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

Fincher’s ‘Zodiac’: A Suspenseful and Thrilling Combination of Police Procedural and Newspaper Film That Masterfully Chronicles the Progression of Obsession

$
0
0

Zodiac poster art by Barret Chapman https://www.artofbchaps.com/

 

By Koraljka Suton
Robert Graysmith knew he was a guy on the sidelines of this story. He wanted to be a part of it and he made himself a part of it. He was doing it on his own time because he wasn’t a reporter. It was Robert who went after it and after everybody else had pretty much walked away. Everything we included in the movie, we used from what Robert gave us. But, we had police reports and we backed everything up with documentation, our own interviews and evidence. Even when we did our own interviews, we would talk to two people. One would confirm some aspects of it and another would deny it. Plus, so much time had passed, memories are affected and the different telling of the stories change perception. So when there was any doubt we always went with the police reports. The one thing about the Zodiac story too is there are so many people out there who are convinced Robert is wrong about some things and that their version or interpretation is right and there are so many myths that sprang up so you have to keep all of that in mind when you are dealing with the story of Zodiac. That is why we chose to tell the story the way we did, through Robert’s eyes. My goal was to capture the truth of those books.David Fincher

If you asked David Fincher about the childhood years he spent in San Anselmo in Marin County during the 1960s, the topic that would undoubtedly pop up would be that of an infamous serial killer who, in the director’s eyes, was “the ultimate boogeyman.” For it was precisely that time and that general area that saw the rise of the Zodiac, a murderer who frequently wrote letters and sent coded messages to local newspapers, gleefully taking credit for the gruesome killing sprees that would inevitably trigger waves of paranoia across the West Coast. As Fincher recalls: “I remember coming home and saying the highway patrol had been following our school buses for a couple weeks now. And my dad, who worked from home, and who was very dry, not one to soft-pedal things, turned slowly in his chair and said: ‘Oh yeah. There’s a serial killer who has killed four or five people, who calls himself Zodiac, who’s threatened to take a high-powered rifle and shoot out the tires of a school bus, and then shoot the children as they come off the bus.’” Fincher’s fascination with the mystery man who wreaked havoc in Northern California during the late 60s and early 70s, claiming to have taken the lives of thirty-seven people (out of which only five were confirmed as being his victims), ultimately resulted in the director gladly accepting to work on Zodiac, a 2007 movie written by James Vanderbilt. The screenwriter had read a 1986 non-fiction book of the same name while he was still in high school, years before pursuing his eventual career. After getting into screenwriting, he had the chance to meet Zodiac author Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist who had been working for one of the newspapers the killer wrote to during the 1960s, and decided to make a screenplay based on the information-packed book. Having creative control over the material was of the utmost importance to Vanderbilt, given the fact that the endings of his previous scripts had been altered. Together with producers from Phoenix Pictures, Vanderbilt bought the rights to both Zodiac and its follow-up, entitled Zodiac Unmasked, after which the Seven director was asked to come on board.

Apart from having a personal attachment to the story of the notorious serial killer who was never brought to justice, what drew Fincher to work on the project was also the fact that the ending of Vanderbilt’s script was left unresolved, thereby staying true to real-life events. But Fincher’s perfectionism and his wish to depict the open case as accurately as possible led to him asking that the screenplay be rewritten, for the wanted to research the original police reports from scratch. He also decided that he, Vanderbilt and producer Bradley J. Fischer should personally interview the people who were involved in the case so that they could discern for themselves whether the testimonies were to be believed or not. The people they spent months interviewing were family members of suspects, the Zodiac killer’s two surviving victims, witnesses, investigators both current and retired, as well as the mayors of Vallejo and San Francisco. As Fincher elaborated: “Even when we did our own interviews, we would talk to two people. One would confirm some aspects of it and another would deny it. Plus, so much time had passed, memories are affected and the different telling of the stories would change perception. So when there was any doubt we always went with the police reports.” They also hired a forensic linguistics expert to analyze the killer’s letters, with the expert’s focus being on how the Zodiac spelled words and structured sentences, as opposed to the emphasis that was put on the Zodiac’s handwriting by document examiners in the 1970s.

 
Fincher’s tenacity in regards to research and preparation is nothing short of admirable, but it is also reasonable, because although the murderer was never caught and Fincher’s movie stayed true to that fact, both Graysmith’s book and its celluloid adaptation undoubtedly put the blame on a main suspect who ultimately died of a heart attack in 1992. Therefore, Fincher wanted to tread carefully and make the movie as responsibly as possible. And that he truly did. For Zodiac is, in fact, not about the killer, his potential motivation and the psychology behind it, but rather about the people who dedicated and sacrificed a substantial proportion of their private and professional lives in pursuit of the elusive murderer. Fincher’s Zodiac, a police procedural combined with a newspaper film that miraculously manages to avoid the clichés of either, laden with heavily researched, cross-checked facts and based in truth, turned out to be a movie that centers on the phenomenon of obsession and its alluring depths that invite anyone who falls victim to them to slowly drown without even noticing.

The three main protagonists are detective David Toschi (played by Mark Ruffalo), crime reporter Paul Avery (portrayed by Robert Downey Jr.) and Robert Graysmith himself (brought to life on the silver screen by Jake Gyllenhaal) who all work the Zodiac case during certain time spans. And while Toschi and Avery are expected to be involved due to their respective professions, Graysmith is the uncalled-for outsider within this trio, a cartoonist who observers the case from afar, quietly collecting material for his own Zodiac scrapbook while building a family life with his new girlfriend (Chloë Sevigny) and children. It is not until the interest of both the police and the public wavers and the case starts going cold that Graysmith decides to get off the sidelines, take the reins and embark on a wild goose chase of his own, thereby risking not only his personal safety, but also the alienation of his family. As Zodiac’s director of photography Harris Savides stated: “I like the fact that the audience will walk away from this movie thinking about what happened to these people. It’s not a happy ending, but there couldn’t be one if we stayed true to our story.” Fincher added: “The studio certainly would have preferred it if the police had caught the Zodiac. But you can’t change things on a story like this [arbitrarily]. You just have to hope the audience is involved in the characters and the story and willing to go down the rabbit hole with you.”

 
And down the rabbit hole we voluntarily went. During its runtime of two hours and thirty-seven minutes (with an extra five minutes added in the director’s cut), Zodiac manages to slowly draw its viewers in, beckoning them to see the case through the eyes of the three protagonists who allow themselves to get swallowed whole by it. There are no shootouts or car chases, nothing that would give the audience either closure or satisfaction (the way the movie Dirty Harry did, with Toschi himself being the role model for Eastwood’s titular hero), just the depiction of the methodology behind years upon years of dedicated police work. And not for a single minute does it cease to be interesting, engaging, captivating and terrifyingly suspenseful. For the purpose of Zodiac lies not in its outcome, but rather in the ways in which the procedure itself is carried out. Fincher navigates the entangled labyrinth of facts and assumptions with such ease, that the movie’s countless scenes of nothing other than expositional dialogue create more of a thrill than any action sequence ever could. As Fincher said: “Part of the approach on Zodiac was to make it look mundane enough for people to accept that what they’re watching is the truth. We didn’t want to hype anything or design anything to be seductive.” We are meant to follow the characters every step of the way, as they strive to find silver linings upon reaching dead ends, until they become so possessed by getting to the bottom of things that they have to start asking themselves whether they are pursuing certain suspects because they really believe they had done it, or because they just want the whole ordeal to be over with. Each of the three characters gets their moment to shine and subsequently burn out, with Graysmith waiting the longest to jump on the bandwagon, ultimately finding himself alone in his endeavors and futile pursuits, but taking us, the viewers, along with him for the ride.

For Graysmith, time becomes irrelevant—years have passed between his first encounter with one of the Zodiac’s letters and the moment he finally gets to “stand there (…) look him in the eye, and (…) know that it’s him.” And yet, it makes no difference to him, for he is willing to leave the ever-evolving world behind (his family included) for the sake of digging up the past and stirring shit up. For us, the passing of time also bears no meaning, for we do not feel it, so we gleefully follow Graysmith in his maddening quest. But for all the other characters, time is a very tangible variable that begs for them to drop the dead weight they had been carrying for far too long. This incessant passing of time is presented to us in a variety of ways—there are on-screen subtitles that indicate how many months or years have gone by, there is “a music montage of hit songs signaling the passage of time from Joni Mitchell to Donna Summer” over a black screen, as well as most critics’ favorite, the construction of the Transamerica building via a time-lapse.

 
Fincher shot his film with the digital Thomson Viper Filmstream camera, thereby making Zodiac the first major studio feature to be shot and produced digitally, with the result being unparalleled quality. Fincher had already become more than familiar with the Viper over the previous three years while shooting commercials for brands such as Lexus, Nike, Heineken and Hewlett Packard. This experience enabled him to get comfortable and really experiment with the camera, which is the same thing Savides had to do. His first experience with the Viper was filming a commercial with Fincher, and after having discovered the camera’s limitations, the DOP finally felt at ease with using it. Still, not everything was shot digitally—the slow-motion murder sequences were filmed with traditional high-speed film cameras. When it comes to the ways in which Zodiac was shot, Fincher wanted to present the action objectively, without any razzle-dazzle, not just because it would be hard to be subjective while presenting the plethora of information meant for us to digest, but also because the goal was not for us to see the events from the Zodiac’s perspective, which, in the director’s words, “would have turned the story into a first-person-shooter video game,” something he wanted to avoid at all costs.

But as Savides pointed out, there was one scene in Zodiac where the camera does indeed become subjective. The scene in question is the one in which Toschi and his fellow officers go to a factory to interview the main suspect. As he presents them with admissions and improvable alibis and flashes his fancy wristwatch made by a manufacturer called Zodiac, what we are presented with are the detectives’ individual viewpoints—shots of them looking at the watch are followed by their POV shots, implying that the camera takes on each of their individual perspectives as they slowly go through the process of realizing that that might just be their guy. As Savides himself said, it is “a subtle thing, but it adds immensely to the anxiety level of the scene without us having to resort to more camera movement or quick cutting.” Fincher also talked to his actors about how the scene was going to be played out, letting them know that he did not want them to have any preconceived notions about the suspect, because he wanted the camera to follow their deduction process as the pieces of information started snowballing and falling into place. And we as the audience are right alongside them, stepping into the detectives’ point-of-view, with their realization process mimicking our own.

 
But although Fincher decided not to include the Zodiac’s perspective so as not to glamorize the murderer, and even though the vast majority of scenes objectively follows police procedures, we are, in fact, shown several of the Zodiac’s shocking crimes, but never do we see his face. What is more, Fincher even used different actors for every scene involving the killer so as not to implicate the main suspect even further than both the book and the movie had already done. But this decision actually plays well within the context of the story, seeing as how the Zodiac descriptions given by the surviving victims actually did differ.

And when it came to casting his leads, Fincher knew from the get-go he wanted both Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo. He had liked the former in the Richard Kelly cult classic Donnie Darko (2001) and claimed the versatile actor was a double-sided coin who could do both naivete and possession with the utmost conviction. He indeed hit the mark with Gyllenhaal, whose progression from a shy, boy-scout-like cartoonist to a proactively crazed person might as well be considered an acting masterclass in and of itself. The actor took the role seriously, meeting with Graysmith and videotaping him so that he could study his behavior and idiosyncrasies. Ruffalo, on the other hand, was not initially interested in doing Zodiac, but after the actor heard Fincher was set on rewriting the screenplay, Ruffalo was game. In preparation, he read every report on the Zodiac case and met with Toschi, who had perfect recollection of all the details. But not everyone was enthusiastic about the way Fincher worked with his actors. Gyllenhaal was frustrated with the director’s insistence on doing not just numerous takes, but also reshooting certain scenes time and time again. Downey Jr. agreed with Gyllenhaal and even went as far as leaving jars of urine around the set, thereby protesting the lack of breaks. He ultimately decided to just give the director what he wanted in terms of performance and later on said: “I think I’m the perfect person to work for him, because I understand gulags.” But Ruffalo had more than enough understanding for Fincher’s methods: “The way I see it is, you enter into someone else’s world as an actor. You can put your expectations aside and have an experience that’s new and pushes and changes you, or hold on to what you think it should be and have a stubborn, immovable journey that’s filled with disappointment and anger.”

 
Called by critic Roger Ebert “the ‘All the President’s Men’ of serial killer movies,” Fincher’s Zodiac is a perfect example of how to create genuine suspense and thrill without the usage of cheap tricks. The only tricks used were highly intelligent writing, objective camera movement and precise editing, as well as the craftsmanship of an incredibly talented cast. Thematically speaking, Zodiac is a mesmerizing, in-depth study of obsession and its potential consequences. For although the focus is placed on neither the murderer nor the psychological motivation behind his crimes, he never ceases to be the sun around which all the other characters orbit (occasionally colliding with one another), a phantasm that always remains just slightly out of reach, eating away at the protagonists’ souls and constantly bringing into question their sense of safety. As well as their sanity. In fact, this topic of obsession painstakingly mirrors Fincher’s obsession with making the perfect movie. An endeavor he ultimately succeeded in.

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 »

 

“When you begin an adaptation, the only thing you can be sure of is you’re gonna end up throwing out of your source material for the simple fact that you can’t fit it all in,” explains screenwriter-producer James Vanderbilt. “Add to that the facts that the movie is based on two books, as well as a ton of interviews. The one thing we had going for us is that the movie is about these guys who get sucked down the rabbit hole of the Zodiac case, Graysmith in particular, but also the detectives and a reporter. The dearth of information worked for us, because there was always another conversation to be had, theory to be discussed, suspect to examine. I think the movie itself is one of the most ‘informationally packed’ I’ve ever seen, and it doesn’t even scratch the surface in terms of the sheer volume of material out there.” —James Vanderbilt, Zodiac Production Notes

 
Screenwriter must-read: James Vanderbilt’s screenplay for Zodiac [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.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 

DAVID FINCHER OF ZODIAC

David Fincher of Zodiac, by Shawn Levy. From the Oregonian, March 2, 2007.

Zodiac is a story about real people who were brutally murdered or wounded and who are either still around or still have families alive. Do you feel an obligation to the survivors and relatives?
Yes. You know, we could’ve made this movie without ever having interviewed anybody, and we didn’t want to do that. We wanted to get the real story, and we wanted them to know that we didn’t just want to depict their anonymous suffering as “Victim No. 4.” We wanted to know what really happened and the fallout from it. I feel a responsibility to that. When you’re portraying people’s real lives, you owe them the responsibility and dignity of telling them what you’re gonna do and then sticking to that. My reputation aside, I really don’t set out to offend anybody. And especially not people who’ve suffered.

The film is built around this trio of people trying to solve the crime (reporter Paul Avery, detective David Toschi, and cartoonist and independent investigator Robert Graysmith). Do you feel particularly close to any one of them in personality or attitude?
I feel about the same for all of them. They’re sort of all pieces of who I am. Avery, the pro, says things like, “This guy killed only five people; more people die every year in the East Bay commute.” He’s the tortured realist; he’d love to get involved and get broken up about stuff, but he doesn’t. And then Toschi, who thinks you have to let things go. Graysmith is the compulsive part of my personality.

Internet sites that follow film production have suggested that this film might have been out sooner, maybe in time for Oscar consideration. Was there a lot of delay in finishing?
Well, making movies is hard. It takes a long time. And we reshot a lot of stuff, and some of it’s better and some of it’s not. We had to play around with it and do some test screenings, with the intent of assuaging everyone’s fears. And we didn’t. So then you go through that whole rigmarole of, “Let’s all see what the movie actually is.” And we did that for six months, and it got to the shape that it has now. We reached a concession point. I wasn’t gonna make it any shorter, and they weren’t going to let me make it any longer. So it’s where it should be.

What sort of things did you lose that you wish you had saved?
There was some stuff in the original cut that I would have loved to have seen in the final cut, but they just wouldn’t sit still for it. There was an entire scene where the cops run down some district attorney with their case against Arthur Leigh Allen (a suspect). And I just love it because it’s so Charlie’s Angels: just three guys talking into a speakerphone. But the audience was, “You’re kidding, right? Five minutes of guys talking into a speakerphone?” Well, the audience spoke, and the audience said no.

You took great pains to achieve a period look for the film, it seems to me. What portion of your attention do you reckon you put into things like decor and props and wardrobe?
Probably far too much! I hope it’s the right amount. It starts early on. We would always try to find anything that was real. Reality is good enough for me, and that’s what we did. “What would the outside of this character’s house look like?” Well, we got some pictures and we knew. Between the truth and something that was beautiful, we opted to go with the truth. Our other mantra was, “Let’s make sure that we don’t do pastiche.” It’s one thing to do an homage, but I didn’t want to make a movie about sideburns. I wanted it to be a movie about people, and I wanted it to be about the seventies in San Francisco that I knew growing up. So when in doubt, I would reference old photos and go, like, “Yeah, that’s about how many Volkswagen Bugs you’d see on the street, so that’s what we’ll do.”

When you did that visual research, did you find that the period differed from your impressions from your childhood?
It was pretty much as I remembered it. The one thing that changed was my understanding of the Zodiac case, which was based on a seven-year-old’s memory. As a kid, I always thought Zodiac’s body count was much higher and that there was this huge manhunt to find this guy. It turns out it was two guys with these rotary phones and Bic pens. Even when they were telling us on television that they were going through computer files comparing fingerprints, the reality was that the technology didn’t exist in any truly useful format until later. The seventies was a little bit of a technological backwater. They didn’t have fax machines. And we wanted to talk about that—not to harp on it but to remind people that those times were more primitive.

 

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL

The Devil Is in the Detail, by Nev Pierce, Total Film, March 26, 2007. This is the story of how a committed director and the cast he drove crazy created the most compelling movie of 2007. Nev Pierce follows David Fincher from script to set to edit suite for the making of a modern classic.





 

HARRIS SAVIDES, ASC

“I grew up on the East Coast, so I’d never heard of the Zodiac before this project,” says Savides, a New York native who had previously collaborated with Fincher on commercials and the features Seven, and The Game. “I loved the Zodiac script, but I was concerned about the amount of non-cinematic information that had to be conveyed onscreen. There was so much exposition, just people talking on the phone or having conversations. It was difficult to imagine how it could be done in a visual way. I told David we had to figure out ways to make these scenes interesting and cinematic, but our solution was the opposite: to simply have faith in the material and present it truthfully.” —Harris Savides, ASC and director David Fincher plumb the depths of human obsession

 
“The story had so much expository information to get across. At every point in the process, we thought about clarity. How does this angle make the story we’re telling more real for the audience?” —Harris Savides, ASC hunts a killer

 
Harris Savides left us way too soon in 2012, at the age of 55. Harris was a pure artist, and a gentle bear of a man, intelligent, considerate and humble. He was universally admired by his peers, and sought out by top filmmakers including Gus Van Sant (Gerry, Elephant, Last Days, Milk, Finding Forrester, Restless); David Fincher (The Game, Zodiac, and the opening title sequence in Seven); Martin Scorsese (The Key to Reserva); Wong Kar Wai (The Follow); Ridley Scott (American Gangster); Sofia Coppola (Somewhere and The Bling Ring); Noah Baumbach (Greenberg and Margot at the Wedding); John Turturro (Illuminata). Harris also lit notable music videos for Madonna and REM.

 

ANGUS WALL, ACE

David Fincher on digital filmmaking and Zodiac, by Michael Kunkes. Here you get a look at the editing of the film; Zodiac was shot mostly digitally using Viper Cam and then edited using Final Cut Pro (6) by Angus Wall (A.C.E.).

