be more than enough, for life is depicted by actions, not necessarily words spoken (as the director himself said: “You don’t need to hear everything people are saying to know the world they’re living in”). And the characters in McCabe & Mrs. Miller have a lot of life in them. That being said, this strategy is also used to avoid putting the titular heroes in the forefront—we as the audience have to get involved and follow their steps and their actions carefully, while risking getting distracted by the plethora of characters surrounding them, walking in and out of the frame, going about their daily business of drinking, talking and fooling around.

 
Still, for a movie that puts the opening of a brothel at the center of its narrative, McCabe & Mrs. Miller remains thoroughly chaste in its depiction of sexual activities. Everything is merely implied i.e., left to the viewers’ imagination and fairly little is shown, which renders Altman’s film not only tasteful, but also shows us where his focus truly lies—on the business dynamic between the gambler and the prostitute. As Roger Ebert stated, this emphasis is clearly visible in the movie’s very title, with the ampersand denoting their entrepreneurial partnership, as opposed to a romantic liaison. Even their physical connection is a transactional one, with Mrs. Miller insisting on McCabe paying for her services, whereas he would much rather they move beyond it, for he too “has poetry in him”, although he feels incapable of conveying it. This does not mean that Constance does not care about him, because she does. Their tragedy lies in their failure to clearly articulate their needs and wants—while she does a fantastic job at hiding them from herself and restores to her secret opium addiction to get the relief she so badly craves, he feels hurt by her refusal to see them as more than mere business partners, but does nothing about it. Their romance is, therefore, something that exists merely as a potential to be utilized, yet remains never truly realized.

But even though McCabe and Mrs. Miller’s love story never managed to truly take off, the actors portraying them were a couple at the time and ended up doing the movie because they were looking to collaborate on screen. Beatty was in the position to select the roles he wanted due to the success of Bonnie and Clyde (1967) which he both starred in and produced. And although Altman initially wanted Elliott Gould to play his protagonist, the actor declined the offer for the sake of the movie I Love My Life. Altman told him he was making the biggest mistake of his life and Gould agreed later on. Thus, Beatty was cast. It has been said that the actor’s control issues did not play well with Altman’s, but that in no way affected his wonderful performance. On the topic of their relationship, Julie Christie said the following: “You had two very different types of ego working in a small area. I’m not going to go any further than that. To my mind it’s Bob’s best film. It needed the tightness that Warren brought to it and it needed the expansiveness that Robert brought to it… I think he’s a great director, a great, unique, adventurous, experimental, confrontational, provocative director.” The actress had, on the other hand, risen to prominence several years prior, when she starred in Dr. Zhivago and won an Academy Award for Best Actress for the 1965 movie Darling directed by her close friend John Schlesinger (Midnight Cowboy). She was nominated yet again for her portrayal as Mrs. Miller, but Jane Fonda ended up taking home the golden statuette for her role in the neo-noir Klute.

 
McCabe & Mrs. Miller was filmed in Squamish and West Vancouver in almost sequential order. As the gambler McCabe was reimagining the town of Presbyterian Church by building a high-quality brothel, the film’s set was built on location to follow suit. When the only scenes left to be shot were the ones near the end—the church catching fire and McCabe’s showdown with the hired assassins—it began to snow. Beatty opposed shooting since, in his mind, they would have to film the rest of the movie in such weather for continuity’s sake. But Altman argued that the two were the only scenes they had yet to film and with nothing better to do, he wanted to give it a shot. The cat-and-mouse scene between McCabe and the people trying to execute him, as well as the church scene, were filmed over the course of nine days. The snow we see in the movie was real, apart from a few fake chunks on the ground. It is said that the crew members seized the opportunity to have some fun, so they engaged in snowball fights and built snowmen in-between takes. It is this scene in particular that serves as a testament to the atypicality of McCabe & Mrs. Miller. Here, the trope of a showdown commencing at noon with onlookers locked inside while witnessing the high-stakes shoot-off is abandoned and replaced with a rather unceremonious hunt in the snow taking place in the early morning hours, while the townsfolk are all busy stopping the fire, unaware of the gunfight even happening.

There were two other aspects of Altman’s anti-Western that contributed to its status. The first one is cinematography, done by Hungarian-born Vilmos Zsigmond, who would later become known for his camerawork on movies such as Deliverance (1972), The Deer Hunter (1978) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). Altman wanted the movie to look “like antique photography and faded-out pictures,” which the cinematographer managed to achieve by “flashing” the film negative before its exposure, as well as by using numerous filters on the camera, so that these elements did not have to be added in post-production. This technique broke new ground and gave the movie its surreal and distinctive quality. The second aspect that emphasized the atmosphere of McCabe & Mrs. Miller was the choice of music. The only three songs that were used were “The Stranger Song”, “Sisters of Mercy” and “Winter Lady” by Leonard Cohen, who had released his first album in 1967 and was still relatively unknown at the time. The story goes that the composer got a phone call from Altman right after having returned from the movies. The director told him about his work and mentioned Brewster McCloud, “a small movie that nobody saw,” which turned out to be the very same film Cohen had just come back from. After having provided the songs for McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Cohen watched the picture so as to think of a guitar riff for one of the scenes and did not like what he saw. He would, later on, re-watch it and call Altman to apologize for his previous judgment, claiming to have loved it the second time around. And Cohen was not the only one. Even though it was a box office flop, the critics adored it. It would be proclaimed the 8th greatest Western of all time in 2008 and chosen for preservation in the United States National Film Registry because of it being “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant.” Proof, as if any was needed to begin with, that McCabe & Mrs. Miller achieved what only few movies do and managed to age like fine wine.

Written by Koraljka Suton. Koraljka is a member of the Croatian Society of Film Critics and has a master’s degree in German and English. For her thesis, she did a comparative analysis of Spielberg’s ‘Band of Brothers’ and ‘The Pacific’. Koraljka trained at a Zagreb-based acting studio for six years and fell in love with Michael Chekhov and Lee Strasberg’s acting techniques. She is also a contemporary dancer and a Reiki master who believes in the transformative quality of art. Read more »

 
This picture is the most ordinary common western that’s ever been told. I picked the story because it’s the conventional thing. A gambler takes over a town, a whore opens a whorehouse. A neighboring mining company tries to buy him out. He refuses to sell; they send in three killers to get him. Now that’s everything you’ve heard, every cliché. All I’m trying to say is, yeah, these things happened but they didn’t happen that way. the guy wasn’t sure of himself. He was in over his head. The woman was a real whore. Which means she doesn’t like it and doesn’t like him particularly. —Robert Altman

Screenwriter must-read: Robert Altman & Brian McKay’s screenplay for McCabe & Mrs. Miller [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at the Criterion Collection. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
A colorful talk with Altman as he prepared an early foray into the western genre. The 15th man who was asked to direct M*A*S*H (and did) makes a peculiar western, by Aljean Harmetz, June 20, 1971.

It is 4:30 on a Friday afternoon in late December, and the Canadian darkness has fallen like a stone. Water pours down Robert Altman’s Mephistophelean beard, and an incongruously thin string of love beads circles his massive neck. At 2 A.M. the preceding night he lurched to bed, a last glass of Scotch in one hand, a last joint of marijuana in the other. But the indulgences of the night have no claim over the day. He was the first man on the set in the winter darkness of 7 A.M. He will be the last man to leave in the slippery frozen twilight. Standing In the rain with his 205 pounds zipped into a hooded, red nylon jumpsuit and the west coast of North America lying beyond his left shoulder, movie director Robert Altman looks a bit like a giant hawk, bit more like Santa Claus, even more like Alan Hale as Little John to Errol Flynn’s Robin Hood. But the over‐all impression is of a cheerful Old Nick. Only tail and pitchfork are missing.

Altman drinks ‘hot buttered rum from a silver flask. He has had no breakfast, no lunch, but “the biggest problem in shooting a movie is time to go to the bathroom.” In the few hours of daylight, he has completed 34 camera setups. He is pleased with himself, and he does not try to hide it. Later tonight, swacked on Scotch, grass, red and white wine, he will announce, “I was so good today was fabulous. I embarrassed myself.” At 46, Robert Altman is Hollywood’s newest 26-year-old genius. The extra 20 years are simply the time he had to spend, chained and toothless, in the anterooms of power—waiting for Hollywood to catch up with him. While he was waiting, he made million dollars as a television director and spent two million; fathered four children on three wives; gave up the last remnants of Catholicism for hedonism, and occasionally lost $2,000 in a single night in Las Vegas without losing half an hour’s sleep over the money.

Eighteen months ago Hollywood caught up—with a vengeance. Robert Altman had waited 20 years for the historical accident of having 14 more acceptable directors turn down “M*A*S*H.” For “M*A*S*H” Altman won an Academy Award nomination. The film was chosen as best film of the Cannes Film Festival and also selected best film of 1970 by the National Society of Film Critics. Later on this Friday in late December, Altman sits on the floor of his rented house in Vancouver, B. C.—a glass of red wine in one hand, joint in the other—casually seducing men and women alike with the intensity of his interest. There are a dozen people in the room, almost all old friends, veterans of half a dozen Hollywood wars, now in Canada with him to work on his new film, “McCabe & Mrs. Miller.”

Round and round the circle goes the joint, sealing some mystical bargain. (“All of it is a love affair,” says the screenwriter of “McCabe & Mrs. Miller,” Brian McKay. “Everyone on a Bob Altman movie is there because Bob needs them to make that film. If he doesn’t need you anymore, good-by. So wrapping your whole life in Bob Altman as some people do is dangerous. When he turns off the charisma, it hurts.”) Altman will not let his 16-year-old son smoke marijuana. “He’s too young. I do what I do. I get up in the morning and go to work. If he gets stoned in the evening, he’s not committed to anything the next day.” By the time Altman lurches to his feet to take the circle out to dinner, he has consumed enough Scotch, wine and grass to put an army to sleep, but he shows no sign of wear. His energy level and his stamina are so high that he cannot easily blow out the light. (He does, however, have one other way of relaxing. He will sometimes take to his bed for weekend, switching from television station to television station with his remote control in search of a roller derby. When he finds one, he will lie, half-hypnotized, for hours, watching the skaters go round and round.)

 
Halfway through dinner, he rests his elbows on the table, his eyes closing, his head swaying. He is suddenly hostile. “I’ve found myself performing for you 16 times today,” he tells a reporter—infuriated at even unintentional deceit in himself. He charges forward verbally—challenging, taunting—yet neither his crude language nor his massive self-confidence can mask or take away his considerable charm. More and more uncomfortable, his wife begs him to stop. He shrugs her off. Eventually she moves out of earshot to the other end of the long table. The bill for dinner is $153.25. Altman pays it with an American Express card. He holds the plastic rectangle triumphantly. The card arrived that morning, proof that he is no longer a bad credit risk. He had been applying for it for six years.

Altman insists on driving home. Each member of the party remonstrates, protests, begs, but he is too powerful to be stopped. Eventually they give in. He makes the wrong turn and there is a silent-movie chase around the restaurant. Back at his house, Altman is handed a Scotch and soda as a matter of routine. Nobody tries to handle him. Nobody tells him he has had enough. After an hour of sipping Scotch and wine, he is completely recovered, in better condition than the others—most of whom have had far less to drink. He is still on his feet when the house empties at 2 A.M.

Altman’s staying power through the long Canadian nights is one thing. His staying power as a director is another. It is too early to make any sound appraisal of the range of Robert Altman’s talent. Says director Blake Edwards, who has been there and back again, “It used to be that there were 10 directors you were sure of. Now a guy has one great success and three failures and you look back and say, ‘What did I ever see in him?’” As a result of “M*A*S*H,” Hollywood—which rarely looks beyond immediate grosses—has chosen Robert Altman as its current hot director. In Matteo’s Restaurant, the silken executives paw at his turtleneck sweater. At 20th Century-Fox, frightened men carry the grosses of “M*A*S*H” on the backs of torn envelopes. Four years ago the Mirisch company wouldn’t allow him to direct a $5,000,000 picture. After “M*A*S*H,” they called and begged him to direct the film.

Offered the moon, Altman takes very small bites. “You can steal money in TV and movies. I could make $150,000 a year for the next two or three years without doing thing. By making deals that never go through, by accepting money to develop projects that are never finished.” He thinks that he has been “really lucky with the long gestation period—with failure. If I had had a hit, a imajor success, 15 years ago or even five years ago, it would have destroyed me.” From years of gambling he has learned that “it takes only one minute to become totally irrational, to think that it’s you who have done something, not the dice.” He hopes that he can remain moderately stable. It helps to have had “little minor successes. Successes can look back on and see they’re nothing. You get caught up to the point you deceive yourself. You can’t avoid the traps. There’s too much money, too much adulation, too many people saying you’re marvelous. You have to believe it.”

 
He admires Ingmar Bergman “who has avoided the traps by totally isolating himself.” For Altman, who surrounds himself with people from the moment he gets up until the moment he is poured into bed, Bergman’s way is admirable but impossible. Altman’s own way of “avoiding the traps” is “to start out with material I think I can’t handle. It keeps you honest. But that way, each thing you do eliminates that thing. Perhaps eventually you run out of things you can try.” “M*A*S*H” was Altman’s second film, (if one doesn’t count “Countdown,” a melodrama he was booted off in 1966 and two very early nonHollywood films.) His first major film, “That Cold Day in the Park,” was a critical and financial disaster. His third film, “Brewster McCloud,” has shown up on half a dozen Best Films of 1970 lists, including those of Judith Grist and Andrew Sarris. It has also been dismissed by Pauline Kael (“no driving im pulse and no internal consistency”) and by Stanley Kauffmann. The movie is a fairy tale for adults, a myth about bird droppings and whether man really wants to fly or only wants the freedom that he thinks birds have. People who like the film like it very much. The rest detest it.

Altman, who has never gotten along well with bosses, started fighting with MGM after the first preview of “Brewster McCloud.” “The preview cards were better than ‘M*A*S*H’ but afterward the hotel room was like a wake, because nobody had come out of the film laughing. If anybody came out of ‘Brewster McCloud’ laughing, we didn’t make the film we thought we were going to make.” The studio, eager to get rid of a peculiar film, dumped it with little preparation into vast, drafty theaters across the country. (“I wouldn’t make a film at MGM today if they gave me 100 per cent financing and 100 per cent of the profits” is Altman’s most printable comment.)

Since it cost only $1,500,000, “Brewster McCloud” will end up making a little money. Altman’s newest film, “McCabe & Mrs. Miller,” may have equal difficulty turning profit. Although it is, in one way, considerably more traditional, it is, in another, considerably more peculiar. And it cost slightly over $3,000,000. Warren Beatty is John McCabe. His real-life paramour, Julie Christie, is Mrs. Miller. “McCabe & Mrs. Miller” is Western in much the same strange way that “M*A*S*H” was a war film. It takes place in the northwestern United States in 1902, and it tells the story of “a fool, a poseur, a hero with a hole and it’s that hole that makes him a hero.”

The peculiarities of “McCabe & Mrs. Miller” begin with the look of the film. Of the many attempts by directors to use color to comment on the picture they are making (Antonioni’s “Red Desert,” George Roy Hill’s “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” John Huston’s “Moulin Rouge”), “McCabe & Mrs. Miller” is closest—both technically and emotionally—to Huston’s grim use of color in “Moby Dick.” The faded quality of the color is Altman’s deliberate attempt—by methods known as flashing and fogging—to create the archaic feel of an old photograph left for too many years in somebody’s attic album.

 
Except for the snow sequence at the end of the film where he wanted to increase the reality of “the moment of truth” with as harsh a black-and-white effect as possible, Altman used fog filters throughout the picture. Then, before the negative was developed, the film was put on a printer and re-exposed to light. According to Altman, “adding more yellow than normal not only threw the print toward yellow but made the look of the film more extreme. Adding more blue did the same thing.” Altman’s intention was “to complement the period, the set, and the look of the people, to make the audience see the film as more real.” To him the blue and yellow suggested the faded printed material of the period—old magazines and bottle labels, aging and yellowed newspapers.

Altman’s desire to achieve reality has led him less to technical innovations than to the rejection of technical devices considered standard by other directors. Instead of ordinary, clear sound, he uses overlapping sound—characters’ voices, even scenes, blend into and interrupt each other. “That’s to give the audience the sense of the dialogue, the emotional feeing, rather than the literal word. That’s the way sound is in real life.”

On all his films he has used two cameras simultaneously and a zoom lens “to keep the actors honest, so that an actor cannot feel, ‘I don’t have to give very much in this scene because the camera is on my back.’ They never know.” He built a real town for “McCabe & Mrs. Miller” without making any effort to leave room for his cameras; instead of trained animals, he used strays that wandered onto the Canadian set. “In a sense, we created problems for ourselves,” he admits, “but a real town is not carefully constructed for cameras. And real animals don’t always behave the way you want them to. We gained the advantage of environment—hopefully for the audience, definitely for ourselves.”

Making his films “more real” is close to the core of Altman’s work as a director. He wants to catch the accidents of life and fling them on the screen hard enough to knock the breath out of the audience. He wants to weigh the screen down with vulrarity, pleasure, pain, ugliness and unexpected beauty. He wants, magically, to change two dimensions into three. Altman is, of course, doomed to failure—which he admits in his rare morose moments: “Nobody has ever made a good movie. Some day someone will make half a good one.” To Altman, a “good movie” is “taking the narrative out, taking the story out of it. The audience will sit and see the film and understand the movie’s intention without being able to articulate it.”

 
For his next film, “Images,” a modern Gothic horror story he wrote in one long, tormented weekend several years ago, Altman is already “trying in my head to take all the words out that make sense and to replace them with words that don’t.” In “McCabe & Mrs. Miller,” the words that are there make sense, but in his attempt “to keep from being obvious, to keep the audience from seeing the devices,” Altman has clipped several great chunks of plot out of the film. His concern for emotional rather than literal accuracy has left a number of puzzling and undefined characters to wander—mostly in long shot—in and out of the background.

Altman admits that this “will confuse the literalminded,” but he hopes that “the rest of the audience will sit back and accept the film rather than anticipate it, will simply let the film wash over them. In most films so much specific information is provided that the audience is allowed to be totally uninvolved. I try to make an audience do as much work as they would do reading a novel.” The result of this approach, with “M*A*S*H,” was that large numbers of people read Altman’s antiwar film as a pro-war statement. He can only assume that “they are people who need to see children burning to think something is antiwar.” He dismisses them as “people who want a political statement rather than an artistic one.”

Altman does not like his films to make any verbal statements. He is interested in the look and feel of a film rather than in words and plot. He speak often of himself as “an artist painting a picture.” And adds, “It’s not words we’re dealing with in the films I make, not clever dialogue. I’m not interested in doing ‘A Man for All Seasons’ or ‘A Lion in Winter.’” As a result, most of the writers of Altman’s films have ended up as his more-or-less bitter enemies. By the time one of his films is finished there is nothing left of the original script except a couple of soup bones of plot and a few expletives. “Bob,” says Brian McKay, “considers a script simply as an instrument, as the tool you sell the studio.”

According to Bill Cannon, author of the original screenplay of “Brewster McCloud,” Altman “claimed I should take my name off the screen since, in fact, he, himself, had written most of the film.” Altman cheerfully admits that Ring Lardner Jr., who won an Academy Award for his script of “M*A*S*H,” “hated me. Lardner kept saying things like, ‘That isn’t a true Maine accent. You’re being false.’ Bull—. If I have an actor uncomfortable in a Maine accent, I let him use an accent he’s comfortable in. I’m interested in the behavior pattern of the characters, not in what ‘they say. In my films the actors can be creative. I don’t think one person can write dialogue for 15 people. When I read Ring Lardner’s script of ‘M*A*S*H,’ I was thrilled with the idea of doing it. Yet if I had done his script the picture would have been disaster.”

 
Lardner is publicly quite circumspect in his opinion of Altman. (His private opinions are considerably more vitriolic.) “Mr. Altman does not treat a script very carefully. He contributed a great deal to ‘M*A*S*H’ and not all of his contributions were good. He tried to do too much adlibbing.” Still, Lardner insists that “each scene came out on the screen more or less as it was intended by me on paper.” Altman disagrees. “My main contribution to ‘M*A*S*H’ was the basic concept, the philosophy, the style, the casting, and then making all those things work. Plus all the jokes, of course.”

Brian McKay, who has worked with Altman more frequently than any other writer, says, “If you want me to get in line with the rest of the angry writers, I will, but it’s more complicated than that. I think what Bob really wants is the European credit: ‘A Film by Robert Altman.’ And, often, he deserves it.” Seven years ago Altman told McKay, “Remember this. I take all the credit and most of the money when you work with me.” Through several television series, “Brewster McCloud,” “McCabe & Mrs. Miller” and a number of never-made films, McKay remembered. “Now I don’t think I’ll ever work with Bob again,” McKay says, but he looks back on the association with affection. “I can’t think of one person who was hurt from his association with Bob Altman—except emotionally.”

Altman considers both “M*A*S*H” and “Brewster McCloud” “almost exclusively me—my films.” For “McCabe & Mrs. Miller,” he is willing to share the credit—not with his writer but with his set designer, Leon Ericksen, and his star, Warren Beatty. For “McCabe & Mrs. Miller,” Altman and Ericksen built the town of Presbyterian Church on a mountaintop in West Vancouver. The town cost $200,000. Everything in it was real. The town—all raw wood, foot-deep mud and piles of manure that steamed in the freezing winter air—was created by carpenters who lived in the cabins they were building and got drunk at night on whisky from the still they had also built.

Life frozen upon a screen loses its spontaneity. The choices have been made forever. Altman tries harder than most directors to imply what lies below the two-dimensional surface of the screen. He stuffs his films with things that audiences cannot see yet of which he insists they are somehow aware. To pay for a quick call at Presbyterian Church’s whorehouse, the actors held real money in hands that were never seen by the camera. “If someone’s playing a scene and they look down and they’ve got some crappy paper in their hand, they just don’t play the scene as well,” says Altman. “I want to be able to go onto a set and open a drawer and find things in there although that drawer will never be opened in a scene. But it adds validity because the actor knows the things are there.”

 
The organic relationship between Altman, his script, his actors, his sets and the final film can best be seen in the town of Presbyterian Church. He built the town because his film was partly about a community in the process of being built and changed. Presbyterian Church was constructed, building by building, as each new character entered “McCabe & Mrs. Miller.” By late last December, the town had reached its peak development—cabins, a sawmill, a whorehouse, a bathhouse, two saloons and a barbershop.

“The town’s been ruined,” said Rene Auberjonois the birdlike bird lecturer in “Brewster McCloud,” the Irish saloonkeeper in “McCabe & Mrs. Miller”), who came to Vancouver two weeks before the film started last October. “Only the guys building the town were living there. I felt like an outsider. It was their town. Then the actors started arriving, and we made lit our town. We picked out houses to live in, and we had square dances at night in my saloon.”

“The town grew as the script grew,” says designer Ericksen. “Lots of things in the town changed because of the script; lots of things in the script changed because of the way the town was built. Everything happened organically.” “The film even changed because of the animals,” says Altman’s secretary, Anne Sidaris. “It changed because kittens were horn in Presbyterian Church, dogs elected to live there, chickens hatched baby chicks.” (To give some idea of the symbiotic relationship between the animals and the crew, less than a dozen of the chickens were left when the film was finished. It is assumed that the others were killed and eaten.)

Throughout the picture, it was rare for Altman to know on one morning exactly what he was going to he filming the next morning. Often, the next morning’s scene had not yet been written. Late on a winter Thursday afternoon, Altman sloshed through the rain looking for a place to hold a funeral where the camera could see the church but not the housing development on the hillside across from Presbyterian Church. An offhand suggestion by his secretary of “Asleep in Jesus” as the epitaph for the dead man’s gravestone led to a frantic search through old hymnhooks and, in Friday morning’s cold mist, to a painfully affecting scene. The music was played on a fiddle by one of the actors. Altman had only given the lyrics to those townspeople—primarily the whores—who could he expected to know the hymn. The other actors shuffled their feet uneasily or tried to come in late on the unfamiliar words. It worked. And none of it had existed—even in Altman’s head—24 hours earlier.

 
Later, referring to the funeral, Altman mused: “Had it been raining today, everything we did would have been different. I’m going to get accolades for ‘McCabe & Mrs. Miller,’ and all it amounts to is being open to the possibilities—using what we have.”

It is almost impossible to exaggerate the organic quality of an Altman film. Yet that quality does not result simply because one day there is rain instead of expected snow and a consequent change in the whole fabric of the film. It is agonizing for Altman to start a film. “You have to box him into a corner,” says his assistant director, Tommy Thompson. “He knows that starting means two months of working seven days a week 24 hours a day.” Once the film has begun, Altman moves eautiously, tentatively, finding out who the people are, assessing their relationships. “You can,” says Rene Auberjonois, “almost see him get sense of purpose.”

There is nothing intellectual about this groping. It is done by hunch, instinct, intuition. Altman speaks of allowing some internal computer to take over, unrestricted by his brain. “I think you have to he careful in your old age,” he says. “I think you mess up your computer, you get it so filled with cards. That’s what makes you die.”

Once the tone of his film is set to his satisfaction—which takes anywhere from three days to two weeks—he relaxes, open, within very broad limits, to whatever accidents of weather or actors’ improvisations fate has chosen to bring him. (With “M*A*S*H,” he ended up shooting the rehearsals because there was so much interplay between Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould. With “McCabe & Mrs. Miller,” he has discovered that “Warren Beatty, unlike most actors, gets better and better with each take, and he can’t do it through rehearsals.” Altman adapted himself to Beatty, shooting eight or nine takes of each of Beatty’s scenes, despite what he calls his own “notorious past history of Printing first takes.”

Before a birthday party was filmed in the whorehouse in “McCabe & Mrs. Miller,” the actresses playing the whores asked Altman if they could limit the guests to the actors they particularly liked. His first impulse was to refuse. A moment later, he reconsidered and told them to make out their guest list. After six hours of shooting, neither Altman nor his actors displayed any signs of ill temper. Occasionally, Altman crooned, “Easy now, easy, settle down,” as though he were calming nervous horses. In a heavy, black pullover and with his gray and black curly hair almost indistinguishable from his gray and black Russian wool hat, Altman looked like some bulky animal with a bald spot the size of a demitasse saucer in the center of its head.

 
At the suggestion of Julie Christie (“This is a festive occasion”), the east had been drinking vodka instead of water since the first rehearsal. But it was not the vodka that freed them to improvise a cake-eating scene so wild and uninhibited that even Altman was doubled over with laughter. They had been given the freedom to—encouraged to—improvise by Altman. A glob of cake fell on the hare breast of one of the actresses, and the others instinctively teased a shy, young actor with, “Lick it off, Jeremy, tick It off.” Jeremy blinked, hesitated, was pushed forward. The young actors and actresses were, it was obvious, reacting to each other as people who had lived together for two months, not as actors in a formal scene. Even after Altman shouted, “Cut,” they continued to squash cake in eyebrows, nostrils, ears.

In the final print of “McCabe & Mrs. Miller,” there is almost no trace of the wild finale to the birthday party. “It didn’t seem necessary,” Altman says simply. Yet he feels that the hours of shooting were in no sense a loss. “It brought the characters to a different relationship with each other. Without it, Rene Auberjonois wouldn’t have ended up in the kitchen with that whore on his lap.” If Altman has any theory that can be phrased in a sentence, it is that “moviemaking is a collaborative art.” Leon Ericksen says of Altman: “He can be satanic or angelic but he will always let you do anything you are willing to do. Being with Robert Altman is an awfully good place for any creative person to be.”

The corollary is that being with Robert Altman can be unpleasant for less creative people. His intense anger at movie guilds and unions stems from their lack of participation in the collaboration. “The union art directors don’t realize their job is to help make a picture, not to dress a set. The union sound men don’t realize their job is to help make a picture, not to produce perfect sound. The unions are all the same. They degrade the people in them.” Ericksen, whom Donald Sutherland calls a genius, cannot get into an American union unless he serves eight years of apprenticeship as a draftsman. When Erickson says tentatively, “We’ll probably have to call the union to move that set,” Altman answers. “Bull— you move it yourself. We’ll handle it with the union. We’ll pay fines or something, but don’t want a bunch of guys trying to take it down who didn’t see how it went up.’’

For Altman, the chief participants in the collaboration are his actors. He is proud that “I don’t move my actors around. I allow them the artistic freedom to assist me.” Most of his actors reciprocate with adoration. Mike Murphy, who has been in all of Altman’s Hollywood films and half a dozen of his television shows as well, says of Altman, “Most other directors treat you like a child. Bob spoils you. He never lets you down.” As the hot-shot San Francisco detective, Murphy Starred in “Brewster McCloud.” In “McCabe & Mrs. Miller,” be was offered one week’s work. He never considered refusing Altman’s offer.

 
Even Julie Christie was exhilarated by her work with Altman, although, at the beginning, she found it “most unnerving to work with a democratic director. Directors are little kings. Bob’s a very kind man, and his kindness makes you comfy. He has a hedonistic streak which again is very different from most directors, who get so anguished by things. Bob wants to enjoy himself. He surrounds himself with people who won’t spoil the experience as an enjoyable one.”

There are actors who have reservations. “I got a telephone call tram an old enemy last night,” Altman chortles. The call was from Elliott Gould, who, according to Altman, “had just seen ‘Brewster McCloud’ and who hated to call but hated more not to call.” He has also applied the word “enemy” to Donald Sutherland. Yet Sutherland insists that he respects Altman completely. Sutherland’s subtle reservations about Altman as a director concern the communication between the two. “Bob knows things totally rather than specifi?? ‘M*A*S*H’ was all in Robert Altman’s head and I knew I’d never know what was in his head. He requires an actor to have absolute confidence in him and to give oneself over to him totally. I cannot totally give myself to anyone.”

Warren Beatty also has reservations. Swigging Vichy water from a quart bottle, the picture half-finished, the constant rain beating against the walls of his trailer, Beatty says fastidiously that “my own particular taste is to know where I am from the beginning.” Beatty found it hard to work without the comfort of a finished script. Altman found it hard to work with “Warren’s concern, his nit-picking, with the way he pushed me and bugged me.” But Altman didn’t try to make Beatty stop. “He drove me nuts, but he did it for the picture. His bugging kept me honest.” Weekend after weekend, Beatty helped Altman rewrite the script, and now, the film finished and about to open in New York, Altman is willing to share the credit with his star. “Warren was involved in the picture.”

Nothing in Altman’s background could have been expected to lead him to his own mountaintop in Canada in the winter of 1970. He was born in Kansas City Feb. 20, 1925. His mother’s ancestors had sailed on the Mayflower. His father was one of the top life-insurance salesmen in the world—and one of the worst gamblers. “I learned a lot a lout losing from him: That losing is an identity; that you can be a good loser and a bad winner; that none of it—gambling, money, winning or losing—has any real value; that the value you thought came with winning $10,000 isn’t there; that it’s simply a way of killing time, like crossword puzzles.”

 
He was raised by Jesuits, but he wriggled out of his Catholicism the day he joined the Army at the age of 18. At 19, he was a pilot with his own bomber crew. He flew 46 missions over Borneo and the Dutch East Indies, and it never occurred to him that he was killing people, “although I don’t think it would have bothered me.” He was 22 when he came back from the war. He remembers himself as “an ass, wanting to be liked so much that I would agree with whoever I was talking to, really dishonest about myself, very anti-authority.” He married, almost immediately, the last girl with whom he had had any contact before he went to the South Pacific. “It was never a marriage. I was a real chippie chaser.” The results of the marriage were daughter, Christine, now 23, a dozen separations, and, some time in 1950 or 1951, a divorce. His second marriage also went sour. With his second wife he had two sons—Michael, 16, who now lives with him, and Stephen, 13.

During those first postwar years he was learning his trade as a writer, producer, photographer, director, set designer and film editor of industrial films for the Calvin Company in Kansas City. With Lou Lombardo, a cameraman for Calvin, Altman went to Hollywood in the early fifties. The silence was deafening. Leaving Lombardo to bang on closed doors Altman retreated to Kansas City. Lombardo—who remembers Altman as “tall and thin, just as gregarious as he is today and just as prone to go out and charge $1,000 worth of clothes to cheer himself up whenever he is down and out”—is Altman’s film editor on “McCabe & Mrs. Miller.”

A few years later Altman returned to Hollywood with a “deal” for a movie. The deal fell through. Again he retreated to Kansas City. The third time he went to Hollywood was for keeps. He brought “The Delinquents,” a low-budget film he had written, produced and directed. In 1957, he and George W. George made a documentary, “The James Dean Story.” For the next six years Altman wrote, produced and/or directed for television. He was fired with regularity. “Because the star of ‘Combat,’ Vic Morrow, couldn’t be killed off, I’d take an actor, establish him as an important character in one segment, use him three or four times more, and then kill him early in the next script, offscreen, in way that had nothing to do with the plot. That was unorthodox. It made them nervous. I used to get fired for it.”

When he was making $125,000 a year with “my pick of anything, of everything,” Altman quit television. He quit because he did not want to become “one of those hundreds of creative people who have just died in television.” He was, as usual, in debt. Between 1965 and 1967 he did nothing but go deeper in debt. He continued to live in his big, four-bedroom house in Mandeville Canyon. Although neither the mortgage nor the milkman were paid, he continued to buy what he wanted when he wanted it. “I finally begged the milkman to cut off our credit and stop delivering milk,” says Kathryn Altman, his third wife. Kathryn is tall, redhaired, beautiful and totally in command of herself. She is a woman with depth and mystery—strong, bright, witty, one of the few people Altman can’t bully verbally. (“Bob has overpowered a lot of women,” says actor Mike Murphy of their marriage. “He and Kathryn fight to draw.”) Altman finds her “exciting.” She says of him that “he has driven me crazy but he has never bored me.”

 
Now, as a result of “M*A*S*H,” Altman is out of debt. His wife was able to go Christmas shopping last December with cash in her pocket. “The only way we had a Christmas the other 10 years of our marriage,” says Kathryn, “was because I had charge accounts in my previous name.” The money may disappear. (Altman’s living expenses were five times as high as the $750 weekly allowance Warner Brothers provided during “McCabe & Mrs. Miller.” One week’s rental of a yacht last October cost him $3,200.) But Altman can live artistically for years on the success of “M*A*S*H.”

All his pictures share a certain desire to show up the world’s insanity, but there are also remarkable differences. “M*A*S*H” was crude and tough in its masculine viewpoint and in its use of women as sexual objects. In “Brewster McCloud,” man the idealist is physically and emotionally seduced by women who are capable of saving, betraying or destroying him. In “McCabe & Mrs. Miller,” the battle of the sexes is fought on more even grounds although woman—the survivor—has the edge. (“Even though the women are all whores, I’m treating them nicely. I’m not portraying them as lascivious women, just as dumb girls. And that was a pretty good job for a girl, a better job than most honest women had.”)

He explains the extreme differences in viewpoint with “I’m not making any of these films about myself. I’m exploring a situation, not expressing my own fears and feelings.” His own fears and feelings are expressed in his way of making movies themselves. “His film style,” says Tommy Thompson, “is a continuation of his life style—or vice versa. Bob has to know everything that’s going on. If somebody tells you that the milk didn’t come for lunch yet, from halfway across the set he’ll roar, ‘What are you going to do about it?’ Altman has intense loyalty to “my people.” (The obverse is a suspicion of people who are not his.) Anybody who works on an Altman film—carpenter, prop man, electrician, actor—is welcome at his rushes.