How did you pick Angus Wall to edit Zodiac?
Angus and I have worked together for many years—exclusively for the past couple—and on commercials. Beyond his skill and sensitivity with character, and his tireless pursuit of the most streamlined narrative, we’ve been talking about our all-digital pipeline for some time. And he was, in my mind, the only guy to lead this charge. We both hate tape, and with the Viper camera as a “performance harvesting” tool, and the S.two [digital field recorder system] as a “mastering device,” we could finally do it.

What was your day-to-day interaction like?
Angus and I have a very intuitive relationship. I leave him alone because I trust what he does, and also because I want to see what he comes up with. So often, he can look at footage and say, “You didn’t mean that, you meant this.”

Like Seven and Fight Club, Zodiac is very darkly themed. How does it differ from your other movies?
This movie is very different for me in terms of the staging. There are not a lot of close-ups, because I wanted everything to play as wide as it possibly could. Most scenes are: Two guys walk into a room, sit down over a cup of coffee and then proceed to rip through six pages of dialogue. We were trying to be super-simple and super-direct and wanted audiences to form their own opinions of things, and not have to go, “Oh, that’s the killer; that’s the evil guy.”

What was the reaction at Paramount and Warner Bros. to your workflow?
I think that in the end, they were freaked out by little weird things, like, “Who’s going to handle the digital material?“ “What’s going to happen to these D.Mags [digital film magazines]?” “Where will they go?” The answer is that they’ll be dealt with in the same way that your single copy of your camera negative is dealt with: A production assistant delivers it somewhere in a van, and it’s ingested there. Once they realized they were going to have back-ups and copies of everything—and once they started seeing stuff happen on PIX [Private Internet Exchange firewall], which put everyone on the same page—they were sold.

As a filmmaker, what did Zodiac mean to your craft?
The great thing about digital moviemaking is that for the first time in the history of motion pictures, everyone—from the cameraman to the hair and makeup people—is looking at the same 23-inch monitor, reviewing a take and talking about the exact same thing, and that’s never been possible before. The idea was not to be as “digital” as we could for its own sake. The idea is to use everything that’s available to us to make the filmmaking process cleaner, keep everyone informed, and communicate better so we can get more of what we want. It’s just another way of democratizing information.

 

ZODIAC FILM SCRAPBOOK

Zodiac Film Scrapbook by Kasey Jeffrey is a commemorative film scrapbook for the 2007 film Zodiac directed by David Fincher. To view a digital, interactive version of the book click here.






 
Documentary covering every aspect of the investigation, including interviews with the original investigators and surviving victims. From the Special Edition DVD of Zodiac special features.


Open YouTube video

 
Commentary with director David Fincher.


Open YouTube video

 
Josh Forrest put together an excellent supercut of every insert shot in Zodiac.

 
The fourth installment of The Directors Series’ examination into the films and career of director David Fincher, covering his first feature-length forays into digital filmmaking. Written, edited and narrated by Cameron Beyl.

 

DAVID FINCHER ON FILMMAKING

How does David Fincher make films? And what are his influences in that approach? What does making films mean to him?

“I always wanted to give a lecture at filmschools. You go in and you see all these fresh faces, and you say: ‘You! Stand up, tell me your story. Tell me what your film is going to be about.’ And they start, and you go: ‘Shut up and sit the fuck down!’ And if they do, you go: ‘You’re not ready.’ Because the film business is filled with shut-up and sit-the-fuck-down. You got to be able to tell your story in spite of sit-down and shut-the-fuck-up. If you are going to let something like that derail you, what hope do you have against transportation department? What hope do you have against development executives?” —David Fincher

 
In loving memory of Harris Savides (1957–2012)

Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of David Fincher’s Zodiac. Photographed by Merrick Morton © 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 Fincher’s ‘Zodiac’: A Suspenseful and Thrilling Combination of Police Procedural and Newspaper Film That Masterfully Chronicles the Progression of Obsession appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.


“No One Is Just Anything”: In William Friedkin’s ‘Sorcerer’, Four Reduced Men Must Gamble with Life to Give It Value

$
0
0

Sorcerer original motion picture soundtrack cover art by Tony Stella, https://www.tony-stella.com/

 

By Tim Pelan
The film became an obsession.
It was to be my magnum opus,
the one on which I’d stake my reputation.
I felt that every film I’d ever made
was preparation for this one.
William Friedkin

 
Jungle drums were sounding the call for William Friedkin’s blood in 1977. Critics judged Sorcerer, his loose remake of George Clouzot’s 1953 action-adventure The Wages of Fear, filmed in the wilds of the Dominican Republic, an act of hubris out of step with the changing cinema demographic. Long buried and butchered, the director has in recent years championed a Lazarus-like rebirth on Blu-ray, with select hosted screenings to newly appreciative audiences. How does it stand up after all the fuss? Happily, his faith in the film’s merits is well-founded. Sorcerer is a bleak, timeless, nihilistic examination of grubby geo-politics from the rat’s eye view, in eye-popping wide screen verdant greens and punctuating broiling flames, brilliantly highlighting the photography of John M. Stephens and Dick Bush (Bush shot the opening vignettes; Stephens took the jungle shoot). Four disparate desperadoes, on the lam in a flea-bitten petroleum company shanty town, seize on the promise of a relative fortune and a ticket out: by driving unstable nitro-glycerine 218 miles through treacherous jungle terrain to extinguish an oil blaze. Whereas Clouzot’s black and white classic doubled the south of France for an unnamed South American locale, Friedkin’s ambition was broader. He sought to make something that was “grittier than the French movie, with the documentary feel for which I had become known.” He was fiercely competitive with Francis Ford Coppola, off shooting his own Heart of Darkness spin in the Philippines, Apocalypse Now. Locational veracity was paramount to Friedkin’s existential tale of suspense. If that meant turning down preferred star Steve McQueen’s request to film in the States, afraid his marriage to Ali McGraw would suffer, so be it. With hindsight, the director thinks he made a mistake, believing a McQueen close-up is worth a hundred wide-shots of steaming jungle. Although McQueen could play ground down, he was still a star behind those baby blues. Roy Scheider, his replacement, is a far better choice—a beaten down (criminal) working stiff, with a slab of a nose and a wiry weariness.

The process of resurrection began when a group in Los Angeles called Cinefamily, who regularly run classic screenings, looked into booking Sorcerer again in 2011. The head of the group got word back from Paramount saying they no longer owned the print, and Friedkin got to finding out. He told The Dissolve:

“The film was originally made by Paramount and Universal. Universal only had a 25-year lease on the film, and their ownership position expired. So I started to look into it. I called the guys I know at Paramount who send out prints to these film societies, and the guy over there said they had no record of it. They had been sending it out regularly around the country. He now says he has no idea where it is or who owns it. So I sued them—to find out, not for money. I sued them to achieve what is called ‘discovery,’ which meant they had to produce all the documents they had in their files about Sorcerer. They tried to fight that; they didn’t want to go looking in the basement vaults, because both Paramount and Universal had been sold three times since I made Sorcerer, and documents get buried after so many years. They tried to fight discovery, and the judge who got the case said, ‘No, you produce the documents. Mr. Friedkin’s a profit participant, and he’s entitled to know who owns the picture.’ In producing the documents, it turned out that Universal’s position had expired, and Paramount controlled the theatrical.

 
And then Paramount started to cooperate. The suit never went forward. They produced the documents, I had what I needed. Then Warner Bros. came in and said they wanted to take the whole picture over, they wanted to re-release it in theatres and on home video. They made a deal with Paramount, and Warner Bros. financed the home video, the Blu-ray. Paramount decided, because of all the interest created by the restoration and by the potential of other theatres and film societies and universities wanting to run it, that they would put it back out in theatres, and Warner Bros. got the Blu-ray and streaming rights, and they’ll figure out, between them, what to do about the TV rights, because there’s a lot of interest from cable television and all that (The UK’s Film 4 has screened the film several times in the last few years). So that’s how I got it back. I just hung in there with them, and then Paramount changed its position, and now they’re 100 percent behind it.”

As opposed to Clouzot’s opening in the shanty town of Las Piedras where the oil company is based, Friedkin and screenwriter Walon Green (The Wild Bunch) chose to open on the four men’s sketchy backstories, spanning the globe. In New Jersey, wheelman Jackie Scanlon (Roy Scheider) limps away from a fatal car crash after a church robbery in which the priest brother of a mob connected criminal is shot (this was based on a real anecdote relayed to Friedkin by “Gerry M,” friend of an Irish Mobster in Queens). In Paris, wealthy banker Victor Manzon (Bruno Cremer) is up to his neck in fraud, about to bring his father-in-law’s brokerage house down in disgrace; when his partner commits suicide after his father refuses to bail them out, he flees, without a word to his wife. Dapper but seedy hitman Nilo (Francisco Rubal) flees an assassination in Mexico. In Jerusalem, Kassem (Amidou), a Palestinian terrorist, escapes an Israeli raid after he and his comrades set off a bomb. In a bold move, these vignettes are all silent or subtitled until Scanlon’s tale.

These men all find themselves in Porvenir, a filthy scab on the backside of nowhere, where none of the profits from the rapacious American Petroleum company filter down to the locals. Its fascistic logo of a black bird of prey emblazoned on the oil tanks a grim echo of the nominally optimistic political slogan plastered on the walls of this unstable country—“UNIDOS HACIA EL FUTURO” (“United towards the future”). With three of them laboring under aliases—Scanlon as the unlikely “Juan Dominguez,” Manzon as “Serrano,” and Kassem as “Martinez,” they drift in a fugue state, sweating in swamps fitting oil pipelines, and nursing beers in the shanty town’s bar, scheming on a way out and avoiding the attentions of the corrupt local police. According to Scanlon’s inspected work permit, the time is on or around September 1976. Scanlon gazes at a faded cheesecake poster, the girl reaching for America’s soft drink of choice; two carbonated castaways (it occurs to me the focus on this poster is a comic nod to Jaws, and the bathing beauty poster Scheider’s Chief Brody drives by in Amity). When rebels blow the next well, the company offers big money for four men who can transport the unstable nitro by road; have a coke and a smile, and drive like hell.

 
Friedkin and Green kept the spine of the premise, but changed the characters, making them more desperate and cynical from the get-go, as opposed to merely down on their luck. “We had no intention of copying those characters (from Wages of Fear), but we came up with these guys who are outside the law to one degree or another… We decided to make them be very flawed men, which is, of course, how they would wind up in a purgatory like that to begin with. The most interesting part of a journey is how the traveller came to the starting point in the first place. How the hell did they get there, and where were they going?” Thankfully Sorcerer drops the embarrassing relationship from Wages of Fear between Véra Clouzot’s ingénue doormat Linda and Yves Montand’s disdainful Mario. Instead the woman who offers some cold comfort to these fellow travelers is an old crone, with a face for the ages. Like her, every secondary character or face in the crowd suggests a hard scrabbled life. Before the men begin their journey she seems to return Manzon’s pawned watch to him, a gift from his wife on the last day they were together. He in turn passes a letter to his wife to the oil chief to post for him. It seems in his mind he is finding some sort of redemption, but there is little room for sentiment here. He later reminisces to Kassem, believing they are on the home stretch, showing him the watch and the engraving on the back (“the first ten years of forever”). A tire blows and they plunge to their doom, Scanlon and Nilo witnessing the explosions bloom from a distance. In a neat touch in The Wages of Fear, the fate of one truck is suggested poetically instead by the shockwave blowing the tobacco from a cigarette paper, life snuffed out in an instant.

The settings and cinematography have an incredible, ’70’s veracity and sweaty immediacy: an analogue actuality, nihilistic and tinged with only the faintest glimmer of hope. Sorcerer would make a brilliant double bill with Michelangelo Antonioni’s The Passenger: two existential struggles—four men seeking to reclaim value in their lives, another questioning the bourgeois value in his. Four lost in hell, the other a fallen angel in “Paradise.” Each ending an ambiguous mirroring. The Jerusalem section of Sorcerer incorporated a real coincidental explosion around the block; scenes of bustling, baying crowds and soldiers storming the gang holed up in a block of flats evoked the neo-realism of The Battle of Algiers (and also influences the stand-out sequence in WWZ). The actual filmed explosion looks stunningly real, debris blowing past stunt people straight towards the camera. It was so powerful it blew out a window in the mayor’s office across the street. Likewise the explosion of the oil well in the jungle rivals any large scale effect put on screen, workers bodies tossed like rags as ballooning flames threaten to rip the screen apart, multiple cameras placed right in the middle of the action. The spectacular Jersey car crash wrote off twelve cars before Friedkin was satisfied, the first delay of many (see also upcoming detail on the nail-biting rope bridge sequence).

A bride’s black eyes in a New York church suggest no-one, whatever their station or journey in life, gets a moment in the sun in this squalid universe. Discussing the memoirs of an officer his wife is editing, a philosopher warrior who debates the power over life and death, ultimately following orders, Victor shrugs, “He was a soldier.” “No one is just anything,” she replies. The four reduced men must gamble with life, to give it value. In his memoir The Friedkin Connection, the director stated that this line was the theme of the film.

 
Friedkin ended up filming mainly in the Dominican Republic (as well as France, Israel, Mexico and America) because Paramount Chairman Charley Bluhdorn had large holdings from his Gulf and Western interests in Sugar and cattle there, “where he reigned like a medieval lord.” (Peter Biskind, Easy Riders, Raging Bulls.) He had his own private landing strip, and when Gulf and Western, Paramount’s owners, acquired South Puerto Rican Sugar, Bluhdorn got a large estate out of the deal. Bluhdorn also built an extensive guest complex for the studio’s use, named Casa de Paramount. Friedkin saw a grim irony in documenting first world oppression of a virtual slave state via the studio boot on locals’ necks, gleefully sticking two fingers up at Paramount by ripping a picture of the Gulf and Western board out of a calendar and framing it on the wall of the Oil company’s office to represent their distant, unfeeling owners. Walon Green recalled, “When Bluhdorn saw his picture, he had a shit hemorrhage.” (From Hurricane Billy: The Stormy Life and Times of William Friedkin by Nat Segaloff.) Friedkin was at the height of his powers, off the back of The French Connection and The Exorcist, and was wrapped up in his arrogant desire to trump both himself and his contemp(t)oraries.

The shoot ended up running for around ten months, with a massive budget overspend. Scheider recalled the troubles in his biography by Diane C Kachmor; Friedkin was obsessive, driven. “I was the only guy he couldn’t fire, because I was the leading man. I said to Billy, ‘You gotta stop firing these people, ’cause I’m getting tired of going to the airport and saying goodbye to them.’” Roads to nowhere, like modern Nazca lines, punctured the interior, to transport the trucks to their slippery jungle trails. The vehicles were beat-up old army M211’s–real ballbreakers (Ballbreaker was Friedkin’s originally mooted title). Sound designers including Jean-Louis Ducarme, who Friedkin worked with on The Exorcist, employed distorted samples of tiger and cougar roars for roar of the truck’s engines. Sound design would be the only Oscar nomination the film would receive, losing out to the even more innovative Star Wars. From The Sorcerer Blog:

“Bugs and birds and dogs and coughing and mud help establish the setting (and the squalor). Rain is a constant, roaring, surrounding presence that doesn’t conveniently back off when there’s dialogue to be heard. The creaks and snaps of the bridges add to the suspense. But the real marvel here is how the trucks are presented. They don’t rumble or purr—we all know what an internal combustion engine sounds like. These moan and growl likes beasts, as alive as the doomed men who drive them, and creak and rattle like the hunks of Frankenstein’d-together junk we know they are.”

 
The trucks were christened Lazarus and Sorcerer, in the manner of the real local hauliers; named for girlfriends and mythical creatures. Another title for the film that had been considered was No Man’s Land, but that was the title of a play by Harold Pinter. Sorcerer as a film title and truck name derived from Friedkin listening to Miles Davis’ album of the same name, “with driving rhythms and jagged horn solos that characterized Miles’ band in the late 1960’s.” Friedkin reasoned, “Sorcerer is an evil wizard. And in this age the evil wizard is fate—it takes complete control of our lives.” If The Exorcist was about faith, Sorcerer was about fate, and how these men attempt to change theirs.

To score the film Friedkin recalled a band he’d met in Germany on a promotional tour for The ExorcistTangerine Dream were playing a set (“like the music of the spheres”) in the Black Forest in the dead of night, the only illumination from their synthesizers. Band leader Edgar Froese:

“The Sorcerer soundtrack was recorded on an old eight-track Ampex tape machine in Berlin. It was one of the four machines that were in Abbey Road Studios in London, which were sold after the Beatles era. We had rented an old movie theatre in Berlin and made a small studio out of it. The Moog was very useful, and by this stage we were quite versed in its use. We also used a Fender Rhodes piano, guitars, and even Revox tape machines as delay units.”

 
The band were disappointed that many of the tracks recorded were not used in their entirety, although what use was made of them was highly effective, such as during the second truck crossing of the precarious bridge. Kassem is attempting to guide Manzon through the driving rain when the rotten strut beneath him collapses and he plunges straight down into the river, the sound cutting out. When he crawls up and Manson yells is he OK, leaning out of the cab, a huge tangle of twisted branches swept down river pins him to the vehicle, Tangerine Dream’s electronic shriek like a capricious primordial demon. Friedkin placed loudspeakers all over the jungle locations and played Tangerine Dream’s music to set the right mood before shooting.

Scheider had been bitter that Friedkin hadn’t cast him as Fr Karras in The Exorcist. Friedkin claimed Bill Blatty didn’t want him for it; Universal would back Sorcerer if he was cast. Although actor and director repeatedly butted heads, each fiercely believed in what they were putting on screen.

“What I did in Sorcerer makes Jaws look like a picnic… The stuntmen complained because the principals were doing all the stunts, but that’s the way Billy Friedkin makes movies. The most dangerous scene I’ve ever shot was the one where we were driving across a rope suspension bridge in a horrible storm and we kept swaying back and forth, back and forth. What the audience will see on that screen is what really happened.” —The New York Times (“Roy Scheider, Sorcerer Star, Talks of Thrillers”), January 21, 1977.

And again from Scheider’s biography: “I was rehearsing to stay alive… When we got to the Dominican Republic, I appreciated all that practice back in the States. Billy’s approach to Sorcerer ruled out rear-projection or trick photography. The actors, the vehicles and the terrain were too closely integrated into the composition of each shot. So what you see in the film is exactly what happened. When I take a mountain road on two wheels, on a road with potholes the size of shell craters, that’s the way it was. No one but Billy Friedkin could have persuaded me to take the insane chances I did. But when it was over and I looked at the rough footage I knew it was worth it.”

 
The most incredible sequence as mentioned earlier is when the trucks traverse a fraying, rotting rope bridge across a river in a torrential downpour. Legendary production designer John Box (Lawrence of Arabia) had the bridge be controlled by a concealed system of hydraulics. The trucks were lashed to it so that as it swayed, they didn’t topple over; the frayed ropes cleverly disguised steel cables. While the fast flowing river was a perfect location, unusually dry weather had meant that by the time the bridge was built, it had completely dried up. A sensible man would have scrapped the stunt—not Friedkin. “I had become like Fitzcarraldo, the man who built an opera house in the Brazilian jungle. When I saw the finished bridge, I believed that if I could film the scene as I conceived it, it would be one of the greatest in film history.”

So, scouts were dispatched to find a close match for the location, settling around Tuxtepec in Mexico. The bridge was taken apart and rebuilt over another the Papaloapan river. Production elsewhere was on hiatus. Fate laughed at Friedkin however, as this river also began to dry up. Box and his crew diverted the flow upstream to shore up the depth, while rain machines provided the originally unplanned downpour, to disguise the changing light. In the end, the twelve-minute nail biting scene cost a whopping $3 million.

An apt inspiration for the director was The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, with its tale of madness brought on by the bickering of gold prospectors. When Scanlon and Nilo are later held up by rebels, one takes Scanlon’s hat, in a nod to the bandit doing the same with Humphrey Bogart’s Dobbs. Scanlon earlier believes he and Nilo are in the only surviving truck—“We’re sitting on double shares!” he cackles, Dobbs-like.

 
For the last leg of the journey, with Scanlon the sole driver left after the ambush, behind the wheel of Lazaro, John Box found an otherworldly location in the Bisti Badlands in New Mexico. It was sacred Navajo land, where bizarre petrified wooden growths and unusual rock formations called hoodoos bear down silently on Scanlon’s pitiless, purgatorial odyssey. “It was a place of ancient magic, said to be home to generations of sorcerers and alchemists.” —Friedkin. Here the director, together with his editors Bud Smith and Robert K Lambert, made use of a series of hallucinatory optical effects involving double and triple exposures and a variety of color effects, together with flashback dialogue and sound, to suggest Scanlon’s fractured state of mind. “Where am I going?” he croaks, echoing his words post-heist in New Jersey, on the run, Nilo’s mocking laugh ringing in his ears from beyond the grave. As the last of his gas runs out, he abandons the truck and staggers the final 1.3 miles (Friedkin was made to film inserts of Lazaro’s speedometer, with Scanlon counting down the 218 miles to the fire in chalk next to it) with the remaining explosives to the hellfire ahead, collapsing dead beat as oilmen take the precious cargo from his claw-like grip.

Sorcerer had the misfortune to open in Mann’s Chinese Theatre in LA just after Star Wars—audiences stayed away in droves, and it was pulled after a week, Lucas’ shiny space fable hastened back. Friedkin is sanguine about his hubris and bad luck—audiences tired of early ’70’s American cinema’s pessimism, Tangerine Dream’s eerie electronic score a distancing world away from John Williams’ soaring symphony.

Had George Lucas stuck to his arty, docu-driven realism of THX-1138, with its experimental sound and refusal to pander, would his ongoing style have mirrored Friedkin’s? Sorcerer is in many ways the kind of film the anthropologist in Lucas admired: very little exposition, the viewer thrust into unusual locations and situations, observational and free-flowing. “I was profoundly influenced by the novel One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez who wrote what is now known as magic realism. That’s the style that I adopted for the film. Magic realism,” Friedkin told Deadline. An abiding image is the loin cloth clad tribal father breaking away from his family to chase after Scanlon’s truck, darting in and out of view of the rear view mirror, chuckling at the mechanical monster. Just another kind of magic…

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 »

 

ROAD TO PERDITION

Forty years after the release of the masterful Sorcerer, William Friedkin’s blistering remake of The Wages of Fear, about a group of men driving a cargo of explosives across perilous terrain, the director reminisces about how a brutal shoot gave way to an equally brutal critical reception. This article by Mark Kermode, Road to Perdition, originally appeared in Sight&Sound, December 2017.

After the global successes of The French Connection (1971) and The Exorcist (1973), director William Friedkin mounted the riskiest film of his career—an adaptation of Henri- Georges Clouzot’s 1953 classic The Wages of Fear. Based on a novel by Georges Arnaud (aka Henri Girard), Clou­zot’s film followed four disparate Europeans, variously stranded in South America, who agree to drive two truckloads of volatile nitroglycerin over treacherous terrain for financial reward. A critical hit which inspired such lesser American knock-offs as Howard Koch’s 1958 Violent Road, The Wages of Fear seemed ripe for contemporary reinvention in the strife-riven mid-7os. With The Wild Bunch screenwriter Walon ‘Wally’ Green, Friedkin recast the key characters as a Mexican hitman (Francisco Rabal), an Arab terrorist (Amidou), a French businessman (Bruno Cremer) and an American gangster (Roy Scheider). Requiring two studios—Universal and Paramount—to cover its expanding budget, Sorcerer (1977) was a gruelling masterpiece. Yet the results proved fatally out of step with audiences flocking to see Star Wars. A critical and commercial failure when it opened 40 years ago, the film has since been reassessed, and is now considered an overlooked gem; the author Stephen King recently called it his favourite film of all time. Unveiled in a new 4K transfer at the Venice Film Festival in 2013, Sorcerer has been rediscovered in cinemas and on Blu-ray by a new generation of fans astonished by its grinding, visceral power.

After The Exorcist, you could have done anything. Why did you opt for a remake of The Wages of Fear?
Wally Green and I used to work together at Wolper doing documentaries for the ABC network. We were talking about the world situation; that if there was no way for world leaders to get together, we were probably going to be the generation that blows up. And we started talking about The Wages of Fear.

The Clouzot film or the source novel?
Oh, the film. There was no English translation of the novel. But we both remembered and loved the film from 1953. It had not been widely seen in America. It had played in arthouses, with subtitles. We thought it was a great film that perfectly captured this notion of the separate countries of the world either co-operating or dying together. So we took that premise and ran with it. Then Wally, who spoke five or six languages fluently, got the novel. It wasn’t great—it was good pulp, which often makes the best movies. We decided to create our own characters, different from the ones in Arnaud’s book and Clouzot’s film. Then I went to France to do some press for The Exorcist, and I met up with Clouzot. I told him I was interested in taking the premise of The Wages of Fear. He didn’t seem very happy about it—understandably so—but he wasn’t against it. But it turned out he didn’t have the rights to it anyway—they were with Arnaud, who hated Clouzot’s film. He was crazy—a very ornery old guy. He hated my film too! Anyway, we bought the rights from him for very little money, and we set out to make it in our own way.

You originally had Steve McQueen in mind for the lead. What happened?
I talked to Steve about the film, and sent him Wally’s script. Two days later he called and said, “This is the best script I’ve ever read.” Then he said, “I’ve got a favour to ask. I just married Ali MacGraw and you’re gonna be off in some jungle for six months. Would you consider writing a role for her?” I said, “Steve, you just told me it’s the best script you’ve ever read. There are no women in it. There’s a very small part for a French woman, but it’s not a part for Ali.” So he said, “All right, make her an executive producer, or an associate producer.” Back then, I was really an arrogant punk. If Steve McQueen had asked me that today, I would have immediately agreed. But I said, “Steve, that’s a bullshit credit. Don’t you have more respect for your wife than to give her some bullshit credit? I’m not gonna do that.” And he said, “All right, then find locations where you can shoot it in the US.” I just said, “Steve, I’m very happy with the locations I have.” I was just an arrogant moron. So he said that under those conditions he couldn’t do the film. Now, with McQueen I had commitments from Marcello Mastroianni and Lino Ventura. But when I got Roy Scheider instead of McQueen, neither Mastroianni nor Ventura would take second billing.

Do you think having Scheider rather than McQueen was one of the reasons the film failed to find an audience?
Scheider was great, but he was not a huge star like McQueen. He certainly scored in The French Connection, and he had done Jaws (1975), but he wasn’t in a place where he could just take the audience with him. I think he’s brilliant in the film. But he was not a movie star. And in those days you needed a movie star.

The shoot of Sorcerer was famously grueling. What was the most difficult thing about it?
Almost everything that physically could go wrong did go wrong. We built this bridge, which was hydraulically operated, that looked like a rickety old wooden bridge. We built it in the Dominican Republic over a rushing river that was about six feet high, and which had never gone down during the months that we were going to shoot. So we built the bridge over this river, at a cost of a million dollars, because it was going to be the big set piece of the film. And gradually the river went down and down and down, until there was less than a foot of water flowing through it. Impossible. We had weather experts and all kinds of meteorologists telling us, “This is impossible! This can’t happen!” But it happened. So [production designer] John Box found a similar location near Tuxtepec, in Mexico. They had totally similar topography, about the same-sized rushing river, that again had not diminished in living memory. So we took the bridge out of the Dominican Republic, broke it into pieces, and shipped it all the way to Mexico. Then we rebuilt it over this vast rushing river… which proceeded to go down and down and down. In the mornings you had this overcast, perfect even light, but then at about noon the sun would come out and burn everything off. Every day. So like when we were shooting in Iraq for The Exorcist, we had to shoot a split schedule. Sometimes, in order to disguise the sky, we had to make it rain. I wasn’t planning to do the bridge scene in the rain—I thought the bridge swinging over a fast-moving river was enough. But now we’re getting tips of sunlight everywhere, so we had to bring in these rain-making machines. Then people began to get sick. People got gangrene. I got malaria. We had these Mexican labourers who built the bridge, 20 or 30 of them. I was very friendly with them. There was one guy in particular I liked very much. And one day he whipped out a Federales badge. He was an undercover cop. He said, “Senor Bill, you have people on your crew who are doing drugs. You’re a very nice man and I like you, otherwise I would arrest all of these people. But I like you, so I’m not going to arrest them, but they have to leave this country tomorrow.” This included stunt men, key grips, make-up artists, special effects guys. So I lost about 20 members of the crew. Those were just a couple of the problems I can remember.

How long did you end up shooting for?
Oh God, I think it was like ten months, maybe more.

And when you were shooting it, did you think, ‘This is tough, but the results are really good’?
I thought it was all great! But when we were in the jungle we couldn’t see the footage, there was no way to get the dailies. Dick Bush, the great British cinematographer who did Mahler (1974) and Tommy (1975) for Ken Russell, had shot all this wonderful footage in Paris; Jerusalem; Elizabeth, New Jersey; and a little in Vera Cruz. But when he got to the jungle, Dick was lost because the light in the jungle constantly changes. And Dick just couldn’t manage it. He couldn’t find places to put lights and he wasn’t skilled at using reflectors. In the end I brought in John Stephens, who was a commercials camera operator, and who was wonderful at building rigs for the camera. He and I had worked together on documentaries at Wolper along with Wally, and he did all the jungle stuff.

Tell me about Tangerine Dream’s music.
I met them in Germany when I was on tour for The Exorcist. The local Warner Brothers guy took me to an abandoned church in the Black Forest at midnight. There were no lights except the lights from their electronic instruments. You couldn’t see the musicians. They started to play what sounded like the music of the spheres, and I thought it was extraordinary. Synths were a very new thing then—they were popularised later by Giorgio Moroder, who scored Midnight Express (1978) for Alan Parker. Anyway, I met with [band leader and founder] Edgar Froese and I told him that this stuff was great, and although I didn’t know what my next film was going to be, I wanted them to do the music. Later I sent him Wally’s script and we spoke on the phone. I asked him to write some music based on our conversation. Months later, a package of audio tapes arrives in Tuxtepec. It was terrific. I immediately saw how to cherry-pick what they had recorded, and use it in the film.

Where did the title Sorcerer come from?
I originally wanted to call the film Ballbreaker—that was the first title. And [Universal boss] Lew Wasserman said, “Absolutely no way.” Then I thought of calling it No Man’s Land, but as you know Harold Pinter wrote a play with that same title. So I was listening to an album by Miles Davis called Sorcerer and I just thought the word was powerful. It later occurred to me that the sorcerer was an evil wizard, and in this case the evil wizard was fate. The Exorcist was about faith, and this was about fate—in the lives of four different guys who really screwed up.

‘Sorcerer’ is also a name painted on one of the trucks.
Yeah, we named the trucks Sorcerer and Lazaro. When I went to Ecuador, I saw these trucks painted that way, and the drivers all gave their trucks names. So a truck would be called Lucia, after the guy’s girlfriend, or some would have more cosmic names.

What about the face that you briefly see carved on the rock as the trucks go past? It’s demonic, like the face of Pazuzu in The Exorcist.
John Box had the idea of putting that on a rock as a kind of warning or harbinger of what is to come—the mystery of fate in some guise. Our art director Roy Walker carved that. He went on to be Kubrick’s production designer on The Shining (1980).

After all this effort, at what point did you realise that Sorcerer was in trouble?
I lived in Bel Air, and I would walk every morning down this long driveway and read the papers. There was a great film critic for the Los Angeles Times, Charles Champlin, who had always given my films rave reviews. So I went and got the paper the day after Sorcerer opened in two theatres in LA, and two in NY. So I’m walking back up the hill, and I open the page to his review, and it begins: “What went wrong?” And the rest was devastating. That’s when I knew. And then the audiences dwindled, and Star Wars opened and took the whole audience—that was the only film that you had to see that year.

Did it hurt?
Well, I was extremely disappointed, because I honestly thought this was the best film I had ever made, and I still feel that way. So I felt bad that I didn’t get it over to the audience. I didn’t feel like something horrible had been done to me. I just thought I had failed. I absolutely felt that whatever I did that I thought was so brilliant just didn’t work. I thought I had let the audience down, and I just couldn’t figure out what I had done wrong.

When did the film’s change of fortunes begin?
There was a guy at Warner Video called Jeff Baker, and one day he said to me, “Whatever happened to that picture you made—Sorcerer?” I said I didn’t even know who owned it any more. So I got my lawyer to get into it, and they found out that the rights were no longer split—Universal’s rights had expired, and Paramount controlled it. So Paramount made a deal with Warner Brothers to release it. When the DVD came out, it was a huge hit—same with the Blu-ray. So then they started to think that maybe there was life in it. And then we made a DCP [digital cinema package], and it started getting some theatrical plays.

Do you think there’s anything about the times we’re in now that makes Sorcerer more relevant than it was in 1977?
Well, the world situation is much worse today that it was then. But I’m not sure people want to be reminded of that. I don’t want people to look for the metaphor, even though that was something that motivated me. Only the story matters. I thought it was a damn good action adventure that was ‘acoustic’; it’s not made with digital effects. Everything you see in the film, we had to do! As in The Exorcist. I just think it’s a wonderful story.

 

WALON GREEN

“It’s funny how when you write a script, you worry about things that you don’t need to worry about. I was worried that when they’d come to the bridge, everybody would say, ‘Why don’t they just turn around and go back—they obviously took the wrong road.’ But it never bothered anyone who saw the movie. We wanted a cynical movie where fate turns the corner for the people before they turn it themselves. We set out also to write a real movie about what we thought was the reality of Latin America and the presence of foreigners there today.” —Walon Green

Screenwriter must-read: Walon Green’s screenplay for Sorcerer. Based on the novel ‘Le Salaire de la peur’ by Georges Arnaud [PDF]. Newly remastered Blu-ray under the supervision of William Friedkin is available at Amazon, Amazon.uk (40th Anniversary Collector’s Edition) and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 
In his three-hour interview, Walon Green talks about his early years, and working for David L. Wolper and Jack Haley, Jr. on documentaries. He chronicles his time working for producer David Milch as a writer for Hill Street Blues, and what he learned about writing for television during his time there. Green talks about writing the feature film The Wild Bunch, and directing the documentary feature The Hellstrom Chronicle. He outlines then-more recent work, including his adaptation of Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Jesus, and episodes of The Man in the High Castle and Mercy Street. Adrienne Faillace conducted the interview in a joint venture with the Writers Guild Foundation on August 23, 2018 in Santa Ynez, CA.

 

MASTER CLASS DE WILLIAM FRIEDKIN: À PROPOS DE SORCERER

“A few months after its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival, the restored version of William Friedkin’s resurrected masterpiece Sorcerer was screened in Paris at La Cinémathéque Française as the opening film of the 2nd edition of ‘Toute la Mémoire du Monde,’ an international festival devoted to recently restored films. Among the topics discussed during the masterclass, the director tells how and why Steve McQueen, Lino Ventura and Marcello Mastroianni got in and out of the project, how Star Wars ruined the potential success of Sorcerer, how difficult the shooting was (‘It was life threatening; almost everyone on the crew got sick. I myself got malaria.’), how demanding he is as a director (‘Come on! Do I seem tyrannical?’), how he sued the studios to get his film back (‘I did not sue them for money. I will never make a penny out of this picture.’) and how he worked on the restoration of the movie (‘It took me about six months. Six months of my own time, and I lovingly restored every single frame of that picture…’).” —William Friedkin’s Sorcerer Celebrated In Paris Before Its Worldwide Release

 
A rare 8mm footage behind-the-scenes footage of William Friedkin’s Sorcerer, courtesy of Edkfilms.

 
“At some point in pre-production for Sorcerer, William Friedkin had the French comic illustrator Philippe Druillet do some concept sketches for the trucks. What he came up with hardly looks like something you’d see in a film committed to authenticity and realism, but it’s cool stuff.” —Toby Roan, The Sorcerer Blog

 
“Probably the oddest thing about the Sorcerer/Druillet connection is that the commercial failure of the film in 1977 has often been laid at the door of Star Wars, the advent of George Lucas’s dismal saga being regarded, with some justification, as the opening of the gate to the barbarian hordes. (Friedkin’s film might also have fared better had it not been titled as though it were an Exorcist sequel.) The irony here is that George Lucas happened to be a big Druillet enthusiast, although there’s little evidence of this in his films; in addition to writing an appreciation for ‘Les Univers de Druillet’ in 2003, he also commissioned Druillet to create a one-off piece of Star Wars art in the late 70s. Knowing this it’s tempting to imagine Lucas creating a very different kind of science-fiction film in 1977, one with some Continental weirdness at its core. But when the world has already been deprived of Jodorowsky’s Dune it’s best not to dwell too much on might-have-beens.” —John Coulthart

 

JOHN BOX’S SKETCHES

Here are three of John Box’s sketches of the trucks from Sorcerer. Fascinating stuff. Courtesy of Toby Roan’s The Sorcerer Blog.

 
Here’s William Friedkin with Edgar Froese of Tangerine Dream. Courtesy of Toby Roan’s The Sorcerer Blog.

 
Here’s Steven Spielberg hard at work on Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), wearing a Sorcerer t-shirt.

 
After William Friedkin’s Sorcerer bombed at the US box office, international distributor CIC enlisted British editor Jim Clark to completely re-edit the film, shortening it to 90 minutes, re-structuring the film so the introductions to the characters became flashbacks, re-integrating deleted footage that Friedkin filmed but deemed extraneous, dubbing some of the foreign-language dialogue into English, and finally re-titling the film The Wages of Fear, after the original novel and film it was based on. This was the only version of Sorcerer released outside North America until only a few years ago. These are a few highlights from that version, showing some (though not all) of the alternate material. The video is from a German print, hence the non-English credit sequences.

 
Karlovy Vary International Film Festival presents a masterclass with William Friedkin, an outstanding figure of American filmmaking who received the Crystal Globe for Outstanding Artistic Contribution to World Cinema and presented a restored version of one of the central films of his career, Sorcerer.

 
Director William Friedkin is a consummate storyteller, which explains why he tells such an entertaining story of his own life, rooted in three recurring themes: faith, fate and film. Within that story, William tells Marc Maron about the making of The French Connection and The Exorcist, the failure and resurgence of his film Sorcerer, and his reasons for never wanting to do a second take.

 
Friedkin Uncut, directed by Francesco Zippel, opening in limited theatrical release in New York on August 23 (Village East/NY) and in Los Angeles (Laemmle Monica) on August 30 via Ambi Distribution.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of William Friedkin’s Sorcerer. Photographed by N/A © Film Properties International N.V., Paramount Pictures, Universal Pictures/Warner Bros. Home Entertainment. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
We’re running out of money and patience with being underfunded. 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:

The post “No One Is Just Anything”: In William Friedkin’s ‘Sorcerer’, Four Reduced Men Must Gamble with Life to Give It Value appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Lived All Our Best Times Left With the Worst: Christopher Nolan’s ‘Memento’

$
0
0

 

By Tim Pelan

Fractured narrative, skewed perception, compressed timelines—director/writer Christopher Nolan won’t lead his audience in a straight line where a Möbius strip will suffice. Multi-award nominated breakthrough hit and neuro-noir Memento was the English Literature graduate’s first real attempt to hew closely to what he terms the “possessory experience” of a book’s story, whereby the reader can re-read, flipping back until satisfied with his or her understanding of the writer’s intentions. And Memento‘s “backward” tale is a head-scratching mystery that rewards with each rewatch, an innovative pushing of the restrictions on narrative that have in his mind largely failed to advance in line with every other aspect of filmmaking. Memento, based on his brother Jonathan (Jonah) Nolan’s short story, Memento Mori, has a structure based around Leonard Shelby (Guy Pierce), a man unable to make new memories for himself after a blow to the head, wherein he wakes in his bathroom to find his wife dead. He trawls the underside of dusty Southern California to gather evidence against the man he believes killed his wife, the elusive John G, keeping track of events by leaving post-its everywhere to himself and tattooing clues all across his body. Leonard is both helped and hindered by bar-tending femme fatale Natalie (Carrie-Ann Moss) and undercover cop Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), both with their own agenda, a drug deal. The flip side to Leonard’s quest, gradually revealed as the film progresses (or regresses), is that of a man who deliberately forgets the truth to have a reason to carry on living—trapped in the moment. No wonder Nolan’s production company (since Memento with his wife Emma Thomas now as producer) is named Syncopy, referring to the condition that creates a state of temporary unconsciousness—Nolan wants you to be immersed in his films in that magical theater of dreams, the cinema.