Early that evening last December there were 72 people and two dogs sprawled on the floor of Altman’s Vancouver screening room. During the rushes, Altman watched the people in the room as closely as he watched the screen. “I get a reaction, a feel about the film, even this early.” In his pocket was a plastic bag of marijuana brownies baked for him by some admirer. On his lap was curled 4-year-old Matthew, his adopted son. His eyes glittering, his shoulders thrust forward, Altman watched, sipping continuously from plastic cup of Cutty Sark and soda. He has always been—at least in his work—more disciplined than he allows himself to appear. Now his life is more disciplined, too. His gambling has dwindled to football pools and friendly poker games. The big gambling simply doesn’t seem necessary to him now.

The rushes over, the room almost empty but the images from the screening still imprinted in his head, Altman whispered—half-bravado, half-epitaph:

“If they should say to me, ‘You’ll never see your sons again or your wife unless you get out of the business of making movies,’ I’d have to say, ‘Sorry, Michael, Bobby, Matthew, Kathryn. It will hurt me not to see you again. But good-by.”

 
Featurette from the film’s 1970 production.

 
Home Movies: On the set of McCabe & Mrs. Miller, an 8mm home movie shot on the set of McCabe & Mrs. Miller by Wes Taylor and Wayne Robson (both RIP) in the fall of 1970. In the footage you’ll see Rene Auborjonois, Wayne Grace, Wes Taylor, Wayne Robson, Jack Riley, Jackie Crossland, Jace Van Der Veen, Manfred Shulz and others from the cast. The snowball fight is a fun touch given that the weather played havoc with the shooting schedule.

Contact sheet of Julie Christie on the set of McCabe & Mrs. Miller, 1970.

 

VILMOS ZSIGMOND

“Vilmos told me that it was director Robert Altman who taught him to use zooms, starting with their first film together in 1971, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, a masterpiece that reinvented the American western. Vilmos’ contribution is essential to the dreamy, melancholic beauty of McCabe & Mrs. Miller. He flashed the negative of the entire film, giving it a suffused pastel look, and further distilled the image with double Fog filters, force developing and smoke. Vilmos laughs as he recalls his daring anamorphic cinematography: ‘I did everything I could to destroy the image! It’s all due to Altman, who was very adventurous.’ Critic Pauline Kael called McCabe & Mrs. Miller ‘a beautiful pipe dream of a movie,’ and the film stands as a classic of the American New Wave, with brilliant, gutsy cinematography.” —Zsigmond Zooms

I learned how to use the zoom lens with Robert Altman. The first week I was watching him all the time. I was only operating the second camera, so when only one camera was rolling, I was watching what he liked to do. The camera was always moving, dollying, slowly.Vilmos Zsigmond

 
Zsigmond recalled many years ago in London when Altman and Stanley Kubrick ran into each other after seeing each other’s films, McCabe and 2001. “Robert,” gushed Kubrick, “those zoom lens shots are incredible. Did you do it yourself?” Altman replied, “No, my cinematographer does that.” “And you trust him?” Kubrick shot back. —Vilmos Zsigmond on ‘McCabe & Mrs. Miller’

Vilmos Zsigmond, the Academy Award-winning cinematographer and co-founder of the Global Cinematography Institute, joined the Higher Learning audience for an in-depth master class and a look back at his 50-year career at the forefront of the industry. Giving examples from his impressive resume, which includes collaborations with directors Woody Allen, Robert Altman, John Boorman, Michael Cimino, Brian De Palma, and Steven Spielberg, Zsigmond described the intimate working relationship between director and cinematographer. Other topics included on-set improvisation versus strict adherence to a script; black and white cinematography versus colour; the emergence of digital technologies; and celluloid’s important role in the history of cinema.

 

LEONARD COHEN

“One day, he decided to go into town and check out a movie. He eventually decided on Brewster McCloud, a bizarre comedy about a Houston kid (played by Bud Cort) who wants to fly. The movie was a commercial and critical flop; Cohen saw it twice that day. ‘It’s a very, very beautiful and I would say brilliant film,’ he told Crawdaddy! in 1975. ‘Maybe I just hadn’t seen a movie in a long time, but it was really fine.’ That night, the singer-songwriter traveled to Nashville to do some studio work. While there, he got a phone call: ‘This is Bob Altman,’ the voice on the other line said. ‘I’d like to use your songs in a movie I’m making.’ Cohen was flattered but had no idea who this guy was: ‘Is there any movie you’ve done I might have seen?’ Altman mentioned his smash success M*A*S*H, which Cohen had missed. The filmmaker then said, ‘I also did a small movie that nobody saw—Brewster McCloud.’ As Cohen later recalled to Altman biographer Mitchell Zuckoff, ‘I told him, ‘I just saw it this afternoon—I loved it. You can have anything you want.’ Thus began one of the great pairings of film and soundtrack of the modern era. The movie Altman was making was McCabe & Mrs. Miller, which legendary director John Huston would later reportedly proclaim the greatest Western ever made.” —How Leonard Cohen’s Music Turned ‘McCabe & Mrs. Miller’ Into a Masterpiece

 
“Without question, Leonard Cohen dominates the soundtrack of McCabe & Mrs. Miller. It’s hard not to suspect that something about his cultivated murmur seeped into Altman’s ideas about barely overheard dialogue, which come to fruition in this film and determine its aural gestalt more than Cohen does, rendering it as groundbreaking sonically as it is visually. But it’s worth remembering that definitive in some respects though Cohen’s songs are, they’re far from the only music in McCabe & Mrs. Miller—and that consciously heard or not, every bit of that music is both gorgeous and meaningful.” —Robert Christgau, Stranger Songs: The Music of Leonard Cohen in ‘McCabe & Mrs. Miller’

 
Director Robert Altman describes his working philosophy, often comparing filmmaking to painting, and discusses the sources of his storytelling and directing techniques he used on films like M*A*S*H (1970), McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971), and The Player (1992). —Visual History with Robert Altman

 
Excerpts from two 1971 episodes of The Dick Cavett Show featuring Robert Altman.

 
Criterion’s edition of McCabe & Mrs. Miller includes a new behind-the-scenes documentary that features interviews with members of the film’s cast and crew. In the following excerpt, watch Joan Tewkesbury, who was Altman’s script supervisor on the film, and actor René Auberjonois discuss Beatty and Christie’s on-screen magnetism and their working methods on set.

 
Robert Altman discusses his 1992 feature film The Player, which presents the inner workings of Hollywood as a metaphor for greed in the culture; talks about several of his other movies as well, including Nashville, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, M*A*S*H, and Popeye.

 
On the 5 February 2002, Stephen Woolly interviewed Robert Altman for the David Lean Lecture series.

 
On the eve of the release of his first film shot in England, Gosford Park, Omnibus profiles the maverick American director. “Robert always surprises you,” says fellow director Kenneth Branagh. “Even if the subject matter may be familiar or the genre may be familiar, his treatment of it always has an original characteristic.” Former colleagues and associates including Mike Hodges, Stephen Frears and Stephen Altman, his son and Production Designer for Gosford Park, offer their insights into working with Altman and examine his lasting appeal.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Robert Altman’s McCabe & Mrs. Miller. Photographed by Douglas Kirkland & Steve Schapiro © David Foster Productions, Sandcastle Productions, Warner Bros. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post How Robert Altman’s Anti-Western Classic ‘McCabe & Mrs. Miller’ Aged Like Fine Wine appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Jean-Pierre Melville: Life and Work of a Groundbreaking Filmmaking Poet

$
0
0

One of the very few filmmakers we deeply cherish above almost all others and whose work we hold in the greatest esteem is Jean-Pierre Melville, the highly influential French filmmaker who reached his peak in the sixties, and succumbed to a heart attack at the age of only fifty-five. Even though intense gangster films probably first come to mind when one considers Melville’s career, the truth is he showed a wide range and diverse interests throughout his filmmaking life. Being of Alsatian Jewish descent, Jean-Pierre Grumbach had to flee Nazi-occupied France and, having joined the French Resistance, took the pseudonym Melville, to honor the American novelist dear to him. Once the war finished, Melville kept his new name and went on to make movies, many of which visibly affected by his war-time experiences. The sheer scope of the influence that his work still wields over filmmakers around the globe is unbelievable, as he not only captured the attention and imagination of millions of filmlovers, but also stimulated filmmakers, swayed them into perfecting their craft.

John Woo, for instance, said Melville was God to him, praising the French filmmaker’s fresh, unprecedented approach to old American gangster films they both admired. Melville, Woo continues, approached this subject intelligently and like a gentleman, with lots of self-control, which enabled him to make movies that seemed cold and distanced, but are bound to make an emotional impact on the viewer. We use Woo’s words because they describe Melville’s technique perfectly. Le Samourai remains one of his most famous works—and with very, very good reason—but who can forget some of the other masterpieces, the breathtaking and uncompromising efforts such as Army of Shadows, Le deuxième soufflé or Bob le flambeur? Had Melville’s health been a better friend to him, we would have probably had the chance to enjoy far more splendid films from his workshop. Betrayed by his heart practically at his professional prime, Melville still made an immeasurable impact on the world of film, for which this filmmaking poet will forever have our neverending admiration and most profound gratitude.

In 2008, the first feature documentary about this great artist saw the light of day. Code Name Melville, directed by Olivier Bohler, offers seventy-six minutes dedicated to illuminating Melville’s time in the French Resistance and the influence it had on his work. First shown in Taiwan, followed by French and Belgian television in 2010, Code Name Melville gives us precious insight into the life of a true artist and one of cinema’s greatest. This film is also available as extra material on the European Blu-ray Le Cercle Rouge produced by Studio Canal Collection, as well as Blu-ray/DVD Le silence de la mer from the Criterion Collection. Our highest recommendation is to acquire this as soon as possible!

 
The following article originally appeared on Edwin Adrian Nieves’ A-BitterSweet-Life.

(In 1996, the French journal Cahiers du cinéma dedicated its November issue to director Jean-Pierre Melville. Included in the special edition was a version of this tribute essay by director John Woo, which was dictated to Nicolas Saada in English.)

In Melville’s films, like in mine, characters are caught between good and evil; and sometimes, even the worst gangsters can behave in the noblest fashion…

Melville is God to me.

Le Samourai was the first of his films that I saw. It was released commercially in Hong Kong in the early seventies and immediately turned Alain Delon into a major star in Asia. We had seen Delon in Rocco and His Brothers and Purple Noon, but Le Samourai made him popular among the general audience.

In fact, it changed a whole generation of filmgoers. Before that movie, younger audiences in Hong Kong just enjoyed Cliff Richard, Elvis Presley, and the martial arts films; life seemed simple and easy. When Le Samourai was released, however, it was such a huge hit among the young that their whole lifestyle began to change. The film had an impact on fashion, too. Take myself, for instance: I was almost a hippie, wearing long hair… Right after I saw Le Samourai, I decided to cut my hair like Delon and started wearing white shirts and black ties.

Le Samourai was also our introduction to Jean-Pierre Melville. When I first saw the film, it was a shock to me: Melville’s technique and his cool narrative style were incredibly fresh. I felt like I was watching a gangster film made by a gentleman. I was already working in the Hong Kong film industry at the time. I had been shooting experimental films, but I was primarily an assistant director to Chang Cheh. French cinema had already made a strong impression on my generation, especially the new wave films of Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol, and Demy. Before Le Samourai’s release, we could see these French films only through the art house circuit. I remember Jacques Demy’s Umbrellas of Cherbourg, René Clément’s Purple Noon, and Jules and Jim by Truffaut…

Then came Melvillle.

What Melville and I have in common is a love for old American gangster films. Although Melville was basically doing gangster films, the big difference between his work and the American films of that period was in his almost intellectual approach to the genre. Although they’re shot in a very cold way, Melville’s films always make us react emotionally. Melville is very self-controlled when he tells a story, and I find this fascinating. In my films, when I want to convey an emotion, I always use a lot of shots, extreme close-ups sometimes combined with dollies. On the contrary, Melville shoots in an almost static way, letting the actors deliver their performance, and thus allowing the audience to fully experience what is going on in each scene. As a result, his films are both psychologically and intellectually extremely involving.

I love how Melville managed to combine his own culture with Eastern philosophy. And that’s why the Hong Kong audience was so responsive to his movies. Melville often used Eastern proverbs in the opening titles of his films. He understood Chinese philosophy even more than our own people. I think that I relate to his movies because his vision of humanity is so rooted in the Eastern tradition. His characters are not heroes; they are human beings. In the gang world, they have to stick to the rules, but they remain faithful to a code of honor that is reminiscent of ancient chivalry. In Melville’s films, there’s always a thin line between good and evil. His characters are unpredictable. You never know what they’re going to do next, but it’s always bigger than life. You cannot use any formula, any moral standards, to sum up his heroes.

Jef Costello (Delon), in Le Samourai, reminds me of a classic Chinese medieval character: he was a very famous assassin, poor and wild and ruthless, who was hired to kill the king. This assassin would do anything for his friends, and even for his foes. In this particular story, the assassin fails to murder the king, in order to save a friend, and is killed in the end, just like in Le Samourai.

I believe that this connection I have with Melville also has to do with the fact that I was influenced by existentialism in the fifties and sixties. To me, Melville’s movies are existentialist, as you find in the loneliness of the characters played by Yves Montand in Le Cercle Rouge and Alain Delon in Le Samourai. Nobody cares for them, nobody knows who they are; they are loners, doomed tragic figures, lost on their inner journey.

His other influence is, of course, Greek tragedy, which had a strong impact on my films as well. My characters, like Melville’s, are sad and lonely, almost disconnected from reality; they always die in the end. But despite his heroes’ tragic fate, I don’t think that Melville was a pessimist. Although they look cool and self-contained, his characters are passionate and care about each other. The great thing about friendship is that you can really love someone without feeling the need to let him know; you just do what you can do for him. Even if you die in loneliness, and no one knows about it, it doesn’t matter–you have done what you had to do. Melville’s characters behave like that, and I believe that he was a man who always cared for others.

Technically, I love the way Melville builds the tension before the action. I’m thinking of that scene on the bridge in Le Samourai, where Delon has a meeting with a man who is supposed to give him money, but the whole thing is a trap. They both wait on the bridge. They’re walking toward each other, and nothing really happens, but there’s this dangerous feel throughout the scene, which is terrific. Suddenly, Melville cuts to a wide shot, you hear a gunshot, and he cuts back to Alain Delon, who is already wounded. In classic genre scenes of this type, you’d usually have a different setup, with a huge gunfight at the end. Melville prefers to play this in a very subdued, almost poetic, way.

I’ve always tried to imitate Melville. Even in my first film, The Young Dragon, a kung fu piece, I tried to use Melville’s approach to characters, by injecting a sense of dark romanticism that was seldom found in the kung fu genre. After that film, I wanted to direct more films in the Melville style, but the studios kept asking me to do comedies.

It was when I got a chance to do A Better Tomorrow, in 1986, that I was really able to use Melville’s style and technique, since it fit with the film’s genre, a contemporary urban thriller. I based Chow Yun-fat’s performance, his style, his look, even the way he walked, on Delon in Le Samourai. In Hong Kong, you never saw people wearing raincoats, so it was a surprise to see Chow Yun-fat in this kind of outfit. It was all part of the Melville allusions throughout the film.

In A Better Tomorrow, there is a long scene where Chow Yun-fat goes into a restaurant to do a hit. He first conceals a gun in the corridor, then walks into the room, kills a man, and, as he leaves, uses the gun he had first planted to cover himself. The whole feeling of this scene was inspired by Le Samourai; in particular, the moment right before Delon gets killed, in the nightclub, as he attempts to “shoot” the singer, carrying a gun that actually has no bullets.

The closest films I did to Melville’s in my career are without a doubt The Killer, Hard Boiled, and Bullet in the Head. I would say that The Killer is the one that stands out as the most “Melvillian.” I of course used a whole segment from Le Samourai in the opening sequence: it was inspired by the scene where Delon arrives in the nightclub and looks at the singer while entering the room.

In 1988-89, during the promotion of The Killer, I remember talking to the press and saying that the film was a tribute to Melville, and I was shocked to find that almost nobody had heard about him or Le Samourai. To my great surprise, the young generation did not know about him.

Now, Melville is the new big thing, maybe because people like Quentin Tarantino and me often talk about him. Whenever I am at a film festival, I always mention Melville’s name, and I guess that has aroused some interest in him. When I toured the United States with The Killer, I was amazed to see that the American film buffs knew so much about Melville.

Whoever watches Melville’s movies will realize how different he is from American filmmakers. He was a very spiritual director, with a unique vision.

 
Footage and interviews with Alain Delon and Jean-Pierre Melville on the gangster masterpiece Le Samourai. Take a glimpse at Delon describe the craftsmanship of Melville. Watch, listen, and absorb the great Melville explain his beginnings as a filmmaker, his love for cinema, and his thoughts and process on the art of cinema. Courtesy of A-BitterSweet-Life.

 
All you screenwriters (and Melville fans) will love this. Mystery Man on Film transcribed from the Bob le Flambeur DVD parts of a 1961 radio interview with Melville by Gideon Bachmann during the Venice Film Festival as part of a radio show. Melville talks about how tough writing is for him.

JPM: It’s more difficult to write. I’m quite sure it’s easier to make a film to explain something, but it’s very difficult to write a good story, to be a man like Faulkner or Hemingway. It’s very difficult.
GB: Well, many people would contradict you and say that it’s much easier to be alone in a room with a piece of paper and a pencil than it is to be in a studio with thousands of people and lights and so on.
JPM: No, that’s not right. No. It’s very difficult to write.
GB: Do you think it’s a matter of self discipline?
JPM: Yes, and when you read many years later what you wrote many years before you become aware that it’s very bad.
GB: But that can happen with films, too.
JPM: Of course.

 
GB: Do you think you are less likely to make mistakes in cinema than you are in writing? Is it easier to do a wrong thing that you would not like to see in films? It seems to be much easier to make a mistake in film because it’s such a tremendous apparatus, whereas in writing you cross off a line, change a label, or put out another edition. It’s easier.
JPM: The perfection of the form is easier to grasp on film rather than in written words.
GB: That’s very interesting. I wonder why that is. Do you think it has anything to do with the way people react to the various mediums? Do you think people are more critical for writing than for films?
JPM: I tried two things—to write and to make films. Films is easier.
GB: You mean this is an empiric decision? You found this based on your own personal experience, not an abstract theory.
JPM: Yes. Subjective.
GB: I think that answers my question about why you make films. Simply because you find it easier.
JPM: I need to express something. I, of course, tried when I was young to write and I found it impossible.

 
The Cinéastes de notre temps presentation on Melville entitled A Portrait in 9 Poses is an essential watch for film lovers and filmmakers.

 
“You really create a film in the editing room, in the silence and night… For me paradise consists in writing the script all alone at home and then in editing it. But I hate the shoot. All this time wasted in useless talk!”

“I believe you must be madly in love with cinema to create films. You also need a huge cinematic baggage.”

Jean-Pierre Melville
October 20, 1917 — August 2, 1973

Photo Credits: Bernard Allemane / INA; Philippe Bataillon / INA; Jean Pierre Loth / INA; Aimé Dartus / INA; & André Perlstein. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post Jean-Pierre Melville: Life and Work of a Groundbreaking Filmmaking Poet appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Cleansing of the Soul for a Clean Slate: Guillermo del Toro’s ‘The Devil’s Backbone’

$
0
0

 
By Sven Mikulec

Three decades ago, the now-renowned Oscar-winning filmmaker Guillermo del Toro was at the beginning of his path. Prior to making Cronos, a dark, visually rich and atmospheric vampire film back in 1993, the director had been working in the Mexican film industry for the better part of a decade. However, it was this critically acclaimed low-budget mixture of horror and drama, which Roger Ebert complimented as a combination of classic horror and “colorful Latin magic realism,” that went on to win the grand prize in the Critics’ Week at the 1993 Cannes Film Festival and garnered nine triumphs at the Ariel Awards in Mexico, consequently putting him under the spotlight and attracting international attention. It didn’t just get him on the outskirts of a map—it opened the gates of Hollywood. In his early thirties, Guillermo del Toro soon found himself helming a 30-million-dollar horror flick for Miramax, but the overall experience of making Mimic, a sci-fi horror film with Mira Sorvino and Josh Brolin, turned out to be such a painful journey del Toro regretted even touching Weinstein-guarded doors of Hollywood in the first place. To say Bob Weinstein simply interfered would be a deceiving understatement: after seeing the early footage, he considered del Toro’s film to be severely lacking in the fright-inducing department and made sure to storm the set to teach the Mexican director how to do his job properly. Even after giving up on the idea of firing the director, the producer still insisted on final cut. The shoot was finished, the production wrapped, the premiere held. The critics took their swings, Weinstein moved on, but in the course of the next couple of decades del Toro demonstrated time and time again what kind of a traumatic process his first foray into Hollywood actually was. “The only time I have experienced bad behavior, and it remains one of the worst experiences of my life, was in 1997, when I did Mimic for Miramax,” del Toro confessed. It couldn’t have been that horrible, you might ponder? “It was a horrible, horrible, horrible experience.” Just to illustrate how much of a scar the collaboration with Miramax left, it’s enough to note that, simultaneously with the professional turmoil, del Toro also endured a personal crisis: his father was kidnapped in Mexico and held for ransom for more than two months. And when he compared these two situations, he stated Mimic inflicted more damage because “what was happening to me and the movie was far more illogical than the kidnapping—which is brutal, but at least there are rules.” It’s to no wonder then that the disillusioned del Toro wanted nothing to do with Hollywood anymore and desperately needed a cleansing of sorts, so when his plans to adapt Memphisto’s Bridge and The List of Seven fell through, he decided to work on a film he started the script for back in the eighties. It was a personal project, and as such the perfect opportunity for him to revisit his filmmaking roots and discover once again what he loved about making movies. And when all seemed a bit dark and discouraging, an unexpected friend popped up.

The Devil’s Backbone, del Toro’s passion project conceived back in his student days, was surprisingly made possible by Pedro Almodóvar, who decided to use his production company El Deseo to help get it made, based solely on his appreciation of Cronos and his sympathy for del Toro’s plight with Miramax. It wasn’t only a kind gesture that ultimately kickstarted del Toro’s paralyzed career—it was a great business opportunity for Almodóvar, as well. “Guillermo had been through a terrible time on Mimic. I knew Cronos and was very, very impressed by it—it was a truly original horror movie. So my brother Agustín and I contacted him, and he told us about his experience with Miramax: how awful it was in terms of freedom; how he really needed to get back to his own language, and above all to be able to shoot with complete freedom,” shared Almodóvar later. “So we took advantage of that.”

I remember discussing the notion of final cut with Pedro early in the process and seeing him grow genuinely confused. “I need to have final cut, of course,” I said. “What is a final cut?” he asked me. “Well,” I tried to explain, “the final cut means that the final edit decision globally and in any scene rests with me.” His eyes widened and he looked around confused. “But, of course, the decision is yours!” he said. “You’re the director!”Guillermo del Toro in his foreword to Matt Zoller Seitz and Simon Abrams’ book Guillermo del Toro’s The Devil’s Backbone

 
Unburdened with any studio interference, with tight grips on the reigns and enjoying unlimited faith and support from his partners on the project, del Toro made The Devil’s Backbone (El espinazo del diablo), a gothic horror film set in a creaking, creepy little orphanage in the dusty Spanish middle of nowhere during the final period of the extremely bloody Civil War. The facility is run by the aging Professor Casares and Carmen, who use the orphanage as a sanctuary for the children of active Spanish Republican loyalists. Not only do they take care of the children, they are also hiding a large treasure used to support the Republican cause in the war. A small boy named Carlos reaches the orphanage, and very soon gets acquainted with the elderly caretakers and the vicious, ill-tempered groundskeeper Jacinto, as well as a huge defused bomb that stands half-buried in the middle of the orphanage’s courtyard. Upon realizing he is to take the bed once occupied by the now-deceased boy called Santi, Carlos leads us deeper into the heart of the sanctuary, burdened with secrets, ambitions, desires and quiet but oh-so-petrifying sighs coming from the darkness.

A true artist creates best when unhindered by the expectations, disturbance and obstructions of his surroundings. What del Toro needed after the infamous Mimic rollercoaster, and his first (dis)taste of what working for major American studios can be like, was the space and time necessary to tell his stories just the way he wanted them told. What makes The Devil’s Backbone one of the most impressive and beautiful films of the beginning of the 21st century is its exquisite storytelling. From the first sequence, as we see the bomb getting dropped from the sky, to the very last, The Devil’s Backbone sucks us in its complex, highly atmospheric world of pain, death and sorrow, but also of love and hope, all the things that shape and distinguish the human experience. To simply call the film a ghost story, or even a wonderfully executed ghost story, would mean underestimating the range and depth of del Toro’s work. The beginning of the film straightforwardly but generously lets us in on the overarching theme:

What is a ghost? A tragedy condemned to repeat itself time and time again? An instance of pain, perhaps. Something dead which still seems to be alive. An emotion suspended in time. Like a blurred photograph. Like an insect trapped in amber.

 
The very concept of a ghost is that of something from the past that clearly and seemingly unnaturally influences the present much to the surprise and incomprehension of an observer. “Something dead which still seems to be alive.” The past, however, is never really dead, because it profoundly shapes the present and therefore somewhat influences and designs the future. This is a motif used throughout The Devil’s Backbone, both on larger, and even more efficiently on smaller scales, as groundskeeper Jacinto’s story clearly shows us. The entire history of humankind is built on our mistakes and our tragic failure to learn from them, and this is something the filmmaker is clearly very familiar with. A tragedy condemned to repeat itself time and time again.

In The Devil’s Backbone, the story is set against the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War, which del Toro called “the precursor of all the fascist conflicts in Europe.” Just like the little orphanage, stranded in the middle of nowhere to fend for itself, in the decade that led to the Second World War Spain was also abandoned in the hands of a fascist dictator. From a narrative point of view, symbolism is a powerful tool del Toro expertly uses to enrich the story he presents us with. Just like it’s no accident that the plot unravels in a desolate landscape in the desert, it’s also hardly a coincidence that the defused bomb standing menacingly in the middle of the courtyard is a couple of times larger than it would have been in a documentary. Its presence is more disturbing this way, with its shadows looming over the children, and the derelict, therefore, serves as a constant reminder of the grim times the country’s going through and the imminent danger all the characters are exposed to. Equally insightful is a scene where the orphans are choired with moving the crucifix from the yard, one of them hilariously commenting on how heavy Christ was for a dead man. It’s scarcely a sentence that ended up in a lapsed Catholic’s script by accident. What about the image of a drowning man held under surface by a sack of gold tied around his waist? There are numerous other examples of simple images intelligently used to enhance the story and make the very most of the limited timeframe inherently imposed on the storytelling medium that is film.

The Devil’s Backbone is an exploration of our history, the burden of memory, the dynamics of family, of human nature in general. When we state the film was an opportunity for del Toro to make something more personal, it’s not just the fact it’s a Spanish-speaking film shot in Europe with complete creative control that we based our conclusion on. By making a film on his own terms, del Toro was able to delve into matters close to his heart, considering and investigating themes and notions that tingled both his mind and soul. When he was a kid, del Toro once heard sighs coming from his deceased uncle’s room. What would petrify most people, in his case got transformed into a motif the filmmaker waited patiently to put to creative use in the future. Growing up, del Toro’s imagination was filled with monsters, ghosts and creatures from the dark. He befriended them and incorporated them into his work, and The Devil’s Backbone was a perfect playground to let some of them roam around.

 
One of the main differences between this film and a thousand Hollywood ghost stories that were more or less competently told over the decades is the storytelling. To tell a truly great story you need time. There are no cheap thrills here. Instead of coming up with a few terrifying sequences and then building the characters and plot around them so as to camouflage the shallow intention of spilling a bit of someone’s popcorn on the theater floor, The Devil’s Backbone allows for the tension and terror to come organically from the characters. The restrained but engrossing script was written by David Muñoz, Antonio Trashorras and the director himself, and it stands as one of the brightest examples of what a horror screenplay should look like in terms of pace and character development. The aforementioned use of symbolism further adds substance and meat around the bones so everything feels rounded, polished and with meaning far deeper than even that ominous water tank hidden in the dark of the sanctuary.

With Javier Navarrete’s musical score and director of photography Guillermo Navarro’s (Pan’s Labyrinth) visuals, the film is brought to life by a great cast consisting of Marisa Paredes (All About My Mother, The Skin I Live In), Federico Luppi (Cronos, Pan’s Labyrinth), Eduardo Noriega (Tesis, Open Your Eyes) and the youngsters Fernando Tielve and Íñigo Garcés.

Critically acclaimed and, as the years that followed soon proved, very influential, The Devil’s Backbone is a gem of a film that proved del Toro’s creative genius. It’s a shame that it took the misery of working with Miramax and all that consequential trauma to get there, but who are we to hold grudges when even del Toro doesn’t. “I can attest, in a nonmasochistic way, that pain is a great teacher,” he said. “I don’t relish it, but I learn from it. I always say, even as an ex-Catholic, that God sends the letter but not the dictionary. You need to forge your own dictionary.” All it took for this genius to turn the letter into one of our all-time favorite visual poems was a little faith from an understanding colleague. Because at the end of Mimic’s underground tunnels there was a light that keeps on shining.

Infatuated with the world of film since the early days, when ‘The Three Amigos’, ‘The Goonies’ and ‘Back to the Future’ rocked his world, Sven Mikulec majored in English with a special emphasis on American culture and started an unlikely career in organizing pub quizzes. Huge fan of Simon & Garfunkel, a mediocre table tennis player and passionate fridge magnet collector, he’s interested in fulfilling his long-term goal of interviewing Jack Nicholson while Paul Simon sings ‘April Come She Will’ quietly in the background. Read more »

 
Screenwriter must-read: Guillermo del Toro, Antonio Trashorras & David Muñoz’s screenplay for The Devil’s Backbone [PDF1, PDF2]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). Many thanks to screenwriter David Muñoz and Guillermo del Toro for helping us get our hands on this wonderful script. The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at the Criterion Collection. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Guillermo del Toro reflects on The Devil’s Backbone in foreword to the book Guillermo del Toro’s The Devil’s Backbone by Matt Zoller Seitz and Simon Abrams, which can be purchased here. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

Regret is a ghost—a road not taken, a reckless moment, a missed opportunity. In this manner, we are all haunted.

In the early 1990s, after doing Cronos, I found myself in a bit of a limbo. It was a limbo I am now quite familiar with. I don’t belong in any safe film category: too weird for full-on summer fare, too in love with pop culture for the art house world, and too esoteric for hardcore fandom. The fact is, every premise I am attracted to has an inherent risk of failure. I often find myself wondering why I cannot choose an easier path. But I guess I cannot. It’s in my nature. I am one with my vices and I believe that, well regarded, our vices render our virtues.

The Devil’s Backbone was, originally, a horror tale set against the Mexican revolution. The film authorities in charge viewed it with great displeasure, as they did Cronos, and the shelfful of national and international awards the latter title had garnered was not helpful at all. We were denied any official funding or support.

A few years after Cronos’ debut at Cannes, as I was at the tail end of the festival tour, I felt no closer to getting a film made. Ever. Again. The promise of a career in film was fading fast, and regret, with all its ghosts, was settling in.

Then Pedro Almodóvar saved me.

How did he do it? Where did it happen? You’ll have to read on…

That story and many more are chronicled in the book you have in your hands. It consigns, in great detail, the making of what really felt like my first film after the frustrations or inexperience of Cronos and Mimic.

Making The Devil’s Backbone, I finally felt in command of my visual style, my narrative rhythm, and was able to work in a profound manner with my cast and crew to craft a beautiful genre-masher: a Gothic tale set against the backdrop of the greatest ghost engine of all—war.

The second greatest ghost engine is, in my opinion, memory. With this in mind I started trying to make a movie that would join these two strands and make one thing clear: The ghost is not the scariest thing in the tale. It is human cruelty.

The visual and narrative rules I set out to meet were a bit crazy—I wanted to combine the look of a Western with the flair of a horror film and the austerity of a war chronicle. I wanted to make the personalities of the children in the tale as real as possible. I wanted to avoid the notions of innocence and embrace purity and solidarity.

I was able to put together one of the finest casts I’ve ever assembled, and we all set out to meet a visual ambition that far exceeded our budget (three–four million Euros). This ambition/budget imbalance has been a constant in my quarter-of-a-century career.

This tale of orphans coming together against the deficient, perverse, and brutal world of adults remains one of my top three films. I have tried to be as candid as possible in the interview that constitutes the backbone of this book. I tried to keep the truth unadorned and unvarnished by nostalgia.

The Devil’s Backbone, however, was also one of the most pleasant shoots I’ve ever had. Protected by the Almodóvar brothers and their production company, El Deseo S.A., I was free to create and was given total control.

I needed this. I needed it so much. After going through a nightmarish shoot on Mimic, I felt that Hollywood filmmaking was not to be.

I was entering this new process full of fear and worry.

And then, it all changed.

I remember discussing the notion of “final cut” with Pedro early in the process and seeing him grow genuinely confused. “I need to have final cut, of course,” I said. “What is a final cut?” he asked me. “Well,” I tried to explain, “the final cut means that the final edit decision globally and in any scene rests with me.” His eyes widened and he looked around confused, “But, of course, the decision is yours!” he said. “You’re the director!”

And that started me off on a joyful, enraptured creative experience.

The movie healed all my wounds—made me whole again. I am as grateful as I’ve ever been to Pedro. In fact, I’ve since produced and “godfathered” many first films in order to pay it forward, trying to thank the universe for giving me this film.

And then, lest I forget, The Devil’s Backbone bore a companion piece you may like to get familiar with—it’s called Pan’s Labyrinth. They are “mirrored movies,” which reveal symmetries and reflections if you ever watch them together… and I love them both with equal passion.

So, a film about ghosts cleared all ghosts from my past. A film about loss gave me life again. A story of orphans gave me a filmmaking family.

Disguised as a Gothic tale, The Devil’s Backbone hides a beating heart and a story about loss and the phantoms of regret. It is a worthy “boy’s adventure” and a small fable full of melancholy.

This film is full of love and worthy of love.

I do hope you’ll agree.
Guillermo del Toro, Toronto, Summer 2017

 
No Mimic; Guillermo del Toro declares his independence with Devil’s Backbone, by Anthony Kaufman. This article was originally published in Indiewire, Nov 27, 2001.

“If you want to make a personal film, don’t fuck around; make a personal film. Don’t go and try to do it in a studio,” says Mexican director Guillermo del Toro. After a less than pleasant experience shooting the Hollywood bug thriller Mimic, the 37-year-old filmmaker was more than happy to have left the studios behind for his third picture, The Devil’s Backbone. After his low budget Mexican horror film Cronos put him on the map, del Toro went Hollywood, and lived and learned about the struggles of creative control. Now with those lessons behind him, del Toro has managed to craft a clever, glossy ghost story, set in an orphanage during the Spanish civil war, for a fraction of the price. While he’s currently putting the finishing touches on the studio blockbuster Blade 2 for his fourth cinematic outing, del Toro says he now knows the difference between making movies for himself and for Hollywood. And he applies his same intensity and focus to both: a week of production for del Toro equals six days of shooting and one day of editing. Based in Austin and Mexico, the 37-year-old director spoke to Indiewire’s Anthony Kaufman about money and freedom, style and language, and knowing what you want. When asked about why he likes to spend time in Austin, del Toro doesn’t hesitate.

In Hollywood, you spend so much time getting your head fucking swelled, and I really enjoy Austin and my bouts of freedom there and doing films the way I want to do them.