After the triple timeline of his ultra-low-budget, long-in-the-making debut Following, Nolan challenged himself and his audience further with the “backward” narrative of amnesiac Leonard’s hunt. Speaking with Total Film in 2008, he said, “There isn’t any first-person grammar in films, whereas in novels, it’s a fairly standard thing and an incredible tool to be able to grab the reader and shove him inside somebody’s head. In Memento, there are no establishing shots. Each scene begins inside. My thing was to get that subjective experience with this character: he doesn’t know how he got into this room, doesn’t know what’s outside these four walls. Every time he comes into a room you want the camera to be just over his shoulder, just discovering the room as he is, you use all sorts of close-ups to try and achieve an amount of texture through the little details, the things around him, because that’s the scope of his world.”

Teddy dismissively calls Leonard “the hero of his own romantic quest,” with his wife preserved in aspic, as it were, easier to care about now she’s out of the picture. Further confusion is sown as to whether Leonard is actually Sammy Jankis, a fellow anterograde amnesiac, he tells Teddy about—Leonard was once an insurance investigator who looked into Sammy’s condition to see if it was genuine for a payout. Sammy’s diabetic wife, unsure as to whether or not his condition is genuine, repeatedly requests insulin, which Sammy continues to administer, without a blink: his wife falls into a fatal coma. Memento utilizes many of the familiar tropes of the hard-boiled detective noir: the lone protagonist, paranoia, seedy settings, voice-over, characters lying to themselves as much as to our hero. By using the film’s unique structure, Nolan hoped to use noir’s trappings to subvert and make them fresh again. Leonard is a man not only out of step with time, but also with technology: he carries around a bulky and incomplete file on his wife’s killing, writing endless notes to himself, unable to remember how to use any piece of technology fresh to him. Teddy tells him, “You don’t know who you are, who you’ve become since the incident. You’re wandering around, playing detective… and you don’t even know how long ago it was.” Memento is one long form “investigative flashback,” beginning with the resolution to the murder, then retracing its path, stripping the narrative of any certainties—debate still rages as to whether Leonard is Sammy, or did he kill his own wife in their apartment?

 
Without the ability to conjure any new memories, Leonard’s sense of self is malleable, depending on where we are in the film. He’s alternately the cocky, confident insurance investigator, methodical and dispassionate; in the black-and-white sequences, he reflects on whether he is being manipulated; and in the color, “present” scenes, he is full of guile, able to flip on a dime to stay ahead of the pack. As to whether Nolan’s interpretation of Leonard’s memory loss is accurate, a cognitive psychologist had some interesting things to say on an Internet discussion board when the film came out: “Leonard could remember whatever he’s thinking about indefinitely, as long as he is intent upon it. However, the slamming of a car door, for instance, could distract him for a moment, and then a long train of thought would derail. Anterograde amnesia is not so much an inability to record new memories but to be consciously aware of them.” At one point Leonard, after a fight with Natalie, rubs his fist, aware that he has hit something, but not able to recall what. Guy Pearce describes his character as operating “almost like a synapse really, just a nerve ending that’s responding to everything around him and trying to maintain some sort of control.” Part of that control is holding on to that last memory he believes he has of his wife’s death—despite his best efforts, he “Can’t remember to forget you.” Hence also his appearance as an illustrated man—a walking canvas of clues to get to the bottom of the mystery. Yet somewhere in his subconscious, he doesn’t want to move on—writing down Teddy’s car registration, falsifying evidence.

Pearce was intrigued with the notion of self-deception. “I’m fascinated with the conflict that goes on within someone’s mind, between what they know about themselves, and what they think they know about themselves, and then what they present to other people and what they present to themselves. Suddenly here was a character where all those elements were really heightened. He’s doing this grotesque thing of telling himself things by tattooing himself, profusely denying certain elements of his emotional state.”

Production designer Patti Podesta had one week to design the tattoos. They were printed on butcher’s paper as a transfer and sprayed onto the skin, touched up and powdered down. It took several hours to apply them, but they would last for five days if Pearce didn’t scrub too hard in the shower. They aren’t just clues relating to the mystery of the dead wife (John G raped and killed your wife); Leonard’s tattoos also number such mundane commands as the upside-down one on his belly to “eat.” Also, to hone his mind—Condition yourself. Furthermore, he has himself wrapped in knots with advice such as Memory is treachery.

 
Another essential element to the film was the Polaroid camera and snapshots Leonard takes. Nolan was worried that the company wouldn’t give him permission to use it. The camera they got to use took better pictures than Leonard takes, “but we wanted them to be a bit crappy. They had their own creepy look to them—a lack of detail with a weird color situation.” Pearce ended up folding it down and whipping it out from under his jacket like his amnesiac’s version of a gun, or badge.

Nolan has never been overly fond of storyboarding. “Most storyboards are drawn according to conventions, and they have a comic-book feel to them, which doesn’t necessarily relate that strongly to where you’re going to put the camera, and what lens you’re going to use.” For the difficult to convey murder in reverse opening sequence, Mark Bristol did indeed storyboard. “Generally,” Nolan recalls, “I’m very good at visualizing things in my head pictorially, shot to shot, but on that scene, I was having a very hard time conveying what I wanted and what would be practical, because there were effects involved. The whole reverse nature of it meant that it was actually very helpful to have the shots as pictures, so I could show people the order in which they were going to take place.”

Selling the film’s concept, Nolan has said himself that the simplest explanation of Memento for audiences is that it is a noire-esque tale, told by its protagonist in reverse. Although it’s really more elaborate than that. “If you draw out the timeline, it is indeed a hairpin. If you order the material chronologically, the black and white material moves forwards, and in the last scene switches around and goes back to the color scene. So there is this hairpin turn.”

 
As James Mottram states in his excellent book, The Making of Memento:

Breaking this idea down, this is how the film concludes. The final backwards-moving colour segment of the film begins with Leonard’s (Guy Pierce) screech to a halt outside the tattoo parlour (where he will significantly request Teddy’s (Joe Pantoliano) licence plate number to be inscribed on his leg, setting him on a journey that will ultimately lead to Teddy’s death—as seen at the film’s outset). When the scene closes, Nolan takes us back to the black-and-white sequence, where Leonard leaves the motel, meets Teddy, and heads to the derelict hallway, chronologically just before the tattoo parlor scene. As Leonard takes a Polaroid of the dead Jimmy Grantz, the film fades into color, as the Polaroid develops, at one of the film’s most elegant but understated moments. Leonard, unsettled by Teddy’s revelations in the derelict hallway, decides to choose him as the next John G., copying his license plate down, knowing he will soon forget his murderous intent. The next step? The tattoo parlor, of course, and the skid to a halt.

“You can never find out where you are in the timeline, because there is no timeline,” says Jonathan Nolan. “If it was a straight-backwards film, you could just take that two-dimensional timeline and flip it over, but you can’t do that with this film. Later on down the line, you realize that this film doesn’t run back; it’s a Möbius strip.”

Effectively the film is one continuous twist from start to finish. One of the keys is understanding the parallel subjective view of the reverse color sequences, told from Leonard’s point of view in the here and now; and the objective view of the forward moving black and white, where he is an unreliable narrator.

 
Incidentally, the title of this piece derives from the song used over the end credits, David Bowie’s apropos Something In The Air. “When you have such an abrupt ending that leaves you in such a point of tension, I think you need a very active soundtrack over the credits, in order to release the tension for the audience. Even though the narrative ending leaves you very tense, you want to be able to signal to the audience that the experience is over. It frees you up immediately to consider the film and start processing it in your mind.” Unable to secure his original choice of song, Radiohead’s Paranoid Android, Nolan secured Bowie’s approval after discovering he and Guy Pierce shared the same agent, sending him a copy of the script.

It was fellow director Steven Soderbergh, blown away by Memento’s concept and execution, who championed the film and touted it around distributors he knew. In the end, Newmarket, who had never released a film before, took a chance on it. Soderbergh used his clout with Warner Brothers to secure the American remake of Insomnia for Nolan, knowing he was interested. He told him, “You’ve withstood the most difficult situation a young filmmaker can find themselves in: making a studio movie with movie stars on a tight schedule, having never operated in that world before. From now on, the only thing that’ll limit you is your ideas of what you can do.”

Now, where was I?

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 »

 

REMEMBERING WHERE IT ALL BEGAN:
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN ON ‘MEMENTO’

“Unlike Following, I wrote Memento on a computer, which certainly made it easier to keep things in check as to how it would read in the chronological sense. Basically I felt that the strongest approach I could take, once I’d figured out the structural conceit, was to sit down and imagine what I wanted to see on the screen, as it would appear on the screen. One of the reasons I was able to do that was that even though the film is seemingly very complex, the story is actually very simple, and that’s part of the point of the movie: we’re taking a relatively simple story and filtering it through somebody’s very unusual way of perceiving the world. That perceptual distortion of not being able to make new memories was always very interesting to me, far more so than a conventional amnesia story whereby somebody is making new memories, but they don’t know who they are. They could be anybody and they don’t know what’s happened in the past. This is kind of a complete new version of that, where you have someone who knows everything about himself, all the objective information that’s supposed to tell us who we are, but he can’t connect that with his present self. That was a fascinating conundrum, something I hadn’t really seen before. So the whole dynamic of the script is aimed at taking a really very simple story and putting the audience through the perceptual distortion that Leonard suffers, thereby making this simple story seem incredibly complex and challenging, the way it would be for someone with this condition. Which isn’t to say that there aren’t all kinds of complexities at the end of the story, but the basic plotting is actually very simple.” —Remembering Where it All Began: Christopher Nolan on Memento

 
Screenwriter must-read: Christopher Nolan’s screenplay for Memento [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.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 
Christopher Nolan’s Memento is a whirlwind thriller that will be studied for decades. But what made Nolan’s second film so great and how did Nolan write it?

 

ANATOMY OF A SCENE: ‘MEMENTO’

A movie cast and crew discuss how a particular scene was shot.

 
Memento—Telling a Story In Reverse, another excellent video essay by Lessons from the Screenplay’s Michael Tucker.

 
An interview from 2000 with director Christopher Nolan explaining character behaviour/mind set, story structure and more about his movie Memento.

 
With Tenet on the horizon, for this video essay we look at Christopher Nolan’s breakout film Memento, which turns 20 this year. Written, edited and narrated by Leigh Singer.

 

“A few years back, I got a call from an agent and he said, ‘Will you come see this film? It’s been making the festival circuit and it’s getting a really good response but no distributor will pick it up.’ The film was called Memento…” —Steven Soderbergh

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Christopher Nolan’s Memento. Photographed by Daniel Rothenberg © Newmarket Capital Group, Team Todd, Summit Entertainment (Kobal/REX/Shutterstock). Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only. Please visit the website and support: The Society of Motion Picture Still Photographers.

 
We’re running out of money and patience with being underfunded. 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 Lived All Our Best Times Left With the Worst: Christopher Nolan’s ‘Memento’ appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s ‘Hard Eight’, AKA ‘Sydney’: “It’s Always Good to Meet a New Friend”

$
0
0

Hard Eight, AKA Sydney poster art by Rich Kelly, https://www.rfkelly.com/hard-eight

 

By Tim Pelan

Paul Thomas Anderson’s debut film Hard Eight (working title Sydney, preferred by Anderson, thwarted by his backers) arose from the performance of a veteran actor who caught his eye in Martin Brest’s Midnight Run—Philip Baker Hall. In a handful of brief scenes, Hall’s Las Vegas-based fixer for Dennis Farina’s frustrated crime boss Jimmy Serrano essays a calm, sharp, mannered stillness, with a certain old-school charm and pointed delivery. Anderson caught the film on its release in 1988. At the time, he was a precocious talent at Montclair Prep School in San Fernando Valley, under the good-humored tutelage of Principal Carole Stevens. In a piece on the director’s early years for Esquire, “Not long afterward, Anderson walked into Stevens’s office and handed her a piece of paper. ‘This will be my next film,’ he told her. Scribbled on the paper was one word: Sydney.” It didn’t quite become his next film, although it was his first feature after his debut short, Cigarettes and Coffee, which did at least feature Hall (the director as a young man had previously got to know the actor working as a PA on a PBS film). He laid his script on Hall, who he’d already admired for his roaring one-man performance as self-pitying, railing ex-President Nixon in Robert Altman’s ace one-hander, Secret Honor. Cigarettes and Coffee was a twisty character piece about a young gambler who thinks his wife is having an affair, who goes on to seek advice from an older mentor figure. It’s no stretch to see this develop into the main plotline of Hard Eight, about the Sydney from Midnight Run, a few years older, possibly surviving on the fringes of a life he once had after his boss Serrano is taken down. One day, seemingly out of the blue in a Reno coffee shop, Sydney takes a broken and forlorn young man, John, played by John C. Reilly, under his wing. He teaches him gambling tips to survive and blossom, until an unexpected series of events threatens to blow his house of cards down.

Sydney thrives on the craps tables and “old timer” games of the Reno casinos. Tracking and steadicam shots would become a signature move in Anderson’s later films but here they are used sparingly, except for one bravura shot. Kevin B. Lee has done a video essay for BFI on the progression of the director’s steadicam shots in his career. In the transcript on Hard Eight, he observes:

“In his first feature, Anderson’s use of Steadicam already exploits the dramatic qualities of cinematography, juxtaposing Sydney’s dynamic movement against other gamblers seated like zombies at their slots and screens. The camera whips to a side-angle view of Sydney, tracking him laterally; in doing so it seems to pass through walls of ordinary gamblers. It then opens into a wider view of the floor, a panorama of light and sound, both realistic and expressive.

 
No other shots are as flashy as this one in Hard Eight, a fairly low-key drama led by a reserved, even inscrutable lead performance. But Anderson allows this one shot to give a glimpse into Sydney’s subjective experience, the thrill of walking the casino floor. It’s a precocious display of character development achieved purely through camera movement and staging. The camera revels in this sensory landscape and simultaneously transcends it, as Sydney advances to his rightful place at the head of the craps table.”

How did he come to make this as his debut feature? From a snippet of an uncredited interview: “I had only written maybe one or two other scripts that I didn’t really like that much and I liked this one and it seemed that I could do it. It seemed that I could make a movie which was small with only four characters in Reno, Nevada and that I could raise money for it. It was really all I had.” Hall had thought the script for Cigarettes and Coffee was spectacular. “I was wondering, who was the first actor in the seventeenth century to see a Shakespeare script, and did he know what he was reading? I certainly knew what I had in my hand.” That’s why he didn’t need to be asked twice to reprise the role of Sydney.

Sydney’s quiet, becalmed old-school demeanor ruffles the feathers of a brash young gambler, rolling that “hard eight” and taunting his Zen-like opposite—a neophyte Philip Seymour Hoffman. “When we filmed Hard Eight,” Hall recalled to Rolling Stone after Hoffman’s tragic demise, “I was shocked at his ability to improvise his way through. He improvised most of that craps scene and just had such a sense for timing. At that point, I was older and he was very young. I was like, ‘Who is this kid?’ He was so aware of everything and had the instinct of an older trooper. As I began to know him better and work with him more, I realized he was a genius and operating at a different level than the rest of us.”

 
Anderson shot the film in a tight twenty-eight days and edited it in three weeks. He spent a year in dispute with his backers over the final cut. The film essentially became his again when he recut it from the workprint at his own expense after it was accepted into the Un Certain Regard section of the 1996 Cannes Film Festival. He told Total Film in an interview in their March 2008 issue, to publicize There Will Be Blood, “The scrappiness was there to begin with. Coming from a big family… My God. We all fight all the time. But at the same time, nobody’s fight lasts more than five minutes. I certainly have that in me naturally, but going through what we went through on that first film was mad. It created such paranoia, such over-protectiveness. That said, I did things in the process that didn’t help it along. I could have been more diplomatic. But I was so arrogant. I simply thought it was my job to do this movie as best I can. It was so naïve to think I didn’t have to manage the people who were paying for it!”

Right from the start of his career, he gets up close to his actors, hugging the camera. Hall again, from the Hard Eight DVD commentary:

“When it’s possible—in terms of the type of scene it is, where the camera is, how close the actors are to the lens and to the camera itself—Paul gets himself down in and under and around the camera. He curls in down there somewhere… so that he has eye contact with you all the time. Now, many directors don’t do this, many directors watch the box–many directors don’t even watch the box, they stand off to the side somewhere, I don’t know what they’re looking at—but Paul gets right down in there so that it’s very intimate… And it could be disconcerting. Paul might be two or three feet away from you and locking eyes right into you. There’s something about the hard focus and his physical presence… inches away, that gives a kind of a dynamic to the performance that I’m not sure that you can achieve in quite the same way. Or any other way. It’s unusual. There are other directors who do this, I’ve seen this a couple of times, but Paul does it on virtually every shot… It’s almost like he is helping to will the appropriate performance from you… I always sensed… I sensed his will. He wanted this thing in a certain way.”

 
The film, therefore, benefits from a lack of “showiness,” forcing the audience to lean in and listen to the gaps between the words, the play of emotion across faces, the “tells” and poker expressions. Sydney doesn’t know the meaning of the word “redundancy”—he says and reveals exactly what he means to. John is a naif, saying what he thinks people want to hear. Even when he learns the skills Sydney divests, he never develops a hard carapace (amusingly, on “winning” a hotel room and dinner for the night after Sydney teaches him his first lesson on the casino floor, a slow trickle of information to the audience also, he plays the genial host). Gwyneth Paltrow is Clementine, a charming waitress bruised by life’s knocks, who Sydney maneuvers John into falling for. They are the seeming innocents he hopes will fill the gap where once his grown son and daughter occupied. She does a bit of her own hustling on the side, caught in a bind between being caught for sleeping with customers, and ignoring their advances and again getting sacked for losing the casino sucker’s bread. Her reluctance to give up even after John makes his intentions known (they get married on a whim) almost threatens to derail everything in the little group’s embryonic ordered world. Film Comment described the pair as being “superb at catching the precise blend of naïveté and fecklessness in their characters: each is just smart enough to know what they need to lie about, and desperate enough to believe the lies until the lies die gasping for fresh inspiration.”

John’s newer friend Jimmy (Samuel L. Jackson) is a verbose, coarse and showy Casino “security guy” who possibly overstates his importance and connections, but definitely knows there’s more to the eye as to why Sydney has taken John under his wing—a violent tragic backstory. The tale then becomes a kind of battle for the innocent John’s soul between two older, wiser father figures who each recognize the sourness at the heart of their opposite. Intimacy and openness are often thwarted or held at bay, as shown in Anderson’s framing of actors in uncomfortably long close-ups of the actors looking straight towards the camera, the other actor in conversation deliberately out of shot. It forces the actors to give the performance he wants, robbing them of collaborative variability. From Senses of Cinema:

“The opening encounter between Sydney and John, a five-and-a-half minute dialogue scene, comprises an almost fanatical adherence to the shot-reverse-shot structure. But it’s a full three minutes into the sequence before we get an over-the-shoulder shot. Until then, both characters are shot front-on, the camera offering the point-of-view of their interlocutor. After a cut to a two-shot to incorporate an interruption by a waitress, Anderson returns to the shot-reverse-shot rhythm, this time from over-the-shoulder. The respite is brief, however, since Sydney soon gets up from the table and the final minute-and-a-half separates the actors again.”

 
Anderson’s eye settles on odd little incidental details—John exchanges small talk with a bride in full wedding dress and incongruous neck brace playing the slot machines; he yelps for a bucket as a diligent spell yields a fountain of coinage; and as Sydney and Clementine talk at a table, a sudden ruckus nearby yields a whip-pan to focus on the next table’s folk, before panning back to Clementine’s screwed up What-was-that-all-about face. And life goes on.

Jimmy’s actions bring the monster beneath Sydney’s glacial cool not exactly roaring back, but quietly stewing, biding its time. In a move possibly cribbed by Martin Campbell for Daniel Craig’s James Bond debut Casino Royale (and mirrored by Marc Forster in its companion piece, Quantum of Solace), Sydney quietly waits in the dark for Jimmy to come home from gambling his ill-gotten extorted gains (luckily for Sydney, he made good on a hard eight role), pistol pointed at the door. The No-Name Movie Blog puts it nicely, stating that, “this is fully Philip Baker Hall’s movie, and in the end it’s a movie about a man who has lost everything so many times he seems to have almost forgotten how to be the monster you sense he was. He just wants people around him, even if those people will be the end of him. Every other character seems to try his patience, but he seems like he wouldn’t have it any other way. In the end, being uncertain and gambling it all on other people is better than the alternative—endless days spent playing the conservative gambles at casinos who all know his name.”

Whereas Bond shoots his cuffs with insouciance after his latest escapade, Sydney, back at the Reno coffee shop where the sins of the past caught up with him as he met and recognized John, tugs his jacket sleeve down over a spot of blood on his pristine white cuff, a shabbily shameful gesture. Sometimes, it’s not “always good to meet a new friend.”

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 »

 
In the video above, Paul Thomas Anderson and Philip Baker Hall on filmmaking. Both men break down the 15+ minute Motel scene in Hard Eight. Philip Baker Hall also talks about the differences and challenges between cinema and theater acting and directing.

 
The emerging filmmaker conversations with Sundance Lab fellows Paul Thomas Anderson, From Here To Houdini’s House, written By Saida Shepard.

In January of 1993, Paul Thomas Anderson’s first film, a short called Cigarettes and Coffee, screened at the Sundance Film Festival. To make the film, Anderson pooled friends, acquaintances, and resources from his years as a production assistant. Cigarettes and Coffee inspired Anderson’s feature film script, Sydney, which he brought to the 1993 Filmmakers Lab. At the Lab, Anderson took portions of Sydney through a dress-rehearsal process, working with actors, workshopping his script, and learning about film industry politics. Sydney, later renamed Hard Eight, initiated Anderson into the challenge of retaining directorial control amid the promises and pitfalls of The Business. Anderson’s second feature, Boogie Nights, documents the makeshift family of a porn production empire from the excesses of the 1970s into the changing climate of the 1980s. At twenty-seven, Paul Thomas Anderson has been compared to Robert Altman for his ensemble work, and to Martin Scorsese for his anthropological detail. In this interview, part of a series with Lab alumni, Anderson talks about his start as a director, the lessons he’s learned from making two features, and his plans to make many more: “Either like thirty, if I continue to smoke; maybe forty if I quit.”

What were you doing before the Lab?
I wasn’t doing a goddamn thing. I’d worked as a P.A. for a long time, so I had a lot of access to people and camera packages, and I had some money and my girlfriend’s credit cards, and when I came up with the short Cigarettes and Coffee, essentially it was kind of an all or nothing situation. I put everything into this short, and then it was shown at Sundance. I had just written Sydney, or Hard Eight, rather. At that time it was called Sydney. And [Feature Film Program Director] Michelle Satter read it and she really liked it, and she saved my life by inviting me to the Lab. I really, literally, didn’t have anything to do. It was January, and I figured I’d be getting a job or something. I had no backup plan. In my egotistical, insane way, I was just sure that someone like her was going to come along. And she did.

Did the idea for Sydney grow out of your short?
No, it just grew out of the same actor. Philip Baker Hall was an actor who was in my short, who I really admired. And I wanted to get to know more about him. So my thinking in writing Sydney was that it was a kind of love letter, trying to figure out this man I didn’t really know.

How was the Lab?
I was initially kind of skeptical about it. Then I got there, and I just fuckin’ went crazy. I was very fortunate to have the actors who were going to be in the movie—Philip Baker Hall and John C. Reilly—with me. I mean, I met all these directors that I admired, like Michael Caton-Jones and John Schlesinger, and that was really quite a big deal. I remember [Artistic Director] Jeremy Kagan saying, “You’re here to fuck up, and then fuck up better the next day.” When someone says that, you’re ready to go. The best part of it for me was the Screenwriters Lab, because that’s where I got to meet three friends, three people who are very very close to me now, Richard LaGravenese, Todd Graff, and Scott Frank. They were advisors and just so dedicated to kicking my ass. And I needed my ass kicked.

 
In what areas did you need ass kicking?
I knew that my sensibility wasn’t incredibly art house, and I knew that my sensibility wasn’t incredibly Batman. I knew that I loved both sides of the spectrum. I had written a movie that was very small and intimate. And I said, “You know, I think I need a little bit of help, because this is reading and seeming to me like a movie that could play at the Nuart for a week, and I really don’t want to make a movie that plays at the Nuart for a week. I want to make a movie that people will come and see, and I need help in that department.” I was sort of shamelessly saying that I didn’t want to do a small movie. And of course it turned out that it played at the Nuart for a week. So a lot of fucking help they were!

Was there an experience or conversation at the Lab that ultimately shifted a direction of the film?
I had written a scene where two people talk about doing a scam. I had written one guy telling another guy about a scam that he could pull to get a free hotel in Vegas. I sat down with Richard LaGravenese, and he said, “Why am I reading about this? Why am I not seeing it?” And I thought, “Well, that’s kind of incredible. Why don’t I show it?” That’s just a very basic thing, one really strong thing I took.

Were there skills you learned at the Lab that you took to the experience of directing your film on set?
Funny enough, everyone seemed to recognize that I needed more advice about the movie business. While there may have been somebody else over on the other side who needed help with his character motivation and script, I was standing there with a pretty okay script and just needed someone to give me lessons in how to protect what I had. It was more like, “Okay. Here’s what’s going to happen. There are going to be all these people who want to suck your blood, and here’s how to protect yourself.” What they were trying to teach me at the Lab, which I was probably too silly to listen to, is that only 50 percent of my job was to write and direct good movies. The other 50 percent was dealing with people who pay for movies and dealing with the distribution process.

Once you got the money in place, where did you shoot the film, and what was the post-production process like?
We shot in Reno, Nevada, for twenty-eight days, and then went through a hellish process of editing it and trying to regain it back from the company that paid for it. In other words, everything that they had warned me might happen in Hollywood happened. I’ll just say that some people who paid for the movie accidentally forgot to read the script, and when they got the movie that was the script, they were… mad. If you’re a first-time filmmaker, and you’ve got someone to give you the money, you’re going to take it. Even if it smells fishy, you’re going to take it. Don’t. It’s better not to make your movie. You will get it eventually. If it smells fishy, don’t fucking get involved.

Did you have people in mind when you were writing Boogie Nights?
Again, I had written it for specific actors—John C. Reilly, Phil Hoffman, Philip Baker Hall, Bob Ridgely, Melora Walters. All those people were in Hard Eight. I like working with the same people. And Julianne Moore is someone that I didn’t know personally, but I knew her work, and so I wrote the part for her.

What cinematic influences informed Boogie Nights?
Certainly I think the top three influences, in alphabetical order, are Altman, Scorsese, and Truffaut. They were people that I admired and loved. Jonathan Demme is probably my all-time king hero because he’s the combination of those three, I think.

What do you think about when you think about the future?
I met Francis Ford Coppola, and he shook my hand and said, “You’re the only one right now.” He said, “There’s always one time in your life where you get to know that you can make one more movie. You have it. You’ll never have it again.”

What do you want to make next?
I have a movie in my head, in pieces. I have been writing it for a while. It’s basically for a lot of the same actors.

Do you have a stock company that you would like to continue working with?
Yeah. The goal is to buy the entire Laurel Canyon area and turn it into a backlot for me and my actors. With a monorail from here to Houdini’s house.

Was this all part of your plan, years ago when you thought about what you wanted to do with your life?
It’s all happening. Well, it’s about a year behind schedule.

When you were a teenager, you were planning—
Even before that. Six or seven.

Six or seven?
Yeah. And the presidency’s mine in 2004.

Do you want to be a director that inhabits all genres? For example, Scorsese, who’s done almost everything —is that something that appeals to you?
Absolutely. I want to make a western. I like it all, and I want to tackle it all. There’s so much I want to do. There’s just not enough fuckin’ time!

 

THE CAREER OF PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON IN FIVE SHOTS

“In his first feature, Anderson’s use of Steadicam already exploits the dramatic qualities of cinematography, juxtaposing Sydney’s dynamic movement against other gamblers seated like zombies at their slots and screens. The camera whips to a side-angle view of Sydney, tracking him laterally; in doing so it seems to pass through walls of ordinary gamblers. It then opens into a wider view of the floor, a panorama of light and sound, both realistic and expressive. No other shots are as flashy as this one in Hard Eight, a fairly low-key drama led by a reserved, even inscrutable lead performance. But Anderson allows this one shot to give a glimpse into Sydney’s subjective experience, the thrill of walking the casino floor. It’s a precocious display of character development achieved purely through camera movement and staging. The camera revels in this sensory landscape and simultaneously transcends it, as Sydney advances to his rightful place at the head of the craps table.” —Kevin B. Lee

 
The Sundance Kid is the first installment of The Directors Series’ examination into the films and careers of director Paul Thomas Anderson, covering his lo-fi origins and his breakout at the Sundance Film Festival. This video essay was written, edited, and narrated by Cameron Beyl.

 
Screenwriter must-read: Paul Thomas Anderson’s screenplay for Hard Eight, originally titled Sydney [PDF]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 
The way you look, I think you know what I’m sayin’, old-timer, I think you do.
Jesus Christ, why don’t you have some fun? Fun! Fun! Hahahahaha.

In loving memory of Philip Seymour Hoffman (1967-2014)

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Paul Thomas Anderson’s Hard Eight. Photographed by Mark Tillie © Green Parrot, Rysher Entertainment, Trinity Distributors, Goldwyn Films, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM). Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
We’re running out of money and patience with being underfunded. 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 Paul Thomas Anderson’s ‘Hard Eight’, AKA ‘Sydney’: “It’s Always Good to Meet a New Friend” appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

‘Goodfellas’ at 30: Martin Scorsese’s Anthropological Goodlife Through a Lens

$
0
0

Photographed by Barry Wetcher © Warner Bros.

 

By Tim Pelan

As far back as I can remember, director Martin Scorsese has been synonymous with wiseguys, mooks, goombahs, and spin-on-a-dime funny-how guys delivering a gut punch to the senses, all choreographed to a wowser wall of sound. Young pretenders like Quentin Tarantino and Edgar Wright certainly learnt how to make up a killer score not, conversely, on the streets, but at the church of St Martin. The rest is bullshit (but that’s another film). We’re here to talk about Goodfellas (1990), surely his most guilty thrill ride until The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), the white-collar larcenous flip side to the saga of Henry Hill, an initial outsider like the young, asthmatic Scorsese in Little Italy, who finds an in to the neighbourhood mobster way of life. Scorsese indulges in the seductive surface appeal of these dodgy foot soldiers, gradually peeling away the layers like finely chopped garlic to reveal the lousy, grifting, desperate and moral hollow at the centre. Critic David Thomson in The Big Screen: The Story of the Movies and What They Did to Us says, “Scorsese looks at clothes, decor and male gesture like a cobra scrutinizing a charmer. You feel he is realizing his own desires, or bringing them to life: he hungers for his own imagery as a fantasy made vivid.” The director himself reflected later to Richard Schickel that he saw the film a little differently. “I wanted to seduce everybody into the movie and into the style. And then just take them apart with it. I guess I wanted a kind of angry gesture.” A kind of magic carpet ride rug-pull too, the Seinfeld of gangster films, with “no hugging, no learning.” The only regret is in getting pinched.

Goodfellas is based on the true-life story of Henry Hill (played by Ray Liotta), a low-level gangster from boyhood to manhood stretching through the 1960s and 1970s, turned FBI informer, as related by him to crime reporter Nicholas Pileggi in his book, Wise Guy: Life in a Mafia Family. The author collaborated with Scorsese on the screenplay. The Irish American Hill’s crimes escalated from stealing cigarettes for local Italian American kingpin Paulie (Paul Sorvino) to larger scale robberies, selling stolen goods, loan sharking, hijacking, arson and eventual drug dealing, which would be his downfall. It’s funny how (!) the mob is so squeamish about drug dealing. Hill’s secrecy and sampling of his product cause severe paranoia and sloppiness, leading to his own downfall and actual salvation, although he can’t see it that way. Parallel and complicit to all this is his tumultuous life with his wife Karen (Lorraine Bracco) for whom he converts from Catholicism to Judaism. Not to mention several mistresses along the way.

Research hound Robert De Niro, who played Jimmy “The Gent” Conway, mentor and murderous friend to Hill, kept in contact with the real deal. “I would call Henry Hill every couple of days and check with him. I would just say, ‘I need to talk to Henry,’ and they would find him wherever he was. He was in a witness protection program at the time.” Goodfellas really opened the lid on the garrulous gangsters we’re familiar with today, like The Sopranos, many of that shows cast members having appeared in the film also. The Godfather was stately, secretive, a closed house. Here, it’s open house, where it’s all fun and games in wild nights out or after-hours card games until somebody loses an eye, or an arm. Or “Here’s a wing!” as Hill’s Italian-born hair-trigger friend Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci) quips, when the trio of brothers in arms are burying Billy Batts (Frank Vincent) who’s ragging of Tommy (“Now go home and get your fuckin’ shine box!”) went a little too far. An anthropological Goodlife through a lens.

 
Here are a couple of quotes from Scorsese that sum up both the style and the message of the film:

“I was interested in breaking up all the traditional ways of shooting the picture. A guy comes in, sits down, exposition is given. So the hell with the exposition—do it on the voiceover, if need be at all. And then just jump the scene together. Not by chance. The shots are designed so that I know where the cut’s going to be. The action is pulled out of the middle of the scene, but I know where I’m going to cut it so that it makes an interesting cut… In this film, actually the style gave me the sense of going on a ride, some sort of crazed amusement-park ride, going through the Underworld, in a way.”

And how he uses Hill “as a mirror of American Society”:

“Yeah, the lifestyle reflects the times. In the early sixties, the camera comes up on Henry and he’s waiting outside the diner and he’s got this silk suit on and he hears ‘Stardust.’ And he’s young and he’s looking like all the hope in the world ready for him and he’s going to conquer the world. And then you just take it through America—the end of the sixties, the seventies, and finally into the end of the seventies with the disillusionment and the state of the country that we’re in now. I think his journey reflects that. That wasn’t planned. But there’s something about the moment when his wife says, ‘Hide that cross,’ and the next thing you know, he’s getting married in a Jewish ceremony, and wearing a Star of David and a cross—it doesn’t make any difference. Although I didn’t want to make it heavy in the picture, the idea is that if you live for a certain kind of value, at a certain point in life you’re going to come smack up against a brick wall. Not only Henry living as a gangster: in my feeling, I guess it’s the old materialism versus a spiritual life.”

 
Scorsese uses several long takes, holding on the action playing in background, subtext, and written across faces. The infamous “Funny how?” exchange was first improvised, then tightly scripted, drawn from a childhood recollection of Joe Pesci’s. Scorsese said “it was really finally done in the cutting with two cameras. Very, very carefully composed. Who’s in the frame behind them. To the point where we didn’t have to compromise lighting and positions of the other actors, because it’s even more important who’s around them hearing this.”

The most astonishing long take, or sequence shot, as it conveys everything the film needs to tell you about Henry’s access and power at an early point in the movie, is his and Karen’s first real date, as he sweeps her through the side entrance, back corridors and kitchen of the Copacabana club to the dining area. Henry tips and jokes with staff, guiding Karen through the kitchen. He is focused, in control of the moment, the camera gliding along in his wake. A waiter whisks a white-clothed table in front of them and places it right in front of the stage, Henry and Karen settling back into likewise magically appearing chairs (“Hey, how come we can’t get a table?” someone is overheard off camera). At the time, this was the longest ever Steadicam shot in a film, at two minutes, 59 seconds, scored to the evocative Then He Kissed Me by The Crystals. It reflects Henry’s acceptance into that world, his seduction of the innocent too—“What do you do?” Karen wonders aloud. In actuality there were several strata to the seating arrangements—the footsoldiers like Henry sat in the lower area by the stage, the bosses up by the rail. Each family sat in their own designated areas. “The camera just glided through this world,” Scorsese reflected. “All the doors opened to him. Everything just slipped away, it was like heaven. Then to emerge like a king and queen—this is the highest he could aspire to.”

The Copa shot was blocked, lit and filmed in half a day, nailed on the eighth take. Steadicam operator Larry McConkey on the process, via Filmmaker Magazine:

 
“We did our first walkthrough in the late afternoon—the idea was that we would shoot it at night. Lorraine Bracco and Ray Liotta were there, and Marty said that he wanted it to start with this big close-up of the tip being given to somebody to watch Ray’s car, and then we would walk and follow them. So we walked across the street, went down the stairs (of the Copa’s back entrance), around the corner and down a long hallway. Now, Marty may have just thought that he would have voiceover overtop of the shot, but I was kind of looking at my watch and thinking, ‘This is already the worst case of shoe leather in the history of cinema. There’s no way this will ever work.’ We got to the kitchen and Michael Ballhaus said, ‘Marty, we have to go into the kitchen.’ Marty said, ‘Why would they go into the kitchen?’ And Ballhaus said, ‘Because the light is beautiful.’ ‘OK, we go in the kitchen.’ So we turned the corner and went into the kitchen and then back out the same door. Finally, we get into the club and there’s some dialogue and some action, but I’m thinking the first two minutes of this shot are going to be awful. There’s no way they’ll ever use it. They’re going to cut it to hell.

There are technical problems when you’re trying to do an uncut shot. You want the wide and you want the tight in the same shot, but how do you connect the two? Do you just wait while the camera trundles in? You can’t do that. So we essentially had to invent a way to edit it in the shot. I had to be wide to follow (Ray and Lorraine) down the stairs, because otherwise it would be a shot of the tops of their heads, but when they got to the bottom of the stairs they turned a corner and they would disappear if I didn’t catch up to them. So I said, ‘Ray, we have to figure out a way for you to stall at the bottom of the stairs so I can catch up to you.’ Joe Reidy said, ‘We have a lot of extras so we can have a doorman and Ray could talk to him.’ Then someone came up with the idea ‘You know what, Ray should give him a tip.’ Now we’re echoing a theme that’s built into the character and built into the movie. Then walking down the hallway I said, ‘Ray, I really want to see your face now. So we’ve got to figure out a reason for you to turn around.’ He said, ‘Well, I can talk to somebody else in the hall.’ So we brought in a couple who were making out and Ray would turn and say, ‘Every time, you two.’ So we structured events within the shot that covered the limitations of not being able to cut in order to give it pace and timing. What I didn’t expect, and what I only figured out later, was that all those (interactions) ended up being the heart and soul of the shot. Because Ray incorporated his character into those moments, those moments actually became what the shot was about instead of being tricks or being artifices.”