That’s what I wanted to ask you first: why make this movie?
To declare my independence. With Cronos, I loved the process of doing it creatively, but I had a terrible time, financially. It was a movie that demanded much more from me economically, but in terms of putting it together piece-by-piece creatively, it was great. But then Mimic comes and it has enough funding, but there is just not the freedom. It’s a studio process, which is completely different and quite frankly, I did not enjoy it. I had great moments, I forged great friendships—to this day, I value my friendship with Mira Sorvino and Jeremy Northam—but at the end of the day, the product that was put out there was not as commercial as the studio wanted and not as creative as I would have wanted. After that, I desperately needed to go back and do a movie that I had absolute control over the material. And I also wanted to prove to myself that I could do my own stories. Thanks to Pedro Almodóvar and my own production company, this movie allowed me to declare my independence. This was the exact perfect situation. Because I had enough money and all the fucking freedom in the world. For all those who think sacrificing a little bit of freedom for a lot of money is worth it, it isn’t. And what I love about having done Blade 2 after, is that I went into it without the same illusions as I went into Mimic. I went in, saying, this is going to be a great exercise, I’m going to have fun, and a lot of toys to play with, and some really cool people to play with, but this ain’t going to be a personal film. Some of your readers might think that they can access Hollywood on the first try and keep their independence and their spirit, and you may perhaps, but it’s really hard. You have to choose your battles. And say, “For this movie, I’m going to win this much.” And take your career as a long term plan. As long as you’re making a movie that you feel passionately about, even if in the end the result is not exactly what you wanted, it’s worth the trip. If you want to make a personal film, don’t fuck around; make a personal film. Don’t go and try to do it in a studio.

The production values on Devil’s Backbone look like a studio film. It looks really good. How were you able to make a movie for less money that looks as good as any Hollywood film?
There’s a lot of lessons I learned by making Mimic. I’m thankful for Mimic. I learned a lot about technique and new toys and new camera rigs and simple digital effects and I applied all of that in a much smaller budget of less than 6 million dollars. Most people think that when you do a movie that you’re not happy with, it’s a bad thing. I think I learned much more from doing Mimic than doing Cronos, not only in terms of valuing my creative freedom, but also as being demanded by the studio, to try new stuff. They pushed me to try new stuff, and I realized I was good at certain things that I never tried. It widened my range of camera moves and storytelling. So you can learn more from a hard experience than a nice one.

What were some specific techniques that you learned to make Devil’s Backbone for less money and look so good?
I learned that you could utilize far more temp effects and they would still look as good, ultimately, if you kept them in the dark and used them creatively. We did stuff that was slapped together, sometimes, but it looked good. I understood the value of a free-roaming camera. One of the things that I do like about Mimic is the camera style, and it’s very much applied to Devil’s Backbone. And this is a direct result of the studio telling me, “Move the camera around.” And I started moving it without rhyme or reason, and then I learned a new way of telling the story. Devil’s Backbone has that fluid camera that becomes like a voyeur. Every time you push your muscles past what you feel comfortable with, its’ really useful. Like Blade 2 was a shoot that I was nervous about, with these big action scenes. But after enjoying it so much, I’m not afraid of any sequence, technically that you might throw at me. I’m not prudish about writing any kind of crazy crap and trying to make it real. And again, all of this can be applied to a lower budget movie in the future.

After seeing your movie, I thought of Amenabar’s The Others, with Nicole Kidman. Here’s a Spanish language director making an English language thriller, which was largely successful. Are you at all concerned about the audience for Devil’s Backbone being limited because it is in Spanish?
It will be an arthouse movie, most probably. In Spain, the movie was a huge box office hit—for a Spanish movie. But The Others made 10 times the movie because it was an American movie. But the equation doesn’t add up that way in my head. I’d rather communicate the right story to a lesser number of people than the wrong story to a larger number of people. I’m sure Amenabar, being as smart as he is, made the movie he wanted. Because his strategy was flawless. He made the movie in Spain with his people, his technical crew, his producer. So he essentially kept control. I didn’t do that on Mimic, and I doubt most “imported” directors can try it, but he was smart about it.

I want to reiterate how good your movie looks, and I wanted to ask you about creating the film with a Spanish crew verses the kinds of crews you’ve worked with in Hollywood?
There’s not much of a difference. I bust my ass for the movies I do to, at least, look really good. I try to make them gorgeous and I try to make them look big, within their budget, but it’s all about communication with the crew. I create these significant memos where I describe the color palette of the movie and this is why. These are the shades of the movie and this is why. And these are the types of filters we’re going to experiment with and this is why. Then I talk to my DP and my wardrobe designer, and production designer and my art director—those are the four points of the entire structure. And as long as those four are working together, the movie will have a single voice. So I try to implement them and make the communication between the departments good. And that’s it. If you have a clarity of a vision, then it looks twice as good, because there’s a concept behind it.

How do you feel being compared to Alfred Hitchcock?
I have the same pants size. I’m a 52. We’re both Catholic and repressed and we like to murder people.

I mention it because you seem to have a very confident and thorough sense of your filmmaking. To trust your decisions must be the hardest thing.
In life it is, in life, it’s a fucking hell, but I find that you should place all your bets on red and don’t chicken out. You’re betting the movie, but you have to be ballsy enough. That’s why tests are important. We test the effect of this thing or that thing, and then you fly by the seat of your pants. Alejandro Jodorowsky, the director of Santa Sangre, has what he calls the panic method: the man intellectualizes what he’s going to do a lot, but then he just goes crazy on it and goes by instinct. It’s almost like you’re channeling the movie. I say, a director is not God; he’s just the Pope. You’re truly channeling something else. You’re not talking, the movie is. If you understand that position, there comes a moment when your decisions become organic. Just try to serve the movie, as opposed to: how brilliant I am because I chose this shade of red.

So now what are you doing?
I have two options, one in English, which is called Mephisto’s Bridge, the story of a billboard designer that sells his soul to the devil. It’s my metaphor for my experiences in Hollywood. And the other one is a small movie called An Honest Man, which I’m writing for Federico Luppi, who plays a meek office employee that murders his entire office in order to preserve his reputation as a good accountant. Those are the two prospects. I hope I can do either of them.

You must be excited to go back to that after doing Blade?
Oh, yes, very much so. Having enjoyed Blade, I am very curious about going back and enjoying again a movie that I control completely. All I want in this life is that for people who don’t like anything in my movies to blame it completely on me.

 
Guillermo del Toro’s historical thriller and supernatural horror film The Devil’s Backbone is clearly the work of a film artist with an immense imagination. But according to the writer-director, it was also inspired by a real-life experience that haunts him to this day. In this online-exclusive video courtesy of the Criterion Collection, del Toro describes the moment in his childhood when he believes he first had an encounter with a ghost, and reveals its connection to the melancholy child phantom he created for The Devil’s Backbone, known as “the one who sighs.”

 
“I also use storyboards when I’m shooting. I call it the poor man’s Avid. Because I can edit on the page while I’m shooting. If I have sixteen or twenty setups I can put them all out on a sheet of paper and decide if I want to go from this one to that one, or if I have to skip one—you know, as time gets tighter. Storyboards are a great tool for making decisions like that.” —Guillermo del Toro


 

GUILLERMO NAVARRO, AMC, ASC

“Del Toro and I don’t have to look at other movies or pictures in books when we are planning a film. We come from the same country and culture, and we have been working together for 15 years. We have sort of grown together in how we think and express ourselves visually. We spoke about our ideas and drew a lot of pictures.” —Guillermo Navarro

 
¿Que es un fantasma?, a 2004 making-of documentary about the conception and production behind the film.

 
Behind the creation of the ghost from The Devil’s Backbone.

 

ADVENTURES IN MOVIEGOING WITH GUILLERMO DEL TORO

In visually daring phantasmagorias like Cronos, The Devil’s Backbone, and Pan’s Labyrinth, Guillermo del Toro transfixes audiences with a unique brand of gothic storytelling that interweaves the personal and the historical. In addition to being one of our most inventive contemporary auteurs, he is also an ardent and vocal movie lover who never hesitates to share the cinematic experiences and influences that have made him the artist he is today. Over on the Criterion Channel, their latest episode of Adventures in Moviegoing features del Toro in conversation with Mythbusters’ Adam Savage, discussing everything from the director’s love for genre filmmaking to his intimate connection to his homeland. In the clip below, he recounts what it was like to grow up in Mexico and discover Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey and Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver at a young age. Watch the full video now on the Channel, and dive into the nine films that del Toro has selected to accompany the program, including mind-bending works by Jean Cocteau, Terry Gilliam, and Luis Buñuel.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Guillermo del Toro’s The Devil’s Backbone. Photographed by Miguel Bracho, David Muñoz & Ignacio Salazar-Simpson © El Deseo, Tequila Gang, Sogepaq, Canal+ España, Anhelo Producciones. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post Cleansing of the Soul for a Clean Slate: Guillermo del Toro’s ‘The Devil’s Backbone’ appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Paradise Lost: How Martin Scorsese’s ‘Casino’ Charts the Rise and Fall of a Criminal Empire

$
0
0

 
By Tim Pelan

Casino in some respects is director Martin Scorsese dialing Goodfellas up to 11. Oh, you want the mob life? Well here it is in Chairman of the board brashness and lurid VEGAS BABY! sindulgence, where gambling king and long-term gaming licensee in waiting Sam “Ace” Rothstein (Robert De Niro) funnels money out the back door of the fictional Tangiers hotel he all but runs for the mob elders back East. To him, it’s a “morality carwash.” There’s almost too much story to cram into Casino, with multiple back-and-forth narration dumps from Ace and best friend from “back home” Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci), and virtually wall to music and songs, exhaustively sourced by Scorsese himself with musician Robbie Robertson. Perhaps that’s the point—Vegas, whether wilder and Mob run, or a homogenized “Disneyland” as Ace disparages when big business and their own greed and carelessness finally squeezed the bosses out, has always been about sensory overload. Critic David Thomson perhaps has the right idea, revisiting the film often, but in chunks—“half an hour here or there, passages, riffs, routines, ‘numbers’ if you like—and I think that references to music are vital,” he says. It’s the sensation, the feeling you get from listening to a piece of music over and over again. From the damning final chorus of Bach’s St. Matthew Passion in the opening scene, where Ace gets blown up in his car and goes hurtling through a Saul and Elaine Bass designed inferno of flames and Vegas strip—Bad Men before Mad Men; to the tapestry of hooks and grooves that fit the mood and glide of a dream town ripe for the picking. “I was very lucky to be able to choose from over forty years of music and in most cases to be able to get it into the film,” the director recounts in Scorsese on Scorsese. “Certain songs and pieces of music, when you play them against the picture, change everything. So it’s very, very delicate. In Goodfellas the sound is more Phil Spector, while in this picture it’s more the Stones, especially “Can’t you hear me knocking?” which is a key song in the film.” Make hay while the desert sun shines, baby.

The film is based on the true story of Frank “Lefty” Rosenthal, who the mob employed to take control from the Teamsters in Las Vegas in 1971, running a number of casinos beginning with the Stardust. His muscle (who himself muscled in, unofficially) was his childhood friend from Chicago, Tony Spilotro—our “heroes” are based on these guys. Let’s say a number of things went wrong with the dream ticket—a disgruntled hood who travels between Kansas and Vegas foolishly keeps a record of expenses owed; the greedy mob bump off Kevin Pollak’s straight hotel frontman Phillip Green’s previously unknown former business partner Anna Scott when she wins a legal case against him for her share; a wiretap on an unrelated murder picks up the aforementioned hood grumbling about being stiffed for money; and so on. For Spilotro, his main weakness was falling for Geri McGee, a “chip hustler,” hooker and topless dancer (portrayed as Ginger, by a terrific Sharon Stone). He married her, setting aside money and jewelry in her name, but actually his safety net, but their marriage collapsed into a Taylor and Burton-esque spiral of recriminations, alcoholism, control freakery and distrust, Geri turning for solace to Tony (as happens in the film). Crime writer Nicholas Pileggi was in the process of turning this complex tale into a book, and ended up collaborating with his Goodfellas partner Scorsese again on a screenplay, the two writing together over an intensive five-month period in 1994. Characters were reshaped and reimagined, sometimes several condensed into one. Scorsese and Pileggi walked a legal tightrope, having to note that the film was “adapted from a true story” rather than “based on a true story.” This does lead to the amusing screen title substitute of “Back home” for Chicago at one point.

 
Scorsese thought of the story as Old Testament-like in its tale of gaining Paradise then losing it through greed and pride—the fictional Tangiers eventually being torn down like the Tower of Babel for a safer, theme park-like experience, the mob bosses and their cronies scattered across the desert plains, no longer speaking from the same playbook. The film opens with a sweeping aerial view of the desert, then the strip lights at night, seductive, but illusory. “Sam is given paradise on earth,” Scorsese said. “In fact, he’s there to keep everybody happy and keep everything in order, and to make as much money as possible so they can take more on the skim. But the problem is he has to give way at times to certain people and certain pressures, which he won’t do because of who he is. When people warn him about Ginger, he says, ‘I know all the stories about her, but I don’t care; I’m Ace Rothstein and I can change her.’ But he couldn’t change her. And he couldn’t control the muscle—Nicky—because if you try to control someone like that you’ll be dead.”

Ace, of course, doesn’t die in that opening explosion. When the dream turned sour someone attempted to take his life with a car bomb, but that particular model had a steel plate beneath the driver’s seat which saved him. When we see it again, it happens in the way Rosenthal remembered it, vividly, with flames starting from the air-con unit. Then he saw his sleeve on fire and he opened the door and rolled out. Two Secret Service men who just happened to be inspecting the hotel ahead of a visit from President Reagan pulled him clear as the car finally went up. “Once you realize you could have been killed, you remember all the details.”

Recently critic Matt Zoller Seitz screened Casino at New York’s IFC Center in the presence of Pileggi. One viewer shared some interesting thoughts on Twitter, @ZakkirGanesh. He considered that, “the character of Ginger reminded me of General Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. An unstable force that helps undo the system, but also represents the same spirit that created the system in the first place. The Doomsday device is meant to prevent war in a way that only warmongers could conceive of. And Ripper is exactly the kind of warmonger who could go too far and set it off in the most foolproof way. Likewise, the entire Casino operation is driven by nothing more than greed, however respectable its architects would like to be about it. But Ginger is driven by greed so insatiable that eventually even her initially respectable aura gives way to something just pathetic. And in the process, she is the edge-case that no foolproof system can ever account for. Ace was so used to predicting wins and losses, he assumed he could figure her out, but she was, for better or for worse (mainly worse), the most irrepressibly human of all of them. And that messy humanity that you can’t bet on or control for, is what helps pull the ground out from under all of them.”

 
Ace and Ginger have a child, Amy, but Ginger feels trapped in the marriage, spiraling out of control on alcohol and cocaine, neglecting Amy. At one point (and this was true!) Ace comes home to find Amy tied to her bed with stockings while Ginger paints the town red (“The kid was asleep,” she slurs, figuring she’d be home before she woke up). Ace tries to have her page him every time she goes somewhere. Ginger pines for her pimp (a slimy James Woods), who conspires with her to take the kid and leave, emptying her safety deposit box. She even comes on to Nicky with sexual favors to help her. The cuckolded Ace has Nicky barred from the Tangiers. Stone auditioned for Casino against the advice of her people, who saw Ginger as too unsympathetic (she went on to win a Golden Globe and was Oscar-nominated). She felt she was in the right place at the right time, telling The Guardian, “I think for a long time people just did not know what to do with me. I looked like a Barbie doll and then I had this voice like I spend my life in a bar, and I said things that were alarming and had ideas that didn’t make sense. And finally I got together with Marty and Bob and they were like, ‘Give it all to us, baby, just let her rip if you’ve got it, we want it, let’s see what you can do.’” Scorsese told The New York Times that he cast her because of her presence—“You can believe that she is the most respected hustler in Vegas.” Sight and Sound said of her varied performance, from confident hustler to lonely, self-pitying trapped bird in a gilded cage that “Stone attacks the role with a voracious energy; her performance has a terrifying emotional range, from the snarl to the whimper.”

Meanwhile the legal system refuses to grant Ace his gaming license so he starts his own entertainment TV show from the casino to keep his (in his eyes) persecution over nothing from the politicians in the public domain, to the mob’s embarrassment. Amusingly, when Rosenfeld launched this real-life TV entertainment it was hit by technical glitches, the station instead transmitting, fittingly, on the opening night, Anthony Mann’s The Fall of the Roman Empire. Nicky’s own strong-arm enforcement money rackets are drying up, and he also comes under the watchful eyes of the Feds (as in real life, the agents tailing him by light plane run out of fuel and have to abandon the plane on the golf course next to Nicky’s home. Insouciantly, he calls to his tee-mates, “100 bucks to whoever hits the plane first.”). But all good things must come to an end, and for Nicky, those desert holes he kept digging in advance will come back to haunt him.

 
“They (Ace and Nicky) both buy into a situation and both overstep the line so badly that they destroy everything for every­body,” Scorsese recalled to Ian Christie. “A new city comes rising out of the ashes. Who knows what the realities are there now, where you’ve gone from a Nicky Santoro to a Donald Trump? Who knows where the money’s going? But I’m sure it’s got to be very, very good somehow for those entrepreneurs coming in with the money. You’ll probably see a film in 15 years exposing what they’re doing now. What we show in this film is the end of the old way and how it ended. They got too full of pride, they wanted more. If you’re gambling you want more, like the Japanese gambler Ichikawa, who bets less money than he normally would bet when he’s tricked into coming back. But for him it isn’t winning 10,000, it’s losing 90,000, because normally he bets 100,000.” Ace opines, “In the end, we get it all.”

Ace is persnickety, everything has to be just so, from his choice of wristwatch that matches his shirt or tie (“We had fifty-two changes for Bob, which was a lot, but in reality the person he’s based on had even more amazing clothes.”) to insisting the number of blueberries in each muffin from the kitchens exactly match, and weekly weigh-ins for the chorus line. Ace even hangs his pants up when he’s working at his desk so they don’t get creased. The Tangiers has to be the best place on the strip. Rita Ryack and John Dunn did the costumes, reputedly for a $1 million budget: vibrant mustard yellows and electric blues, crimson blazers for Ace, glamorous cocktail dresses then slightly tackier white leather miniskirts and thigh-high boots for Ginger. In the end she’s scrabbling around in a “David Bowie-type gold lame outfit,” a little baggy to show her drug-infused weight loss. Scorsese shot in a real casino, often in the early hours, dressing the prominent extras with authentic 70’s costumes, obscuring the background artists with detail happening in the foreground.

 
Scorsese’s regular cinematographer Michael Ballhaus was unavailable so the director turned to Robert Richardson, who he had not worked with before, but knew of through his work with Oliver Stone. They shot on Super 35mm film and in the 2.35:1 anamorphic aspect ratio. From The Directors Series: “By this point, Scorsese has distilled his style into an eclectic mix of crane shots, Steadicam moves, whip-pans, canted angles, freeze frames, speed ramps, iris shots, split-focus diopter compositions, and his signature ‘scream-in’ technique (in addition to the new usage of grandiose helicopter-mounted shots). Casino is less of a film with linear scenes conveying plot than it is one long montage encompassing a decade of high times and bad behavior, and regular editor Thelma Schoonmaker expertly puts every little piece in just the right place, making sense out of what must’ve been an incomprehensible jumble of dailies and fashioning it into the definitive Las Vegas film.”

Casino would be Scorsese and De Niro’s last collaboration (feature-wise–there was the short film The Audition) until the much anticipated The Irishman, a decades-spanning tale perhaps even more ambitious which also reunites them with Pesci in the tale of Frank Sheeran (De Niro), the Irishman of the title, a handler of matters (i.e. killer) for mafia bosses Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci) and Angelo Bruno (Harvey Keitel) with a side-bar business relationship with Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). All main actors de-age to play themselves with “youthification” VFX wizardry. It’s perhaps a fitting culmination of underworld themes explored between director and muse, Scorsese telling Empire magazine that it is a surprisingly tender, remorseful look back at a hard life choice. “The brashness of the cowboys, a Tommy De Vito in Goodfellas, running out shooting guns in the air, we’ve all seen it. We’ve done it ourselves, meaning in the world and in cinema. We were the wild ones, in a way. But now we’ve reached a point where we can look back. Not even look back, but look inside. Because we have no more time.” In the end, everybody pays. Everybody “gets it all.”

Written by Tim Pelan. Tim was born in 1968, the year of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (possibly his favorite film), ‘Planet of the Apes,’ ‘The Night of the Living Dead’ and ‘Barbarella.’ That also made him the perfect age for when ‘Star Wars’ came out. Some would say this explains a lot. Read more »

 
This story has to be on a big canvas. There’s no sense in my getting Bob De Niro and Joe Pesci and making a 90-minute picture about only one aspect of one story out of Vegas for the past 40 years. It has to be set in the context of time and place, it has to be about America. Otherwise, why make another mob story? I couldn’t care less. —Martin Scorsese

Screenwriter must-read: Nicholas Pileggi & Martin Scorsese’s screenplay for Casino [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 

Wiseguy is a book about organized crime and how it works. And you see it from real people. Casino was a much more complicated story because it was really the story of an industry, how that industry works and the history of that industry, otherwise you don’t understand it. But I couldn’t just write this long, sprawling thing. I had to find people through whom to tell the story. That is the key if you write non-fiction. Who are the people through whom we can tell the story? I worked on Casino for years until I found the people through whom I could tell the story of the casino industry. I had the man who was the master gambler who they needed to run the casinos, the mobsters who put together the connections, the Teamsters to make the loan, the front man who got the money from the mobsters and the Mafia muscle-man who was there to keep everybody in place. And he falls in love with the gambler’s wife and it brings everything down. It was the perfect dramatic story through which we could tell the story of the casino industry and that’s what we made a movie about. There was a lot of criticism that there were no heroes. Indeed, there were none. I like Frank Rosenthal (name changed to Ace Rothstein in the film) very much, I think he’s a charming smart guy but lots of people just hated him. And the way Bob played him, he played him just like Lefty Rosenthal. He’s not an endearing person at all, he’s mean, he’s mean to his wife, he’s obsessive about numbers. And Tony Spilotro was a total psychopath. They weren’t nice people but the book is based on reality. A lot of the lines they say in the movie, they said in real life. —Nicholas Pileggi

 
Author Nicholas Pileggi talks about his book, Casino: Love and Honor in Las Vegas and his collaboration with Martin Scorsese on the movie, which is premiering almost simultaneously with the book’s release.

 
Scene 166–170: Desert Argue. With Scorsese’s own handwritten notes and drawings.

 
Martin Scorsese’s Testament, by Ian Christie. This article was originally published in Sight & Sound, January 1996.

What was the hook that persuaded you to tackle another mafia subject after Goodfellas?
The first newspaper article Nick Pileggi showed me was about the police covering a domestic fight on a lawn in Las Vegas one Sunday morning. And in that article it slowly began to unravel, this incredible ten-year adventure that all these people were having, culminating in this husband and wife arguing on their lawn, with her smashing his car, the police arriving, and the FBI taking pictures. As you work back to the beginning, you find this incredible story with so many tangents, and each is one more nail in their coffin. It could be the underboss of Kansas City, Artie Piscano, constantly complaining that he always had to spend his own money on trips to Las Vegas and never got reimbursed. Or it could be the unrelated homicide that made the police put a bug in the produce market that Piscano kept in Kansas City. Even they’ve forgotten about it, but it picks up all his complaining and alerts FBI men round the country to all these names. They’re surprised to hear the names of the Vegas casinos being mentioned in a Kansas City produce market. What’s the connection? Then, quite separately, a court decrees that Anna Scott should have her share of the money as a partner of the president of the Tangiers. But instead of settling with her, the mob shoot her, which also really happened. This then brings police attention to their frontman, the president, although he was in no way involved in the decision to kill her, and he begins to realize what’s going on, although there’s nothing much he can do about it. And then you have Ace Rothstein and Ginger and Nicky Santoro, all very volatile characters. I just thought it would be a terrific story.

How much is based on real characters and events?
Pretty much everything. Piscano is Carl DeLuna, who kept all those records. Mr. Nance, who brings the money from the casino to Kansas City, is based on a man named Carl Thomas, who was recently killed in a car crash. Mr. Green, the Tangiers president, Rothstein, Ginger, Nicky Santoro and his brother—these are all based on real people. Sometimes things that happened in Chicago are placed in Vegas. We did have some problems about being specific, which meant saying “back home” instead of Chicago, and having to say “adapted from a true story” instead of “this film is based on a true story,” which was the lawyers’ language.

Was Las Vegas unfamiliar territory for you?
I’m pretty familiar with the characters around the tables and in the offices, but the actual place, and the gaming, were new to me. What interested me was the idea of excess, no limits. People become successful like in no other city.

It gives Ace a chance to create something, rather like an oldtime prospector going west, who lands in a small town and by sheer hard work makes his fortune. But because he makes the classic mistake of loving without being loved, he falls.
Well, it’s his own fault. He says, “I know all the stories about her, but I don’t care, I’m Ace Rothstein and I can change her.” But he couldn’t change her. And he couldn’t control the muscle—Nicky—because if you try to control someone like that you’ll be dead. When his car was blown up it was pretty obvious who gave the order for that. But as Nicky says at one point in the film, so long as they’re earning with the prick they’ll never OK anything—the gods, that is—meaning they’ll never authorize killing him. But Nicky likes to be prepared, so he orders two holes to be dug in the desert. That’s the way they talk. This is the actual dialogue from a witness protection program source that we had.

It’s really Sodom or Gomorrah, surrounded by the desert, isn’t it?
Yes it is. We don’t want to lay it on too heavily, but that was the idea. Gaining Paradise and losing it, through pride and through greed—it’s the old-fashioned Old Testament story. Ace is given Paradise on Earth. In fact, he’s there to keep everybody happy and keep everything in order, and to make as much money as possible so they can take more on the skim. But the problem is that he has to give way at times to certain people and certain pressures, which he won’t do because of who he is.

What about the whole country-club strand? Is this because he’s Jewish and wants to be accepted socially?
He says when he accepts that plaque, “Anywhere else I’d be arrested for what I’m doing. Here they’re giving me awards.” This is the only place he can use his expertise in a legitimate way, and so become a part of the American WASP community. That’s why Nicky tells him in the desert, “I’m what’s real out here. Not your country clubs and your TV show. I’m what’s real: the dirt, the gutter, and the blood. That’s what it’s all about.”

It’s a great scene in a classic Western setting.
That’s where they had to go to talk—in the middle of this desert. And Nicky had to change cars six times. I always imagined that the Joe Pesci character must be so angry, and getting angrier as he changes each car, until he gets out of the last one and De Niro can’t say a word when he lashes right into him. But you know in this case I’m on Nicky’s side. The rest is artifice, and if you buy into it it’s hypocrisy. Know where it’s coming from and know what the reality is. Don’t think you’re better than me, or than the people you grew up with.

This creates the same moral dissonance that was so powerful in Goodfellas, where you want to see someone succeed, but it’s the wrong business!
Very often the people I portray can’t help but be in that way of life. Yes, they’re bad, they’re doing bad things. And we condemn those aspects of them. But they’re also human beings. And I find that often the people passing moral judgment on them may ultimately be worse. I know that here in England there were filmmakers and critics who felt I was morally irresponsible to make a film like Goodfellas. Well, I’ll make more of them if I can. Remember what happens at the end of the movie, where you see Nicky and his brother beaten and buried. That’s all based on fact—I saw the pictures of the real bodies when they dug up the grave. Now it’s shot in a certain way, very straight. And I happen to like those people. Nicky is horrible. He’s a terrible man. But there’s something that happens for me in watching them get beaten with the bats and then put into the hole. Ultimately it’s a tragedy. It’s the frailty of being human. I want to push audiences’ emotional empathy with certain types of characters who are normally considered villains.

You go to considerable lengths to make Nicky an attractive figure. He even comes home every morning and cooks breakfast for his son…
Based on the real man, who did that. It’s an interesting dilemma for both of them. They both buy into a situation and both overstep the line so badly that they destroy everything for everybody. A new city comes rising out of the ashes. Who knows what the realities are there now, where you’ve gone from a Nicky Santoro to a Donald Trump? Who knows where the money’s going? But I’m sure it’s got to be very, very good somehow for those entrepreneurs coming in with the money. You’ll probably see a film in fifteen years exposing what they’re doing now. What we show in this film is the end of the old way and how it ended. They got too full of pride, they wanted more. If you’re gambling you want more, like the Japanese gambler Ichikawa, who bets less money than he normally would bet when he’s tricked into coming back. But for him it isn’t winning ten thousand, it’s losing ninety thousand, because normally he bets one hundred thousand.

It’s a neat little parable about gambling.
We always had problems with where it was going to be placed in the structure. But I said it’s very important to keep the move into Bob’s face when he says, “In the end we get it all.” They do, they really do. What an interesting place, because they’re a bunch of cheats, watching cheats, watching cheats. Ace Rothstein and those guys know how to cheat, with handicapping and basketball games. They make it so natural that you wouldn’t be able to tell whether the game is fixed. I’m sure he has that ability.

There’s a fantastic symphony of looks in the film, with everyone watching everyone, and you push it and push it until we reach—
—the all-seeing eye. That’s when he sees her for the first time. Before they had the video eye-in-the-sky, they had men with binoculars who had been cheaters up on the catwalks, trying to find other cheaters. I just thought it was really wonderful, with nobody trusting anybody.

There’s another documentary thrust in the film: how money gets skimmed and multiplied and diffused, and then distributed in equally bizarre ways.
That was twenty years ago, before the old mob lost their control. At that time every casino was “owned” by some mob from a different part of the country. The Tangiers is fictional, but there were four—the Stardust, the Fremont, the Frontier, and the Marina—which the Rothstein character controlled. So we just made them one giant hotel and combined all the elements. Where else could a great handicapper become the most important man in the city, with total control? We tried to show how far his control ran, even over the kitchen and the food. Insisting on an equal number of blueberries in each muffin may seem funny, but it’s important because if the muffins and the steaks are good the people who are playing there will go and tell others. It’s not just paranoia and obsessive behavior—there’s a reason: to make the Tangiers the best place on the Strip.

And his TV show really existed?
Totally real. When everybody wants him to quieten down, he goes on television. He forgets why he’s been put there, and he gets overblown, with the clothes he wears and everything, and the old guys “back home,” those guys said, “What’s he doing, going on television?” The real show wasn’t very good, as I think you can tell…

Shades of Rupert Pupkin in The King of Comedy.
Exactly. But he thought of it as a place to be heard, which is what it became.

The bosses are seen in some highly stylized ways. When we see them around a table, they’re like a group painted by Frans Hals.
Yeah, they’re definitely old-world.

Then we see them in another mysterious nowhere place, with stark almost silhouette lighting like a scene from Fritz Lang.
That’s the back of the garage, and Bob Richardson lit it like that. It’s where Remo says, “Go get them,” and they put the guy’s head in a vice, not that they intended to do that. But after two days and nights of questioning they didn’t know what else to do.

This is so excessive that we know it’s got to be real, because you wouldn’t invent it. But it also seems to belong to a Jacobean horror tragedy.
It really does. The incident actually occurred in Chicago in the sixties. There was a Young Turk argument which ended with guns and two brothers and a waitress were killed. It caused such outrage that they wanted the men who were with him also, and they finally got them and killed them all. But Joe found the human way of playing the scene: “Please don’t make me do this.” But he’s a soldier and he has to take these orders, and he has to get that name, otherwise his head is in the vice.

Although Ginger is as important a character as Ace and Nicky, we really only see her through their eyes and so she remains more of a mystery. Is she hustling him from the start, or does he kill whatever chance they had?
She tells him exactly how things are in that scene where he proposes. Reaching the age of forty, if you find someone maybe you try to make it work in a reasonable way. I think they may have had a chance, if it wasn’t for that city and what they were doing in it. Although I think there’s something in Ace’s character that ultimately destroys everything.

Does it get worse, as he gets more and more wrapped up in his role as casino boss?
I think he’s responsible for the emotional alienation. You get it when she goes to the restaurant and she says, “I’m Mrs. Rothstein,” and the other lady says, “Well, you might as well get something out of it.” It’s how he treats her. He won’t let her go. If he lets her go, he believes he’ll just never see her again. He’ll hear from her through a lawyer, but he’ll never see her again. Their daughter Amy is unfortunately just a pawn to be used. By the last third of the film, Ginger is definitely disturbed, she’s no longer in her right mind. Whether it’s from drugs or drink doesn’t matter, she’s completely gone. It doesn’t excuse anything she does, but it does heighten the horror of what’s going on—like tying the child up.

That really happened too?
Yes, only I think the child was younger (the real couple had two children). It’s not something you’d invent; nor her reaction to Ace in the restaurant when she says, “Oh for God’s sake, the babysitter wasn’t there, and it was only for a little while, I was going to come right back.”

Sharon Stone gives a very committed performance which shows she’s got a range which hasn’t always been called upon.
I agree. De Niro really helped her through those scenes. He’s very generous with her and you can see how he’s always helping. It’s a scary role, a tough one—like when she takes cocaine in front of the child: that was her choice.

She has to spend nearly a third of the movie in a state of falling apart.
Yes, and she did that with her whole body and with the clothes. She worked with the clothes, like that David Bowie–type gold lamé outfit she’s wearing for the last third of the picture. It’s a little baggy in places, because she tried to make herself look as bad, or as wasted, as she could. You could make ten films about each of those characters, all different, and I don’t know if I did justice to any of them. I just wanted to get as much in as possible, plus I wanted to get all of Vegas in there as well. And also the whole climate of the time, the seventies.

You shot the whole film in Las Vegas. Did you shoot in a real casino?
Oh yes. And we shot during working hours. Barbara De Fina figured out that the extra time it could cost would probably be the same as to build one. And you won’t have the electricity and the life around you, which is what we got. We would fill the foreground with extras dressed in seventies costumes, and the background would sort of fall off. Sometimes we shot at four in the morning. I really love the scene when Joe comes in with Frank Vincent and they’re playing blackjack, even though he’s banned from the place, and he’s abusing the dealers. That was four o’clock in the morning, and you hear someone yelling in the background because he’s winning at craps. The dealer went through the whole scene with Joe, who was improvising, throwing cards back at him and saying the worst possible things. Halfway through the scene, the dealer leaned over to me, and said, “You know, the real guy was much tougher with me—he really was uncontrollable.”

Why does the film have to be so long?
You have to work through the whole process of these three people who can’t get away from each other. Every way they turn they’re with each other. It’s not even a story about infidelity. It’s bad enough that they both were unfaithful to each other—the marriage was in terrible shape as it was—but worse that she starts with Nicky, because Nicky is the muscle. If anybody can get her the money and jewels it’s Nicky.

The most remarkable thing about the film’s structure is that you start with Ace being blown up.
In the very first script we started with the scene of them fighting on the lawn. Then we realized that it’s too detailed and didn’t create enough dramatic satisfaction at the end of the picture. So Nick and I figured we would start with the car exploding, and he goes up into the air and you see him in slow motion, flying over the flames like a soul about to take a dive into hell.

It’s like one’s whole life passing before you in an extended moment. But you show the explosion three times.
That’s right. I show it three times, in different ways. Finally, the third time, we see it the real way. That is how he remembered it. The actual fellow this is based on told me he saw the flames coming out of the air conditioning unit first, and he didn’t know what it could be. Then he looked down and saw his arm on fire and he thought of his kids. The door wasn’t properly locked, so he rolled out and was grabbed by two Secret Service men who happened to be casing the joint because of Ronald Reagan’s visit the following week. They pulled him aside and it was only when the car went up that he realized it was intentional—at first he’d thought it was an accident. That’s why I did all the details. Once you realize you could have been killed, then you never forget those moments.