Another sequence shot shortly after this one during Henry and Karen’s courtship further illuminates Henry’s character, and her acceptance of it. She calls him in tears, after being manhandled out on a drive by the young guy from across the street. Henry picks her up and takes her home, checks if she’s okay, tells her to go inside, all the while eyeballing the preppy prick and his friends in their driveway around a red sports car. There’s no music this time, just the diegetic suburban soundscape of barking dogs, birds and sprinklers. Henry, sporting a tan leather jacket that practically screams “hood” this time around does most definitely not belong in this world, as he stalks wordlessly across the street, the camera in front of his approaching menace, then swiveling to take in what follows—he pistol-whips the arrogant kid in an unflinching intrusion of primal pummeling. He warns the guy if he ever touches her again he’s dead, then stalks back across the street, teeth still bared, and tells Karen to hide the bloodied gun. Her voice over is the kicker: “I know there are women, like my best friends, who would have gotten out of there the minute their boyfriend gave them a gun to hide. But I didn’t. I gotta admit the truth: it turned me on.”

 
Scorsese had invaluable collaborators on Goodfellas—stalwart editor Thelma Schoonmaker; the gorgeous cinematography of Michael Ballhaus; and the production design of Kristi Zea. Not to mention the astounding era-straddling music selection, from do-wop numbers to outstanding paranoia “day in the life” selection Jump Into The Fire by Harry Nilsson. It plays as Henry juggles a (real, flesh and blood) family dinner preparation, leaving his kid brother to stir the sauce while he tries to make a gun deal and deliver drugs, his coked-up, pasty, red-eyed visage craning through the windscreen at that friggin’ helicopter that’s right on his ass. And the Layla (Piano Exit)-scored montage as Jimmy, deep in his own paranoiac greed and security-minded ruthlessness, has everyone involved in the Lufthansa heist systematically offed, their bodies turning up as a sad ignominious refrain to the music beats—Scorsese had the number played live on set. Remember that David Thomson quote at the top of the essay? De Niro’s Jimmy, when he first contemplates this path, is “like a cobra scrutinizing a charmer,” as the camera closes in on him at the bar, ruminating. He even considers later offing Karen, leading her out the back, down to some alley to pick up some goods. Wisely, she gets the jitters and bolts. How in the hell, when the film is this deep in the filth, can it be said to glamorize crime? Mind you, Henry is initially prepared to keep schtum over Jimmy’s purge. Although he was complicit in disposing of Billy Batts, a made guy. When revenge comes knocking for Tommy, there’s not a damn thing he or Jimmy can do about it. That’s a line crossed too far.

Henry upends Jimmy’s advice (“Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut”) to literally save his own skin. “I think Henry realizes the horror he’s brought upon himself, how they’re all living, and it’s way too late. The only thing to do is get out of it. And how can you get out?” Scorsese reflected. By turning everyone in and becoming another nobody “in a neighborhood full of nobodies.” That startling breaking of the fourth wall when Henry steps off the witness stand and addresses us? There’s no real remorse there, only relief (modestly perhaps, Scorsese says he couldn’t think of any other way to end it). As Nev Pierce recalls in his Empire Movie Masterpieces essay, “’We were treated like movie stars with muscle,’ he (Henry) says fondly. ‘Today, everything is different. There’s no action. I have to wait around like everyone else…’ Caught between suburbia and Satan: anonymity and gory glory. Either way, he’s lost.”

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 »

 

GETTING MADE: THE MAKING OF ‘GOODFELLAS’

Getting Made: The Making of Goodfellas is a fascinating inside look at the making of a masterpiece.

 

A COMPLETE ORAL HISTORY

It’s hard to imagine that the obsessive and frenetic Martin Scorsese ever endured blue periods in his career, but twenty years ago, he was going through one. On the eve of the premiere of his new movie, Goodfellas, he was still recovering from the protests, denunciations, and death threats that had accompanied The Last Temptation of Christ. But Goodfellas—based on Wiseguy, a nonfiction best seller by legendary crime reporter Nicholas Pileggi—would restore Scorsese’s place in American film, and then some. To mark the film’s anniversary, GQ interviewed nearly sixty members of the cast and crew, along with some noteworthy admirers of the picture, to revisit the making of one of the most endlessly rewatchable American movies ever made.—Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas: A Complete Oral History

 
Martin Scorsese interviewed by Gavin Smith, Film Comment, September/October 1990.

What was it that drew you to the Goodfellas material?
I read a review of the book; basically it said, “This is really the way it must he.” So I got the book in galleys and started really enjoying it because of the free-flowing style, the way Henry Hill spoke, and the wonderful arrogance of it. And I said, oh, it would make a fasci­nating film if you just make it what it is—literally as close to the truth as a fiction film, a dramatization, could get. No sense to try to whitewash, [to elicit] great sympathy for the characters in a phony way. If you happen to feel something for the character Pesci plays, after all he does in the film, and if you feel something for him when he’s eliminated, then that’s inter­esting to me. That’s basically it. There was no sense making this film [any other way].

You say dramatization and fiction. What kind of a film do you see this as being?
I was hoping it was a documentary. [Laughs]. Really, no kidding. Like a staged documentary, the spirit of a documentary. As if you had a 16mm camera with these guys for 20, 25 years; what you’d pick up. I can’t say it’s “like” any other film, but in my mind it [Has] the freedom of a documentary, where you can mention 25 people’s names at one point and 23 of them the audience will not have heard of before and won’t hear of again, but it doesn’t matter. It’s the familiarity of the way people speak. Even at the end when Ray Liotta says over the freezeframe on his face, “Jimmy never asked me to go and whack somebody before. But now lie’s asking me to go down and do a hit with Anthony in Florida.” Who’s Anthony? It’s a mosaic, a tapestry, where faces keep coming in and out. Johnny Dio, played by Frank Pellegrino, you only see in the Fifties, and then in the Sixties you don’t see him, but he shows up in the jail sequence. He may have done something else for five or six years and come back. It’s the way they live.

How have your feelings about this world changed since Mean Streets?
Well, Mean Streets is much closer to home in terms of a real story, somewhat fictionalized, about events that occurred to me and some of my old friends. [Goodfellas] has really nothing to do with people I knew then. It doesn’t take place in Manhattan, it’s only in the boroughs, so it’s a very different world—although it’s all interrelated. But the spirit of it, again, the attitudes. The morality—you know, there’s none, there’s none. Completely amoral. It’s just wonderful. If you’re a young person, 8 or 9, and these people treat you a certain way because you’re living around them, and then as you get to be a teenager and you get a little older, you begin to realize what they did and what they still do—you still have those first feelings for them as people, you know. So, it kind of raises a moral question and a kind of moral friction in me. That was what I wanted to get on the screen.

 
How did you feel about Married to the Mob, which satirized the Mafia lifestyle?
I like Jonathan Demme’s movies. In fact, I have the same production designer, Kristi Zea. But, well, it’s a satire—it’s just too many plastic seat-covers. And yet, if you go to my mother’s apartment, you’ll see not only the plastic seatcovers on the couch but on the coffee table as well. So where’s the line of the truth? I don’t know. In the spirit of Demme’s work I enjoyed it. But as far as an Italian-American thing, it’s really like a cartoon. When he starts with “Mambo Italia no,” Rosemary Clooney, I’m already cringing because I’m Italian-American, and certain songs we’d like to forget! So I told Jonathan he had some nerve using that, I said only Italians could use “Mambo Italiano” and get away with it. There might be some knocks at his door [Laughs].

Do Goodfellas and Mean Streets serve as an antidote to The God­father’s mythic version of the Mafia?
Yes, yeah, absolutely. Mean Streets, of course, was something I was just burning to do for a number of years. [By the time I did it,] The Godfather had already come out. But I said, it doesn’t matter, because this one is really, to use the word loosely, anthropology—that idea of how people live, what they ate, how they dressed. Mean Streets has that quality—a quote “real” unquote side of it. Goodfellas more so. Especially in terms of attitude. Don’t give a damn about anything, especially when they’re having a good time and making a lot of money. They don’t care about their wives, their kids, anything.

The Godfather is such an overpowering film that it shapes everybody’s perception of the Mafia—including people in the Mafia.
Oh, sure. I prefer Godfather II to Godfather I. I’ve always said it’s like epic poetry, like Morte d’Arthur. My stuff is like some guy on the street-corner talking.

 
In Goodfellas we see a great deal of behavior, bat yon withhold psychological insight.
Basically I was interested in what they do. And, you know, they don’t think about it a lot. They don’t sit around and ponder about [laughs]. “Gee, what are we doing here?” The answer is to eat a lot and make a lot of money and do the least amount of work as possible for it. I was trying to make it as practical and primitive as possible. Just straight ahead. Want. Take. Simple. I’m more concerned with showing a lifestyle and using Henry Hill (Ray Liotta] as basically a guide through it.

You said you see this as a tragic story.
I do, but you have a lot of the guys, like [real-life U.S. attorney] Ed McDonald in the film or Ed Hayes [a real defense attorney], who plays one of the defense attorneys, they’ll say, “These guys are animals and that’s life,” and maybe not care about them. Henry took Paulie [Paul Sorvino] as sort of a second father; he just idolized these guys and wanted to be a part of it. And that’s what makes the turnaround at the end so interesting and so tragic, for me.

In Scorsese on Scorsese you said that, growing up, you felt being a rat was the worst thing you could be. How do you feel about Henry and what he did?
That’s a hard one. Maybe on one level, the tragedy is in the shots of Henry on the stand: “Will you point him out to me, please?” And you see him look kind of sheepish, and he points to Bob De Niro playing Jimmy Conway. And the camera moves in on Conway. Maybe that’s the tragedy—what he had to do to survive, to enable his family to survive.

 
This is “Henry Hill” as opposed to Henry Hill—purely an imaginative ver­sion of this guy?
Yes. Based on what he said in the book and based on what [co-writer] Nick [Pileggi] told me. I never spoke to Henry Hill. Towards the end of the film I spoke to him on the phone once. He thanked me about something. It was just less than 30 seconds on the phone.

You use him as a mirror of American society.
Yeah, the lifestyle reflects the times. In the early Sixties, the camera comes up on Henry and he’s waiting outside the diner and he’s got this silk suit on and he hears “Stardust.” And he’s young and he’s looking like all the hope in the world ready for him and he’s going to conquer the world. And then you just take it through America—the end of the Sixties, the Seventies, and finally into the end of the Seventies with the disillusionment and the state of the country that we’re in now. I think his journey reflects that. That wasn’t planned. But there’s something about the moment when his wife says, “Hide that cross,” and the next thing you know, he’s getting married in a Jewish ceremony, and wearing a Star of David and a cross—it doesn’t make any difference. Although I didn’t want to make it heavy in the picture, the idea is that if you live for a certain kind of value, at a certain point in life you’re going to come smack up against a brick wall. Not only Henry living as a gangster: in my feeling, I guess it’s the old materialism versus a spiritual life.

Goodfellas is like a history of postwar American consumer culture, the evolution of cultural style. The nai vete and romanticism of the Fifties… There’s a kind of innocent mischief mid charm to the worldliness. But then at a certain point it becomes corrupt.
It corrupts and degenerates. Even to the point (that) some of the music degenerates in itself. You have “Unchained Melody” being sung in a decadent way, like the ultimate doo-wop—but not black, it’s Italian doo­wop. It’s on the soundtrack after Stacks gets killed and Henry comes running into the bar. Bob tells him, “Come on, let’s drink up, it’s a cele­bration,” and Tommy says, “Don’t worry about anything. Going to make me.” And over that you hear this incredible doo-wop going on, and it’s sort of like even the music becomes decadent in a way from the pure Drifters, Clyde McPhatter singing “Bells of St. Mary’s,” to Vito and the Salutations. And I like the Vito and the Salutations version of “Unchained Melody.” Alex North wrote it along with somebody else—it was from this movie made in the early Fifties called Unchained. And it’s unrecognizable. It’s so crazy and I enjoy it. I guess I admire the purity of the early times and… Not that I admire it, but I’m a part of the decadence of what happened in the Seventies and the Eighties.

 
Pop music is usually used in films, at least on one level, to cue the audi­ence to what era it is.
Oh, no, no, forget that, no. In Mean Streets there’s a lot of stuff that comes from the Forties. The thing is, believe me, a lot of these places you had jukeboxes and, when The Beatles came in, you still had Benny Goodman, some old Italian stuff, Jerry Vale, Tony Bennett, doo-wop, early rock ‘n’ roll, black and Ital­ian… There’s a guy who comes around and puts the latest hits in. [But] when you hang out in a place, when you are part of a group, new records come in but [people] request older ones. And they stay. If one of the guys leaves or somebody gets killed, some of his favorite music [nobody else] wants to listen to, they throw it away. But basically there are certain records that guys like and it’s there. Anything goes, anything goes.

Why Sid Vicious doing “My Way” at the end?
Oh, it’s pretty obvious, it may be even too obvious. It’s period, but also it’s Paul Anka and of course Sinatra—although there’s no Sinatra in the film. But “My Way” is an anthem. I like Sid Vicious’ ver­sion because it twists it, and his whole life and death was a kind of slap in the face of the whole system, the whole point of existence in a way. And that’s what fascinating to me—because eventually, yeah, they all did it their way. [Laughs] Because we did it our way, you know.

Goodfellas’ vision of rock ‘n’ roll style colliding with a fetishized gangster attitude made me think of Nic Roeg’s Performance, which was about the dark side of the Sixties too.
Oh I like Performance, yeah. I never quite understood it, because I didn’t understand any of the drug culture at that time. But I liked the picture. I love the music and I love Jagger in it and James Fox—terrific. That’s one of the reasons I used the Ry Cooder [song] “Memo to Turner”—the part where Jimmy says, “Now, stop taking those fucking drugs, they’re making your mind into mush.” He slams the door. He puts the guns in the trunk and all of a sudden you hear the beginning of this incredible slide guitar coming in. It’s Ry Cooder. And I couldn’t use the rest of it because the scene goes too quick. The Seventies drug thing was important because I wanted to get the impression of that craziness. Especially that last day, he starts at six in the morning. The first thing he does is gets the guns, takes a hit of coke, gets in the car. I mean, you’re already wired, you’re wired for the day. And his day is like crazy. Everything is at the same importance. The sauce is just as important as the guns, is as important as Jimmy, the drugs, the helicopter. The idea was to stylistically try to give the impression—people watch­ing the film who have taken drugs will recognize it—of the anxiety and the thought processes. And the way the mind races when you’re taking drugs, really doing it as a lifestyle.

 
The film’s first section presents a kind of idealized underworld with its own warmth and honor-among-thieves code. This gradually falls away, reflected in the characters of Tommy and Jimmy.
True, true. But Jimmy Conway was not Mafia. The idea was, you signed on for that life, you may have to exit that life in an unnatural way, and they knew that. I’m not saying, oh, those were the good old days. In a funny way [laughs]—not that funny—but in a way there’s a breakdown of discipline, of whatever moral code those guys had in the Fifties and Sixties. I think now with drugs being the big money and gangsters killing people in the government in Colombia, the Mafia is nothing. They’ll always be around, there’ll always be the organized-crime idea. But in terms of the old, almost romantic image of it typified by the Godfather films, that’s gone.

The Seventies sequence is about losing control, about disintegration.
Totally. Henry disintegrates with drugs. With Jimmy Conway, the disintegration is on a more lethal level, the elimination of [everybody else]. Earlier there’s so many shots of people playing cards and at christenings and weddings, all at the same table. If you look at the wedding, the camera goes around the table and all the people at that table are killed by Jimmy later on.

Unlike all your other protagonists, Henry seems secure in his identity. What is his journey, from your point of view?
You know, I don’t know. I don’t mean to be silly; I guess I should have an answer for that. Maybe in the way he feels through his voiceover in the beginning of the film about being respected. I think it’s really more about Henry not having to wait in line to get bread for his mother. It’s that simple. And to be a confidante of people so powerful, who, to a child’s mind, didn’t have to worry about parking by a hydrant. It’s the American Dream.

 
Once he has this status lifestyle, what’s at stake for him?
Things happen so fast, so quick and heavy in their lifestyle, they don’t think of that. Joe Pesci pointed out that you have literally a life expectancy—the idea of a cycle that it takes for a guy to be in the prime of being of wiseguy—the prime period is like maybe eight or nine years, at the end of which, just by the law of averages, you’re either going to get killed or most likely go to jail. And then you begin the long thing with going back and forth from jail to home, jail to home. It begins to wear you down until only the strongest survive. I think Henry realizes the horror he’s brought upon himself, how they’re all living, and it’s way too late. The only thing to do is get out of it. And how can you get out?

He remains an enigma—untainted by what he’s done and at the end achieving a kind of grace as just a regular guy like everybody else. What were you trying to do with the ending?
It’s just very simply that’s the way the book ended and I liked what he said, I liked his attitude: “Gee, there’s no more fun.” [Laughs] Now, you can take that any way you want. I think the audience should get angry with him. I would hope they would be. And maybe angry with the system that allows it —this is so complex. Everything is worked out together with these guys and with the law and with the Justice Department. It’ll be phony if he felt badly about what he did. The irony of it at the end I kind of think is very funny.

Why do you have him addressing the camera at the end?
Couldn’t think of any other thing to do, really. Just, you know, got to end the picture. Seriously.

 
How did you conceptualize the film stylistically? Did you break the film down into sequences?
Yeah, as much as possible. Everything was pretty much storyboarded, if not on paper, in notes. These days I don’t actually draw each picture. But I usually put notes on the sides of the script, how the camera should move. I wanted lots of movement and I wanted it to be throughout the whole picture, and I wanted the style to kind of break down by the end, so that by his last day as a wiseguy, it’s as if the whole picture would be out of control, give the impression he’s just going to spin off the edge and fly out. And then stop for the last reel and a half. The idea was to get as much movement as possible—even more than usual. And a very speeded, frenetic quality to most of it in terms of getting as much information to the audience—overwhelming them, I had hoped—with images and information. There’s a lot of stuff in the frames. Because it’s so rich. The lifestyle is so rich—I have a love-hate thing with that lifestyle.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen freeze frames used in such a dramatic way—freezing a moment and bringing the narrative to a halt.
That comes from documentaries. Images would stop; a point was being made in his life. Everybody has to take a beating sometime, BANG: freeze and then go back with the whipping. What are you dealing with there? Are you dealing with the father abusing Henry—you know, the usual story of, My father beat me, that’s why I’m bad. Not necessarily. You’re just saying, “Listen, I take a beating, that’s all, fine.” The next thing, the explosion and the freezeframe, Henry frozen against it—it’s hellish, a person in flames, in hell. And he says, “They did it out of respect.” It’s very important where the freezeframes are in that opening sequence. Certain things are embedded in the skull when you’re a kid. The freezeframes are basically all Truffaut. [The style] comes from the first two or three minutes of Jules and Jim. The Truffaut and Godard techniques from the early Sixties that have stayed in my mind—what I loved about them was that narrative was not that important: “Listen, this is what we’re going to do right now and I’ll he right back. Oh, that guy, by the way, he got killed. We’ll see you later.” Ernie Kovacs was that way in the Fifties in TV. I learned a lot from watching him destroy beautifully the form of what you were used to thinking was the television comedy show. He would stop and talk to the camera and do strange things; it was totally surreal. Maybe if I were of a different generation I would say Keaton. But I didn’t grow up with Keaton, I grew up with early TV.