Did the internal structure of the film change a lot as you worked on it?
Yes, it did, a lot. And that’s where Thelma Schoonmaker came in very strongly, because she hadn’t read the script, but just watched the footage come in and was able to take charge of elements that were in the middle, like the documentary aspects. Thelma and I used to edit documentaries twenty-five years ago, so she’s very, very good at that. It is the most harrowing kind of editing you can do because you’re never sure of the structure and you’re not following a dramatic thread. There’s story, but no plot. So what you’re following is the beginnings of Ace coming to Vegas, then the beginnings of Nicky in Vegas and the beginning of Nicky and his wife in Vegas and their child. Then Ace is succeeding in Vegas, and what’s Nicky doing? He’s sandbagging guys. Ace’s rise culminates with Nicky being banned. Then that takes us to Nicky rising, which is his montage of robbery—“I’m staying here, you’re not getting rid of me.” He creates his alternative empire. Then you start to bring the two tracks together. But up to the point at which Nicky builds his own empire we had a lot of reshuffling of scenes and rewriting of voiceover. Finally, we put all the exposition at the beginning. At first we had split it up throughout the film, but it was too little too late, although on the page it looked all right. So in the end we took the explanation of the skim and moved it up front.

You’ve become really interested in voiceover. What does it do for the spectator?
There’s something interesting about voiceover: it lets you in on the secret thoughts of the characters, or secret observations by an omniscient viewer. And for me it has a wonderful comforting tone of someone telling you a story. And then it has a kind of irony much of the time. Suppose you see two people saying goodnight, and the voiceover says, “They had a wonderful time that evening, but that was the last time before so-and-so died.” You’re still seeing the person, but the voiceover is telling you they died a week later, and it takes on a resonance, and for me a depth and a sadness, when used at moments like that. The voiceover in this particular film is also open to tirades by Nicky. If you listen to him complaining—about the bosses back home, how he’s the one out here, the one in the trenches—then you begin to understand his point of view. Why should I have to work for somebody? Why don’t I go into business for myself? You can see the kind of person he is from these tirades in voiceover.

Did the change in visual style come from working with a new cinematographer, Bob Richardson, or from the subject’s needs?
Well, there are a lot of tracks and zooms; as well as pans and zip-pans. There are also more static angles, cut together very quickly, because of all the information being crammed into the frame. If you did too much moving you wouldn’t be able to see what we’re trying to show. So that became the style—a kind of documentary.

You talked about excess as the keynote of Las Vegas, but the most excessive thing is De Niro’s wardrobe.
That was Rita Ryack, who’s done a number of films with me, and John Dunn also worked with her. We had fifty-two changes for Bob, a lot, but in reality the person he’s based on had many more.

It becomes a visible sign of him going off the rails.
Absolutely. The mustard-yellow suit, the dark navy-blue silk shirt with navy-blue tie, with crimson jacket. We chose the colors very carefully. Our rituals in the morning, once we narrowed down the idea of which outfit, were to choose which shirt, then which tie, then which jewelry. If you look closely, the watch faces usually match the clothes—even the watch he wears when he turns the ignition on. We were always rushed—I just needed a close-up of him turning on the ignition. Then we look at it through the camera, and we think, oh yes—the wristwatch. So we set the angle to show the watch as well as possible, for the short amount of time it’s on. And if you look at the film again, or on laserdisc, you can see a lot of detail in the frames that we put there. Nicky didn’t have that many changes, maybe twenty or twenty-five. And Ginger had about forty I think.

You’ve worked with Dante Ferretti on a number of films. What kind of relationship do you have in terms of planning the overall look of a film?
The casino we used, the Riviera, looked like the seventies, although it was only built in the late seventies. That was the centerpiece. Then we were trying to find houses that were built in the late fifties or early sixties, which are very rare. There was one house which we finally got, and I laid all my shots there, rehearsed, and then about two weeks later we lost it. Then we had to find another house, and finally it all worked out for the best, because that’s the best one we found. It was an era of glitz—a word I heard for the first time in the seventies—and I think you can tell what Dante brings to a film when you just look at the bedroom. Especially in the wide shots, in the scene where she’s taken too many pills and she’s crying, and he’s trying to help her. There’s something about the way the bed is elevated and it looks like an imperial bed, a king’s or a queen’s bed. There’s something about the wallpaper, everything, the dishes on the walls—that says a great deal about character. Dante made it regal, not just in bad taste—even though some of it is bad taste—but the quality is good, and that moiré silk headboard is a backdrop for a battleground, a silk battleground.

I’m interested you say “regal,” because I also found myself thinking the film is about a court, with a king who chooses a consort, and what we see is the rise and fall of a little dynasty.
Exactly. They’re on display all the time. Appearance is everything, to the point where he didn’t want people to smile at him or say hello. You can see it in how he stands and looks around.

The music for Casino uses the same general approach as Goodfellas, but the range is broader—like starting with the St Matthew Passion.
I guess for me it’s the sense of something grand that’s been lost. Whether we agree with the morality of it is another matter—I’m not asking you to agree with the morality—but there was the sense of an empire that had been lost, and it needed music worthy of that. The destruction of that city has to have the grandeur of Lucifer being expelled from heaven for being too proud. Those are all pretty obvious biblical references. But the viewer of the film should be moved by the music. Even though you may not like the people and what they did, they’re still human beings and it’s a tragedy as far as I’m concerned.

In Goodfellas and again in Casino the music becomes another way to direct the viewer, like the voiceover. Each piece of music brings its own associations.
That’s right. There’s Brenda Lee singing “Hurt”; the Velvetones doing “The Glory of Love”—there’s a lot, over fifty-five pieces I think. Then there’s the break-down of style in “Satisfaction,” from the Stones to Devo. I was very lucky to be able to choose from over forty years of music and in most cases to be able to get it into the film.

Is this all coming from you, this setting the musical agenda of the film?
Very much, yes. We did have one piece planned, but I decided to use it at the end instead of the beginning. Why waste it, because it has an almost religious quality.

In fact “The House of the Rising Sun” encapsulates the moral of the film.
Yes, it’s a warning: “Oh mother, tell your children not to do what I have done.” We kept that for the end. And then lots of early Stones.

Which you had wanted to use more in Goodfellas?
I did, but I just couldn’t fit in any more. It wasn’t that we didn’t have any room, but certain songs and pieces of music, when you play them against picture, change everything. So it’s very, very delicate. In Goodfellas the sound is more Phil Spector, while in this picture it’s more the Stones, especially “Can’t You Hear Me Knocking?,” which is a key song in the film.

You follow the same rule as in Goodfellas of keeping the music strictly in period?
Yes, as far as possible. When Ace and Nicky need to talk, after the argument in the desert, they get into a car in the garage to have a private conversation. What would happen? They’d sit in the car and keep the radio on. And what’s playing is “Go Your Own Way” by Fleetwood Mac, which is a key song of the mid-late seven-ties. No matter what the mood of the conversation, that music is playing. So we were able to use music at that point that would take you further into the time. The sounds change from the beginning of the film from Louis Prima to Fleetwood Mac. You see, it’s not so much the Bach that begins the film as the Louis Prima that cuts it off, creating a strong shock effect. I knew Louis Prima had to be in there, but we came to that later, and I remember the Bach was the first thing I had in mind.

The Bach comes back at the end, followed by Hoagy Carmichael.
For the splendour of the destruction of this sin city it has to be Bach. Because the old Vegas is being replaced by something that looks seductive, kiddie-friendly, but it’s there to work on the very core of America, the family. Not just the gamblers and the hustlers and the relatively few gangsters who were around, but now it’s Ma and Pa Kettle. While the kids watch the Pirate ride, we’ll lose your money.

Why did you quote Delerue’s music from Godard’s Contempt?
I liked the sadness of it. And there are other movie themes in the film, like the theme from Picnic, over Mr. Nance sashaying into the count room—the implication being that it was so easy you could waltz in and waltz right out with the money. The theme from Picnic was such a beautiful piece of music that it was played on jukeboxes and Top 40 all the time, so you would always hear it and you still do in Vegas. The other one was “Walk on the Wild Side,” by Elmer Bernstein and Jimmy Smith. That has a nervous energy that’s good, especially in that sequence where we use it, the killing of Anna Scott. Again, it was a very famous piece of music that was taken out of context from the film, and became a part of life in America at the time. Along with these, it seemed interesting to try the Contempt music and see what we could do.

That’s also a movie about a man who has a problem in his relationship with his wife.
He certainly does! After the Bach you can’t do anything. The only thing would be Contempt, to wipe the slate clean. And then after that the only possible thing is one of the greatest songs ever written, “Stardust”—the only piece that could sum up the emotions and thoughts about what you’ve seen.

What will your next film be?
The new film, Kundun, is basically written by Melissa Mathison, and it’s a very straightforward story of the finding of the Dalai Lama as a young child, in Amdo province of Tibet. It takes you through the maturing of the boy until he was a young man of eighteen, when he had to make a decision which he knew would be dealing with—literally—the life or death of his own country. What interested me was the story of a man, or a boy, who lives in a society which is totally based on the spirit, and finally, crashing into the twentieth century, they find themselves face to face with a society which is one of the most anti-spiritual ever formed, the Marxist government of the Chinese communists. Mao finally leans over at one point during the Dalai Lama’s visit to Beijing and says to him: “You do know that religion is poison, don’t you?” At this point he realizes that they’re all finished. And the only way to save Tibet was for him to leave, and take it with him. What interests me is how a man of nonviolence deals with these people—that’s ultimately the story. I don’t know if we’ll be able to pull it all together.

Where will you shoot it?
In Northern India. And after that, I hope to make Gershwin, a musical. After spending so much time with those people in Vegas I’ve got to try something radically different. I can’t go back, it’s just too much. This was a very consuming film, and the negativity of the people was very difficult. But I’m sure the next one will be difficult for other reasons.

 
An interview with Martin Scorsese on Casino.

 
Martin Scorsese talks about his latest film, Casino, and the unique acting talent of Robert De Niro (11/17/1995).

 

ROBERT RICHARDSON, ASC

Depicting the final days of the Chicago mob in Vegas, the film was the culmination of Scorsese’s gangster trilogy, which started with Mean Streets and Goodfellas, then progressed to the Vegas wiseguys at the height of their power, before they self-immolated from greed. Casino involved a much larger canvas, with more than 289 scenes and six weeks of filming inside a working casino. Taking the classic crime movies shot by John Alton as their inspiration, the team updated that noir look with flashy saturated colors, swish pans, fast dolly moves, and bravura camerawork worthy of the story’s 1970s and ’80s world of excess. After their scout, Scorsese vanished to finish the script. Richardson made use of his time by drawing up a shot list. But upon presenting some pages to Scorsese, he learned he was dealing with a different type of director. Scorsese designed the shots, period. Richardson would stick to lighting and operating. “Marty doesn’t really want to hear your version of the shot, because it may unduly alter or influence the storyboarding of the sequence created in his imagination,” explains Legato, a veteran of eight Scorsese projects. But about halfway through Casino’s production—and increasingly as the years rolled by—Scorsese became more open to Richardson’s refining his shots and adjusting their choreography. “They had a pretty great relationship,” Legato observes. “Marty got used to coming up with the bones of the shot, then had Bob fill in the blanks and turn it into art. On the Bob and Marty movies, the combo artistry is at a very high level.” —Without Limits: Robert Richardson, American Cinematographer

The picture was Richardson’s first use of the Super 35 format, for which he had mixed feelings. “I was a bit hesitant because Super 35 forces you to have a reduced-quality negative at the final stage,” he told AC. “It’s an entirely optical process—a blow-up from the first frame to the last. From what I’ve seen, I’m happy with what we’ve achieved. [At the time of this interview, the cinematographer had not yet seen the completed film.] Furthermore, the primary reason why I didn’t press to use anamorphic was that Martin’s shots often require an adjustment on a zoom during the shot. To shoot anamorphic with a zoom was impossible at the lighting levels I wanted to work at—from T2.8 to T4. I also wanted to shoot Kodak’s 5393 or 5248 whenever I possibly could because of the blow-up process.” The desert scene featuring DeNiro and Pesci was shot with two cameras, as were many others in the picture. “My initial plan there was to use backlight,” Richardson told AC. “Because I knew we’d have daylight that approximates noon all day, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The light is very steep. I was hoping to use backlight as much as we could and then cover the characters for the remainder of the sequences. But by the time we got into this sequence with Bob and Joe, I realized that Martin wanted to cover both actors simultaneously to catch the improvisation. So we went with hard, direct light instead—backlight on Joe and and hard frontal light on Bob. The result was a far more saturated visual look, pulling and using the blues of the desert skin strong contrast to the almost white, dry-lake feel of the landscape.” —Beyond The Frame: Casino, American Cinematographer

 

THELMA SCHOONMAKER

“That was a much more sprawling film, and meant to be, so that was much more difficult to get down. You know, it is almost three hours long as well. Yeah, that was harder. It was a more complicated story, so that was harder and the re-writing of the voice over was hard. But we re-wrote the Goodfellas voiceover a lot too. You do when you’re using voice over in a movie. We re-wrote the voice over on Wolf a lot. But in Casino particularly we re-wrote it a lot and restructured a bit. It was harder to wrestle to the ground than Goodfellas, which man it just knew where it was going. When Casino came out it was panned. Everybody said, ‘Oh, it’s not Goodfellas.’ That’s right, it’s not Goodfellas, it’s Las Vegas. It’s a whole different thing. Now it has this huge cult following, which happens so much with Marty’s movies. It takes sometimes ten years—it took ten years for Raging Bull to be recognized. It was not a success when it came out, it took ten years and now look how it’s looked at. It’s looked at like a benchmark film. That happens a lot with Marty’s movies. Maybe that’s because they’re unusual, they’re out on the edge a bit and people don’t know what to make of them, and then with time they just are relished. Bringing out the Dead is the one we’re waiting to be recognized. I hear all these rumblings from all kinds of people who tell me how much they love Bringing out the Dead, but it’s never gotten its due.” —Thelma Schoonmaker

 
Moments with Martin Scorsese, Thelma Schoonmaker, Barbara De Fina, Nicholas Pileggi, Rita Ryack, Frank Vincent, and Sharon Stone. This is not a screen-specific commentary, but seems to be a collection of comments taken from interviews, recorded separately.

 
The legendary Don Rickles slams Robert De Niro’s Method Acting on the set of Casino.

 
Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese pay tribute to Don Rickles.

 
Don Rickles, Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese share behind-the-scenes moments from filming Casino, talk about Don’s friendship with the real Ace Rothstein, Lefty Rosenthal, and how Don was able to get away with teasing people like Frank Sinatra and Johnny Carson.

 
In loving memory of Don Rickles (1926–2017)

Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Martin Scorsese’s Casino. Photographed by Phillip V. Caruso © Universal Pictures, Syalis DA, Légende Entreprises, De Fina-Cappa, GGG. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post Paradise Lost: How Martin Scorsese’s ‘Casino’ Charts the Rise and Fall of a Criminal Empire appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

‘Point Blank’: John Boorman’s Amalgamation of American, British and French Filmmaking Styles

$
0
0

 
By Koraljka Suton

British filmmaker John Boorman started out by making documentaries for the BBC before getting a chance to direct his first feature film, the 1965 Catch Us If You Can (known in the US under the name Having a Wild Weekend) starring members of the then-popular British group The Dave Clark Five. Although the director considered it to be a minor movie, it nonetheless helped him make a name for himself in Hollywood: “I’ve been very fortunate. When Catch Us If You Can opened in America, it was highly praised by one or two critics, particularly Pauline Kael [of The New Yorker]. In her perverse way she overpraised it tremendously—but it had a very good effect for me. People started sending me scripts and offers from America. She could just as easily have panned it, because she was completely unpredictable.” Subsequently, he caught the attention of MGM and Hollywood press agent Judd Bernard. Boorman seemed to have left quite an impression on Bernard, for the latter offered him a script for a film called Point Blank and arranged a meeting between the director and Academy Award-winning actor Lee Marvin who was just filming The Dirty Dozen (1967) in London. The director disliked the screenplay written by Rafe and David Newhouse but was fascinated with its protagonist—and as it turned out, the popular actor shared the same sentiment and was impressed with Boorman’s ideas in regards to re-writing the script. Although Marvin had never seen any of Boorman’s work, he asked the filmmaker whether he would like to make the movie with him. The script in question was an adaptation of the crime thriller novel The Hunter, written by Donald Westlake under the name Richard Stark. At first meant to be a stand-alone novel, The Hunter eventually became the first in a series about a professional criminal called Parker—after having read the manuscript, Westlake’s editor offered to publish up to three Parker novels annually. Although the writer could not keep that tempo up, during the next forty-six years he nevertheless managed to write twenty-three more novels centering around the hardened protagonist. Westlake’s books were the inspiration for many a movie, with The Hunter also being the basis of Brian Helgeland’s 1999 neo-noir Payback with Mel Gibson in the titular role. But as opposed to Helgeland’s adaptation, which was not at all critically acclaimed, Boorman’s Point Blank not only broke new ground, but also received much deserved praise.

Lucky for Boorman that he had the opportunity to meet with Lee Marvin—once the two decided to work together, Marvin dismissed the screenplay and set up a meeting with his agent, the producers, the studio and Boorman. As the director recalled in the Point Blank DVD audio commentary: “[Marvin] said, ‘I have script approval?’ They said ‘yes’. ‘And I have approval of principal cast?’. ‘Yes’. He said, ‘I defer all those approvals to John [Boorman].’ And he walked out. So on my very first film in Hollywood, I had final cut and I made use of it.” There were ultimately four versions of the screenplay, written by Alexander Jacobs in collaboration with Boorman, the second draft being an amalgamation of letters he sent to the director in Hollywood, as well as the letters and phone calls he received from him. Significant contributions to the movie were also made by Johnny Mandel and his remarkable score, Henry Berman and his editing talents, as well as cinematographer Philip H. Lathrop, who had also worked with Orson Welles and whose camerawork on Point Blank verges on the avant-garde. The finished product was shown to the executives, who were more confused than impressed, discussing the notion of possible re-shoots. Luckily for Boorman, legendary editor Margaret Booth was also among those who Point Blank was shown to. As the executives were leaving, she told the director: “You touch one frame of this film over my dead body.” Thanks to Booth’s few helpful suggestions, the movie was tweaked in a way that no cuts or re-shoots were ever required.

 
Originally, the movie was to be shot in San Francisco, but when Boorman eventually visited the city for the very first time, he realized it was a far cry from what he had been looking for: “It was all soft, romantic, pastel shades—a very beautiful place—but the complete opposite of what I wanted for the film. I wanted my setting to be hard, cold and, in a sense, futuristic. I wanted an empty, sterile world, for which Los Angeles was absolutely right.” Even though the producers were against this idea, they ultimately agreed to it because it turned out that shooting in Los Angeles would be less expensive. But the opening and closing scenes, the ones taking place in Alcatraz prison, were shot on location, making Point Blank the first movie ever to be filmed at the once-notorious federal penitentiary which had been shut down three years before the movie went into production. The film’s cast and its 125 crewmembers shot there for two weeks, during the course of which actresses Angie Dickinson and Sharon Acker posed in temporary fashion items for Life Magazine, with the prison as the backdrop. Acker and Dickinson play sisters in the movie, with the former portraying Lynne, wife of Marvin’s character who goes solely by his last name Walker (changed from Parker). We meet them intercepting i.e., robbing a crime operation taking place at the abandoned prison. With them is Mal Reese (John Vernon), the couple’s supposed friend. Not even five minutes into the movie, Reese turns out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing and shoots Walker, leaving him for dead, before running away with the entirety of the stolen money—and Lynne herself. It is at this point that Walker’s journey begins, as he somehow miraculously survives a number of gunshot wounds and swims his way to the shore, his only plan and ultimate driving motive being getting even by recovering the money he is owed, no matter the cost or casualties. Starting with a visit to his wife, Walker sets off on a mission to find the man who took everything from him. Chaos ensues, shots are fired, lives are lost. And Walker remains unfazed by everything that comes his way, his heart set solely on the $93,000 he was tricked out of.

Boorman’s noir classic is revered for a number of reasons, one of them being the fact that Point Blank, although substantially adhering to the tropes of the neo-noir genre, managed to be not only highly innovative, but also an amalgamation of American, British and French influences. The American and British parts of the equation have already been covered—with Westlake’s source material and the rugged male protagonist effortlessly portrayed by Marvin representing the American and director Boorman’s discerning eye capturing Los Angeles’ modernist architecture, painting an unpretty picture with underlying shades of orange, khaki and avocado, symbolizing the British. When it comes to what is French about Point Blank, the director did not shy away from the fact that the impressionist painter Pierre-August Renoir served as an influence. But it is impossible not to notice that the fingerprints of French New Wave filmmakers such as Jean Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut and Alain Resnais (Last Year at Marienbad) can be seen all over Boorman’s crime thriller. For the director’s use of narrative structure is fragmented, with its dream-like quality sucking the viewers in and forcing them to find their way through the movie’s fractured timeline and discombobulated rhythms, its slow and long scenes heavily disrupted by abrupt violent outbursts. The past and the present mash and collide—with flashbacks being poetically motivated, as opposed to narratively—scenes we had already seen repeat themselves, the ending is both ambiguous and highly symbolic and the sound effects, the minimalist score, as well as voiceovers, are utilized to confuse the viewers and make them feel as if they had intruded upon someone else’s dream. Or rather someone else’s nightmare, depending on one’s viewpoint.

 
All of this is in no way accidental, for Boorman’s subjective style is meant to make us question whether the events that had come to pass really occurred, or if they were just a dream of a dying man who uses his last waking moments to imagine what it would be like to exercise his vengeance and forcefully get back that which was taken from him. However, the director dismissed such prevailing theories, emphasizing that “what you see is what you get” when it comes to his movie. Nonetheless, this has not stopped cinephiles from vehemently sticking to alternate theories, among others director Steven Soderbergh who, apart from regularly stressing the extent of Point Blank’s influence on his own work, sees it as an examination of (Marvin’s) memory. It could be said that Boorman did not disagree, for the only hint at a subtext he ever gave was claiming the film was inspired by Lee Marvin’s prior military career and the horrors he experienced during World War II. The actor, born in 1924, joined the Marines at the tender age of 17 and participated in the Pacific War. It is said that the Japanese had ambushed his platoon in 1944, leaving Marvin wounded in the behind. Boorman stated: “His whole platoon was wiped out, except for one other person. And he felt himself to be a coward lying there, and he never lost that. It was survival guilt—and it didn’t help that he had been shot in the arse. Not because he was running away, but because he was lying down when he was wounded.” The director claimed that the actor had thus strived to reclaim the humanity he felt had been lost due to the unspeakable trauma of war—and playing a merciless character such as Walker who seemingly cheats death and embarks on a journey of revisiting him former life appears to have been Marvin’s attempt at working through said personal war trauma.

The character of Walker, who never reveals his first name, remains just as much of a mystery as the answer to the previously mentioned burning question about the film’s subtext audiences have been posing for decades. He is violent, single-minded and goal-oriented, exhibiting no fear in the face of danger and solely going after what he wants (the money!), possible consequences be damned. He looms over the other characters’ heads like an ominous presence, acting in accordance with his mission, but also discerningly observing and, more patiently than he would probably like, waiting for all the players to make their moves so he could either gather new pieces of much-needed information or proceed onto the next person in a chain of people presumably leading him to his money. Interestingly enough, Walker himself does not eliminate a single person—he is merely there, witnessing the events as they unfold and playing his part in the scenes he set up as they unravel before him. But he never once deals the fatal blow—the characters take care of that themselves, either by committing suicide, assassinating each other or accidentally falling to their deaths. Walker, the assumed ruthless killing-machine, goes the entirety of the movie without actually murdering anyone. Ingenious? I would certainly say so.

 
And Marvin was the perfect actor to embody one such persona. When asked by Stuart Kemp of The Hollywood Reporter about talented actors he had worked with, the director stated the following: “I learned an enormous amount from Lee Marvin about film acting, about the way in which you relate to the camera and his physicality; he was like a ballet dancer. And he was very daring as an actor. He would try anything. He never held back.” The character’s aloofness, best seen during all the fragmented conversations he leads, is what showcases him as a man alienated from others, but also from himself. His tendency to suppress basic human emotion renders him incapable of holding a conversation—the other person is usually the one who talks or acts. After coming back from the dead and bursting into Lynne’s apartment, their conversation is exclusively one-sided—she is the one doing the talking and the reminiscing, with Walker just sitting there beside her, mute, expressionless and immovable. In another scene, one featuring Lynne’s sister and Walker, we see the former repeatedly hitting the latter and working up quite a sweat, with Walker just standing there and taking it, motionless and emotionless. The end result is her falling to the floor and him walking over to the couch to watch a TV program where an actor talks about “neurotic inertia,” which is a term used to describe “a paralysis of initiative and action,” stemming from “a strong alienation from self.” Such is the character of Walker—unable to act when confronted with intense emotion and other human-like qualities, due to his inability to connect with himself and what he actually feels. The only emotions he does exhibit are those related to his sole goal—the acquisition of the money owed to him.

As he progresses up the ladder in order to find the person that can actually pay him in full, he finds out that the job of getting to the top—or to the bottom of things, if you will—is in no way an easy one, for his former friend Mal had worked for an organization called, quite literally, the Organization, a business that seems too powerful to either beat or negotiate with. This is why it is not hard for the viewers to get involved in Walker’s quest, regardless of his emotionless character—for the antagonist is a much more menacing one, a beast with multiple heads and roots leading straight to hell. As Walker indirectly takes the heads off one by one, he is regaining a sense of control and autonomy, things that were taken away from him the moment he was shot and left for dead. But what he does not realize is that by taking down the Organization, he is, in fact, doing its bidding. For the heads may be easy to chop off, but if he does not tend to the root, his efforts may very well be in vain. Some critics claim that Point Blank could, therefore, be viewed through a prophetic lens, symbolizing the director’s own fight against the Organization called Hollywood, which would ensue in the years to come, with the individualistic auteur striving to keep his sense of personal artistry amidst the oppressing filmmaking machinery.

 
Boorman’s first American film was shot at a time when studios were in desperate need of films that would attract audiences to theaters. Although that goal was not achieved, with Point Blank fairing averagely at the box office, unable to catch on with the viewers due to its fragmented narrative structure, the movie’s reputation and influence would come to grow in the years to come. Not only has it achieved cult status among audiences and filmmakers alike, but it has also been declared “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” by the United States Library of Congress, and selected for preservation in its National Film Registry. Lucky for Boorman and for us that Marvin took a chance on him in those early days of Point Blank’s conception, for that leap of faith resulted in the making of a true classic that combines the best of the American and European filmmaking styles of the time.

Written by Koraljka Suton. Koraljka is a member of the Croatian Society of Film Critics and has a master’s degree in German and English. For her thesis, she did a comparative analysis of Spielberg’s ‘Band of Brothers’ and ‘The Pacific’. Koraljka trained at a Zagreb-based acting studio for six years and fell in love with Michael Chekhov and Lee Strasberg’s acting techniques. She is also a contemporary dancer and a Reiki master who believes in the transformative quality of art. Read more »

 
We sort of contrived this movie, and he knew how difficult it was going to be to do a radical film in Hollywood terms. So when I got there, he called a meeting with the studio head and producers. He reminded them that he had cast and script approval for it, and he said, “I’m deferring that privilege to John”—and he walked out. They lost the film and gave me just these angry looks. They couldn’t do anything about it. Lee was great all the way through. He was a drunk, an alcoholic, but it never got in the way of the work. He never drank when we were shooting. Toward the end of the film, we went out to San Francisco to shoot in Alcatraz. I was exhausted at that point, and I just lost it. I didn’t know how to put the scene together. Lee looked across at me, and he came over and he said, “Are you in trouble?” I said, “Yeah, I’m trying to figure this out.” So he went across, and he then acted drunk. He started shouting and singing and falling over, and the production manager came over and said, “Have you seen the state Lee’s in? We can’t shoot him like that. We’ve got to get him some black coffee.” So once the pressure was off, in five minutes, I worked it out. I went over and said to Lee, “Okay, we’re ready,” and he made this miraculous recovery from drunkenness to sobriety. That was really something.John Boorman looks back

Screenwriter must-read: Alexander Jacobs’ screenplay for Point Blank [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Alexander Jacobs discusses the process of adapting Westlake’s novel, the conflicts involved in getting the script to screen, and his approach to screenwriting, Film Quaterly, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Winter 1968—Winter 1969), pp. 2-14.

How did the script for Point Blank come to be written?
There were three main versions of the script. The first I did during my first stay in Hollywood, in four weeks, and that consisted of writing the script once and then rewriting it completely. I only had four weeks because I was working on a picture in England. John gave me the script that the Newhouses had written, which was a craftsman-like piece of work but very old-fashioned. And the idea was to make a thriller that was enterprising. What I argued from the beginning was we couldn’t make an Asphalt Jungle, we couldn’t make a Harper, we couldn’t make a Sweet Smell of Success. I thought all those days were over—television had scraped them clean. We had to do something completely fresh. We wanted to make a film that was a half reel ahead of the audience, that was the whole idea. We made a vow that we’d have no people getting in and out of cars, no shots of car doors opening and closing, unless there was a really important reason. And then I wrote a second version which consisted mainly of long letters from me in England to John in Hollywood, plus long telephone conversations on casting and all sorts of things, and of course letters from John, which were amalgamated into a second-draft script. And then I went out to San Francisco on the shooting of the picture the first two weeks. The ending and the beginning of the film take place in San Francisco and that’s where we shot. I then wrote a lot more stuff including a completely new ending and a new beginning, some of which was done in script form, some of which was in discussion, and some of which was literally dictated to a girl and rushed out to location as they were shooting. This included the whole idea of using the sightseeing boat as a means of linking the past and the present I wrote a new ending which wasn’t used. I don’t really agree with the ending in the film at the moment—I think it’s evasive—but that’s the one that was finally shot.

What was your ending like?
We had a grandstand ending which I liked very much, because it seemed to me to be sort of Wagnerian in its own way. In this fort, Fort Point in San Francisco, you had Yost revealing himself to Walker and tempting Walker to join him, and Walker is half-tempted and half-shattered by his experiences and by the fact that he’s been used as a dupe for the whole film; all his passion, all his energy, all his madness were being used—he was like a puppet being manipulated and he becomes absolutely incensed, and he advances upon Yost who has a gun, and Yost is suddenly terrified by this mad force, because Walker is now completely insane. And Walker just advances upon him—he’s going to kill him with his bare hands, a complete animal, he’s frothing at the mouth. And Yost shoots him three times and the three bullets miss. Yost actually cannot shoot this force. He tries, his hands shake, and he suddenly realizes his age; suddenly his age sinks through him like a flood, like a great stone sucking him under, and he’s a completely old man, and he steps backward and falls off the parapet and dies. And Walker comes to at the edge of the parapet, and shaken and quivering is led away by the girl out into the world again. This was the ending we had. And I thought it bordered on the melodramatic, I thought it was really dangerous, but I thought it was a marvelous way of going for an ending to a myth, if you like. And I don’t know the ins and outs of it, but it wasn’t played that way, so I came up with other endings.

Were there other disagreements over various scenes in the film?
I can give you a very specific example—the scene when Brewster (Carroll O’Connor) arrives home and Lee has been waiting for him, and demands his money. John shot that scene before we went to San Francisco and ran the picture for me so I was completely in touch with what was happening. Now the Brewster scene was quite clearly shot wrongly. He had shot it almost as scripted but in fact had cut out a crucial love scene which is prior to the Brewster scene. It’s a scene where Angie and Lee not only make love but become extraordinarily intimate, and he begins to talk to her for the first time and tell her his fears and in fact reveals that this drive is something that he’s generated in himself and that is now dissipating him and wearing him out and crumbling him, and that he’s frightened of it. He’s frightened of where it’s going to lead him, he’s frightened of the way he cannot control it. And I think that would have matched in with my ending very well indeed. Well, John said it wasn’t possible to shoot it or that he couldn’t shoot it and he didn’t want to. So in this sequence with Brewster the trouble was that because you didn’t have the previous love scene, and because the actor, Carroll O’Connor, is a very strong and intelligent actor, you got a complete unbalance to the scene. There are three peaks in the scene, and Carroll O’Connor took them all from Lee, which is not only dramatically wrong, it’s psychologically wrong, and it’s plot wrong, which is the most crucial point. And I pointed this out to John and he agreed, and he reshot the second half of the scene, and I think if you look very closely you’ll see that the second half of that scene is shot with a different light and at a different area, because I don’t think we could get back to the original location again. We changed it so that in the end Lee became the dominant one, which led on to the ending that we finally shot, but I think if we’d had the love scene, the scene as originally scripted in Brewster’s house could have worked.

Another change was in the wake sequence, the sequence when, after his wife’s committed suicide, the house is sort of stripped bare. The whole idea in that sequence was to show Walker completely revealed, but to no one else except himself. And the second revelation is when Walker at long last comes out of the abyss and reveals himself to the woman. The first time is when he’s in this house and he looks round and a wall is stripped bare; he looks again, the bed is gone; he looks again and the carpets have gone and his feet begin to echo over the place, and he starts packing his wife’s goods and he smells her panties and a bra, and he packs away photographs or trinkets or Welcome to Hawaii or something like that. What you get is a great sense of revelation, which is very strange and completely inside his head in many ways. And this isn’t shot in that way. I think John argues that there are really subtle touches where Lee does show certain sorts of warmth, but my general impression is that he’s too frozen-faced throughout. We showed the film to Hashimoto, one of Kurosawa’s scriptwriters, the man who’s worked with him a long time. He loved it, was very excited by it, but he said, ‘I think you should have been closer on his eyes,’ which is a marvellously perceptive view of the film, because that’s the trouble—it is, I think, too cold-blooded.

How do you feel about the wake sequence as it is filmed?
I don’t think it works. I don’t like it. I like some of its ideas, I think it is very strange, but I think it’s strange because it’s baffling and not strange because it’s got quality and atmosphere. It isn’t developed properly. You should see each room vanish as he walks through it; instead, there are times when you really don’t know whether he’s just walked from an empty room into an empty room. There should have been changes in his shirts and his face. John argues that there are changes; he says the beard gets a bit longer, but who’s going to notice that? You needed something much bolder, much clearer.

The differences in the wake sequence are interesting, because they do reveal a real difference in temperament. He did make the film colder, as you say, just through very subtle sorts of changes.
Well, I think that’s exactly the sort of relationship between writers and directors that is interesting to discuss. I mean, when you have a director as strong as John, and I suppose when you have a writer with ideas like I have, many times it’s a very happy amalgamation, as it has been with him. And of course the next step is for the writer to direct. Incidentally, the film did extraordinarily well. I don’t think it’s the greatest blockbuster of all time, but I know MGM are happy with what it finally made and all the rest of it; it’s done very well in Europe and so forth. In fact, it’s given us all a great boost. But I would argue that the film would have been even more popular with this warmer quality to it. I don’t mean by that pandering to the audience, but I mean making Lee more human, less monsterish, less zombie, less killer, if you like—although he doesn’t actually kill a single person in the picture. I think the problem is that that sort of implacable, never-let-up drive is not human, and while it would have been marvelous to have continued our myth that he literally comes from the underground, roams over the surface of the earth for a brief while, then goes back into the shadows—well, by introducing the girl and all sorts of other things, we obviously go away from the essential myth. But by making him variable, by giving him variations of pace, by giving him changes of character, we would have made him human, and—I think much more understandable.

I think it’s quite possible that lots of people were repelled by the drive of the picture, which is frenetic. We did it for a reason. Both of us were extraordinarily attracted by Los Angeles—I still am—and we both hated San Francisco, hated it in the sense that it wasn’t for our picture, and it was very much a touristy sort of town, a town sort of on the asshole of America, it seemed to me. If you couldn’t face the Middle West and the West and what modern America is, you retreated to San Francisco and hung on for your dear life. It’s a very sweet sort of city, but it’s obviously not America. I love L.A. because it seems to me to be absolutely what America is, at least one aspect of America, and it doesn’t kid around, you know, you either take it or you don’t take it.