Or if you’re my generation it would be Pee Wee’s Playhouse.
Yeah, again, breaking up a narrative—just opens up a refrigerator, there’s a whole show inside, and closes the door. That’s great. I love Pee Wee Herman. I tape the show. We had them sent to Morocco when we were doing Last Temptation; on Sundays we’d watch it on PAL system. Yeah. [Laughs]

 
Goodfellas uses time deletions during many scenes: you see someone standing by the door, then they’re suddenly in the chair, then—
It’s the way things go. They’ve got to move fast. I was interested in breaking up all the traditional ways of shooting the picture. A guy comes in, sits down, exposition is given. So the hell with the exposition—do it on the voiceover, if need be at all. And then just jump the scene together. Not by chance. The shots are designed so that I know where the cut’s going to be. The action is pulled out of the middle of the scene, but I know where I’m going to cut it so that it makes an interesting cut. And I always loved those jump cuts in the early French films, in Bertolucci’s Before the Revolution. Compressing time. I get very bored shooting scenes that are traditional scenes. In this film, actually the style gave me the sense of going on a ride, some sort of crazed amusement-park ride, going through the Underworld, in a way. Take a look at this, and you pan over real fast and, you know, it kind of lends itself to the impression of it not being perfect—which is really what I wanted. That scene near the end, Ed McDonald talking to [the Hills]—I like that, [it’s as if the movie] kind of stops, it gets cold and they’re in this terrifying office. He’s wearing a terrifying tie—it’s the law and you’re stuck. And they’re on the couch and he’s in a chair and that’s the end of the road. That’s scary.

When you’re shooting and editing, how do you determine how much the audience can take in terms of information, shot length, number of cuts, etc.? Over the past decade our nervous systems have developed a much greater tolerance of sensory overload.
I guess the main thing that’s happened in the past ten years is that the scenes have to be quicker and shorter. Something like The Last Emperor, they accept in terms of an epic style. But this is sort of my version of MTV, this picture. But even that’s old-fashioned.

Is there a line you won’t cross in terms of editing speed, how fast to play scenes?
The last picture I made was Life Lessons in New York Stories. And that’s pretty much the right level. Goodfellas lends itself to a very fast-paced treatment. But I think where I’m at is really more the New York Stories section. Not Last Temptation. Last Temptation, things were longer and slower there because, well, of a certain affection for the story and for the things that make up that story. And the sense of being almost stoned by the desert in a way, being there and making things go slower; a whole different, centuries-earlier way of living. New York Stories had, I think, maybe a balance between the two. The scenes went pretty crisp, pretty quickly. There were some montage sequences. But still I’d like to sustain [the moments]. In Goodfellas, that whole sequence I really developed with the actors, Joe Pesci’s story and Ray responding to him, it’s a very long sequence. We let everything play out. And I kept adding setups to let the whole moment play out. But if what the actors were doing was truthful or enjoyable enough, you can get away with it.

 
The “What’s so funny about me?” scene in the restaurant between Liotta and Pesci was improvised?
Totally improv—yeah. It’s based on something that happened to Joe. He got out of it the same way—by taking the chance and saying, “Oh, come on, knock it off.” The gentleman who was threatening him was a friend, (but) a dangerous person. And Joe’s in a bad state either way. If he doesn’t try laughing about it, he’s going to be killed; if he tries laughing about it and the guy doesn’t think it’s funny, he’s going to be killed. Either way he’s got nothing to lose. You see, things like that, they could turn on a dime, those situations. And it’s just really scary. Joe said, “Could I please do that?” I said, “Absolutely, let’s have some fun.” And we improvised, wrote it down, and they memorized the lines. But it was really finally done in the cutting with two cameras. Very, very carefully composed. Who’s in the frame behind them. To the point where we didn’t have to compromise lighting and positions of the other actors, because it’s even more important who’s around them hearing this.

What about the continuation of the scene with the restaurant owner asking for the money?
Oh, that’s all playing around, yeah. That kind of dialogue you can’t really write. And the addition of breaking the bottle over Tony Harrow’s head was thought of by Joe at lunchtime. I got mad at him. I said, “How could you—why now, at lunch? Now we’ve got to stop the shooting. We’ve got to go down and get fake bottles.” He said, “Well, couldn’t we maybe do it with a real bottle?” “No.” “Well, maybe we could throw it at him.” “No, no, that’s not as good.” “How about a lamp? Let’s hit him with a lamp.” So we tried hitting him with different things. It was actually one of the funniest days we ever had. Everybody came to visit that day. And I don’t like visitors on the set, but that was a perfect time to have them visit because most of the laughter on the tracks that you hear is people from behind the camera, me and a lot of Warners executives who showed up. The real improvs were done with Joe and Frank Severa, who played Car­bone, who kept mumbling in Sicilian all the time. And they kept arguing with each other. Like the coffee pot: “That’s a joke. Put it down. What, are you going to take the pot?”—he was walking out with the pot. It’s more like telling him, even as an actor, “Are you out of your mind? Where are you going with the coffee? We don’t do that.” Another killing, Joe says, “Come on, we have to go chop him up.” And Frank starts to get out of the car. And Joe says, “Where are you going, you dizzy motherfucker? What’s the matter with you? We’re going to go chop him up here.” Frank’s impulse was to get out of the car. So Joe just grabbed him and said, “What are you doing?” They improvised.

Did you ever get feedback from the underworld after Mean Streets?
From my old friends. A lot of the people that the film is about are not Mafia. Nick mentioned that the real-life Paulie Cicero never went to the movies, never went out, didn’t have telephones, you know. So one night the guys wanted to see this one particular movie, and they just grabbed him and threw him in the car and took him to see the film. It was Mean Streets. They loved it. So that was like the highest compliment, because I really try to be accurate about attitude and about way of life.

 

THE ‘GOODFELLAS’ COPACABANA TRACKING SHOT

The legendary Steadicam shot in Goodfellas through the nightclub kitchen was a happy accident—Scorsese had been denied permission to go in the front way and had to improvise an alternative. Here’s a commentary by D.P. Michael Ballhaus, co-screenwriter Nicholas Pileggi and Scorsese himself. Goodfellas is what makes cinema so great—the ABCs of adept filmmaking, the sheer power of storytelling, the unique magic that makes you fall in love with characters that are far from deserving such affection.

 

“We did our first walkthrough in the late afternoon—the idea was that we would shoot it at night. Lorraine Bracco and Ray Liotta were there, and Marty said that he wanted it to start with this big close-up of the tip being given to somebody to watch Ray’s car, and then we would walk and follow them. So we walked across the street, went down the stairs (of the Copa’s back entrance), around the corner and down a long hallway. Now, Marty may have just thought that he would have voiceover overtop of the shot, but I was kind of looking at my watch and thinking, ‘This is already the worst case of shoe leather in the history of cinema. There’s no way this will ever work.’ We got to the kitchen and Michael Ballhaus said, ‘Marty, we have to go into the kitchen.’ Marty said, ‘Why would they go into the kitchen?’ And Ballhaus said, ‘Because the light is beautiful.’ ‘OK, we go in the kitchen.’ So we turned the corner and went into the kitchen and then back out the same door. Finally, we get into the club and there’s some dialogue and some action, but I’m thinking the first two minutes of this shot are going to be awful. There’s no way they’ll ever use it. They’re going to cut it to hell. Marty looked at me (for my reaction to the rehearsal) and I said, ‘Yeah sure.’ And he said, ‘Okay, I’ll be back in a couple of hours.’ Ray saw the panic in my eyes and asked if I wanted him to stay and help me work the shot out. So Ray and the First Assistant Director Joe Reidy stayed and we started to walk through the shot again.” —Steadicam operator Larry McConkey on filming the Goodfellas Copacabana tracking shot and the early days of Steadicam

 

MICHAEL BALLHAUS, ASC, BVK (1935-2017)

“How many filmmakers can say that they helped revive a young Martin Scorsese’s career? German cinematographer, Michael Ballhaus, was among those few; his talents helped inject Scorsese’s early work with the vigor and energy we’ve come to know so well. But even before working with Scorsese on films like Goodfellas and After Hours, Ballhaus had already established himself as a gifted and well-respected director of photography through his many collaborations with the renowned German director, Rainer Werner Fassbinder. But what is it about Ballhaus’s style that’s so iconic? Perhaps the biggest common denominator is that he defied definition. He adapted his vision to each film’s unique circumstances, generating one-of-a-kind imagery each time. One touch he is particularly known for is his camera movement: Ballhaus’s camera was always in motion, and each movement told its own story. In the newest installment of our series, Language of the Image, we honor those stories and remember the work of the late Michael Ballhaus, a cinematic presence who will be sorely missed.” —Fandor

 

THELMA SCHOONMAKER

Three-time Oscar winner Thelma Schoonmaker sings the praises of Ray Liotta and Joe Pesci’s improvisatory talents; her reading of the ‘You think I’m funny?’ back-and-forth from Goodfellas is a nice introduction to the art of editing improvised performances.

 
Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker editing Goodfellas.

 

“IT IS ONE OF THE BEST CONSTRUCTED
SCRIPTS THAT I HAVE EVER READ”

“It was in 1975 that Martin Scorsese finally met his idol, Michael Powell, and embarked upon a fifteen year friendship that would see Powell—one half of The Archers and the renowned British filmmaker behind such movies as The Red Shoes, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, and, most controversially, Peeping Tom—repeatedly offering invaluable advice and feedback to the American director. A perfect example: In 1988, after reading a new script of Scorsese’s entitled Wise Guys, Powell sent his friend the following enthusiastic letter and declared it ‘one of the best constructed scripts [he had] ever read.’ That movie’s eventual title was Goodfellas. Powell sadly passed away in February of 1990, just months before the completed film’s theatrical release.” —Shaun Usher, Letters of Note

 
Screenwriter must-read: Nicholas Pileggi & Martin Scorsese’s screenplay for Goodfellas [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.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 
According to the real Henry Hill, whose life was the basis for the book and film, Joe Pesci’s portrayal of Tommy DeVito was 90% to 99% accurate, with one notable exception; the real Tommy DeVito was a massively built, strapping man. In a documentary entitled The Real Goodfella, which aired in the UK, Henry Hill claimed that Robert De Niro would phone him seven to eight times a day to discuss certain things about Jimmy’s character, such as how Jimmy would hold his cigarette, etc. After the premiere, Henry Hill went around and revealed his true identity. In response, the government kicked him out of the Federal Witness Protection Program.

Nev Pierce’s fascinating 2010 interview with this controversial and charismatic figure.

 
This new retrospective documentary gives us thoughts about Scorsese’s approach to the material, casting, characters, and performances, costumes and period details, photography, music, and retrospective thoughts about the film. It is filled with memorable stories and observations from a wide array of commentators.

 
“I guess the film I experimented on the most was probably Goodfellas. But then again, I’m not sure I would call that experimenting, as the style was mainly based on Citizen Kane’s ‘March of Time’ sequence and the first few minutes of Truffaut’s Jules and Jim. In the latter film, every frame is just filled with information, beautiful information, and there’s a narration which tells you one thing when, in fact, the image shows you something else… It’s very, very rich, and that sort of richness of detail is what I played with in Goodfellas. So it was nothing new, really. But what was new, I felt, was the exhilaration of the narration juxtaposed to the images to create the emotion of that lifestyle, of being a young gangster.” —Martin Scorsese, Moviemakers’ Master Class: Private Lessons from the World’s Foremost Directors

 
How the helicopter chase in Goodfellas was made, by Luís Azevedo.

 
Footage shot by George Sikat.

 

“MORRIE’S WIGS ARE TESTED AGAINST HURRICANE WINDS”

The ads for Morrie’s Wigs in Goodfellas weren’t directed by Scorsese. In fact, the director tapped Stephen R. Pacca, the owner of a replacement window company, who had created his own line of kitschy ads on a shoestring budget, and had him direct the commercials himself.

“What we all agreed on was that Steve would not only direct it, but he would put everything together. The only things we would provide would be the camera and our Director Of Photography, Michael Ballhaus, to shoot it, but he’d take direction from Steve Pacca. Michael had two assistants, and a sound mixer and boom operator, but again only under Steve’s direction. All of the special effects, all the prop work, all the make-up and wardrobe would be done by Steve Pacca’s group, which were really people who worked in his office or installed the windows. Someone operating a fan? His guy, with a fan that they brought. A normal house fan.” —Morrie’s Wigs: Behind The Curtain

 
Martin Scorsese delivers the prestigious David Lean film lecture and shares insights into his illustrious career.

 

MADE MEN: THE STORY OF GOODFELLAS
by Glenn Kenny

Glenn Kenny’s Made Men: The Story of Goodfellas is available in stores and online. Absolutely essential reading! Read an excerpt here. Get your copy here.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas. Photographed by Barry Wetcher © Warner Bros. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
We’re running out of money and patience with being underfunded. 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 ‘Goodfellas’ at 30: Martin Scorsese’s Anthropological Goodlife Through a Lens appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

‘Batman’ (1989): How Tim Burton’s Version of the Caped Crusader Put the Dark in Dark Knight and Gave Wings to the Superhero Movie Genre

$
0
0

 
By Koraljka Suton

Exactly 30 years ago, in the summer of 1989, the world was swept off its feet by a creature of the night. Due to preliminary marketing and merchandising which gave rise to a large-scale Bat-Mania, it came as no surprise that the hyped feature-length movie about the comic book superhero would lure Batman fans and non-biased moviegoers alike into the darkness of movie theaters. The film had, in fact, become a hit before even being screened—a vast array of tie-in merchandise, T-shirts, toys, cereals and the like was put on the market to ensure that endgame. When the teaser was released, fans even went out of their way to pay the full price of a movie ticket just to see it, subsequently walking out before the beginning of the respective film, without demanding a refund. But if you asked Warner Bros., the unprecedented marketing campaign was very much needed, seeing as how Batman was receiving heavy backlash both before and during its production—fans of the Dark Knight were not entirely convinced when it was announced that the director’s chair would accommodate the man behind Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, idiosyncratic auteur Tim Burton, who had just released his second feature-length Beetlejuice, and they were even less on board with Burton’s decision to cast comedy star Michael Keaton as billionaire Bruce Wayne by day, Caped Crusader by night. Not even the studio was absolutely sure about its decision of placing Burton behind the steering wheel, and had, according to the director himself, waited to see if Beetlejuice would become a box office hit before officially hiring him, even though he had already been part of the production: “They didn’t want to give me that movie unless Beetlejuice was going to be okay. They wouldn’t say that, but that was really the way it was.”

Fan outrage over Keaton, on the other hand, had reached surprisingly massive proportions, with Warner Bros. getting 50,000 letters protesting the seemingly unusual casting choice—an act which, if thought about, required much more invested time, energy and willpower than is needed in today’s digitalized world where flabbergasted fans have the chance to simply take to social media when wanting to voice their disapproval of and disagreement with a certain actor taking on the role of a beloved pre-existing character (in staying true to this article’s subject matter, we need not look further than the fans’ distrust of the late Heath Ledger when it was made public that he would be applying the Joker’s make-up in Nolan’s 2008 Batman rendition The Dark Knight or, even more recently, the disdain that came Robert Pattinson’s way just this month when it was confirmed that, in a new installment of the franchise, the vigilante’s cape would be his to put on). So, in light of the aforementioned uproar, the studio wanted to do everything it could to convince its target audience that Burton’s movie would be lightyears away from its presumed and prematurely frowned upon campiness (which was the trademark of the 1960s Batman TV series starring Adam West). And it worked.

 
Not only did Burton truly deliver when it came to putting the dark in Dark Knight, but the marketing frenzy also escalated to such a degree that Batman became the first movie to ever earn $100 million in its first ten days, the highest-grossing feature film in the history of Warner Bros. at the time (surpassing the record the studio set with The Exorcist in 1973 and being topped as late as 2001 by Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone), the biggest box office money-maker of the year 1989, as well as the industry’s highest-grossing superhero movie (taking down the record-holding Superman from 1978, only to be eclipsed by Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man in 2002). And one of the main reasons Batman became such a hit, his enormous marketing campaign put aside, was very clearly the je ne sais quoi that both Burton and Keaton brought to the table, quickly appeasing fans and critics.

Keaton was extremely praised for his “edgy, tormented quality” which Burton and producer Jon Peters claimed he had, his performance and appearance ultimately managing to change the public’s perception of what a movie superhero should look and act like, thus paving the way for future unlikely casting choices such as Tobey Maguire (as Spider-Man), Mark Ruffalo (as the Hulk) and Robert Downey Jr. (as Iron Man). Keaton made it more than okay for a superhero to be uncharacteristically non-superheroy in build and overall appearance, as well as awkward and aloof character-wise, as a visible byproduct of childhood trauma. In Burton’s words: “I’d considered some very good square-jawed actors, but I couldn’t see them putting on a Batsuit. You look at Michael and you see all sorts of things going on inside.” This made the Bruce Wayne/Batman dichotomy stand out even more, emphasizing the two seemingly diametrically opposite, but at the same time perfectly co-existing sides of one individual’s personality. As Bruce Wayne, he could easily go unnoticed were it not for his billionaire-status, but as Batman, he exudes an air and a drive, as well as demonstrates a very particular set of skills, that clearly indicate this bat-person is not to be crossed–let alone overlooked.

 
It is precisely this dichotomy that makes it plausible (dare I say slightly more realistic?) for Keaton’s Wayne to have to resort to putting on a costume and lurking around as a human-sized bat with the purpose of seeking out criminals in order to satiate his vigilante-urges, subconsciously hoping that such a course of action would facilitate the resolution of his unhealed trauma. In future Batman-installments, Bruce Wayne was portrayed as Batman hiding behind the mask of Bruce, but in Burton’s movie, the character of Bruce is running the show, with Batman being not merely a facade, but rather a fully-clothed manifestation of a tortured man’s highly-functional inner-twin. And that is what makes Keaton’s portrayal so visceral and captivating—the reason why audiences are drawn to superheroes is because they as people are (or at least should be) deeply flawed, and thus deeply relatable. If we manage to form a connection with the hero’s quirks and inner conflicts, which we do because they mirror quirks and inner conflicts of our own, then we can allow ourselves to also relate to the hero’s alter-ego and project onto him/her all the positively perceived character traits such as bravery, proactivity and nobility we often deny, reject or suppress within ourselves—and maybe get inspired to start re-owning those traits by realizing that we too can be powerful and heroic in our own right.

And while this is true for Keaton’s Bruce Wayne/Batman, his nemesis’ becoming takes a slightly different route. Played by the fantastic Jack Nicholson who gets as much, if not even more screen time than the titular character, the Joker is a villain who was made by Batman himself. When we first encounter him, the Joker is merely a man who goes by the name Jack Napier—a criminal i.e. dangerous gangster to be sure, but not the ultimate supervillain. It is only after Batman interferes with Napier’s business that Jack suffers a trauma of his own, ultimately leading to him turning into the Joker—and embracing it fully. Unlike Bruce, he isn’t “split” and thereby resigned to living a double life, but rather becomes a fully integrated version of his true self or, better yet, a highly accentuated embodiment of Jack’s destructive potential. While he was just a man, Jack was an emotionally-driven individual gifted in the arts but was not shown applying his talents in his crime-career. After being reborn as the Clown Prince of Crime, the gangster fully embraces both his over-emphasized emotional drive and his artistic tendencies by using destruction as an art-form—he wreaks havoc on Gotham City and its inhabitants, all the while treating it as performance art, labeling himself “the world’s first fully functional homicidal artist.” Just like Batman, his actions are motivated by vengeance-fueling pain. But unlike Batman, he merged fully with his alter-ego, showing Bruce Wayne just how thin of a line it is between hero and villain and how close Wayne himself might come to crossing it.