What are some other examples of differences between script and film, where you feel this warmer quality is lost?
Well, where he does come alive in a much richer way is the wooing of his wife down by the waterfront, the whole of the flashback sequence there, which I think is beautifully done and far beyond any hopes I would have had at that point. And I thought there should have been indications of that sort of thing in the rest of the picture. But it doesn’t come again. The whole absence of Angie at the end of the picture is a very important clue. But the crucial change is the sequence when she beats him and falls to the floor and then taunts him through the intercom about ‘You’re really dead…’ Now it seems to me that those lines are absolutely crucial, and they’ve got to be said. You can’t have them in this abstract way over the soundtrack through a round black piece of mesh through which the girl’s voice floats. That’s exactly the point where it’s got to be a confrontation between two human beings. And while I think it’s brilliantly shot sequence and some very inventive ideas. it’s really for laughs, and I think the audience reaction is one of laughs basically, and it isn’t revealing on any other level. And then if you’d gone into that very long and tender love scene after that, you would have obviously had a different picture.

Another change, which is more indirect but equally important, is the first time he meets Angie, when he awakens her in her bedroom and she finds out her sister’s dead. And at the end of that scene, I wrote that a certain intimacy begins to grow between them—she’s lying there in bed, the blankets back, her hair tousled, one shoulder bare, and suddenly a sexual element enters the scene, and it’s the temptation that is going to grow increasingly. Now that’s not shown in the film at all. It’s done in a two-shot, a lot of it done from behind Lee’s head or just to the side of Lee. But what you don’t see is a growing intimacy that should have come through a track-in, a slightly different composition, a feeling of warmth and then a drawing back again. This is in the script, it’s not in the picture.

All of these changes are consistent.
I think another point worth thinking about is that I feel there is very definitely an Anglo-Saxon attitude towards art and a non-Anglo-Saxon attitude towards art, particularly visual art. I think Anglo-Saxon culture tends toward a form of social observation. The artist sees himself and is seen as an observer of society, in which personal investigation and a personal viewpoint and a personal passion about life are less important than a highly skilled, very effective, and brilliant sketching in and drawing of a social page. Whereas it seems to me that the non-Anglo-Saxon attitude is much more towards personal investigation, a personal, passionate view of a situation, of people, often hopelessly unfair, but uniquely and individually the maker’s own. And it may well be that part of the tension between writers and directors in English-speaking cinema is that if the writer isn’t Anglo-Saxon, as I’m not—I’m Jewish and I’m certainly not Anglo-Saxon—whereas the director isn’t Jewish and is Anglo-Saxon, it could be that that’s where the dichotomy really takes place; in my view in the script, which is more passionate and warmer and richer, to my mind, than John’s, is eschewed by John because he does have this Anglo-Saxon training. I think that’s one view of it which is perfectly possible.

There’s another factor that’s strange. I think the great problem with writers and directors is to know when to change the role in the progress of the picture. I think at the beginning the writer is totally inside the picture, with the director and occasionally the producer, if you’ve got a genuinely creative producer—like Ray Wagner, the man I’m working for at the moment—outside the material, and it’s the tension between those two positions which creates the material. Then I think when the picture begins the director becomes totally involved with the material, he’s totally inside the material, and it’s the writer, and perhaps the producer, who is outside the material. But of course in most cases in the English-speaking cinema, the writer’s paid off and that’s the end of it. In Point Blank that was exactly my position. At the end of four weeks, I was sent back to England and that was that. It was only because of my relationship with John, these constant phone calls and letters, that I was able to have any effect whatsoever. And then of course John’s plea for me to come out for two weeks in San Francisco and help him again, which the producers agreed to. But under normal circumstances, you complete the script and that’s the end of it. And of course if you write pictures which are purely a stimulus for the director to go on, you’ve got to make sure you’ve got the director who can do that. I mean John is someone—I may disagree with his view of the picture—but I know that he can take it on from there. He’s a very strong director, and this means that he’ll argue and fight for what he wants and be prepared to give up the picture if he doesn’t get it. In that sense he’s very good, in that sense he deserves everything he gets. But there are many directors who are very craftsmanlike interpreters and no more. One needs to give them a different script.

How do you write for a director who is nothing but a craftsman?
Well, the first thing you have to do is to turn down work if you think that in the end you’re not going to be happy with the director. I mean one of the great problems in the English-speaking film business is your own artistic growth. A Bergman can do twelve, fourteen films before a Seventh Seal, and each of them some form of development, some form of change, some exploration. In the English-speaking cinema it’s hit and miss, catch as catch can, what comes up. Under those circumstances writers and directors and to some extent actors, I believe, have to shape their careers as purposefully as they can. And I think this involves somehow or other not doing pictures that you know are just going to be shot, trying to work with the best directors you can, and if you can’t, if through reasons of finance or contract you’ve got to take pictures—and this happens to all of us sooner or later—then I think you’ve got to find themes that you can exploit or explore to some extent in terms of your own progression. For example, I think in the English-speaking cinema, to survive, you’ve got to accept that certain genres work, certain modes are in, certain modes are out, and there are times when you can only set up films under certain conditions.

Now it seems to me if that is the case, what you’ve got to do is find a way through that genre, say with Point Blank, through a thriller, to investigate certain aspects of life that interest you. I mean I would not have chosen a thriller, frankly, but that was the way it came up. Obviously to some extent this maims you, you can only limp; you can run certain times and limp at others, but at least you make progress. It seems to me in the English-speaking world—and I make this distinction very sharply, because I think the view towards the cinema by producers and by money people in Europe is a bit different, it’s not vastly different but it’s a bit different—in the English-speaking cinema to survive either you sit in the hills like a Bresson and come down once every five years, or else you’ve got to get in the middle and put your talent on the line every day. And one hopes the talent will be there at 75 and not go out at 57, or be there at 57 and not go out at 27; but you’ve got to put your talent on the line every day. And you do put it on the line every day, because there’s an enormous amount of money to be made, there are lots of temptations, it’s very easy to relax. I think that with a writer or a director in the English-speaking cinema, then, you’ve somehow got to fashion your career as a series of progressions…

I don’t think there’s one solution, I think there are individual answers, and each one is a risk. I’m only interested in exploring my own development, and obviously I must go on and direct as soon as I can, and I’m trying to direct now. In one sense it’s easy to be a writer. You don’t have to deal with actors and actresses, you don’t have to fight with money men very often—not to that extent; you may have rows with the producer. It’s one thing to write it, another thing to shoot it, believe me, and there’s a huge difference between the two. So I think the challenge for a writer is either to go on and become a director, or to become a producer, which is less of a challenge but I can see it, or else to shut up. If writers see their work going down the drain, if they see scenes not realized, if they really are not too happy with directors, if they find in the end they settle for a good craftsman-like director, or if they find that a really inventive, individual director mangles their material, then they must direct. If they don’t, they’ve got to take their money and run, or else write their novels and write their plays or write whatever they want.

I’m interested in what you said about working in a cinema which is not oriented towards personal expression. You have concerns and obsessions that you want to explore, and yet everything in the film industry is working against that. Is this finally crippling?
Yes. Yes. I suppose I’m being very pessimistic now actually; normally I’m much more optimistic. I think that in the English-speaking cinema our development is maimed. We will never reach our full potential. And I think like everything in Anglo-Saxon life, you settle for the next best thing. You hope to fight till the day you die. You try and keep yourself as sharp as possible, you do this very consciously…

Let me ask about the kinds of things that you write in a script. You mentioned that you try to evoke a mood for a scene rather than writing details of camera angles.
Oh, I never write camera angles, ever, because that’s entirely the director’s prerogative anyway, and very often they’re impractical, because you write without seeing locations or anything else. Now that I’m in a position to choose, I try only to work closely with a director. The director’s nominated in advance, so I know with whom I’m working. Secondly, I now try more and more to work directly with a star. I think in English-speaking cinema you’ve got to work with stars, because that’s the reality of the business; and the thing to do is to find out the archetypal image of the star you’re working with and fashion something according to that.

Now that doesn’t just mean horses for courses, but it means working with the star, as in Lee Marvin’s case, to reveal not only the peaks that his audience is used to seeing, or her audience is used to seeing, but also the valleys that the audience has never seen before. If I can’t work directly with the star, I try to write a general sort of image figure of what we’re after, and then as soon as the star is nominated, I would come back on the picture even for free and write for a week to try and get the dialogue nearer the image of the star. But of course ideally, as on Point Blank, we worked closely with Lee, on the script, on the floor, on the cutting. He was a very important contributor. That’s the first thing. By the very nature of my interest in the cinema, I have a shrewd idea of what directors are about. That is, a certain director is suggested to me or else he’s going to work with me; I see his films or I’ve seen his films, I have an idea about his particular interests and obsessions. You find certain attitudes and areas in common, and then I think you must work within those areas. This is a sort of limitation, I suppose. But this is one of the realities we face within the business, and I want to work within the business. And then my personal desire is to go right into the center of a subject in the first scene.

Normally I do not like to have a long buildup. I think you’ve got to get the audience by the scruff of the neck and shove them into your mood and into your milieu and into your atmosphere and into your world straight away; if you don’t do that, I think you have lots of problems. I don’t think it’s a matter of pace or speed or action, because all these things are unimportant. In Point Blank, for example, again and again the dynamic comes because of the cut. We never show policemen, we never show explanations, we let the audience think about them afterwards. Like when Angie’s house is smashed up, well, obviously, the gang have been there, why bother with all the explanations? That’s all nonsense. I like to get the audience and well, you know, really push them onto the bed as it were, really get them going. I hate unnecessary explanations, I hate spare flesh on a script, I’m absolutely obsessed with cutting off every inch of spare flesh. This even goes for descriptive lines in the paragraphs, for instance if it was ‘John and Mary walk across the road’: I’d rather say, ‘They cross,’ and leave it at that; I’m as stupid about it as that. But I do feel that that gives it a ranginess and a sparseness. You know, the ribcage is well-stretched, it’s on the balls of its feet, it’s dancing. And I like to do that with the dialogue and I like to do that with the story, I like to do it with the characters. But this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going fast—I’m not mad about galloping horses—but what I like is that sense of tension, that sense of dynamism, which is often the juxtaposition between two sequences. You know, you jump a whole passage of time, and the audience pant up with you halfway through the scene, which I think is the way to go.

So you don’t feel dialogue is most important in writing a scene?
Oh no, no, no. I mean, one of the great problems in Hollywood is a ‘great script,’ it’s got ‘great lines,’ and I hate those sorts of scripts, because I think that at best most film dialogue is what I call signpost dialogue—‘Go here,’ ‘come there,’ ‘grab this,’ ‘go after this,’ you know, or ‘how are you.’ I think much more is done with looks and with body movements. Obviously a certain amount of information has to be given over, and obviously one doesn’t do that in the dullest way; one does that in the freshest way one can, obviously dialect and colloquialism have to be taken into account. But I think dialogue should be kept to a minimum. In fact, I think in Point Blank the first script had under 100 lines of dialogue, and that included words like ‘Yes’ and ‘Okay’ as a line of dialogue. I think you say one or two words or one or two lines that are really pithy, and the rest goes by the boards. That’s why my scripts are very much directors’ scripts and often make the studios a bit uneasy when they read them, because they don’t have ‘great lines’ and they don’t have ‘great descriptions.’ What I like to do is to evoke a mood, I think that’s very important. I don’t think our words are sacrosanct. The stuff we write is very much the stimulus for a director to take off…

 

“ALEX JACOBS’ SCRIPT OF ‘POINT BLANK’ WAS A REVELATION”

“Walter Hill just mentioned recently how much Alexander Jacobs’ script for John Boorman’s Point Blank influenced him. In an interview for Patrick McGilligan in Backstory 4, Hill talked about the ‘revelation’ of reading Jacobs’ script. Hill had been laboring as a screenwriter, but was never comfortable with the template most Hollywood scripts required of him, which he said was ‘a subliterary blueprint for shooting a picture and generally had no personal voice.’ Hill admired Point Blank greatly, but on the page, Jacob’s work showed him a new way of writing: ‘Laconic, elliptical, suggestive rather than explicit, bold in the implied editorial style.’ And from that example, Hill’s own writing—and later, directing—took on what he calls an almost ‘haiku-like’ economy. At Hill’s best, his work as writer and director is as tight as a clenched fist, with not a word wasted in the dialogue and a simplicity of expression that extends from character development to the diamond-tight action sequences on which he built his reputation.” —Walter Hill 101: The Auteur

Alex Jacobs’ script of Point Blank was a revelation. He was a friend (wonderful guy, looked like a pirate, funny and crazy). This revelation came about despite a character flaw of mine. I have always had difficulty being complimentary to people whose work I admire, when face-to-face with them. This is not the norm in Hollywood where effusiveness is generally a given. Anyway, a mutual friend told Alex how much I admired Point Blank and John Boorman. Alex then very graciously gave me a copy of the script. This was about the time he was doing The Seven-Ups (1973). Anyway, by now I’d been making a living as a screenwriter for maybe two or three years and had gotten to the point where I was dissatisfied with the standard form scripts were written in—they just all seemed to be a kind of subliterary blueprint for shooting a picture and generally had no personal voice. Mine were tighter and terser than the average, but I was still working with the industry template and not too happy about it. Alex’s script just knocked me out (not easy to do); it was both playable and literary. Written in a whole different way than standard format (laconic, elliptical, suggestive rather than explicit, bold in the implied editorial style), I thought Alex’s script was a perfect compliment to the material, hard, tough, and smart—my absolute ideals then. —Walter Hill

 
John Boorman speaks about shooting his first feature film in color, Point Blank, and how his decision to shoot each scene in a single color made the film more powerful. —Visual History with John Boorman

 
John Boorman and Steven Soderbergh provide a fascinating commentary track included on the DVD of Point Blank.

Listen to POINT BLANK (1967) – audio commentary bysolomojo on hearthis.at

 

LEE MARVIN: A PERSONAL PORTRAIT BY JOHN BOORMAN

A tribute to the star of Point Blank. Lee Marvin: A Personal Portrait by John Boorman (BBC 1998, Dir John Boorman, 55 min) is both a tribute to and an anecdotal reminiscence about the star of Point Blank and Hell in the Pacific who was also Boorman’s friend. Affectionate, funny and illuminating.

 
In a rare and comprehensive interview conducted one year before his death, the legendary Lee Marvin reminisces about John Ford, John Wayne, Robert Aldrich, Fritz Lang, Michael Curtiz, Sam Fuller, and John Boorman, and such classics as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Donovan’s Reef, The Big Red One, The Dirty Dozen, Point Blank, his TV series M Squad, and winning the Oscar for Cat Ballou.

 
Here are some unpublished photos from the star-studded Point Blank wrap party, courtesy of the edit room floor.

 

ME AND ME DAD: A PORTRAIT OF JOHN BOORMAN

An intimate portrait about the iconic filmmaker John Boorman directed by his daughter Katrine. The story is told through the relationship of father and daughter, it is a journey about filmmaking, family conflict, love and reconciliation. Now over 80 years old, the director of Hell in the Pacific, Excalibur, Point Blank, Deliverance and The Emerald Forest is one of the last great mavericks. His daughter, who previously had never held a camera, spent four years filming her father who, during the process, found it impossible to resist taking control and offering her a crash course in filmmaking. Vulnerable, cross, funny, wild and wise, Boorman chronicles his adventures in Hollywood, but also talks with great honesty about his childhood, his marriages, his passion for nature, his need for danger and why film is the only thing he ever truly loved. Though the film is also a portrait of one of the most influential British filmmakers of the last 40 years, most of all it is a story of a father and daughter finding their way back to each other through the language of film.

 
Lee Marvin’s character of Walker is a physical force as terrifying as Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator… and this is clearly displayed as he takes “The 160 Angriest Steps in Cinema History” to begin his revenge on those who wronged him. Watch and listen as his unbroken, unstoppable momentum drives the story forward. Courtesy of Vashi Nedomansky.

 
Here’s another fascinating compilation of photographs taken behind-the-scenes during production of John Boorman’s Point Blank. Photographed by Virgil Apger © Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Winkler Films. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post ‘Point Blank’: John Boorman’s Amalgamation of American, British and French Filmmaking Styles appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.


How ‘Once Upon a Time in America’ Became Sergio Leone’s Butchered Swan Song

$
0
0

 
By Koraljka Suton

The great Italian director Sergio Leone established himself as the inventor of the spaghetti Western genre in the mid-1960s thanks to his Dollars trilogy (A Fistful of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) starring the legendary Clint Eastwood. His three following and equally adored films would become known as the Once Upon a Time trilogy and would end up spanning three decades—the first installment, called Once Upon a Time in the West, was released in 1968, the second one Duck, You Sucker! came out three years later in 1971, and the last one titled Once Upon a Time in America took him over a decade to make. During the 1960s, the director read the part-memoir, part-fiction novel The Hoods written by Harry Grey, a former Russian-American gangster whose real name was Herschel Goldberg and who, although hesitant at first, agreed to meet with Leone, only because he had seen and liked his Westerns. During their meeting, the director asked the not all too communicative Grey/Goldberg questions about his real-life experiences, to which the author only gave short answers, which was understandable due to his former lifestyle and the inevitable, justifiable paranoia that accompanied it. The two met several more times during the 1960s and 1970s, with Leone intending to understand the author’s perception of America better. Leone became so obsessed with turning the source material into a movie that, when approached by Paramount several years later, he even declined to make The Godfather. Little did the filmmaker know it would take him another ten years to get his passion project made and that it would, regrettably, be his very last one.

The first draft of the movie was written by American author Norman Mailer, known for the novel The Naked and The Dead and his Marilyn Monroe biography. But the task of making a comprehensible screenplay out of the director’s colossal story turned out not to be an easy one, for Leone remained thoroughly unimpressed, later on telling American Film “I’m sorry to say, he only gave birth to a Mickey Mouse version. Mailer, at least to my eyes, the eyes of an old fan, is not a writer for movies.” The shooting script was ultimately written by Italian screenwriters Leonardo Benvenuti, Piero De Bernardi, Enrico Medioli, Franco Arcalli, Franco Ferrini and Leone himself. The result was a 317-page long screenplay that was finished in 1981, with principal photography beginning on June 14, 1982 and ending on April 22, 1983. Robert De Niro was set to play the lead role, although he reportedly almost declined because the director peed on the toilet seat of the actor’s New York hotel suite, which De Niro interpreted as a power play. Luckily, the producer managed to convince him to take on the role of the protagonist called Noodles. Considered for the role of Noodles’ best friend Max were Harvey Keitel, John Belushi, Dustin Hoffman, John Malkovich and Jon Voight, until James Woods was cast. Brooke Shields was offered to play Noodles’ love interest Deborah Gelly, but the part then went to Elizabeth McGovern, with a young Jennifer Connelly playing her child self.

 
A great portion of the film was shot at the Cinecittà Studios in Rome, and several scenes were filmed in Paris, St. Petersburg, Florida and Montreal. But the parts that were shot in the United States were as authentic as can be—the Jewish neighborhood where a bulk of the story takes place was a street in Brooklyn that had been made to look the way it did in the 1920s. It was on those streets that the main characters of Leone’s movie spent their childhoods, resorting to petty crimes at first, only to progress to more serious ones as time went on. This segment of the characters’ lives is presented to us in flashbacks and is meant to be seen as a collection of the main protagonist’s memories. The first part of the movie sees a grown-up Noodles hiding from hitmen in an opium den and eventually leaving the city. Only after he returns thirty years later are we, the viewers, given extensive glimpses into his childhood and are acquainted with his merry band of misfits that we had thus far only known by name. Leone constantly goes back and forth in time, establishing not only the lives of his characters at different stages, but also three distinguished areas of American history: the poverty of Manhattan’s Jewish ghettos in the 1920s, criminal life during the 1930 Prohibition era and finally the dangerous streets of 1968 New York.

In an interview with Marlaine Glicksman, Leone stated the following about the United States: “America is so varied and exciting that after six months, you go back and find it completely changed. America interests me above all because it is so filled with contradictions, interesting contradictions, which change constantly. Even if you’ve decided that you don’t want to deal with that subject again, before you know it, the desire comes back to do it yet again. (…) The world is in America. In Italy is only Italy. France is full of France. Germany is full of Germany. In a continent that contains the entire world, contradictions are, of course, constantly arising. One of these contradictions that I like to sight is that two of the biggest moneymaking films in America were Mary Poppins and Deep Throat. One, of course, is the opposite of the other. But most likely seen by the same public.”

 
And Leone depicts this world that is “in America” not just beautifully, but also realistically. For he is first and foremost an artistic genius, dedicated to detailed, intricate and deeply intimate portrayals of lives lived, friendships betrayed and dreams broken. In Once Upon a Time in America, he deals with the illusion of the American Dream, as seen through the eyes of Jewish kids whose entire childhoods are drenched in poverty, with the prospect of crime being the only logical solution, for which there exist no feelings of remorse or guilt. It is a visceral depiction of toxic masculinity which still reigns supreme in today’s world, showing inherently broken children rising to power through violence and corruption. It is also a painfully accurate portrayal of inexcusable misogyny which was once considered a norm, with acts of violence (sexual and otherwise) against women shown in great detail and with little to no restraint. It is also a story of a man who feels inferior to the woman he claims to love, leading him to exercise his dominance the only way he knows how—and resulting in her leaving him behind to make use of her talents and build a respectable life and career for herself.

Once Upon a Time in America is also a narrative about our loyalties to one another, which more often than not lead to us sacrificing our own desires, wants and needs for the sake of life-long friendships that have become such a crucial part of our being, that giving them up would feel akin to dying. It is a story of a man who at one point comes to a forking in the road, but chooses to follow the path of least resistance and continues living the only life he has ever known, until it catches up with him. It is a tale of a human being who ends up exercising his free will and consciously choosing to believe a false narrative, so as to keep his memories intact, his self-concept alive and the life he wasted feeling remorse from crumbling before his very eyes. It is a complex and elaborately nuanced saga about the trajectories of once marginalized and impoverished people, about the guilt that accompanies betrayal, even when it is done for the purest of reasons, about the incessant passing of time that heals no wounds, when the carriers of said wounds are not looking for healing.

 
Once Upon a Time in America requires the viewer’s full-blown attention and patience, with the camera constantly zooming in and lingering on the actor’s faces so as to convey as much emotional nuance as possible. The pacing is slow, but we do not mind, for it enables us to walk around in the characters’ shoes and experience the passing of time that leaves none of them unburdened. It is, in short, poetry in motion. There is a story the director once told, of an Italian critic who gave his film A Fistful of Dollars a bad review upon its release. “Then he became a fan of mine later. He went to the university here [Rome] with Once Upon a Time in America. We showed it to 10,000 students. And while the man was speaking that day to the students, with me present, he said, “I have to state one thing. When I gave that review about Sergio’s films, I should have taken into account that on Sergio Leone’s passport, there should not be written whether the nationality is Italian or anything else. What should be written is: ‘Nationality: Cinema.’” And Once Upon a Time in America could rightfully be described as pure, unadulterated Cinema with a capital C.

Unfortunately, not many American viewers or critics thought so when the movie hit theaters in the summer of 1984. The reason was the severe injustice done to Leone’s masterpiece by the hands of US distributors. The story goes as follows: at the end of the shoot, the director had eight to ten hours of material on his hands, which he and his editor Nino Baragli managed to cut down to six, with the intention of it being released as two three-hour movies. But his vision seemed to be too grandiose for the producers who, given the critical and commercial failure of Bernardo Bertolucci’s historical drama film 1900 that was released in two parts in 1976, insisted he cut the material some more. After having reduced it to a length of four hours and twenty-nine minutes (269 minutes), the producers were still nowhere near satisfied.

 
Leone ultimately gave them a 229-minute movie that had its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in 1984 where it received a 15-minute standing ovation, and subsequently played in European theaters. This is the version that European audiences and critics talk about when praising Once Upon a Time in America as one of the greats, a masterclass in storytelling, directing, acting and cinematography. But American audiences were not so lucky, for what they got to see was an even shorter version of Leone’s classic, a 139-minute “travesty,” as Roger Ebert referred to it in his review, where he compares the original he had the chance to watch in Cannes and the butchered version that was presented to the American public. This desecration of Once Upon a Time in America was done without the director’s supervision and against his will, by an assistant editor who had worked on Police Academy. The version in question was not only barely comprehensible, but also ruined the cast and crew’s shots at even getting nominated for the following year’s Academy Awards (the movie did get two Golden Globe nominations though: for Best Director and Best Original Score). To make things even worse, the soundtrack provided by Leone’s frequent collaborator, the incredible Italian composer Ennio Morricone, was disqualified from the Oscar consideration to begin with, because his name was omitted from the opening credits.

Apart from doing Morricone’s haunting score a great disservice, the 139-minute version failed on numerous other levels. In the American cut, Leone’s non-linear storytelling was abandoned for a chronological one, scenes have been extensively left out (the ones depicting Noodles’ childhood in particular), characters that had previously not been introduced suddenly appear on-screen, crucial pieces of information go missing and the relationships between the characters seem unmotivated and unclear. Even the ending, which is considered to be one of the most ambiguous ones in the history of cinema, sparking debate and various theories decades after its original release, has been cut short and turned into a more than obvious, yet somewhat dissatisfying, conclusion. Needless to say, everything that made Once Upon a Time in America truly enchanting was sacrificed and burned at the stake, turning the cut in question into an incomprehensible train wreck severely lacking the magic needed to hold its puzzle pieces together.

The director’s collaborators and peers have frequently and unabashedly spoken out on the topic of the American cut, claiming that the alterations caused the filmmaker a great amount of emotional pain. And with Leone passing due to a massive heart attack several years after the movie’s release, James Woods even asserted that he died of a broken heart. For one of the greatest movies about America ended up being massacred beyond compare and presented to the American people in its lesser, far inferior form. “I’ve always had the sensation that people in America are always avant-garde,” Leone told Marlaine Glicksman in a 1987 interview, “Very attentive to all the new innovations. But it’s very specialized. The American public is a very specialized public. The reason it is taken as a realistic film is because inside the fable, I’ve put that kind of reality in. And it could easily be called, instead of Once Upon a Time in America, Once Upon a Time There Was a Certain Kind of Cinema. Because it was also an homage to cinema. And there’s my pessimism. Because I didn’t know yet that type of film is always going to become more extinct, that there won’t be anymore. Because there will always be more films that win five Oscars like Terms of Endearment.”

 
Luckily, efforts would later be made to restore the 269-minute version that even European audiences did not get to see. It was announced in 2011 that the director’s original cut was to be re-created in an Italian film lab and that the process would be supervised by Fausto Ancillai, the movie’s original sound editor, and Leone’s children, who had the Italian distribution rights. But due to unexpected legal issues regarding certain deleted scenes, the cut ended up being 251 minutes long. This restored version premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 2012 thanks to the efforts of Martin Scorsese, whose Film Foundation assisted with the restoration, which is now available on DVD/Blu-ray. Meaning that the movie can finally be viewed as it was meant to, with the ambiguous ending remaining intact and open to as much interpretation as ever.

Was Max’s implied fate what had really come to pass? James Woods himself cannot be sure, for the director did not tell and even used a stand-in to shoot the scene in question. Or was the entire movie just an opium-induced dream of Noodles’, with the past being something he vividly remembered and the future that which he envisioned, so as to alleviate the guilt he felt for the actions he took? Leone himself did not oppose this theory, but rather confirmed that it just might be the case. Whatever his true intentions were, it is safe to say that the Italian auteur’s swan song will remain one of the most important chapters in the history of American cinema.

Koraljka Suton is a member of the Croatian Society of Film Critics and has a master’s degree in German and English. For her thesis, she did a comparative analysis of Spielberg’s ‘Band of Brothers’ and ‘The Pacific’. Koraljka trained at a Zagreb-based acting studio for six years and fell in love with Michael Chekhov and Lee Strasberg’s acting techniques. She is also a contemporary dancer and a Reiki master who believes in the transformative quality of art. Read more »

 
A Fable for Adults: Sergio Leone interviewed by Elaine Lomenzo, Film Comment Vol. 20, No. 4, July-August 1984.

It’s a warm, sunny March day at Cinecittà, and the film Sergio Leone has been trying to make for ten years is now in the final days of shooting. Leone hovers over an editing table, absorbed in the action on the screen, with his producer, assistants, and interpreter at his side. The battle with his North American distributor, The Ladd Company, is at this moment not even a cloud on the Rome horizon. For now Leone can toil to make his $45-million dream come true. Once Upon a Time in America is based loosely on a book called The Hoods, written by Harry Goldberg under the pseudonym Harry Grey. In this autobiographical novel Goldberg recalls his experiences in the Prohibition Era, and attempts to explode the romanticized image of Gangsterism given us by Hollywood. After long talks with Goldberg, Leone began to translate into cinematic proportions the ways in which certain myths take precedence over reality. As we enter Leone’s favorite trattoria, you know this man has presence. Four maitre d’s greet us, and walking past the antipasto table, Leone nonchalantly samples each dish with his chubby fingers. On his way out, Federico Fellini, paying tribute to Leone’s reputed appetite, presents a caricature drawn on a linen napkin of Leone with spaghetti spilling out of his mouth. Only now, in this more comfortable environment, does Leone begin to talk about the genesis of Once Upon a Time in America, his preoccupation with American style and myth, and the indefinable dangerousness that instantly characterizes the American actor, setting him apart from all others.

You’ve been shooting this film for six months, and you are now in the early stages of editing. Are you satisfied with your material? Is the “fun” part over or is it just beginning?
The fun part is with the first idea; the “idea” is forming a stage. Editing is the true making of the film. But here is where the doubt surfaces—which kills all the fun.

This film is the first you’ve made after ten years. Does this create a pressure on you to continue in a style similar to your famous westerns?
This question of style, it is something indecipherable. Style comes on its own; it’s part of you, part of all your experiences. The minute you try to change “styles” means that you are going to go into mannerisms or something that has nothing to do with your own vision of the world. Style has to do with that particular vision of how things are. Cinematically speaking, style means your own personal way of telling a story. It can be applied in telling a story about a cowboy or gangster or anyone. For example, any good assistant to any good director has to be light years away from his maestro, from his director. If you imitate him 100 percent, you don’t become anything but an imitation of the man you’ve worked with.

Sure, but you can recognize a master’s influences and still draw on your own resources.
That’s true, but it comes on its own, afterward. When you’re taken with somebody’s style, you might consciously or unconsciously imitate it. That’s the thing to avoid, because the minute you do that out of an admiration for style you become a bad copy of the original. And so a good first assistant is better off if he works with bad directors, because he somehow maintains himself, learns all the other things, and comes out with his own style. Bad directors amplify your own sense of imagination. Above all, they give you a sense of limitation in that you know what you shouldn’t do. On the other hand, you can have an experience next to a director you love very much but to avoid becoming his bad copy, you have to get away and do your own expression.

What is it about the myth of the Epic-West and now the East of Jewish gangsters that fascinates you so? After 20 years of filmmaking, you draw your inspiration from the American fairy tales. Especially since Vietnam and the Nixon years, America seems to be a dirty word in Europe.
I’m fascinated with America—more fascinated with America than American myths or fables. I have a fascination with certain American writers who helped form my youth: Chandler, Dos Passos, Hammett, Hemingway, Fitzgerald. But these writers are only important to me in that they are part of my memory bank and my childhood. When I think of them I see my own childhood. This is also thematic in terms of the film I’m doing right now, in the sense that it is a film based on memory. Inside the film are all the images that I like. There’s an homage to a certain type of filmmaking that I love or cinema that I love. There’s an homage to the script writers who for better or worse helped me to discover the America that I didn’t know, and those who helped me to dream about America.

What do you know about the country besides what you’ve gathered from these writers? Have you spent any time in America other than the “casting time” that is behind closed doors?
I can’t see America any other way than with a European’s eyes, obviously; it fascinates me and terrifies me at the same time. The more I love her [America] the more I feel light years away from her. I’m aware of becoming a part of a generation that is now becoming decrepit—Europe is old and decrepit and I feel part of that generation of Europeans more than Americans. I’m fascinated by the youthful aspect of Americans even when it includes contradictions, and naive qualities of being incredulous at certain things. It’s this mixture of all these things—the contradictions, the youth, the growing pains—that makes it fascinating, that makes it unique. America is a dream mixed with reality. The most beautiful thing is that in America, without any notice, suddenly, dream becomes reality, reality becomes dream. That’s the thing that touches me the most. America is like Griffith and Spielberg together. It’s Watergate and Martin Luther King at the same moment. It’s Johnson and Kennedy. All those contrasts: dream and reality always clashing together. Since we don’t know each other, I want to give you a complete picture of myself, why I’m interested in America, why I’m always occupying myself with America: because in America, there’s the whole world. In Italy there’s Italy and in France there’s France. The problems of America are the problems of the whole world: the contradictions, the fantasies, the poetry. The minute you touch down on America, you touch on universal themes. For better or worse, that’s the way it is.

But America is constantly being accused of cultural imperialism by Europe?
I don’t agree with that. I don’t think it’s right to accuse her of that, because America being a giant nation occupies herself first with trying to content her own country. And this is a big problem for America, trying to make Americans content. It’s a giant problem because the country is nude up of many, many countries put together. To arrive at satisfying all the varied tastes of Americans means to get to a point of satisfying all the tastes worldwide: worldwide needs, tastes, fantasies. That’s why Americans have no problems in terms of film or TV. The images go out into the world and meet the same needs of other peoples, because of that universal collective consciousness.

There are certain themes that run through your new film: solidarity with the outcasts of society, choices dictated by despair, closeness of male friendships, betrayal, violence and corruption, which also ran through your earlier films. Do you see these themes as “American”?
I’m trying to do a film that can’t easily be categorized. It’s not a realistic film, not historical. It’s fantastic, it’s a fable. I force myself to make fables for adults.

But you do deal with those questions?
There are themes that are inside of me. Friendship, for example, is a theme I feel very much, maybe because I was an only child. Obviously all these themes come up because they play a major part in my own psyche. And I’m essentially a Roman, which doesn’t necessarily mean being essentially Italian. It means something else because Romans are a separate race. Romans always have a paradoxical sense about things; they have an unfettered sense of irony and self-criticism. The irony is almost always placed against themselves or made in terms of themselves. All of this put together means that I put into my films certain of my own phantoms or ghosts. Sometimes if I choose settings for my films that are underdeveloped or slightly criminal, it’s also to make the point that sometimes the good guy, if you scrape a little of the varnish off, is a little less good, and the bad guy, with a little less of the “bad guy” varnish, is a little less bad. There’s a small Roman story: A cardinal dies who did good and bad. The bad he did very well and the good he did very badly.

Let’s talk a little about the talent you came across in America. Was it difficult casting this film? Is there a perceptible difference between the talent in America and the talent in Europe? If so, what in your opinion accounts for this?
The talent in America is based first of all on the number of people, and then this blind love they all have on arriving or becoming—whether it’s an actor, director, or whatever else. It takes them up to some extreme type of sacrifice. I’ve never seen stars work as waiters in any other part of the world; in America, they do, they start off that way. This means they choose a very humble work in order to be exclusively at the service of their art. They are taken in and totally absorbed by their ambition, their dedication to the arts. There’s a common factor involved in all of this. They always say that Neapolitans are naturally born actors. I would say that they are natural comics, and that Americans are natural actors. They are helped enormously by the extreme richness of language.

Could it also be something to do with the freedom that Americans have, politically, socially, culturally? As children it’s part of our cultural experience to have choice: to wear what we want, to say what we want, to eat what we want, to live where we want, to move away from the family, and so forth.
Yes, total liberty from infancy on. Children are exposed to everything. People talk in front of them and together with them. A 50-year-old can be friends with someone who’s ten. All those things are a result of that liberty, and they provide an enormous sense of spontaneity, an enormous amount of security and a great availability to acting and to delivery. Thus, whoever really loves this work then chooses to study it, very well and precisely, whether it’s with Actors Studio or wherever—ten or twenty-methods of approach to this kind of work, mixed with an intense process of study. Consummate actors are the product. We don’t have that here. Our resources are almost always more geared to immediate spontaneity and immediate contact with people more than the form of expression used. A spontaneous actor in Italy, if he’s young and spontaneous, can only be broken down by an acting school in Italy, not encouraged or taken to a point of higher expression. He will be restrained. That’s why neo-realism was born in Italy. Because in that moment it was impossible to use professional actors to report the times they were living in at that point. It became false and studied and manneristic.

How do you manage to communicate with your cast when you don’t speak English? I have this picture of you “conducting” them, rather than “directing” them.
I use an extrasensory imagination, where I use no language. This relationship is particular, certain nuances have to be created. The use of words eliminates these nuances or “sits on them.” In this process of directing there becomes an extrasensory demonstration between the actor and myself. A “felt” relationship between actors and myself specifically, because there is no verbal dialogue.

On this film Robert De Niro collaborated with you on the casting. Is this a practice that you’d repeat?
I’d repeat it immediately with him. He was much faster than I could be at understanding whether a New York accent would lie right on an actor or not. He always left the total responsibility on me to decide on the actor’s quality in terms of his delivery or acting, and the same for physical characteristics. That choice was left to me. He was a great collaborator.

I’d like you to talk about your long relationship with composer Ennio Morricone. At what point do you discuss the music for your films? Before, during, or after the shooting? Do you almost hear the music while you’re shooting or is the music a direct result of the action?
I talk about the music of the film long before the filming begins. I have the music programmed before I begin shooting, so I can use it while I’m shooting. For me, the music is part of the dialogue, and many times much more important than the dialogue. It becomes an expression in itself.

So the music is number one in part of this process, and you direct to the sound and beat of the music?
When we’re not using direct sound for dialogue it’s much easier. When we’re using direct sound, obviously we can’t use music as the background, because it would ruin the sound. But I do play my music on the set whenever I can for the actors.

But the music plays in your head constantly?
The work is done originally for me. I discuss it with Morricone months ahead of time, and the music guides me through the film in terms of certain sentiments or emotions. I have him create ten or fifteen or twenty themes before choosing one. Because the one I choose is the one that gives me the most primary sensation about what the intensity of that particular moment or pan of the film is. The first musical test. I make on myself.

Now that you’ve finished filming, are you developing any other projects that you would like to discuss?
No, because at this moment or phase in production, I’m still taken with idiosyncrasies that occur during the making of the film. I’m also taken with a love for the project that I have—the amount of love needed to take the film to the end and finish it. I have another sentiment, too: I always think this is the last film I will make.

You have said throughout that you draw a lot on the past. But what about your life now? What influences affect your art now? Are they perceptible, or is this a moot question?
By indicating the past we can discover the future.

Where does that leave the present?
The present is transitory. It’s only right that the present should become the past or immediately the future. The present today is what counted yesterday or tomorrow. For tomorrow to become better you should take a look again at yesterday.

 
An interview with Sergio Leone from the pages of the June 1984 issue of American Film written by Pete Hamill. Throughout the candid interview, it’s clear filmmaking is a sacred belief to Leone who hails from a family steeped in the tradition of filmmaking. Often attributed with perfecting the spaghetti western genre with A Fistful of Dollars (1964), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) and Once Upon a Time in the West (1968), Leone developed an artistic voice with a precise knack for uncovering the raw realities of the often cartoonish and glamorized American Wild West conceived by Hollywood during the 1950s. Leone confides to Hamill about the arduous and lonely process of filmmaking throughout the 10-year process on what would be his last and arguably greatest film. Here he speaks to the sacraments of technical filmmaking and his devoted belief in the idealized American dream with the sentiment, “America is the determined negation of the Old World, the Adult World.”

During the filming of Once Upon a Time in America, Sergio Leone was generally unavailable for inter­views. However, earlier this spring, he found time to talk about his approach to filmmaking. The interview took place in Rome and was translated by Michel De Matteis.

When you were a boy, was there an America in your head?
Yes, certainly, as a child, America existed in my imagination. I think America existed in the imagina­tions of all children who bought comic books, read James Fenimore Cooper and Louisa May Alcott, and watched movies. America is the determined ne­gation of the Old World, the adult world. I lived in Rome, where I was born in 1929, when it was the capital of the imperial Mussolini melodrama—full of lying newspapers, cultural ties with Tokyo and Berlin, and one military parade after another. But I lived in an anti-Fascist family, which was also de­voted to the cinema, so I didn’t have to suffer any ignorance. I saw many films. Anyway, it was mainly after the war that I became decisively enchanted by the things in Hollywood. The Yankee army didn’t only bring us cigarettes, chocolate bars. Am-lire army-issue money, and that peach jam celebrated by Vittorio De Sica in Shoeshine—to­gether with all this, they brought a million films to Italy, which had never been dubbed into Italian. I must have seen three hundred films a month for two or three years straight. Westerns, comedies, gangster films, war stories—everything there was. Publishing houses came out with translations of Heming­way, Faulkner, Hammett, and James Cain. It was a wonderful cultural slap in the face. And it made me understand that America is really the property of the world, and not only of the Americans, who, among other things, have the habit of diluting the wine of their mythical ideas with the water of the American Way of Life. America was something dreamed by philosophers, vagabonds, and the wretched of the earth way be­fore it was discovered by Spanish ships and populated by colonics from all over the world. The Americans have only rented it temporarily. If they don’t be­have well, if the mythical level is low­ered, if their movies don’t work any more and history takes on an ordinary, day-to-day quality, then we can always evict them. Or discover another Amer­ica. The contract can always be with­held.

Your father, Vincenzo Leone, was a film director. How did that affect your first impression of films?
As a child, I was convinced that my father had invented the cinema him­self. I knew that my father was Santa Claus and that, on the other side of the cinematic field, beyond the geometric lines of the screen, great masses of tech­nicians, makeup artists, scene shifters, and hairdressers crowded in. I knew all about electric cables, cameras, micro­phones, reflectors. It’s probably also be­cause of this that the technical side of my moviemaking is so important. I go to the dubbing room as if I’m going to Mass, and mixage, for me, is the most sacred rite. I think filming itself is fun, especially in Death Valley and under the Brooklyn Bridge, where coyotes cry and ships toot their horns. But the Moviola is the altar of a voodoo rite. One sits down in front of the console and plays his hand with the heights of the heavens. I always knew that films were made by men and struc­tured like prayers.

Could you describe the ardu­ous process of coming up with a screen­play for Once Upon a Time in America?
It was after I made The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly that the subject of Once Upon a Time in America began to buzz in my ears. I found this book, The Hoods, by Harry Gray, in a Rome bookshop. More than anything else, it was a perfect and loving hymn to the cinema. The story of these Jewish gang­sters—unlucky three times over and de­termined five times over to challenge the gods—attached itself to me like the malediction of the Mummy in the old movie with Boris Karloff. I wanted to make that film and no other. We began to procure rights to the cinematographic adaptation, which, however, was already in the hands of other film-world hombres. It wasn’t very easy, but we finally managed, with cleverness and many dollars, to rip off the rights from the legitimate holders. That was already the first sign of where things were heading. Then the infernal screenplay-writing season began. Nor­man Mailer was among the first to work on it. He barricaded himself in a Rome hotel room with a box of cigars, his typewriter, and a bottle of whiskey. But, I’m sorry to say, he only gave birth to a Mickey Mouse version. Mailer, at least to my eyes, the eyes of an old fan, is not a writer for movies. Mysterious arguments within the pro­duction cropped up—material prob­lems and supernatural problems, meta­physical mess-ups of every type—and each successive screenplay came out inferior to the concept. And then, a long time after I had willingly gone over to the enemy—that is, to the production side—there was this meeting with Arnon Milchan, who, before dedicating himself to cinematographic production, must have been employed as an exorcist at some Gothic cathedral. The fact is that everything, from one moment to the next, began to take form. Leo Benvenuti and Stuart Kaminsky, the detective writer and the film devotee, miraculously concluded the screenplay, the sun shone again in the sky and away we all went to the great adventure. We worked solidly for two years straight and we finally reached port, it seems to me, with banners waving in the wind and the crew intact.

You seem to be fascinated with American myths, first the myth of the West, now that of the gangster. Why is this?
I am not fascinated, as you say, by the myth of the West, or by the myth of the gangster. I am not hypnotized, like everyone east of New York and west of Los Angeles, by the mythical notions of America. I’m talking about the individual, and the endless hori­zon—El Dorado. I believe that cinema, except in some very rare and outstand­ing cases, has never done much to incor­porate these ideas. And if you think about it, America itself has never made much of an effort in that direction ei­ther. But there is no doubt that cinema, unlike political democracy, has done what it can. Just consider Easy Rider, Taxi Driver, Scarface, or Rio Bravo. I love the vast spaces of John Ford and the metropolitan claustrophobia of Martin Scorsese, the alternating petals of the American daisy. America speaks like fairies in a fairy tale: “You desire the unconditional, then your wishes are granted. But in a form you will never recognize.” My moviemaking plays games with these parables. I appreciate sociology all right, but I am still en­chanted by fables, especially by their dark side. I think, in any case, that my next film won’t be another American fable. But I say that here and I deny it here, too.

Why does the Western seem to be dead as a movie genre? Has the gangster film taken its place?
The Western isn’t dead, either yesterday or now. It’s really the cin­ema—alas!—that’s dying. Maybe the gangster movie, in contrast to the West­ern, enjoys the precarious privilege of not having been consumed to the bones by the professors of sociological truth, by the schoolteachers of demystification ad nauseam. To make good movies, you need a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of goodwill. And you need twice as much of it today as you needed yesterday. And the old golden vein, in California’s movieland, where these riches once glistened so close to the surface, unfortunately seems almost completely dried up now. A few coura­geous miners insist on digging still, whimpering and cursing television, fate, and the era of the spectaculars which impoverished the world’s studios. But they are dinosaurs, delivered to extinc­tion.

What was it that you saw in Clint Eastwood that no one in America had seen at that time?
The story is told that when Michelangelo was asked what he had seen in the one particular block of mar­ble, which he chose among hundreds of others, he replied that he saw Moses. I would offer the same answer to your question—only backwards. When they ask me what I ever saw in Clint East­wood, who was playing I don’t know what kind of second-rate role in a West­ern TV series in 1964, I reply that what I saw, simply, was a block of marble.

How would you compare an actor like Eastwood to someone like Robert De Niro?
It’s difficult to compare East­wood and De Niro. The first is a mask of wax. In reality, if you think about it, they don’t even belong to the same profession. Robert De Niro throws him­self into this or that role, putting on a personality the way someone else might put on his coat, naturally and with ele­gance, while Clint Eastwood throws himself into a suit of armor and lowers the visor with a rusty clang. It’s exactly that lowered visor which composes his character. And that creaky clang it makes as it snaps down, dry as a martini in Harry’s Bar in Venice, is also his character. Look at him carefully. East­wood moves like a sleepwalker between explosions and hails of bullets, and he is always the same—a block of marble. Bobby, first of all, is an actor. Clint, first of all, is a star. Bobby suffers, Clint yawns.

Does it surprise you that an actor could become president of the United States? Should it have been a director?
I’ll tell you, very frankly, that nothing surprises me any more. It wouldn’t even surprise me to read in the newspapers that a president of the United States, for a change, had be­come an actor. I wouldn’t be able to hide my surprise if all he did was take on worse films than those done by cer­tain actors who became presidents of the United States. Anyway, I don’t know many presidents, but I do know too many actors. So I know with cer­tainty that actors are like children— trusting, narcissistic, capricious. There­fore, for the sake of symmetry, I imag­ine presidents, too, are like children. Only a child who became an actor and then a president, for example, could seriously believe that The Day After concealed who knows what new yellow peril. A director, if possible, would be the least adapted of any to be president. I can picture him more as the head of the Secret Service. He would move the pawns and they would dance, accord­ingly, to the end, to produce, if nothing else, a good show. If the scene works, great. Otherwise, you redo it. Old Yuri Andropov, if he had been a director instead of a cop, would have enjoyed greater professional satisfaction and—who knows?—he might have lived longer.

Most of your films are very masculine. Do you have anything against women?
I have nothing against women, and, as a matter of fact, my best friends are women. What could you be think­ing? I tolerate minorities. I respect and kiss the hand of the majorities, so you can just about imagine then how I genu­flect three or four times before the image of the other half of the heavens. I even, imagine this, married a woman, and, besides having a wretch of a son, I also have two women as daughters. So if women have been neglected in my films, at least up until now, it’s not because I’m misogynist, or chauvinist. That’s not it. The fact is, I’ve always made epic films and the epic, by defini­tion, is a masculine universe. The character played by Claudia Cardinale in Once Upon a Time in the West seems a decent female character to me. If I can say so, she was a fairly unusual and violent character. At any rate, for a couple of years now. I’ve been harboring the notion of a movie about a woman. Every evening, before going to sleep. I rummage over in my mind a couple of not bad story ideas for it. But either out of prudence or superstition—as is only human, and even too human, I prefer not to talk about it now. I remem­ber that once in 1966 or ’67, I spoke with Warren Beatty about my project for a film on American gangsters and, a few weeks later, he announced that he would produce and star in Bonnie and Clyde. All these coincidences and vi­sions disturb me.

How do you think you fit among the Italian and other European directors? Which directors do you ad­mire? Which are overrated?
Yes. without a doubt, I, too, occupy a place in cinema history. I come right after the letter L in the director’s repertory, in fact a few entries before my friend Mario Monicelli and right after Alexander Korda, Stanley Kubrick, and Akira Kurosawa, who signed his name to the superb Yojimbo, inspired by an American detective novel, while I was inspired by his film in the making of A Fistful of Dollars. My producer [on that film] wasn’t all that bright. He forgot to pay Kurosawa for the rights, and Kurosawa would cer­tainly have been satisfied with very lit­tle and so, afterwards, my producer had to make him rich, paying him millions in penalties. But that’s how the world goes. At any rate, that is my place in cinema history. Down there, between the K’s and the M’s generally to be found somewhere between pages 250 and 320 of any good filmmakers direc­tory. If I’d been named Antelope in­stead of Leone, I would have been num­ber one. But I prefer Leone; I’m a hunter by nature, not a prey. To get to the second part of the question, I have a great love for the young American and British directors. I like Fellini and Truffaut. However, I’m not an expert on overrating. You should ask a critic—the only recognized ex­perts on over-, under-, or tepid ratings. The critic is a public servant, and he doesn’t know who he’s working for.

Which comes first: the writer or director?
The director comes first. Writers should have no illusions about that. But the writer comes second. Directors, too, should have no illusions about that.

What advice would you have for young people who want to be direc­tors?
I would say, read a lot of comic books, watch TV often, and, above all, make up your minds that cinema is not just something for snobs, other movie­makers, and the mothers of petulant critics. A successful movie communi­cates with the lowbrow and the high­brow public alike. Otherwise, it’s like a hole without the doughnut around it.

F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, “Action is character.” Do you agree?
The truth is that I am not a director of action, as, in my view, nei­ther was John Ford. I’m more a director of gestures and silences. And an orator of images. However, if you really want it. I’ll declare that I agree with old F. Scott Fitzgerald. I often say myself that action is character. But it’s true that, to be more precise, I say, “Ciack! Action and character, please.” Certainly we must mean the same thing. At other times—for example when I’m at the dinner table—I sometimes say, “Ciack! Let’s eat. Pass the salt.”

When you’re not making movies, what do you do?
I will confess that since I was a child, when no one dreamed of asking me these questions, I always imagined I would respond with a preemptory and dry “Stop right there! Nothing doing. I won’t even hear of it. My privacy is sacred and I have no intention of putting it on display in the piazza just for the amusement of nosy journalists like you.” I try, every time, but then they shame me like a dog and I end up admitting all the horrible truth. That is, the following: that I sunbathe, go to the movies and to the stadium, think about my next films, read books and screen­plays, meet friends, go on vacation sometimes, play chess and hang around the house irritating my family with, what’s worse, superfluous observations. I’m very fond of my family, as all Ital­ians are, including Lucky Luciano and Don Vito Corleone, but I wouldn’t know how to talk to them. They say they put up with me, but the truth is that I put up with them.

Now that you’ve finished Once Upon a Time in America, are you able to step back and assess the film?
Once Upon a Time in America is my best film, bar none—I swear—and I knew that it would be from the moment I got Harry Gray’s book in my hand. I’m glad I made it, even though during the filming I was as tense as Dick Tra­cy’s jaw. It always goes like that. Shoot­ing a film is awful, but to have made a movie is delicious.

 
When Sergio Leone made ‘Once upon a Time in America,’ it was an event. Here was the man who had invented the spaghetti Western, coming to New York to make a Jewish gangster epic. Everybody, including my friends Bob De Niro and Joe Pesci, was in it; everybody in New York was working on it. We all knew it would be unlike anything we’d ever seen. The version released in the summer of 1984 pleased no one, Leone least of all. The much longer cut that came out later that year restored his extraordinary Proustian structure, but it was missing 40 minutes that Leone felt to be crucial to his grand, 20th-century canvas. Recently, with the help of the Leone family, 25 minutes of material was found, including an extended excerpt from Antony and Cleopatra, featuring Elizabeth McGovern, and a long-rumored exchange between De Niro and Louise Fletcher. These scenes and others have now been re-inserted into the picture, and the restoration—a collaboration involving the Cineteca di Bologna, L’Immagine Ritrovata, and the Film Foundation—is nearly complete. A great film just became that much greater.Martin Scorsese

Screenwriter must-read: Leonardo Benvenuti, Piero De Bernardi, Enrico Medioli, Franco Arcalli, Franco Ferrini & Sergio Leone’s screenplay for Once Upon a Time in America [PDF]. (NOTE: an early script by David Mills which differs from the finished film; for educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Here is a great booklet and press kit from the 1984 Sergio Leone’s epic masterpiece, courtesy of CineFiles.








 
From the Tom Jung papers, this sketch is one of several conceptual designs pitched for the film’s poster art.

 
U.S. theatrical poster art.

 
Short documentary Once Upon a Time: Sergio Leone profiling the making of the film.

 
A documentary commission by Film4 that was first broadcast in 2000.

 
Robert De Niro talks about Sergio Leone, Once Upon A Time In America and Harry Grey’s book The Hoods.

 
A rare on-set interview.

 

ENNIO MORRICONE

There is a lot of talking, of listening to things. Quite fre­quently, everything is scrapped and we start again from scratch. Often when everything has been accepted Sergio starts to doubt the decision and then more doubts come. It becomes a very compli­cated process that has to be endured. But it is quite normal that it should be like this; it doesn’t upset me, or even bother me, because it means that when a decision is finally made it is the right one.Ennio Morricone

 

TONINO DELLI COLLI, AIC

Director of cinematography for three major films of Leone—The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West and Once Upon a Time in America. Born in Rome on 20 November 1922, he began working at Cinecittà as a teenager in 1938. He began working as a film cameraman in the mid-1940s and in 1952 was the first Italian cinematographer to make a colour film, Totò a colori. He became a master of his art at home and abroad. He created the lighting for Pasolini’s films from 1961 on, and until 1976 worked with directors Louis Malle, Roman Polanski and Jean-Jacques Annaud. He was also chief cinematographer for the last three films of Federico Fellini. He never retired and died of a heart attack in Rome on 16 August 2005.

In the 1960s, Delli Colli began his working relationship with Sergio Leone, a collaboration that would bring him his greatest fame in the United States. Leone and Delli Colli reimagined the Westerns of John Ford and Howard Hawks, taking genre films to the level of art through glacial but tense pacing; innovative sound design; fresh, minimalist dialogue; and, above all, obsessive and almost exclusive use of extreme close-ups and very wide shots. The results were dubbed “spaghetti Westerns.” The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) was reportedly made for $250,000 and was a box-office blockbuster. Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) had a bigger budget, and Henry Fonda was cast against type as a ruthless villain.

“Sergio was a skinny kid who was working as an assistant to Bonnard,” recalls Delli Colli. “After Bonnard died, Sergio finished the shooting of The Last Days of Pompeii, and then directed The Colossus of Rhodes. Sergio came to Spain, where I was making a [Luis García] Berlanga film called El Verdugo [The Executioner, also known as Not on Your Life] with Nino Manfredi. It was 1963, and he was looking for money from our producer, the former goalie of the Real Madrid [soccer team], who in turn was being financed by a pharmaceutical company. He had the idea of making a film about the eagles of Rome, but there wasn’t a cent to be had.

“Back in Rome one night, Sergio took me to see Kurosawa’s Yojimbo. He told me it was a good idea for a low-budget Western. That was true, because all the action took place in one little town, and little towns like that were still around in Spain. So I helped him find the producer, but I had no plans to make the film myself because I couldn’t work for nothing.”

Later, Delli Colli heard that there were near riots at Rome’s Supercinema because crowds were trying to get in to see A Fistful of Dollars (1964). The surprise international hit kick-started Leone’s career. “Sergio was a real go-getter, a very meticulous artist who paid attention to everything he did, right down to the smallest details,” says Delli Colli. “For the images, he asked for things that were truly effective: full light for long shots because he wanted the details to be visible on screens of all sizes, and close-ups with the individual hairs of the characters’ beards visible. It was impossible in Spain—he wanted deep, long shadows, the deepest and longest we could get, and the [sun went] down late. On the set, we prepared in the morning, and then we just died waiting for the right light. I did everything I could to accommodate him within the limits of what was possible. And then there were the details! He wanted to shoot the actors’ eyes in every scene. I told him we could shoot 100 meters of eyes—looking here, looking there—and then use them whenever he wanted. But he wasn’t having any of that. And that’s how it went for the entire shoot. But his three-hour films pass quickly [when you watch them]. A three-hour film made today is a chore to sit through.”

Delli Colli’s collaboration with Leone reached its apogee with Once Upon a Time in America (1984), a sweeping gangster epic that earned acclaim at Cannes but was radically cut down in the editing room by its U.S. distributor. Leone’s original cut received a few special screenings in the States and only recently became available on home video. “Once Upon a Time in America was a long film because there were a lot of interruptions [during production], thanks to Sergio’s meticulousness and his desire to make a film that would be unique in its genre,” says Delli Colli. “First, we couldn’t find the right actors because he had specific types in mind, but we kept looking. Even though he couldn’t speak a single word of English, he was able to make himself understood by using French, always with a smile on his lips. The American actors loved working with him. The interiors were shot in Rome, at the De Paolis Studios, and the exteriors were shot in a Puerto Rican neighborhood in New York. It was the sets that inspired my choices in terms of the cinematography. The story is a complex one, but when you see the film, you understand that it was worth the trouble. It displays all of Sergio’s artistry.” —Tonino Delli Colli, AIC, American Cinematographer (A Lifetime Through the Lens)

 

SERGIO LEONE: THE WAY I SEE THINGS

Western towns controlled by outlaws. Cigar-chewing heroes in looming close-ups. Operatic showdowns. Throbbing music. Movie buffs know the trademark elements of the great Italian filmmaker, Sergio Leone, by heart, but the engaging documentary Sergio Leone: The Way I See Things will surely give even the most ardent fan new insights into this unique master. The maestro behind such genre epics as A Fistful of Dollars, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West, Leone (1929-1989) was a superb stylist who took the American Westerns he loved as a kid and transformed them into visual arias all of his own, in the process influencing such directors as Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. Just as fascinating as his films, Leone’s larger-than-life personality is profiled here in an illuminating journey, rich in both anecdotes and gorgeous clips from his movies. By examining Leone’s superb use of image, sound and the frame, the film reveals the magic and the rough beauty of his arid vistas and outsized characters. Actors Eli Wallach and Claudia Cardinale, directors Giuliano Montaldo and Vittorio Giacci and historian Christopher Frayling, among others, offer invaluable contributions to Giulio Reale’s exhilarating Sergio Leone: The Way I See I Things, a mesmerizing portrait that makes us look at an old master with fresh eyes. —Fernando F. Croce

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America. Photographed by Angelo Novi © The Ladd Company, Embassy International Pictures, Producers Sales Organization, Warner Bros. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post How ‘Once Upon a Time in America’ Became Sergio Leone’s Butchered Swan Song appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

‘Magnolia’: Paul Thomas Anderson’s Absorbing Mosaic of Compassion, Humanity and the Importance of Forgiveness

$
0
0

 
By Sven Mikulec

In 1997, an ambitious 26-year-old called Paul Thomas Anderson made Boogie Nights, his sophomore directing effort that dazzled the film loving community. The commercial and critical success of the film was so impressive that Anderson, practically only a beginner in the ruthless shark tank of Hollywood, found himself in an unexpected, quite unique position of being allowed to make whatever the hell he wanted to make next. Michael De Luca, who was in charge of production at New Line Cinema, agreed to support Anderson’s next project without even knowing what the film was supposed to be, even granting the rising director the final cut, a privilege often withheld from far more recognized and experienced filmmakers. And what Anderson chose to do next was to breathe life into an idea he got while Boogie Nights was in its long editing stage, when he started jotting down his descriptions of strong images he wanted to develop, a series of visual and narrative pieces of a story that was yet to be forged. The seemingly disparate line of images, motifs and ideas slowly started to come together, their blending ultimately aided by a remarkably talented all-star ensemble cast, beautiful songs of Aimee Mann and Anderson’s studiously poignant writing that created real, full-blooded characters we’re naturally inclined to relate to. Magnolia, as Anderson named the picture, is a touching, emotionally overwhelming mosaic of grief, estrangement and anger, a complex weaving of stories relating to sad, troubled people who walk lost, broken and frightened through the darkness of the San Fernando Valley, with only an occasional beam of light fighting through the clouds to remind us what kind of total wreckages most of Anderson’s antiheroes in this film really are.

Magnolia was first conceived as a small, intimate movie, but as Anderson started working on the screenplay, the concept steadily grew and expanded. There were many actors and actresses the director admired and whom he wanted to write for, and as he realized he was handed a carte blanche opportunity he would likely never get again, he decided to go for it. He chose a series of familiar faces he had already worked with on Hard Eight and Boogie Nights: John C. Reilly, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ricky Jay, Julianne Moore, Melora Walters, William H. Macy, Philip Baker Hall, Alfred Molina… A perfect cast he further enriched by adding Jason Robards, Melinda Dillon, Tom Cruise and young Jeremy Blackman, among others. The specificity of Anderson’s position as a highly wanted and recognized filmmaker can be seen in the very casting of Cruise, arguably the most popular Hollywood star at the time, while the choice of giving him an unusual, even unnatural and very complicated role in the film is a testament to the director’s vision, courage and remarkable self-confidence. The roles that went to Reilly and Macy were written specifically for them because Anderson wanted them out of their comfort zone (Macy) or given an opportunity to shine in something completely new (Reilly). Magnolia is so unique in its structure that there really isn’t a single star stealing the show: there are more and less inspired performances, perhaps, but the majority of the roles are so convincing and well-performed that the film basically works fine as the highlight reel of each and every cast member’s career.

With cinematographer Robert Elswit behind the camera and Dylan Tichenor laboring in the editing room, both of whom are Anderson’s long-time companions, Magnolia is also distinguished by the effective use of American rock singer Aimee Mann’s songs, such as ‘Wise Up,’ the piece that Anderson used as a glue tying the characters together in one particular impressive sequence. Anderson met Mann a couple of years earlier, as her husband Michael Penn was writing the score for Hard Eight, and sent her the script to encourage her to write specifically for Magnolia. Mann was honored to see her work used as the central piece of a film like this, and besides the critics’ praise, her work gained recognition in the form of an Oscar nomination for Best Original Song (‘Save Me’), one of three Academy nominations the film received (Best Original Screenplay for Anderson, Best Supporting Actor for Cruise). Although struggling at the box office—nothing strange when you consider the fact Magnolia is hardly mainstream material—Anderson’s third film was greeted enthusiastically by the critics and is still considered one of the best works of the whole decade.

I wanted to make something that was intimate and small-scale, and I thought that I would do it very, very quickly. The point was that I wanted to shed myself of everything that was happening around Boogie Nights. And I started to write and well, it kept blossoming. And I got to the point where still it’s a very intimate movie, but I realised I had so many actors I wanted to write for that the form started to come more from them. Then I thought it would be really interesting to put this epic spin on topics that don’t necessarily get the epic treatment, which is usually reserved for war movies or political topics. But the things that I know as big and emotional are these real intimate everyday moments, like losing your car keys, for example. You could start with something like that and go anywhere. —Paul Thomas Anderson

 
The film deals with numerous subjects, exploring several themes that have always piqued the interest of humanity: the inability to forgive, the devastating effects of poor choices, the corrosive impact of guilt and loneliness, the overwhelming burden of history that shapes our presence and determines our future. “I really feel that Magnolia is, for better or worse, the best movie I’ll ever make,” Anderson stated once. Described often as a perfectly imperfect film, this is a three hours long emotional rollercoaster carried on the shoulders of definitely one of the best group of actors and actresses ever utilized in the same film, a movie that doesn’t feel a minute too long thanks to the absorbing stories and palpable characters created with wit, intelligence and compassion. Whatever Anderson or anybody else comes up with next, Magnolia is bound to stay near the very top of our favorite movies.

Screenwriter must-read: Paul Thomas Anderson’s screenplay for Magnolia [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
“Shooting Eyes Wide Shut in England, Tom Cruise had time to kill. One evening, he and Nicole [Kidman] watched Boogie Nights, the second feature from twenty-seven-year-old wunderkind Paul Thomas Anderson, a writer-director and LA native son who had become the upstart of Hollywood after his first film, Hard Eight, made a splash at Sundance. Cruise was struck by a bungled, drug-addled robbery scene set to ‘Jessie’s Girl’ and called Anderson up with his congratulations. Anderson happened to be in London, and he gladly accepted Cruise’s invitation to visit the Eyes Wide Shut set. Noting [Stanley] Kubrick’s scant film crew, Anderson asked the director if he always worked on such a small scale. ‘How many do you need?’ replied Kubrick. ‘I’m an asshole, man,’ said the humbled young auteur, ‘I spend too much money.’ But he was about to embark on the most star-studded and narratively complex film of his career. Earlier that year, Anderson’s father, Ernie, had died of cancer. A late-night horror movie host who went by ‘Ghoulardi,’ Mr. Anderson purchased a Betamax video camera for his son when the boy was twelve, launching the director on his path. Cruise understood. He, too, had lost his father early. But in truth he’d lost his dad—and namesake—Thomas Cruise Mapother III years before. After his parents divorced when Cruise was twelve, he’d only seen his father twice: at fifteen when his dad took him to the drive-in and on his deathbed. The elder Mapother never watched one of his son’s films.

‘He tried going out to see Risky Business, but he was in too much pain,’ said Cruise. In the first leg of his career, he was remarkably open about their relationship, as though the wounds were still so raw that it helped to say them aloud. ‘I hadn’t seen my father for a number of years. I heard he was dying, and I didn’t know where he was. He didn’t want to be contacted. He left and didn’t want to be contacted for years. I think he was tired of inflicting so much pain on other people that he just had to get away.’ ‘I spent some time with him. We talked,’ he continued. ‘I think he made so many mistakes that it ate him alive. Even when I went to see him, he didn’t want to discuss what had occurred in the past. I said, ‘Whatever you want, Dad.’ But I held his hand. And I told him I loved him, and that I was going to miss him. He said when he got out of the hospital we’d go have a steak and a beer and talk about it then. He died before we could do that.’ His father did have time to give a few quotes to journalists who tracked him down. In 1983, he told a reporter that he had ‘made a personal decision to respect my son’s wishes, which was for me to stay the hell out of everything,’ saying that they had gone over four years without communication (‘a long time, at least to me’) until Tom and his sisters had come by his hospital after a cancer operation. When it was suggested to the elder Mapother that their visit had meant more than words could express, he began to weep. ‘A lot more, a lot more.’”—Fifteen Years Later: Tom Cruise and Magnolia by Amy Nicholson

 
Paul Thomas Anderson interviewed by Kristine Mckenna & David Konow, Creative Screenwriting, volume 5, #1 (January/February 1998) & volume 7, #1 (January/February 2000). The following is an excerpt from that interview.

Leonard Cohen once commented, “every artist—be it a painter, composer, or filmmaker—has one song he writes over and over again. And the beautiful thing about this endeavor is that you don’t realize you’re writing the same song repeatedly, but in fact, it keeps returning to you wearing the original blue gown.” Do you agree?
Probably, although it’s too early for me to tell what mine is. I think there are similar themes and motifs in the two movies I’ve made, but I didn’t see that until after the fact. Both stories have father figures, a young protégé, a makeshift family, and the paying of some kind of karmic debt. With Hard Eight, the lead character, Sidney, is dealing with guilt he feels over something he did before the story in the film begins. Boogie Nights could almost be seen as a prequel to Hard Eight in that it follows this kid as he does things that leave him with a huge karmic debt. When the story ends, you sense that Dirk will now attempt to atone for the things he’s done; in other words, Dirk becomes Sidney.

Do you feel it’s important that your next film be markedly different from Boogie Nights?
No. I think it’s important that I resist being influenced by people who encourage me to make another Boogie Nights type of movie though, and I want to put the proper pair of horse blinders on. I try not to second guess my instincts, and at the moment I’m writing a part for Luis Guzman. As the character has developed, I’ve realized I’m basically writing Maurice [Guzman’s character in Boogie Nights] again. Part of me says, “wait a minute—you’re writing Maurice again,” but another part of me wants to explore this character more—maybe because Maurice got shortchanged in Boogie Nights. The new script is set in 1997, so maybe this is Maurice twenty years later.

You’re presently in a precarious place as a artist. You’ve been able to privately develop your first two films, but the success of Boogie Nights has brought many conflicting forces to bear on you and your work—the pressures of the marketplace, the distraction of flattery, the demands being made on your time. Are there steps you can take to protect your sanity and your future as a filmmaker?
That’s a good question and all I can say is I’m learning as I go. I wrote my first two movies fueled by a desire for revenge on all the people who told me I’d never amount to anything, and those movies came from a place of “I’ll show you.” Now I hear people say Boogie Nights is great, but what are you gonna do next, and that’s a challenge too. Ultimately I’m not worried because once you start writing and you’re alone in a room and you get in a groove, there’s nothing else going on in the world. I’ve been to the Hollywood parties and the lunches with so and so, and without sounding arrogant or ungrateful, I can tell you that none of it is as fun as making a movie.

 
How were you able to avoid the hoopla of Boogie Nights and concentrate on writing another movie?
You know, it’s actually pretty easy for about three hours of the day and those are the three hours of the day that I’m writing. You’re really only self-conscious or thinking about it when you’re not writing. My general work pattern is that I wake up very early in the morning and I write. I can really only write for three or four hours before I’m either tired or I’ve smoked too much. And that’s when you start getting self-conscious and you start thinking, “Jeez, there’s all these people paying attention to me and what I’m going to do next.” I’m just thankful that it’s not when I’m writing, because it’s not affecting it. You know how it is: when you’re alone in your room and it’s you and your computer, you’re truly not thinking of anything else. In the off-hours, I was probably self-conscious, but in the on-hours I wasn’t.

Did you ever feel any pressure to follow up Boogie Nights?
Well, I might have. The truth of the matter is when I sat down to write Magnolia, I truly sat down to write something very small, very quick, very intimate, and something I could make very cheaply. Boogie Nights was this massive, two-and-a half-hour epic. And I thought, “You know what? I wanna bury my head in the sand and just make a little small movie.” So, in other words, I might have been reacting to the size of Boogie Nights. But obviously, no hoopla informed it, otherwise I wouldn’t have made a three-hour movie that’s as big and long as it is. I truly just ended up writing from my gut and my gut took me to writing Magnolia as it is, as opposed to a smaller version of it.

How long did it take to put Magnolia together? When did you first start writing?
I was kind of where I am right now, as I’m mixing Magnolia. You start thinking about, “Well, gee… what am I going to do next?” It was the same sort of thing on Boogie Nights. On Boogie Nights we had an incredibly long editing period because I was going through a lot of MPAA negotiations regarding the rating, trying to get an R rating. I had a lot of free time to think and tinker with the editing on Boogie Nights, and I started formulating some of the thoughts that were Magnolia. Now what happened was, as I came closer to the finishing of Boogie Nights, that’s when I started to write stuff down. While I was mixing Boogie Nights, I started jotting ideas down. Once the movie was off and out into the theaters, I was able to jump right into writing. That was November 1997.

Why do you feel you write with such a big scope?
I think if I have a problem as a writer it’s writer’s block in reverse, which can be just as detrimental as not knowing what to write. I think I have so much shit in my brain that sometimes I just kind of vomit a lot of it out. Boogie Nights is a three-hour movie, but believe me, I had enough pages to make an eight-hour movie. It’s just about pairing it down to where I think it’s right. It’s funny because the movie that helped me make a mark, Boogie Nights, was long, and then this movie’s long. But my first movie was an hour and forty minutes, a regular movie length. So it’s not as if I’m completely interested in being the “epic guy” each time. I might sit down with a master plan and want to write a ninety-minute movie. But if it ends up being 200 pages, at a certain point, I’ve just got to decipher whether I’m being lazy or whether my gut’s truly taking me to a proper place.

 
How did you avoid repeating yourself?
I’m not exactly sure that I haven’t. Maybe I’ve just dressed the same thing up in different clothes, you know what I mean? I was not really able to notice a pattern in my work until I made three movies. Now I’m starting to decipher that they all have something to do with surrogate families and family connections. I’m only noticing this probably because people say it about my stuff. I think a lot of things interest me, so I’m prone to repeat myself because there’s a million different styles of clothes that I like.

In Magnolia you did a really good job of going back and forth between stories without confusing the viewer or losing momentum. Are you able to write a story all the way through like that?
What I did on this was, at certain points, if I felt lost or confused with any of these characters’ stories, I would break it out and string it end to end chronologically instead of its being interrupted by another person’s story, just to see how that was working as a movie of its own. Like the Jason Robards/Phil Hoffman story, I plucked that out on its own just to make sure that it was going well. I think the writer in me loves to branch off to other characters, but it’s the director in me that gets excited in terms of working on transitions and how to successfully pull it off. So I think I end up writing for myself as a director when I go to places like that.

How did you come up with Tom Cruise’s character Frank T.J. Mackey?
About three years ago, a friend of mine was teaching a class on audio-recording engineering. He had two students in the class that he thought were particularly interesting. One afternoon he was going to lunch and he noticed these two guys talking in the recording studio. There was an open mike out there, and he recorded a DAT of these two guys talking. So a couple of years after that, he found this unlabeled DAT and what he heard blew his mind. He played it for me and essentially what happened was you heard these two guys talking about women and about how you’ve got to “respect the cock and tame the cunt.” They started talking all this trash and ultimately what we decided was they were quoting this guy named Ross. Well if these guys were talking this ridiculously, who was Ross? What we deciphered was, there’s this guy Ross Jeffries who was teaching this new version of the Eric Weber course, “How to Pick Up Women,” but this guy had a whole new slant on it which had to do with hypnotism and all these subliminal language techniques. Then after researching him, it led me to four or five other guys like him, and so I just went hogwild in the arena of this guy, trying to decipher, “Why is anyone like this?”

How did Tom Cruise become aware of the role and did you write it for any actor in particular?
I wrote it for him. He had called me up when Boogie Nights came up. He was making Eyes Wide Shut, and his agents called me to ask if I was interested in meeting him. He was a big fan of Boogie Nights, and I said absolutely. Coincidentally, I happened to be going to London to promote Boogie Nights. So I went and met Tom and told him I was about to sit down and write my next movie. I was just sort of formulating the character and Tom said, “Listen, anything you do I would love to take a look and be involved.” I said, “Okay, let me call you in about eight months when I’m done writing.” I talked to him once or twice over the course of eight months and I said, “When you’re done shooting that movie, I’m going to be done. I’m going to give this to you and I think you’re gonna have a lot of fun.” So I finished writing it, handed it to him, and it was literally like one of those Hollywood stories. We got together the next day, talked about it, and we were off.

 
How happy were you with his performance?
I am completely enamored with his performance. I must admit to writing a very show-offy role, and Tom kinda knew that. I told him, “You get to do everything in this. You do the banquet hall seminar where you get to be onstage and you get to do the ‘going to see Dad’ bedside scene. You really get to run the gamut here.” I think he was really excited by that, and I think he just went with it. There was not a moment where he was scared, there wasn’t a moment where he questioned what I asked of him. If anything, he brought too much to the table and I would say, “No, you can’t use a whip in this scene!” I would just have to calm him down and remind him to keep it simple sometimes. That was really the only direction I gave him. He really was spot-on with how to do it.

In the scene where Mackey sees his father before he passes away, in the screenplay it seems like they came to some sort of reconciliation. But in the film, we don’t know if they reconciled or not.
There are very, very, very few times as a writer where I will write a scene and leave it to what happens. That was one scene where I just kind of underwrote it intentionally. I just said, “Listen. The most important thing is that this character goes to see his father.” I felt when he decided to see his father, he should walk in very quickly, very aggressively, with a real hard on to get back at his dad. And whatever happened after that was really, truly up to Tom. It’s one of those moments that you do leave for an actor. It’s a very scary, dangerous thing to do, and generally I don’t do it because you should have a plan. But it was one of those things where I decided the best way to do this is probably leave room for whatever happens and whatever Tom can emotionally bring to the table. I said, “Listen, you can be as angry as you wanna be, you can be as sad as you can get. Let’s start doing it and let’s see what happens.”

The rain of frogs at the end of the film was great. Several scenes in Magnolia refer to the book of Exodus in which there was a plague of frogs after Moses’s people weren’t allowed into the promised land. Was the rain of frogs a natural reaction to the turmoil that built up in the film?
Well, that’s certainly an element. There’s certainly a Biblical reference there, but I’d be a liar if I said to you it was written initially as a Biblical reference. I truthfully didn’t even know it was in the Bible when I first wrote the sequence. I had read about a rain of frogs through the works of Charles Fort, who’s a wonderful writer. He was the person who coined the term UFO, who wrote about odd phenomena. So when I read about the rain of frogs, I was going through a weird, personal time. I don’t want to get too personal, but maybe there are certain moments in your life when things are so fucked up and so confused that someone can say to you, “It’s raining frogs,” and that makes sense. That somehow makes sense as a warning; that somehow makes sense as a sign. I started to understand why people turn to religion in times of trouble, and maybe my form of finding religion was reading about rains of frogs and realizing that makes sense to me somehow. And then of course to discover it in the Bible and the reference that it makes there just sort of verifies it, like, “Hey, I guess I’m on the right track.”

Do you want everyone who sees Magnolia to have to interpret the scene in their own way and think what it could mean to them?
Absolutely. I’m normally not a big fan of that; I generally like to make my points. But there are some times where if you pull it off properly, you can put something on the plate of the viewer and go, “You know what? However you want to decipher this, you can.” And there absolutely is no wrong way. If you want to reference the Bible, that’s good; if you want to link it to something else you can. There’s a notion that you can judge a society’s existence by the health of its frogs. There’s something about a frog’s health; the color of its skin, the texture, the wetness on its back, that’s an indication of how we’re treating ourselves as a society. So when you look around and see that all the frogs are dying or deformed, it’s sort of a warning sign about how we’re treating ourselves. The ironic thing is as I was thinking this up, I met with Phillip Baker Hall, who’s an actor I work with over and over again, and he asked, “What’s the next one about?” And I said, “Well, I can’t really describe much to you Phillip, but there’s this one sequence in the film where it starts to rain frogs.” He was looking at me and just nodding his head. Then I explained the history of frog rain, because it really does happen, it’s something that has happened many times. Then he said, “I have an interesting story. Just after the war, I was in Switzerland and I was in a rain of frogs.” I said, “What?” Phillip had been driving on a mountain pass in Switzerland and he said for about fifteen minutes it rained frogs. It was really foggy and the mountain road was covered in ice. The frogs falling was not the thing that freaked him out. What freaked him out was that his car could not get any traction and he was afraid he was gonna fall off the mountain! I just thought right then and there I gotta go through with this sequence.

 
Magnolia and Boogie Nights have a lot of great songs in their soundtracks. Do you write to music?
Absolutely. Even more with this one than ever before. This one was very specifically written to Aimee Mann’s songs. She’s a good friend of mine, she’s a wonderful singer and songwriter. In addition to a lot of great songs that have been released, I was privy to a lot of demo stuff she was working on at the time. So I had those to work off of. In a way, I sat down to adapt one of her songs. There’s a song called “Deathly” that she [wrote] and the very first line of the song is “Now that I’ve met you, would you object to never seeing me again?” Melora Walters says that in the movie. That sort of notion of being unlovable or being so fucked up you can’t understand how anyone could love you back was really important and really beautiful to me. It kind of made sense to me at that time in my life. I probably owe Aimee a ton of money for the inspiration she was to this movie.

You have final cut on Magnolia, and you’re certainly in an enviable position as a writer and director. A lot of people reading this could be on the verge of a break as a writer and are about to face the den of wolves that’s known as development hell. Do you have any suggestions or advice on how writers can empower themselves more?
Right off the bat, I want to say that my motto is: remember the power is yours. The power is in the writer. It seems that the writer has been so neutered lately that he’s forgotten that the buck starts and stops with him. I think that’s how I got to direct my first movie. Basically it was a bribery situation; it was, “I know that you like this script, but there’s no one else who’s going to direct it, and I own it.” I think to get paid for a script before you write it is just certain death, because you’re basically giving ownership to someone else. I think what most writers have to remember is they can not only have power of authorship, but if they really want to, they can have power of ownership. There’s a very big difference. Ultimately, it is my choice about who I give my script to. Anyone who is writing alone in their room, that is their material, that is their product, their copyright; they own that. Don’t give up easy: never fuck on the first date. However, I think I’ve only come to learn a lot of lessons because I got incredibly fucked. I’d made my first movie with a company I’d never met. I never shook hands with anyone at Rysher Entertainment, and it was the biggest regret of my life, because there was that small period of time where I had my first movie taken away from me. Ultimately I got it back, and what’s out in the world is my version, but I went through a movie being taken away from me, a movie being recut behind my back. I went through all of that, and it created a sort of paranoia and guardedness in me that I’m glad I have, because that will never, ever happen to me again. But I was so fuckin’ anxious to get my movie made, I would have gone anywhere. So it’s hard to say. Is it good advice to tell someone to hold out? Well, I sure wouldn’t have taken that advice when I was twenty-three years old and I could get my movie made. You’re gonna go where you can go, but if you can just remember that your brain is yours and they can’t own it, then it’s a really healthy thing.

What’s the most valuable thing you’ve learned about this movie business in the last two years?
I unfortunately learned that writing and directing a good movie is only fifty percent of my job, and that the other fifty percent is dealing with the people who finance it and get the movie seen. Because however good your movie is, it doesn’t mean shit if nobody sees it. It’s very odd, but the movie business is full of people who don’t love movies, and the more people I meet in this industry the more I want to run away.

How is having a hit movie different than you’d anticipated it would be?
I still feel like I don’t know the secret frat boy handshake. I was recently at Carrie Fisher’s birthday party, and they were all there—Jack Nicholson, Madonna, Warren Beatty, you name it. And sure, some people knew who I was and complimented me on the film, but I still felt like I wasn’t a member of the club.

Do movies shape the culture or merely reflect it as it already exists?
I think they shape the culture—and that, of course, means they have a responsibility to the culture. As a filmmaker, how much I feel the weight of that responsibility changes from one day to the next. If you feel it too heavily you’re probably becoming pretentious; if you don’t feel it at all you’re probably a jerk.

 

INTERVIEW: CHARLIE ROSE SHOW

Paul Thomas Anderson on his film, Magnolia.

 

THAT MOMENT: ‘MAGNOLIA’ DIARY

Not your typical promotional documentary or featurette, That Moment: Magnolia Diary (2000) shows you the highs, lows and especially the hard work required to make a film. Directed by Mark Rance, the documentary follows the very over-worked director Paul Thomas Anderson through a gruelling 80+ days of shooting Anderson’s third film, Magnolia (1999). Very funny behind the scenes material and interviews, press junket video and various screenings and meetings are presented to us, just to let us know how hard it really is to make a 188-minute film. This feature-length documentary is featured on the Magnolia Blu-ray disc, available at Amazon and other online retailers.

 
Talk Easy is a weekly podcast of intimate, long-form interviews with people from all walks of life: filmmakers, comedians, activists, politicians, actors, and beyond. The show is hosted by writer Sam Fragoso. This week Sam sits down with renowned actor, Philip Baker Hall. Best known for his work with director Paul Thomas Anderson, Hall is a captivating presence on and off the screen. Sam and Philip talked for a long time and got into detail on so much of Philip’s life. In this episode we learn more about his work with P.T.A., his falling out with Robert Altman, and his thoughts on death and dying.

 

THE CAREER OF PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON IN FIVE SHOTS

Tracking a journey of camera journeys from Hard Eight to There Will Be Blood suggests the director has put away showy things. Video Essay Catalog No. 166 by Kevin B. Lee. Featured in Sight & Sound magazine.

“This single two-minute-five-second shot encapsulates the essence of Anderson’s three-hour magnum opus, connecting five different characters with the sheer velocity of forward motion through narrative space and time. Working with an unlimited budget and final cut, with this film Anderson enjoyed a creative freedom afforded to the rarest of directors. But with that freedom came a great anxiety, one that pervades the film. It’s an anxiety to prove himself, to do something even bigger than Boggie Nights. And it informs the hurried pacing of this particular shot, as the camera moves faster than what we saw in his previous films. We no longer have the sense of coming into one’s own as in Sydney, or in celebrating and absorbing a subculture as in Boogie Nights. Here the shot amounts to a relay race between five characters organised in six different configurations. The point of focus is exchanged between them smoothly along a single line of movement. Ostensibly, this shot wants to reveal the working guts of a Hollywood television studio, but it doesn’t settle long enough on anything in particular to let you take in the details, other than the anxious sensation of people working and moving. If there are any potential areas of interest on the periphery, they pass fleetingly. It’s a shot that wants to be everywhere at once, and nowhere in particular. The attraction is in the camera movement itself as a spectacle of kinetic exertion: movement for the sake of movement.” —Kevin B. Lee

 

ROBERT ELSWIT, ASC

“Paul is one of the few people I’ve worked with that has a poetic temperament. That allows him to do things in his films where you know the result will be more than the sum of its parts. It’s a combination of the way we shoot it and light the picture, the way it’s performed and edited, the way everything resonates with everything else. Each scene is doing more than just telling a story; it’s doing something you can’t put into words. And that puts him, I think, in the land of people like Bergman, Kurosawa, Ozu and Ford.” —Robert Elswit

 
Robert Elswit is one of the most accomplished contemporary cinematographers. Wolfcrow’s Sareesh Sudhakaran go through some of his cinematography lighting and camera techniques to help you understand his unique style.

 
Dylan Tichenor, ACE, began working on films as an assistant to Geraldine Peroni (an American film editor) in the 1990’s. When Peroni passed away in 2004, Tichenor stepped to finish her work on Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain. Tichenor was first credited with Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights, for which he was nominated for a Satellite Award. Tichenor was nominated for two Oscars; one for his work on Anderson’s 2007 film There Will Be Blood and one for co-editing Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty with William Goldenberg, ACE. Some of Dylan’s other work includes Magnolia, The Royal Tenenbaums, Unbreakable, The Town, Doubt, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Whip It and American Made.

 

DYLAN TICHENOR AND ‘MAGNOLIA’—HOW HE EDITS HIS SCENES

Magnolia is the third collaboration between director Paul Thomas Anderson and editor Dylan Tichenor, who cut the critically acclaimed Boogie Nights and served as post-production supervisor on Anderson’s first feature, Hard Eight. Tichenor has worked in a variety of positions, ranging from apprentice to associate editor, on such Robert Altman films as The Player, Short Cuts, Ready To Wear and Kansas City. Nominated for an Emmy Award for his work on Altman’s Jazz ’34, Tichenor most recently edited The Royal Tenenbaums. —Dylan Tichenor and Magnolia: How He Edits His Scenes

 
An impressive edit by Leandro Copperfield, Paul Thomas Anderson’s atmosphere.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia. Photographed by Peter Sorel, Victor Aguirre © Ghoulardi Film Company, New Line Cinema, The Magnolia Project. Thanks to Will McCrabb. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post ‘Magnolia’: Paul Thomas Anderson’s Absorbing Mosaic of Compassion, Humanity and the Importance of Forgiveness appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

A 1971 Interview With Alejandro Jodorowsky on ‘El Topo,’ the Psychedelic, Genre-Bending Midnight Movie

$
0
0

 
By Sven Mikulec

Alejandro Jodorowsky’s El Topo just might be the weirdest, most bizarre, genre-bending film we’ve ever seen. This 1970 mystical western-disguised, symbol-ridden epic exploration of spirituality, religion and self-realization practically disappeared not long after it had its premiere, and has been kept in hiding thanks to a legal dispute between Jodorowsky and the former Beatles manager Allen Klein. Delighted by Jodorowsky’s psychedelic vision that found its grateful audience in the counterculture movement, John Lennon and Yoko Ono allegedly convinced the band’s manager Klein to acquire the rights for the film, while Lennon himself gave Jodorowsky one million dollars to finance his next movie, The Holy Mountain. Ironically, the same man that made El Topo‘s distribution possible in the first place was also the main reason the film disappeared from sight for almost four decades, as Klein and Jodorowsky fell out over some erotic film (The Story of O) that the agent was keen on making. Offended, Klein simply refused to show Jodorowsky’s films and the director slowly evaporated from the scene. After the dispute was resolved in a touching embrace of two old friends, El Topo managed to reach a much wider audience with its great 2007 DVD release. What enchanted Lennon, Marilyn Manson, David Lynch, Nicolas Winding Refn, Roger Waters, Bob Dylan and many others, and what gained a solid cult following, was now available to the general public and the stature of this indisputable classic that polarized the critics back in the seventies grew even stronger. Whatever you think of Jodorowsky and the objective quality of his films, the one account all film lovers seem to agree upon is how unique he really is: an avant-garde filmmaker, an uncompromising artist who uses the celluloid to express himself like so few others are willing to do. Almost half a century after it was born, El Topo rides on.

What we prepared for you today is a scan of a rare 1971 interview that Jodorowsky gave to The Staff writer Don Strachan, in which he discusses the making of El Topo, what he wanted to do with such an unusual picture, what inspired him to make it and what influenced and shaped his view on humanity, society and religion. This thrilling read is brought to you by a great Tumblr called Babylon Falling, where you can find many other priceless articles. Find the time to read Jodorowsky’s thoughts on El Topo, a movie like no other, now recognized as the film that ignited the theatrical midnight film movement. The practice of showing B movies or cult films at midnight at cinemas or on TV maybe started a couple of decades before Jodorowsky made his leather-wearing lone gunman epic, but it was El Topo that popularized the genre, adding historical importance to the list of the film’s qualities.




 
San Francisco street poet Jack Hirschman reviews Jodorowsky’s El Topo.

 
Abkco Music & Records and Unbox Industries are proud to announce a series of licensed limited edition figurines based on the film works of one of the world’s most unique & provocative creatives, Alejandro Jodorowsky. The highly respected sculptor Andrea Blasich worked closely with ABKCO and Jodorowsky to ensure the figurines are as realistic as possible to their characters from the films.



 
“When I make a picture, I don’t make a picture like a moviemaker, I make a picture like an artist, or like a human being. For me, back then, it was very important to do it. And now I have changed, it’s not the same. But I still respect that picture completely: it is what it is—but it is not me anymore. When I made the picture, I felt as though the picture was my father, and now I feel as though the picture is my son. I am here to speak about a son—but it is not important for me now. The umbilical line has been cut, it is not me anymore. But I like it, I am not ashamed of it.” —The Mole Man: Going Underground with Alejandro Jodorowsky

After a sold-out screening of El Topo at the Walter Reade Theater, director Alexander Jodorowsky sat down with Film Society of Lincoln Center’s Richard Peña to discuss his unorthodox preparation for the production of the film, the influence of theater on his fimmaking, and the overt symbolism of his masterpiece.

 
Arrow Video is proud to present three cinematic masterpieces from legendary Chilean director Alejandro Jodorowsky—El Topo, The Holy Mountain and Fando y Lis. Newly restored in 4K from the original negatives and back on the big screen for a limited time. All three titles will also be released as a Limited Edition Blu-ray set in March 2020.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post A 1971 Interview With Alejandro Jodorowsky on ‘El Topo,’ the Psychedelic, Genre-Bending Midnight Movie appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

‘Walk the Line’: How James Mangold Uncovered the Emotional History of Johnny Cash

$
0
0

 
By Koraljka Suton

He had to find the range of his own creativity, and learn how to control this river of darkness that he had been riding, and corral it in some way… Everyone thinks he was born ‘the Man in Black,’ but in a way, the identity that developed of this ‘Man in Black,’ as much as it was something highly marketable and a clever turn of phrase and a great wardrobe, it was also a way of taking control and owning himself, and making it something he was in charge of as opposed to something that was running him.James Mangold

When it comes to movie genres, it could easily be said that American director James Mangold never had a bias towards one. Whether it be drama films (Heavy and Girl, Interrupted), neo-noirs (Cop Land), romantic comedies (Kate and Leopold), psychological slashers (Identity), Western re-makes (3:10 to Yuma), action comedies (Knight and Day) or superhero movies (Wolverine and Logan, with the latter earning him an Academy Award nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay), the core that permeates his filmmaking tendencies has always been the exploration of that which defines us as human beings—relationships. It should come as no surprise then that one such director who refuses to restrict himself genre-wise would gladly venture a try at a music biopic, and one that depicts the highs, lows, loves and losses of none other than America’s beloved Man in Black. As is the case with his other films, Mangold’s choice of genre refuses to be self-serving, but rather becomes an amazing vehicle for the biopic’s tropes and characteristics to fulfill the purpose of beautifully, skillfully and authentically depicting the emotional development of what would eventually become a life-long romantic partnership. Later on, the director would use the experience that working on Walk the Line provided him with to take a deep dive into the world of car racing and yet again tackle the challenge of bringing a true story to the big screen, in this year’s critically acclaimed sports drama Ford v Ferrari starring Matt Damon and Christian Bale. When asked by CinemaBlend’s Eric Eisenberg about his approach to the biopic genre in particular, Mangold said: “The approach is you try and do everything as it happened with the limit that you can’t be boring. So, if it actually took three hours for something to happen, I’m not going to make the audience sit for three hours and watch a couple of guys waiting in a waiting room. There’s a level where I’m responsible to the audience to deliver an entertainment.”

And what Mangold delivered with Walk the Line was precisely that—a story rooted in facts, but structured and presented in such a way that the end result managed to be highly entertaining and emotionally impactful at the same time. In other words, he achieved what he had strived to do, which was to create “an emotional history,” as he called it, a sensory experience one could not get from written sources focused solely on facts, numbers and dates. But as it turned out, said emotional history was something that first needed to be uncovered so as to be portrayed, and when it came to the story of the legendary Johnny Cash, Mangold was more than willing to pick up the metaphorical shovel and rummage around in the dirt. Still, it took quite some time before he could even begin doing so, seeing as how the movie rights did not belong to him. The story goes as follows: back in 1993, Cash was a guest star on the popular TV show Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman and he, along with his wife June Carter Cash, subsequently became good friends with actress Jane Seymour, the show’s lead, as well as her husband James Keach who directed that very episode. In the mid-90s, Cash himself asked Keach if he would be willing to make a film based on his life, which the director gladly agreed to. Keach and Seymour visited the Cash’s at their family home and started doing a series of interviews that would become the basis for a 1997 script written by Gill Dennis. Unfortunately, Hollywood was not buying what they were selling. In 1999, with still no buyers in sight, Keach decided to reach out to Mangold, as the latter had been trying to get involved in the project for the past two years, calling Keach every so often and asking him if he could direct it.

 
Although very enthusiastic about the prospect of finally getting to make a Johnny Cash biopic, Mangold was not a big fan of the script, proclaiming it “very soft” and severely lacking in the love story department, with the emphasis being put on Cash as a music icon instead. Together with his then-wife, producer Cathy Konrad, Mangold met up with the Cashes with the intention of getting more insight into their intriguing history so as to revise the script, which was also based on two optioned autobiographies: Man in Black: His Own Story in His Own Words (1975) and Cash: The Autobiography (1997). Although Mangold and Konrad were nowhere near satisfied with the romance aspect of the story they had structured, by 2001 they had a solid enough screenplay, so they tried selling it to a studio. And yet again, it seemed as if there were no buyers: Sony, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Universal and Focus Features all declined. But lucky for them, Fox agreed to do it. Despite being happy that their passion-project had finally been greenlit, the duo still felt that a crucial part of the story was missing, namely the courtship between Cash and Carter which had been denied in both the autobiographies and the interviews that served as the basis for the script. But without the crucial piece of information about how their romantic relationship came to be during the period the two singers toured together while Cash’s wife and children waited at home, the emotional truth of the story remained absent and the screenplay less than it could be.

In Walk the Line, we are introduced to J.R. Johnny Cash as a 12-year-old-boy raised on a cotton farm, who discovers his love of music through singing hymns with his mother. A tragedy that claims the life of his older brother leaves him emotionally wounded and haunts him for the remainder of his days. We follow Johnny from his years in the military all the way to his first record deal and subsequent stardom. While on tour with Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis and June Carter, he struggles with his feelings for the latter due to him being married with children. Affairs with groupies, severe alcohol and drug abuse and a series of unresolved emotional issues set the iconic singer-songwriter on a downward spiral only one person, as it turned out, could save him from. And that person was June.

“It’s not romantic enough. June agrees with me” was what Johnny Cash told Mangold over the phone at some point during pre-production. “Well, of course it’s not, John, because you guys aren’t telling me anything about your courtship because you were married to other people and you don’t want to talk about what happened between you” was the director’s reply. Cash called Mangold back a week later and invited him over. It was then that the married couple admitted to their Las Vegas-affair, which would ultimately become the long-anticipated plot point of Walk the Line, upping the emotional stakes and proving itself to be a point of no return if there ever was one. Ultimately, by being willing to get his hands dirty so as to excavate an emotional truth he was so eager to find and portray, Mangold managed to uncover a factual truth that was buried so very deep, that it spent decades being denied, rejected and disowned by those it belonged to. By finally being willing to admit to that which they had previously vehemently rebuffed, Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash not only gave Mangold a chance to depict their relationship authentically and truthfully, but also owned up to and reclaimed their life-altering love story and its inception.

 
And what Mangold did was treat it with the utmost care and sensitivity. There are no “bad guys” and “good guys” in Walk the Line, just as there were no bad guys or good guys in Johnny Cash’s life (Johnny included)—only people who learned about themselves by making decisions that more often than not ended up hurting those nearest to them. It is the story of a deeply hurt and lonely man whose personality was formed around a severe childhood trauma that involved the loss of a loved one, implying that his innocence was taken from him far too early. In Walk the Line, Mangold does not point a judgmental finger at the people who contributed to the singer’s misery somewhere down the line—such as his alcoholic father who treated him poorly or his first wife who wanted things from him he could not give her—which is exactly how Cash wanted it, well aware of the fact that his mistakes and downfalls were his and his alone. Probably the best testament to how Cash perceived himself is the fact that James Whale’s Frankenstein was his favorite movie, “because it’s about a man made up of all these bad parts and yet he still tries to do something decent and be someone decent.” Cash indeed put both himself and his loved ones through a rough drug and alcohol-induced ride caused by the unresolved emotional dead weight he had been carrying around with him for years. Yet, his experiences, both good and bad, not only influenced his music, but were, in fact, the main driving force behind it. And Walk the Line captures that perfectly, portraying Cash as a sensitive individual whose felt perception of the world naturally led to him transforming that which he had sensed and experienced into powerful words and sounds. To quote Mangold: “No one sits down and says that they’re going to be a great songwriter. They just find their soul. They connect to it and they say someone hear me. To make a movie about him in which I didn’t show that his success and artistic achievement was in some way greatly based by the participation of others would be a lie. I really don’t believe anyone has an issue making biopic movies. I do think they have a problem making movies about human beings. I had everyone pass on this film. Movies about people are very rare these days.”

The very format of the music biopic enabled Mangold to tell the story of one man’s becoming, with music being used as a powerful narrative tool that communicates emotion, perception and transition. The songs played in Walk the Line were not chosen at random and inserted into the movie just so as to pay homage to a music legend and his artistic achievements. Quite the contrary, every song we hear and every performance we witness are completely character-motivated, flawlessly capturing the extent to which Cash’s music was both a reflection and an extension of the life he lived. In short, it captured the essence of what art truly is. What greatly contributed to this raw and authentic approach was surely the choice of leading man, as well as the decision that he should sing everything himself. “You’re not Johnny Cash and you’re not going to be Johnny Cash. It’s your interpretation that I want to capture. If people want to hear Johnny Cash, he’s made a couple of records,” the director had told the actor he entrusted the role with.

Joaquin Phoenix had actually met the singer six months before Mangold even contacted him about stepping into Cash’s shoes. Having heard that the actor was in Los Angeles, Cash, being a fan of Phoenix’s performance in Gladiator, invited him for dinner through a mutual friend. After being honored by a Cash-Carter mini-concert in their living room and feeling as if he had just been privy to an incredibly vulnerable moment between two lovers, Phoenix had to leave due to a previously scheduled business meeting. Cash walked him to the door and expressed his appreciation for what the actor had done in Gladiator, and proceeded to quote his favorite part of the film, the line Phoenix’s character Commodus utters to Russell Crowe’s protagonist Maximus: “Your son squealed like a girl when they nailed him to the cross and your wife moaned like a whore when they ravaged her again and again and again.” At first completely floored by the fact that the man who had sung so lovingly with his wife mere moments ago was the same person who had just gleefully quoted such a disturbing movie scene, Phoenix came to the realization later on that he got the opportunity to witness two sides of Johnny Cash. The fact that the singer did not hide it, but rather honestly showcased the polarity within, helped the actor during his role preparation more than anything he had read in the script. As Mangold put it: “John himself was an artist of the shadows, and John himself wrote very boldly about darkness.”

 
Phoenix got the screenplay for Walk the Line on a Friday in 2001. It is said that he called Mangold the following Monday and asked what his course of action should be if he wanted to play the part. The director told him to buy a guitar, with the actor duly obliging the very next day and practicing diligently for the next three years. Together with his co-star Reese Witherspoon (who learned to play the autoharp from scratch), Phoenix underwent extensive vocal training with music producer T Bone Burnett six months before principal photography began. Even after all those months of singing lessons, the actor’s voice was allegedly still too high, which disabled him from singing the songs in their original key. As a result, the band had to learn every song in a higher key. But Phoenix’s voice unexpectedly dropped before filming started, so the band had to re-learn everything as it was originally written. What Phoenix managed to achieve in those six months was next to a miracle, nailing down Cash’s vocal color, as well as his mannerisms and stage presence to such an extent that even the singer’s hardcore fan, the late movie critic Roger Ebert, was sure it was Cash’s voice he was hearing, only to be utterly surprised upon seeing Phoenix’s name in the closing credits. Mangold was right—no one but Johnny Cash could possibly do Johnny Cash. But Joaquin Phoenix sure as hell came uncannily close to it. Apart from masterfully channeling the Man in Black, the actor did not shy away from improvisation when he felt the moment demanded it. The scene in which Cash pulls a sink out of a wall was not in fact scripted, and the same goes for the uncomfortable lingering stare Cash gives June during their performance of “I Got Stripes.” When giving the actor direction, Mangold told Phoenix that he should just do what he would personally do if he had had a fight with his girlfriend and then had to perform with her in front of a live audience. Phoenix obliged and kicked off the staring contest, but Witherspoon’s reaction was not at all what he was looking for—she simply rolled her eyes and continued with the song, whereas Phoenix’s aim was to make her feel as uncomfortable as he possibly could. But Witherspoon’s unexpected response turned that scene into quite a gem, and one that would have been only half as humorous and authentic had it been planned out beforehand.

Incidentally, this little anecdote perfectly captures the essence of Phoenix and Witherspoon’s acting partnership that required them not only to trust, but also completely rely on one another. It could, therefore, come as a surprise that their relationship was actually pretty tense during the six months they had spent in vocal training, because the prospect of having to sing made both of them extremely nervous. But all of that changed once filming started and the two formed such a bond that they even made a secret pact—if one of them was to quit the movie, the other would follow suit. Lucky for Mangold and for us, that was a bridge that never had to be crossed. Phoenix and Witherspoon’s performances earned them both Academy Award nominations, with Witherspoon rightfully taking home the award for Best Actress (Phoenix lost to the late Philip Seymour Hoffman and his fantastic portrayal of Truman Capote in Capote). Her reverence for and understanding of June Carter radiates throughout her performance, as she skillfully juggles between her on-stage persona who uses her humor and quirkiness to compensate for what she had been taught to believe was an inadequate vocal ability and her private self which is head-strong and decisive, yet empathetic and understanding at the same time. Witherspoon believed June Carter Cash to have been a woman way ahead of her time, leading her life the way she wanted to, despite acts such as divorce, touring alone with male musicians and having children fathered by different men being seen as unacceptable and reproachful in the 1950s.

Walk the Line received three more Academy Award nominations—for Best Costume Design (Arianne Phillips), Best Film Editing (Michael McCusker) and Best Sound Mixing (Doug Hemphill, Peter Kurland, Paul Massey)—and won three Golden Globes (Phoenix, Witherspoon and Best Motion Picture—Musical or Comedy). The reception was overwhelmingly positive, but there were some people who could not quite stomach Mangold’s homage to the adored singer-songwriter. Cash’s second-oldest daughter with his first wife reportedly walked out of a family screening of the movie not once, but five times, claiming that her mother was not cast in a flattering light and protesting the lack of scenes between her father and his children. His eldest daughter Rosanne took it one step further and compared watching the movie to “having a root canal without anesthetic.” But their half-brother John Carter Cash, who worked as an executive producer on the film, simply responded by stating that Walk the Line was first and foremost—his parents’ love story. June Carter Cash passed away two weeks after having disclosed the information about their Las Vegas rendezvous to the director and Johnny Cash followed four months later. Although they never got a chance to see the finished film, it could be deemed rather poetic that one of the final verses they gave to the world was the truth about who they were and what they did, without which their love story would not and could not have been done justice.

Koraljka Suton is a member of the Croatian Society of Film Critics and has a master’s degree in German and English. For her thesis, she did a comparative analysis of Spielberg’s ‘Band of Brothers’ and ‘The Pacific’. Koraljka trained at a Zagreb-based acting studio for six years and fell in love with Michael Chekhov and Lee Strasberg’s acting techniques. She is also a contemporary dancer and a Reiki master who believes in the transformative quality of art. Read more »

 
There’s a huge amount of people who are attached to this icon. You have to put it out of your head. I learned this, weirdly, making Walk the Line. Almost every day, Joaquin [Phoenix, who played Johnny Cash] would come up to me before we’d start shooting a scene, he goes, “Say that thing.” And I go, “You’re not Johnny Cash.” And he goes, “Thank you.” In order to channel Johnny Cash, he had to free himself from the weight of expectation, from the pressure of mimicry, from this intense sense of importance that people attach to a role or a scene.James Mangold

Screenwriter must-read: Gill Dennis & James Mangold’s screenplay for Walk the Line [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
James Mangold: A Director Walks The Fine Line Towards The Oscars, by Brad Balfour.

Because he didn’t look exactly like Johnny, actor Joaquin Phoenix was remarkable in his way to manipulate himself to look like Johnny.
I take issue with that statement and have with everyone else that has made it—look the pictures of the young Johnny Cash in the ’50s. I think he looks a lot like Johnny. It took me ten years to get this movie made and every studio in town passed. The reason why they passed was the image they had of John was a 60-year-old man. I set off to make this movie and had this idea, what I wanted to do was make a movie of Johnny Cash and model it after East of Eden. I wanted that same structure. I wanted the naturalism and dynamism of James Dean. That was what I was looking for to eradicate that legendary image on John. I had to find my Johnny Cash slash James Dean to build that model. In one of the interviews I had with John [who worked closely with Mangold on this project before he died], I asked him how he married Vivian [Cash’s first wife] so fast. And he said two words, “Pier Angeli”—who was James Dean’s girlfriend. I was like “Holy shit.” He saw himself as James Dean. When I told him how I was seeing him as Dean when I was writing this, he said that was dead-on. [Producer/director] James Keach had the rights to the movie and he was trying to direct it himself. But I kept calling James every year after 1996 asking if I could direct it. We were always respectful about it. But three years later in ’99 he had gotten to a place that he wasn’t going to do this movie. Then he met with us and I came on to work on the script.

Did Reese Witherspoon [who plays June Carter] have a little more of an edge on the singing since everyone actually is doing the singing in the film?
Reese had worked more than Joaquin had. I think Joaquin felt it was an advantage to play John. He was a guy who never thought about singing at all and had to become Johnny Cash and could construct his whole attack on singing as a way to get closer to John.

What did he do to channel that?
Well one is the reasoning behind it was clear to both actors. This was a philosophy for the whole movie. I didn’t want to cast any one in a singing role who couldn’t really sing. The logic was really simple John and June were such incredible presences on the stage, the idea of doing a playback and having someone else’s voice singing other than Reese seemed wrong. It was not something that Joaquin had earned and owned. The whole idea to moving your mouth to preexisting recording puts the emphasis on things that John didn’t. He was not the prodigy on the guitar. He was a great storyteller and he was committed to his audience. You can listen to any of his albums and think he could have done better takes. But he could never do a better take on hitting the idea. That’s where the idea came from, to capture their souls.

Did you personalize this movie through another way besides through the music?
The truth of it is that this isn’t really John’s story [as a musician]. I don’t feel you can make a movie about that. It would be like artistic issues turned dramatic. I want to know about what those people are feeling at the moment. John would be the first to tell you that he didn’t feel like he had a vision for his music. It was through his emotional struggles that he found his artistic identity. The incredible power of John’s writing and vocals was just who John was. He was never going to undo that. He wanted to be a crooner. But what happened for him was what should have happened to him. I don’t think I could have made a movie about that. I wanted to make a movie about what they were feeling on a day-to-day basis. And you watch the art grow thought the circumstances in their lives. No one sits down and says that they’re going to be a great songwriter. They just find their soul. They connect to it and they say someone hear me. To make a movie about him in which I didn’t show that his success and artistic achievement was in some way greatly based by the participation of others would be a lie. I really don’t believe anyone has an issue making bio pic movies. I do think they have a problem making movies about human beings. I had everyone pass on this film. Movies about people are very rare these days. I don’t think Ray or Walk the Line had a hard time getting made because they were about a period of music. I think it’s just a tough time for people to like movies that are not comic book movies.

What convinces you to do a movie?
I love the story. I loved John and there was no other reason for me to make the movie. I loved his story. This will be the only Johnny Cash movie that will exist in the next few years. But I could cover every base and make a good movie. I had to make my Johnny Cash movie. It was about his passion and his true love and his demons.

Every film has that speech which sums up its theme. During the scene where Johnny talks to his dad at Thanksgiving seems to be that speech for this film.
Yeah that’s a good one. The other one is when Sam Philips says to John, it’s not about believing in God. It’s about believing in yourself. John’s gospel albums of the last ten years of his life are beautiful; the ones in the ’60s were not so great. The ones he made towards the end of his life were incredible. Why? Because he was ready; he had found himself. The guy in the ’60s had not found himself yet. You can’t be taking a fistful of uppers and downers and abandoning his family and being close to God. For me, I wanted this film to not be easy. I didn’t want that scene to end with them hugging. Sometimes people move an inch and it’s a mile. That I learned making Heavy. if eel that when dramatic films is when they get too manipulative. Some times dramatic films try to give everyone a bow on its story line that makes it not resonate with us. Some times we don’t just find peace sometimes we don’t find resolve.

Did you juggle the story at all?
I didn’t manipulate it. In fact, there are scenes in the movie that are true evocations that John and June told us about that hadn’t ever been in a bio pic of him before. No one really ever address these tours and how things went down on them. For me there wasn’t a lot of distortion. The idea working the way to their marriage and getting them to come together was a big deal.

Did you find that you felt a certain pressure to give a historical context of the film?
I tried to very carefully lay out the music you’re hearing. I wanted you to feel how soft it was before the explosion of the sun. Here was cool black blues music on the fringes and the Pasty Klein. All of America was about round edges. I wasn’t making a documentary but I wanted to feel it even in the songs John was trying to learn.

How has making this movie changed your life?
John and June had proven to me that the power of life can change lives. People wanted to save him because they felt he had to be saved. It wasn’t just about that he was a good guy it was about that he was an important voice to be saved. Even June knew that there was something magical about him.

How has the making of this film changed your filmmaking?
I think I got really spoiled. I hit a team on this movie where everything was humming. I felt like I was riding a magic carpet. I think Joaquin and Reese were something magical too. Something magical happened on our set. I don’t know if you can recreate that.

How do you react to people’s expectations about this film and the Oscars?
Well of course, you’re glad people are saying great things about the movie. For me it’s hard to get great movies made. It’s hard to get people movies made. All I ever ask in this case is that [people appreciate] that Joaquin and Reese’s work is so astounding. The only thing I think is unfair is that because it comes after Ray it might diminish it. I hope people see these movies for what they are, which is great, great performances.

Do you think it’s important to know how to do movies about characters and how to do that in genre films as well?
I’m very proud of my work on this film. I feel I learned a lot making two genre movies, Kate and Leopold [romantic comedy] and Identity [suspense/supernatural thriller]. What was great in making those two movies is that they were “unimportant” with concern to the Oscars, so I showed up to the set every day relaxed. I had more fun doing those movies and I hadn’t had that kind of fun since I was make super-8mm movies when I was sixteen. For me, it was a joy making a movie and having fun with the medium. When I came to this film, I really felt like I learned some serious lessons, not to have that feeling of importance overwhelm you.

Was it ever difficult for you to work with people who are perceived as stars and who might not be easy to direct?
Actors in general, when ever you get ready and ask if they’ll trust you—actually the most difficult person can be the guy coming to play the UPS man. Stars aren’t screwed by the system because they’re getting paid a lot are easier. People who are screwed by the system are more difficult. A-list actors have a lot of trust for the director because they get to work with such good directors. My theory of directing is I have three days. If my actor is coming to the set every day for three days ready to work and at the end of the day, they feel the work they arrived ready to do was better than the work they finished doing on film, then they’re going to hate me. The actor has to feel the interaction with me is better. If I don’t succeed in that in those first three days in the shoot, there will be mistrust.

Do you feel you are somewhat of a psychologist on the set with actors?
Absolutely. Movies are photograph of thought. That’s my whole purpose in making a movie—the idea of the importance of dialogue is a lie. It’s how they look at each other [that counts]. The truth of the movie is in their eyes. I call it “the litigious nature of dialogue.” The truth of the movie is what is going on through their teeth. As a writer, I believe in abundance or indulgence but I really minimize [as a director]. Leiv Shreiber gives a speech in Kate and Leopold that I love. That is a moment to indulge in speech and the beauty of the spoken word. But I don’t want the movie to be wall-to-wall dialogue.

Do you feel your career deals with couples a lot?
Well I always thought of Girl, Interrupted as a cleaved film in the way that Angie [Jolie] and Winona [Ryder]’s character were halves of one whole. But in this film, I felt both John and June’s characters had contradictory identities. Johnny Cash was the womanizer and he was also shy and sensitive. They’re both real and really him. June has to put the shine on and the amazing stage presence, and at the same time she was a single mother of two at a time where there weren’t single mothers.

Do you find it easier directing men or women?
I don’t find it easier one way or another. Men are easier to get out of the trailer. But I don’t find it easier either way. I think the reality is for me I find it easier when I get to know people. What I had on this film—which is really unusual given stars of this magnitude to be this way—I had unending trust. I’ve experienced that in all my films. The one thing that has to work between actors and directors is they can’t be second-guessing. They have to believe what they’re seeing and their part. These weren’t actors who were watching dailies or watching playback.

 

PHEDON PAPAMICHAEL, ASC

Visually, I really liked Unstrung Heroes and Million Dollar Hotel. Walk the Line I liked because it was inspirational shooting those performances on stage with that great music. The most fun was Sideways, because of the locations and drinking wine and Alexander Payne… after shooting, we would wrap at a vineyard. It was similar on Descendants, Alexander just creates a very respectful, intimately creative environment. With George it was also creatively highly stimulating. There is a lot of precision in the way George approaches the story. Ultimately, whenever you have great performances, it inspires everyone and I always try to pick and work on movies that I would go see myself… which are not that many! I try to stay away from big-budget action-hero movies because I feel you can easily lose the connection to the characters in them. I like the simpler, smaller, more intimate fare. —Phedon Papamichael

 
The Gift: The Journey of Johnny Cash features interviews with the singer-songwriter’s family and collaborators, along with newly unearthed archive footage and an original score from Pearl Jam’s Mike McCready. It delves into the Man in Black’s triumphs and spiritual endeavors along with his addiction problems and personal tragedies. The film was created with the cooperation of the Cash estate and featured the legendary 1968 performance at Folsom Prison as eye of the storm to tell the rest of the story of Cash’s life.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of James Mangold’s Walk the Line. Photographed by Suzanne Tenner © Fox 2000 Pictures, Tree Line Film, Konrad Pictures, Catfish Productions, Major Studio Partners, Mars Media Beteiligungs. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post ‘Walk the Line’: How James Mangold Uncovered the Emotional History of Johnny Cash appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Appetite for Destruction: Paul Thomas Anderson’s ‘Phantom Thread’ and the Fall of the House of Woodcock

$
0
0

 
By Tim Pelan

Not unlike James Cameron and his flop sweat fever dream of a chrome skeleton-framed torso, dragging itself relentlessly by a wicked blade after a fleeing young woman that led to his tech-noir nightmare The Terminator, writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson can also chalk his inspiration for Phantom Thread down to a particularly nasty stomach bug. Nursed through the unpleasantness by his wife, actress Maya Rudolph, Anderson had the thread of an idea about the exposed vulnerability of the invalid and the power of the nurse. About mischievous power games, and whether sickness can sometimes be good for the soul. The thought that crossed his mind, he told Collider, was, “I wonder if she wants to keep me this way, maybe for a week or two.” I was watching the wrong movies when I was in bed, during this illness. I was watching Rebecca, The Story of Adele H., and Beauty and the Beast, and I really started to think that maybe she was poisoning me. So, that kernel of an idea, I had in my mind when I started working on writing something.” Set in the rarefied world of London’s 1950’s couture houses, Daniel Day-Lewis is Reynolds Woodcock, a brilliant, fastidious middle-aged self-involved dress designer who is slowly becoming out of step with what is “chic.” Partnered by his acerbic sister Cyril (Lesley Manville) in the “House of Woodcock,” he (and she) casts aside yet another pretty young thing he’s become bored with (“I’ll give her the October dress,” Cyril ameliorates peremptorily) before adopting a new young muse, the clumsy waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps) he takes a shine to at a country hotel. But Alma (European, nationality unaddressed) has steel beneath her bumbling, seemingly subservient exterior. Reynolds and she embark on a toxic love affair that will rock the staid House of Woodcock. “What happens when your mother hasn’t let your feet touch the ground, or is convinced the sun shines only for you? When you have this halo that means as long as you’re creating, you’re allowed to behave as inappropriately as you want to? There’s nothing worse than kids acting like the worst kind of adults and adults acting like the worst kind of kids. That’s not a good look for anybody,” Anderson told Catherine Shoard for The Guardian.

The obsessive nature of the Reynolds character naturally lent itself to dressmaking, although that wasn’t locked down originally. Anderson found himself drawn to the 1950s fashion designer Cristóbal Balenciaga for inspiration. It’s not quite War of the Roses with dresses, but in its black comedy there’s a definite hint of two people who can’t quit each other. Anderson first became aware of Krieps, from Luxembourg, in a German film called The Chambermaid Lynn. He told Rolling Stone, “she has one of those faces that turns in about 45 directions at once. What I mean is, you look at her one way and she could not look more awkward; then she turns slightly and, suddenly, she looks stunningly beautiful. Then you see her from a third angle and it’s like: ‘Does she love me or is she going to poison me?’ [Laughs] You could believe she’d be serving tea in some shitty hotel on the coast and then could come sweeping downstairs in a gown.”

 
Krieps met Day-Lewis for the first time in character, in the scene where they first meet and the “hungry boy” wolfishly reels off what seems like the entire breakfast order. Her blush seems genuine, but she is aware enough (and hungry enough herself) to slip him her name on a note. The look between them in that unrehearsed scene, she told Kate Kellaway for The Guardian, was “anticipation, a ghost in the room. Their love, like all real love affairs, begins as recognition. They see each other.” Krieps saw their relationship not as a duel, but a duet. “The power levels are different in Alma and Reynolds. Paul left this very open. Many relationships can become difficult and it can be hard to find a way back. Alma finds a dangerous way (with the poison mushrooms). Sometimes, if you look at older couples who have been together for years, they have the strangest ways of staying together—they play games, often sexual.”

There’s a sense the younger Alma has experienced things during the war the much older, cosseted Reynolds did not. “Alma has seen people die,” says Krieps. “She has seen what it means to lose your home and country. She comes from cold, windy Germany and is transported into a warm world in London, wrapped in silk and light. People who live through the war cannot think about themselves. They cannot ask: ‘Am I weak?’ ‘Am I strong?’ They just have to get up and be brave.” Leading to a mordantly funny exchange after an unwelcome surprise dinner for two from Alma, with Reynolds rudely asking “Are you a special agent sent here to ruin my evening and possibly my entire life?” Although one may think the protagonist of the piece is Reynolds, Anderson frames the film’s point of view through Alma, via fireside close-ups as candlelight confession to the young doctor that treats him after Alma’s kinky “ministrations,” the hungry boy by the film’s end a willing accomplice (“Kiss me my girl, before I’m sick.”). Shelly Farmer for RogerEbert.com saw a similarity between the Alma and Reynolds relationship with that of Jane Eyre and Rochester. “In narratives like Jane Eyre and Phantom Thread, men are tamed and softened, and the ability to provide care, which is so often women’s unasked—for burden (even today), becomes a lever of power that creates a new equilibrium in the relationship, both emotional and sexual… In Phantom Thread, however, Anderson queers the happy ending by imbuing the couple’s dynamic with an edge of psycho-sexual violence, engaged in willingly by both participants.”

 
Filming largely took place in a Georgian townhouse in London’s Fitzroy Square, the combined atmosphere of home and atelier all-consuming and immersive. House of Woodcock’s senior seamstresses Nana and Biddy were played by Susan Clark and Joan Brown, a former dressmaking teacher and ladies seamstress, initially brought on as technical advisers. Incidentally, check out the work of @FPCroissant, who does beautiful three-dimensional water color floor plans of movie homes, including that of Reynolds Woodcock. Her work on the Phantom Thread house includes a cross section with significant scenes and settings, such as “Breakfast. As if Alma rode a horse across the room.” There was a sense for actors and crew that they were indeed back in time. Krieps felt that, “Making the film felt endless—Paul had the same impression. I felt as if I were on a boat so far from land, I didn’t know how I would get back.” For Alma, and perhaps Reynolds, drawn into her spell, there is the German feeling of sehnsucht—“the longing for something you once had combined with a yearning for something as yet unknown.” Ghosts haunt them both—his mother, her troubled youth. Reynolds sews a lock of his mother’s hair, she who taught him his trade, into the lining of his jacket, and secret messages in dresses—a detail inspired by the stories of Alexander McQueen doing so when he worked on Savile Row.

Production Designer Mark Tildesley “thought a great deal about the inherent drama of the spaces inside both the House of Woodcock and the clothing it produced—in stark contrast to Owlpen (Reynold’s country retreat), which is dark and cluttered, a haunted world. Owlpen is a family home he’s inherited, a place of dreams and memories.” Set Decorator Véronique Melery collaborated closely with Day-Lewis on the choice of Reynolds’ furnishings and accoutrements. “He had clear ideas about what kind of paintings would exist in his world, what kind of flowers he would have around, what book he would be reading. It is forcing a set decorator to go far into the psyche of a character, and with Daniel, you talk literally with the character. It’s fascinating and challenging work. You need to know every single detail about every piece you dress on set, and be prepared to evaluate your choices with an actor who is inhabiting the character in a very intense manner… The drawing pads that Reynolds is using everywhere were made in different sizes, using old green moleskin for the covers, with his monogram in embossed gold. The paper itself has a soft quality, ideal for drawing. We did visit a London second hand shop selling high quality fountain pens to find and choose his main one… in his company. This was primordial.”

 
Costume designer Mark Bridges had to design period gowns that reflected Reynold’s staid, dark palette. “How do you make a spring collection for a designer who’s kind of dark [for] the period?” Bridges told Film Maker Magazine. “It’s not happy, joyous, flirty outfits. We had a floral print, but it was a black background floral print. The suit with the cape and the feathered hat, that is based on [British designer Charles] Creed, so it’s leather. You make choices along the way that indicate the designer’s taste, and you try to stay in character. There’s a little yellow and grey suit with the hat that you see him trying on Alma. It’s very chic and very fitted, but it’s not that happy. It’s not a cheery spring creation, where everyone is going to go, ‘Oh, spring has sprung.’ So we were definitely designing in character. Early on, we set out [to answer], ‘What is the house of Woodcock?’ It’s deep rich colors, it’s lace, it’s not terribly ostentatious, it’s more about textures and rich colors.” Anderson & Sheppard of Savile Row made all of Day-Lewis’ suits, in a weighty, period-accurate fabric. He was glad of the heavy cloth during the three months of townhouse shoot with no central heating. He was also probably glad of the very long pink socks Reynold’s wears, at his suggestion of English eccentric affectation. He also felt his character would wear bow ties.

Lesley Manville’s Cyril is a fabulously, cuttingly polite creature, immaculately turned out, with a put down that would stop an uppity tradesman in his tracks. She’s more than a match for her brother’s tetchiness, warning him not to turn his “cloud” on her, or let Alma “wait around” for his attention—“Don’t pick a fight with me, you won’t come out alive. I’ll go right through and you’ll end up on the floor. Understood?” She then calmly resumes drinking her morning tea, barely flicking her eyes sideways at him until he slurps his own in a kind of salute, another skirmish in a long-running campaign of love and hate with his “Old so and so.” Cyril wears greys that photograph as black, the perfect counterpoint for Manville’s pale skin, pearls and coiffed hair. Bridges recalled that, “We were informed by the women who were, essentially, the saleswomen at Balenciaga, and you see it all the way through any reference to that period: they would wear navy and pearls, very simple, and allow the fashions to stand out, and I think that’s what we did with Lesley. Of course, she has impeccable tailoring, she is representing the house.” When Gina McKee’s Countess Henrietta Harding says that Woodcock’s dresses give her courage, she’s quoting Cristóbal Balenciaga client Bunny Mellon. But it’s courage of the old guard, perhaps, as Mark Bridges muses. “He [Woodcock] learned his trade from his mother, in the early part of the 20th century. But it’s the 1950s now and he’s still using those materials and techniques from the turn of the century and it’s about to become a brand new world of fashion with Dior and Saint Laurent and [Balenciaga’s] sack. It is just about to leave him behind.”

 
Radiohead guitarist and film composer Jonny Greenwood collaborated for the fifth time with Anderson on Phantom Thread‘s sumptuous score. He told Variety, “I was interested in the kinds of jazz records from the ’50s that toyed with incorporating big string sections—Ben Webster made some good ones—and focus on what the strings were doing rather than the jazz musicians themselves. As well, I looked at what classical music was most popular amongst that generation. For Reynolds, I decided if he ever listened to music, it’d be loads of Glenn Gould. Lots of slightly obsessive, minimal baroque music. I couldn’t imagine him listening to much jazz. So as well as the grandly romantic music for the story, there could be more formal music for him. Those were the two contrasting strands. It was very enjoyable writing the baroque stuff—I love that kind of music, it’s so satisfying—and it’s one of the few things I learnt to do at school. As well, Paul often referred to vampire stories—there’s certainly an element of that to the tale—the village girl lured to the big house, so some of the cues are a little darker.” For a hint of Alma’s mysterious European past intruding into Reynold’s ordered existence, he incorporated the cimbalom—“It plays a version of the baroque theme that recurs in the film a few times.”

Finally, film blog Writing About Film has some interesting observations about how the blocking of scenes in Reynolds’ home, “visually emphasized verticality and compressed the frame horizontally. It felt like an Academy ratio film… within a widescreen frame, by choosing an appropriate location and using it in conjunction with the camera to make the frame feel tall and narrow.” And, “It’s in the general setting, a townhouse in London with narrow corridors, tight staircases and high ceilings—you rarely see ceilings in Phantom Thread at all, the walls stretching all the way to the top of the frame giving a feeling of limitless height. There’s an interesting balance of tone achieved, too—with walls everywhere, the Woodcock residence is kind of a prison, but not an inescapable one, as there’s always the possibility of movement upwards.”

 
Few scenes emphasize this claustrophobic yet intimate feeling as well as the slow track into the bathroom through the door ajar, the outside hall and it in darkness, squaring the frame. Centered, Reynolds in pajamas and a soothing rug on the toilet, enamel sick bowl clutched to him, newspapers spread on the floor, and a kneeling Alma tenderly placing a kiss on his fevered cheek. A kind of inversion of The Searchers, two outsiders finding each other. Let’s go home, Alma.

Tim Pelan was born in 1968, the year of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (possibly his favorite film), ‘Planet of the Apes,’ ‘The Night of the Living Dead’ and ‘Barbarella.’ That also made him the perfect age for when ‘Star Wars’ came out. Some would say this explains a lot. Read more »

 
I told him a little bit about the story I was cooking up and we agreed I would share the writing with him as it went along. Because it also required investigating this world, this couture. We did researching together. He would be researching and I would be researching, but I would be writing. I’d write every couple of weeks, every 15, 20 or 30 pages and share things with him because I don’t speak ‘English,’ I speak American. So, he helped me with that as it went along. It was a real collaboration. Obviously, everyone wants to work with Daniel and I got nudged to the front of the line.Paul Thomas Anderson

Screenwriter must-read: Paul Thomas Anderson’s screenplay for Phantom Thread [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Phantom Thread is currently available on 4K Ultra High Definition Blu Ray via Universal. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

 
Paul Thomas Anderson talked to AFI Conservatory Fellows about writing the film.

 
Paul Thomas Anderson talks love, fashion, obsession and his leading man’s retirement. Interview by David Fear. This article was originally published in the Rolling Stone, December 19, 2017.

You’ve said that the conception for this really started when you were sick one day in bed—how did you go from that to a romance between a fashion designer and his model?
[Laughs] I think that’s a long leap between a lot of stones!

Walk us through this.
So yes, I was sick and my wife [actress Maya Rudolph] was taking care of me. And my imagination just took over at some point, where I had this thought: “Oh, she is looking at me with such care and tenderness… wouldn’t it suit her to keep me sick in this state?” I don’t know a lot about that disorder, Munchausen [symdrome] by proxy—that’s too hot for me to handle. But that moment was enough to… it gave me an idea that such a thing could be served up with some spark of mischievousness and humor that might, in a larger picture, lend itself to what it means to be in a long-term relationship, you know. And the balance of power that can happen in that. Not just in a creative relationship either—how men and women interact isn’t exclusive to an artist and his muse or shit like that.

It’s not just “Pygmalion bites back.”
Right, yeah! And in a movie way… I love Hitchcock’s Rebecca so much, but I watch it and about halfway through, I always find myself wishing that Joan Fontaine would just say, “Right, I have had enough of your shit. I think I have had more than my fair share of your bullshit, so let me just get the fuck out of here.” [Laughs] And yet poor Joan has to keep putting up with it. The question becomes: Why is she staying with this guy? Because she loves him and they are connected in some profound way. That idea intrigued me. There’s an exchange in Phantom Thread that I keep going back to, where Reynolds says to Alma, “Is it because you think I don’t need you?” She says, “Yes.” He replies, “I don’t.” And you want to say, of course you don’t need her, you dummy, but that is besides the point. You have missed the point entirely.

So chicken-and-egg–wise, were you just looking for an idea because you and Daniel Day-Lewis were going to work on something, or was this more like: “I have this thing now, and you know who might be a good fit…”?
I’d certainly always wanted to work with Daniel again. But there was no rush to collaborate again, necessarily; it was always, hopefully a good idea will come and then will do it if we’re both available. Then suddenly, it was like, I have no good ideas here and I’d better concentrate and dream up something, because the clock feels like it’s ticking. Since Blood, I’d done two movies and he’d done two movies. The timing seemed right. “I’m not doing anything, you’re not doing anything, let’s make this happen!”

That’s how it works with you two?
I’m sort of the cheerleader with these kind of things. I know him well enough to know that he’d just kind of tinker away doing whatever he was doing unless I start cracking the whip. I had to be the instigator, which is good—I like that role, like really sitting down and saying “Right this is how we are going to do it.” I had that premise, a lot of vaguely formed ideas, bits and pieces of dialogue and was trying to find a voice for a character that was kind of a bit shapeless. I just sort of poured my heart out and opened my notebooks to him. Like, here is where this is. I don’t know what shape it can take. [Laughs] And then begins the process.

How has watching Daniel’s process affected your creative process? Or has it affected it at all?
I mean, I suppose there are two sets to my process. Normally, the writing is done alone. But then to go and be a director, I am, thankfully, at the mercy of a collaboration. I follow the lead of an actor usually. In other words, you want to rehearse? Then let’s rehearse. You have no interest in rehearsing? Then we are not going to do that. I have no will to impose on them; I only want to kind of keep propping up what they need. And what Daniel’s process needs is actually kind of very similar to mine. It’s a long incubation period that’s usually accompanied by a lot of daydreaming, loads of reading and a lot of trying things on for size. Between those three things, you can fill up a year pretty easily.

How closely involved was he in the writing of Phantom Thread?
Very closely.

Elaborate, if you could.
I mean, the shaping of the story was predominately mine, but in terms of the dialogue… there are massive amounts of lines that are all him. Or I would write a first pass on something that was very kind of nuts-and-bolts, then he would write all these fantastic flourishes that could really only come from Reynolds’ tongue. He was very helpful with my tin ear for British dialogue. You know when you’re kind of telling a story to somebody, you’re actually test audience-ing on them. If I am telling you a story, I can see you are tense, or I can see your attention was wandering or you’re glazing over, or…

You can see they’re leaning in.
Exactly, so there was a lot of that with us. I’d talk to him about story ideas and I’d see his interest, or lack of it. If he was quiet, that was a bad review [laughs]. “Anything? Anything, Daniel?!? No? You know what, just don’t say anything. Let me stop you right there, I am just going to go back to the drawing board on this.”

At one of the film’s early screenings, he mentioned during a Q&A that the fashion-world aspects were almost secondary to everything else—that the movie could have been set in another arena entirely. So why did you choose that particular world to set this story in?
I think that the fashion world is inherently incredibly cinematic, you know. It means you’re going to have great costumes. [Pause] I think, from my point of view, the intricacies and intimacies of that work is fascinating, because I knew nothing about it. Doing things like taking measurements, which is very commonplace and boring for someone immersed in that world, I was enamored up of it in the way that a child would be enamored of something. So it became very cinematic to me, that way that someone would design a dress. It was like a Frankenstein’s-monster scene to me. I mean, I have no romanticism when it comes to something like, say, writing—the idea of putting someone at a typewriter just seemed dull. So, we couldn’t make him a writer. The same goes with painting, as it’s really difficult to portray that moment of inspiration so it feels cinematic. You know [mimes staring at canvas], “Ah HA!” [Makes single, tiny brush stroke] It gets very old very quickly, and while a handful of people have done it pretty well, I just thought, No. But everyone wears clothes. I thought, that would work. And then I just dove in deep. Normally, when I throw myself into research for a film for several years, I amass all this stuff and then the film is over and, you know, done. My interest is gone. Now, I still check out Vogue online and see what people are up to. I still love it.

How did you find Vicky Krieps?
She was in this German film I’d seen called The Chambermaid—she has one of those faces that turns in about 45 directions at once. What I mean is, you look at her one way and she could not look more awkward; then she turns slightly and, suddenly, she looks stunningly beautiful. Then you her from a third angle and it’s like: “Does she love me or is she going to poison me?” [Laughs] You could believe she’d be serving tea in some shitty hotel on the coast and then could come sweeping downstairs in a gown. Plus her audition was great, and… I mean, look. We saw some really great actresses who, frankly, were quite beautiful and had them read for the part, but there was never someone who could tell the story of the film through their face the way she could. You know, “I love you and you are too dumb to see how much I love you and what I got to give you and I am not going anywhere until I make you realize it.” Vicky could give you that in a single look.

Let’s talk about the relationship between Cyril and Reynolds—how different was it on the page versus what we see onscreen?
You know what you can’t write? Just how comfortable those two are are sitting together in silence. You can give them dialogue that indicates just how close and co-dependent they are. But I think if you just filmed Daniel and Lesley, you would get a feeling of intimacy between them, just because of their natural comfort with each other. What we did—in hindsight very intelligently, I might add—was to get Lesley on board like nine months before. We sort of saw the horizon line and knew that, this is an actress that’s booked up. We want her to do this. We better ask her now. The side benefit of that was that she had time to think about it, to get to talking about it with Daniel so they could cook up whatever delicious long, sordid history they can cook up. And with them, no way that doesn’t come to the table. She is one of the greatest actors I have ever worked with. I mean, just a fucking joy to watch. I had a front row seat and would be on-set, wide-eyed, everyday thinking, “Is she fucking putting me on? Is she really this good?” What’s that Bad Santa line? [Goes into angry Billy Bob Thornton voice] “Goddamit, are you fucking with me?” [Laughs] There was a lot of that.

It’d be a shame if the movie was eclipsed by the fact that Daniel announced he was retiring while you were still shooting the movie. What went through your head when he told you?
Um… [achingly long pause] I remember feeling very nervous that he was serious. I have been telling myself for many months now, “Let’s just push off thinking about this until later.” You know, “There is work to be done now.” And now I have to… [sighs]. I guess what that translates into is that deep down, I’m not really going to let him get away with it—if I can help it. I like to think he is, perhaps… I would like to hope that he just needs a break. But I don’t know. It sure doesn’t seem like it right now, which is a big drag for all of us.

He’s talked about it before. There’s a part of you that thinks, “Let him do what he wants, hasn’t he given us enough?”
But the answer to that is, no! No, it’s never fucking enough! [Laughs]

You’ve both mentioned experiencing a huge sense of sadness while you were making it…
He said that, I didn’t.

He said it. Do you think that contributed to his decision?
I don’t want to speak for him, but it’s a funny thing that you can ultimately have a film that is, I think, quite light on its feet and kind of absurd in ways—and the process of making it would be melancholy. Because there were many melancholy days. I think the accumulation of scenes where Reynolds had to be difficult and was hard on this woman who loved him, after a period of time was… I’ll put it to you this way: When you go to work five days in a row and you’re pressing your thumb down on Alma’s neck, it’s going to take a toll.

You dedicated the movie to Jonathan Demme, who passed away last April. What did his films mean to you?
Oh man, that’s a whole other interview. How long have you got? He was the first filmmaker who made me feel it was within reach. What I mean by that is: He didn’t, he didn’t over shazam it, but he put some spit on it too. So it’s cinematic but it’s grounded as well. I mean, Something Wild was just a gigantic turning point for me when I saw it: how loose you could be with the rulebook. You know, having people look into the camera, having three different songs play at one time, simply ending your film on Sister Carol looking into the lens and nodding and wagging her finger. I mean, that’s fucking amazing to me. One other thing that I really like about his work is, everybody had a story in the frame. There was no bullshit background; no one was an accident. Look out the window right now. [Points to a passerby talking on his phone] That man right there walking by with his phone—Jonathan would have somebody playing that out. It was never somebody just walking right past. He cared about everybody.

He’s one of the great humanist filmmakers. He was like our Jean Renoir.
Yeah! Yeah, completely. Only Richard Linklater comes close to that. Even Jonathan’s darkest movies are hopeful. I take inspiration from that.

Would you say Phantom Thread is hopeful?
I think so. [Pause] I would say it’s more hopeful than The War of the Roses (1989).

That’s your barometer?!?
That’s my barometer for most films. Go watch it again. It’s a great gold standard for fucked-up relationship movies.

 
Paul Thomas Anderson discusses his new film, Phantom Thread, with fellow Director Rian Johnson.

 
Phantom Thread discussion with writer/director/producer Paul Thomas Anderson, editor Dylan Tichenor, costume designer Mark Bridges, and actor Vicky Krieps on December 10, 2017 at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater.

 
Paul Thomas Anderson talks his career, comedy, and Phantom Thread in 100-minute conversation.

 
Paul Thomas Anderson received the inaugural ‘Jonathan Demme Award’ at the 2018 Texas Film Awards. Here is a conversation between Paul Thomas Anderson and Richard Linklater from the evening, focusing on the impact that Jonathan Demme had on film.

 

DYLAN TICHENOR, ACE

Editing a Daniel Day-Lewis performance is like editing a Reynolds Woodcock performance. Almost every bit—and there are a lot of takes and footage and he tries stuff but he’s pretty consistent—you’re with Reynolds Woodcock. It’s a matter of picking and choosing the moments, but they’re all pretty real. It’s sort of like let’s keep within these lines and that’s the character. Sometimes Daniel is painting a little outside, but he’s always Reynolds, morning through night. It’s a different experience in a way. I’ve worked with a lot of great actors, I’ve been fortunate in that way, and nobody has such a method as Daniel does.Dylan Tichenor

Dylan Tichenor, ACE, began working on films as an assistant to Geraldine Peroni (an American film editor) in the 1990’s. When Peroni passed away in 2004, Tichenor stepped to finish her work on Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain. Tichenor was first credited with Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights, for which he was nominated for a Satellite Award. Tichenor was nominated for two Oscars; one for his work on Anderson’s 2007 film There Will Be Blood and one for co-editing Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty with William Goldenberg, ACE. Some of Dylan’s other work includes Magnolia, The Royal Tenenbaums, Unbreakable, The Town, Doubt, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Whip It, American Made and Phantom Thread.

 
Rebecca, The Passionate Friends, Rear Window and Phantom Thread, by Nelson Carvajal.

 
He was a director who wasn’t just making movie after movie after movie. It was a movie, five insane weirdo little side projects, followed later by a movie. The way he conducted his work was not a straight line at all. He zigzagged all over the place. —Paul Thomas Anderson on Jonathan Demme

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Paul Thomas Anderson’s Phantom Thread. Photographed by Michael Bauman, Laurie Sparham & Mark Tillie © Focus Features/Universal Studios, Annapurna Pictures, Perfect World Pictures, JoAnne Sellar Productions, Ghoulardi Film Company. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
If you find Cinephilia & Beyond useful and inspiring, please consider making a small donation. Your generosity preserves film knowledge for future generations. To donate, please visit our donation page, or click on the icon below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post Appetite for Destruction: Paul Thomas Anderson’s ‘Phantom Thread’ and the Fall of the House of Woodcock appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Viewing all 277 articles
Browse latest View live