 
Were it not for Nicholson’s flamboyant and wonderfully psychotic performance, it is questionable how well all of these nuances would have translated. Although the high-profile actor was the first choice for the iconic role, he was not the only one. Willem Dafoe, David Bowie, Robert De Niro, Brad Dourif were all taken into consideration. When offered the part, Nicholson was hesitant and then the studio reportedly reached out to Robin Williams (who gleefully accepted the offer), using him as a means of getting Nicholson to sign on, which he ultimately did, resulting in his performance going down in cinematic history. The lengths to which the studio went in order to secure Nicholson for the movie—apart from using Robin Williams as a pawn—is best described by an anecdote that involves Nicholson inviting Burton and producer Peter Guber to visit him in Aspen. When Burton found out there was horseback-riding involved, he told Guber he did not ride and the producer replied “You do today!”, leading to a “terrified” Burton riding a horse alongside Nicholson and sealing the deal.

As this story suggests, Burton is no stranger to trying out something new, even when the odds are seemingly stacked against him. The notion that an artistic director with a very specific point of view and only two feature-length movies under his belt would take on the story of one of the world’s most beloved superheroes was, at the time, even weirder than Burton himself. But as producer Jon Peters said: “He had humanness, lovingness, but he also seemed tough and strong. He had a passion for Batman and a desire to do something completely different with it.” And something different with it he did. In terms of imagery, Burton’s take on Batman remains true to the comic books, most notably Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore’s Batman: The Killing Joke, empowering directors such as Matthew Vaughn (several X-Men movies) and Zack Snyder (Watchmen) to do the same later on. And as opposed to the realistic world of the previous Superman films, Burton’s Gotham City was created as a nuanced universe in its own right—a staggering combination of noir-steampunk aesthetic and Gothic architecture, enabling production designer Anton Furst (Full Metal Jacket) to win the film’s only Academy Award.

 
The movie’s principal photography started on October 17th, 1988 and wrapped in less than three months’ time. But the birthing of the movie was a ten-year process. After finally landing the rights to Batman in 1979, executive producer Michael Uslan got Warner Bros. and screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz on board. Mankiewicz’s original script included not only the Joker but also the Penguin, crime boss Rupert Thorne, a greater emphasis on Bruce Wayne’s origin story and the appearance of Robin. Although the script was eventually rejected, elements of it can be found in Batman Returns. Other directors were considered for the job before Burton was brought in, most notably Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters) and Joe Dante (Gremlins). Burton then asked screenwriter Sam Hamm to do the screenplay, an offer this comic book fan could not refuse. This is when a new and darker approach to the characterization slowly started to emerge. “We had a great time together. I think Tim’s the first director out there to be filtering junk culture through an art-school sensibility. He’s also got a fairly strong morbid streak, but he’s too much of an ironist to take his own morbidity seriously,” Hamm said of his collaboration with Burton. Still, the two did clash on occasion, primarily because of certain ideas Burton wanted to implement that Hamm was hesitant about. Because of its deviation from the comic book canon, the movie twist in which it is revealed when and how Batman and the Joker truly crossed paths for the first time is one still disliked by many fans, but Hamm insisted that he was not to blame: “That was something that Tim had wanted from early on, and I had a bunch of arguments with him and wound up talking him out of it for as long as I was on the script. But, once the script went into production, there was a writer’s strike underway, and so I wasn’t able to be with the production as it was shooting over in London, and they brought in other people.”

And although a lot of the final film was ultimately based on Hamm’s script, a number of rewrites ensued, the most notable one being the showdown between Batman and the Joker in a clock tower. Robert Wuhl, who played Alexander Knox, said that the climax was inspired by a scene from a theater production of The Phantom of the Opera which Jack Nicholson and producer Jon Peters attended during filming. They reportedly concluded that a tower scene was what their movie needed and started writing the ending the very next day. And according to some sources, the reason why Batman’s love interest Vicki Vale was at all present during that scene was that the actress portraying her (Kim Basinger) thought her character should be in it. Another example of not staying true to the script can be found in a scene at the very beginning of the movie, when Batman “utters one of the most iconic lines in the history of superhero cinema” while threatening to throw a criminal off a roof. The “I’m Batman” one-liner that reverberates in pop-culture even today was actually not in the script. The punny “I am the night” line was what Keaton was originally meant to say, but he decided to wing it so as to keep it simple and efficient.

 
In retrospect, it really seems as though the stars had to align in every possible way for Burton’s Batman to turn out exactly how it did, leaving in its wake a legacy that seems overwhelming and at the same time unfathomable. When asked about his thoughts on how the superhero movie genre evolved, Burton told Davette See, reporter of Fandango, the following: “Well, it’s just weird, you know, because at the time it felt different. Now, it’s more like, ‘Well, let’s see, it’s Tuesday… what’s coming out now?’ You know? Let’s put it this way, I feel grateful. I feel like it’s something that you can remember. At the time, it was nice to have something that felt different. Do you know what I mean? It felt like it was new territory. So, that’s always exciting. So, you know, I guess it’s like any kind of genre, although it’s quite amazing that it just keeps gaining, you know, to where we have competing superhero movies on a daily basis.” But what Burton fails to acknowledge is that his darker and psychologically complex rendition of the Caped Crusader was the one that gave wings to what will soon become the superhero movie genre. Yes, Burton’s Batman was undeniably different. And ultimately, that ended up making—all the difference.

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 »

 

“We wanted to do a ‘dark’ Batman from the outset. Although we didn’t consciously model our version on a particular storyline from the comics, I would probably cite the Denny O’Neil stories from the early ’70s, like ‘The Joker’s Five-Way Revenge,’ as an important tonal influence. Denny was plainly trying to reclaim the mystery of Batman and the homicidal insanity of the Joker, and he had lots of help from Neal Adams, Jim Aparo, et al. Tim and I got along extremely well from day one. The question that intrigued us both was, ‘Why would an incredibly rich guy want to put on a weird suit and beat up petty crooks?’ I mean, he’d have to be crazy, right? We hashed out a loose storyline built around the notion that we would start with the Joker’s origin and treat Batman’s origin as a mystery to be solved (by Vicki) in the course of the story. What would happen to Batman if he met a girl and started to go… sane? After that, I’d go off to work for a couple of weeks, and then Tim would fly up to hang out in San Francisco and we’d pace around cooking up new sequences, solving problems, etc.” —Sam Hamm

Screenwriter must-read: Sam Hamm & Warren Skaaren’s screenplay for Batman [PDF1, PDF1, PDF3, PDF4, PDF5]. (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.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 

BURTON ON BURTON

The following is an excerpt from the book Burton on Burton by Mark Salisbury.

I was never a giant comic book fan, but I’ve always loved the image of Batman and The Joker. The reason I’ve never been a comic book fan—and I think it started when I was a child—is because I could never tell which box I was supposed to read. That’s why I loved The Killing Joke, because for the first time I could tell which one to read. It’s my favourite. It’s the first comic I’ve ever loved. And the success of those graphic novels made our ideas more acceptable. So, while I was never a big comic book fan, I loved Batman, the split personality, the hidden person. It’s a character I could relate to. Having those two sides, a light side and a dark one, and not being able to resolve them—that’s a feeling that’s not uncommon. So while I can see it’s got a lot of Michael Keaton in it because he’s actually doing it, I also see certain aspects of myself in the character. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have been able to do it. I mean, this whole split personality thing is so much a part of every person that it’s just amazing to me that more people don’t consciously understand it. Everybody has several sides to their personality, no one is one thing. Especially in America, people often present themselves as one thing, but are really something else. Which is symbolic of the Batman character.

There’s no such thing as a bible. I always react against the single-mindedness that you find in Hollywood a lot. You can’t think about it. I thought about being true to what I loved about the original idea, and I think in the spirit of it, it’s close to Bob Kane. If you look at Michael, he’s got all those wheels and that wild energy in his eyes which would compel him to put on a bat-suit. It’s like, if he had gotten therapy he wouldn’t be putting on a bat-suit. He didn’t, so this is his therapy. But there was no way to satisfy everybody. What you just had to hope for was that you were true to the spirit. And luckily comic books had gone through a phase where they had become much more acceptable. They had made things darker. They had taken Batman into the psychological domain. To me it was very clear: the TV series was campy; the regeneration, the new comics, were totally rebelling against that. I just had to be true to the spirit of it and what I got out of it: the absurdity of it.

To do a big movie you either do it in LA or you do it in London, due basically to the facilities. I mean, the dollar wasn’t even great at the time, but at Pinewood there was nothing going on and it had a big outdoor area which we could build on. So it made sense. The characters were so extreme that I felt we had to set them somewhere that was designed for them. Because Superman had been filmed on New York locations, I don’t think it captured the right comic book feel. I was very happy we did it at Pinewood, just to get away from all that stuff with the casting and the hype and the pressure. The British press were intense too, but that didn’t bother me as much. I liked being there, I liked working there, I liked a lot of the people, a lot of great artists; I made some friends and it was nice. Design is very important to me and there are very few designers that I get excited about. Anton was a great designer. I had liked The Company of Wolves, and I thought he was one of the most individual ones around. I had met him before Beetlejuice and tried to get him to work on that, but he was working on something else. Because of my background, design is the one area I’m very critical about. Working with someone like Anton, who had a real talent, is a luxury. It excites me and it has always been important for me to like designers as friends. For Gotham City we looked at pictures of New York. Blade Runner had come out, and any time there’s a movie like that, that’s such a trend setter, you’re in danger. We had said early on that any city we were going to do was going to get the inevitable Blade Runner comparison. So we decided there was nothing we could do about it. We just said, This is what’s happening to New York at the moment.

We started out with a script that everyone liked, although we recognized it needed a little work. Everyone thought the script was great, but they still thought it needed a total rewrite. Obviously it was a big movie, and it represented an enormous investment by Warners, so I understood why we had to make it right. But what made the situation worse was that there was all this fuss about making the script better and suddenly we were shooting. There were so many changes and fixes that it was like unravelling a ball of yarn. It gets to a point where you’re not helping it any more. We were shooting a scene leading up to the bell-tower and Jack’s walking up the steps, but we didn’t know why. He said to me that day, ‘Why am I going up the steps?’ And I said, ‘I don’t know, we’ll talk about it when you get up the top.’ You’re always working on something, you’re always trying to make it better, that happens all the way through, but in this case I felt I wasn’t making it better.

We tried to put Robin in, to make that relationship work in a real way. In the TV series he’s just there. We tried a slightly more psychological approach, but I felt unless you’re going to focus on that and give it its due, it’s like ‘Who is this guy?’ Sam and I spent a lot of time going over that, anguishing over it. It’s a good thing we didn’t do it, because it would have cost a lot, and when we were getting ready to shoot the movie it was the easiest lift. Again, I just went back to the psychology of a man who dresses up as a bat; he’s a very singular, lonely character, and putting him with somebody just didn’t make sense. It didn’t make sense in the next one either; we tried it there too. But it’s just too much. There’s too much material with these characters.

The interesting thing about hype is that everyone thought the studio was creating it, when in fact you can’t create hype; it’s a phenomenon that’s beyond a studio, it has a life of its own. The most negative thing to me was working on something that gained so much hype, because I’m the type of person—and there is a percentage of the population out there like myself—who if I hear too much about something gets turned off by it. And it was odd to be working on something that, if I was a normal person, I’d have gone, ‘Shut the fuck up. I’m sick of hearing about this thing. I won’t go see it, ’cos I’ve heard too much about it.’ That was the most disturbing thing. But there was no way to control it. And then you get the inevitable backlash to that. My main concern was that the movie be judged on its own merits and not become this thing. But there’s nothing you can do about it. It helped being in England, even with the press attention there, because it wasn’t my country, and so I just focused on making the movie and didn’t think too much about anything else.

I certainly wasn’t less interested in Batman, it’s just that he is who he is, and The Joker is who he is. Right or wrong, I sort of let these things play themselves out. Some people got it, some people understood that. Obviously, a lot of people thought The Joker was the thing, but a lot of people found Michael to be more compelling because of that. He captured a certain subtle sadness in his character. It was as if he was thinking, ‘Look at this guy. He gets to go out there and jump around and be a clown, and I have to remain in the shadows.’ And there was a pent-up, bottled-up feeling to him which I think works with the Batman character. It’s funny, that whole dark and light thing. In fact, I’ve gotten more confused by it in a way. It was so weird on the second Batman because I would do those big press junkets where you’re seeing a zillion people—every six minutes somebody new—and it became like a joke.

 
Among the shadows in the deadly streets, a grim detective faces the clown prince of crime.

 
Jack Nicholson may be a brilliant actor, but it takes more than performing talent to assume the killing Joker grin. Turning the charismatic Nicholson into Batman’s ever-smiling nemesis required makeup man Nick Dudman to use the art of prosthetics, a special technique that involves attaching pliable, shaped pieces to the actor’s skin. These pieces are then moved by the actor’s muscles, creating an appearance far more realistic than traditional monster suits or makeup techniques.

 

ROGER PRATT, BSC

We’re going with tonal separation, lighting it as if it were black and white but shooting in color. And we’re using a Kodak film stock that enables us to shoot in very low light while retaining bright effects. But the key is using sets of a single tone against which the Joker just pops out. —Roger Pratt

 
“This article from the December 1989 issue of American Cinematographer magazine sheds some light on the many special effects that went into making Batman. Reading this reminds me how much I miss practical effects. Sure, CGI makes everything a lot easier… but it doesn’t necessarily make it better.” —1989Batman.com

 
“This special ‘Double Issue’ of Cinefantastique offered a lot of bang for a Batman ’89 fan’s buck. Not only did the magazine showcase an in-depth look at the making of the film, but it also featured side articles on director Tim Burton, screenwriter Sam Hamm, makeup effects guru Nick Dudman, designer Anton Furst, and much more! Seriously, even if you read the scans below of all the pertinent Bat-pages from the issue, no ’89 fan should be without this book. Truly, one of the best of the magazines focused on the film available.” —1989Batman.com

 
Starburst magazine devoted quite a bit of coverage to Batman during the summer of ’89. This September issue features the initial installment of a 2-part Tim Burton interview.” —1989Batman.com

 
“The July issue of 20/20 offered a little different flavor than the standard promotional magazine fluff of the time. The cover features an absolutely brutal pic of Keaton’s Batman, and the interior article stands as one of the most unique reads as well; shining light on Burton’s worries over what the studio would do to ‘his Batman’ after he handed it in. Oh… and we even get a bit of foreshadowing here, with Burton commenting on the tabloid rumor of a possible Batman 2 starring Danny DeVito as Penguin! Good stuff!” —1989Batman.com

 
Here’s a fantastic (and lengthy) article from Issue Number 41 of Cinefex magazine.

 
“Much like the recently posted Video Press Kit, the 1988 Warner Brothers Batman Preview is a long-buried treasure created during the production of Batman. The origins of the special are a bit murky, and the few that have seen it over the years remain unclear on what purpose the film initially served.” —1989Batman.com

 
“A rare gem posted for Batman‘s 25th anniversary, The Two Masks of the Caped Crusader, was an interview special produced back in 1989 for the Family Channel. Featuring a lone Bob Kane seated at his art table, the special gives us the Batman co-creator’s insight on the Bat-phenomenon, with a strong focus on Tim Burton’s film.” —1989Batman.com

 
This 30-minute documentary, shot during filming, reminds us all how ground-breaking the movie was.

 

CONCEPT ART AND STORYBOARDS BY DAVID RUSSELL

In the early stages Burton was trying to connect the classic Batman with the Dark Knight. It did seem that he wasn’t very familiar with the character. Burton is not a particularly adept storyteller, but his visual signature is truly amazing. From the outset, Tim wanted Batman to be a very dark film. I started out designing in pencil, then black, but Tim kept wanting an even darker style, of imagery, so at the very end of my assignment, I switched to white pencil and black paper. —David Russell







 
Tim Burton talks Batman & Joker in rarely seen 1989 interview.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Tim Burton’s Batman. Photographed by Murray Close © Warner Bros., The Guber-Peters Company, PolyGram Filmed Entertainment. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
We’re running out of money and patience with being underfunded. 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 ‘Batman’ (1989): How Tim Burton’s Version of the Caped Crusader Put the Dark in Dark Knight and Gave Wings to the Superhero Movie Genre appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

‘Miller’s Crossing’ at 30: 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.”

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 »

 
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.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 
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.

 
We’re running out of money and patience with being underfunded. 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’ at 30: A Lamentation of Losers by the Coen Brothers appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Michael Chapman: Cinematographers, in the Traditional Sense, Are a Dying Breed

$
0
0

 
By Sven Mikulec

After the projection of Raging Bull, one of the landmarks of American cinema and a crucial part of the Michael Chapman retrospective held at the 2016 Camerimage International Film Festival, an overwhelming applause fills the theater hall as a smiling man slowly climbs the stage with the help of a walking stick and waves to the audience. The renowned cinematographer Michael Chapman, invited to the festival as the most special of guests to receive a lifetime achievement award just a couple of days before his 81st birthday, is a name impossible to miss if you’re an aficionado interested in the history of film: cinematographer on Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Last Waltz, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Last Detail and The Lost Boys, camera operator on such classics as The Landlord, The Godfather and Jaws, Chapman has left a deep mark having influenced and witnessed the creation of some of the most significant movies ever made. Humble and completely down to earth, he radiates experience and humor as he tackles the audience’s questions before retreating from the stage surrounded by a horde of film students. As we sat down to discuss some aspects of his career and the current stage of the art and craft of cinematography, the legend of the industry smiles and sips his tea patiently, modestly acknowledging the fact that he “must have done an okay job” to be where he is today.

Congratulations on the lifetime achievement award here at Camerimage.
Thank you very much.

You said that great cinema doesn’t need to be beautiful, that a film’s visuality should first and foremost be appropriate. Would you say this is a mistake contemporary filmmakers keep making?
Mistake is probably not the right word, but in the simple sense, yes, I think they do. People tend to think, oh, this is going to be beautiful, and that sometimes gets in the way. The visuals need to be appropriate, and sometimes beautiful is appropriate. Sometimes it isn’t. For instance, and I’ve used this example before, a scene begins with a man in a room, he looks down, beaming with love and affection, it’s wonderful, and you cut to what he’s looking at, and what he’s looking at is a wonderful woman on a bed, it’s the great love of his life. It’s just heavenly for him. Certainly the image of that woman should be beautifully lit. It should have lovely soft sidelight coming in from the window, she must look gorgeous, you know? So in that case, beautiful is appropriate. Cut to six months later, they’re having a furious argument in the back of a taxi. You son of a bitch, she says and hits him. Now, should it be beautiful? No! If it were beautifully lit, it would just get in the way. So all I’m saying is that lighting, and any of those things, are simply tools to tell the story, and while at a certain time being beautiful is wonderful, sometimes it just gets in the way and screws things up.

There were at least three people who had huge impacts on your career. Your mentor, Gordon Willis, the director of The Last Detail Hal Ashby who got you your first job as a cinematographer, and Martin Scorsese, with whom you made several landmark films. Who would you add to the list?
Well, Hal Ashby had huge influence on me in the way that he hired me. But Gordy, of course, above all. Marty Scorsese, well, you can’t help being influenced by him! It doesn’t get any better than that, and I was really lucky to have done three or four different things with him. The one you didn’t mention was Raoul Coutard. He’s had a huge influence on me. On all of us, actually. He freed cinematography, opened it up. He demonstrated it can be absolutely off on its own, that it doesn’t have to have all of the silly rules it used to have. Enormous influence on me. Of course, I’m not the only one, but from the cinematographic point of view, Raoul Coutard was on the one end, Gordon Willis on the other, those were the two poles of cinematography, it seems to me.

You got into cinematography primarily because you married a girl whose father, a successful cameraman, didn’t want his son-in-law working as a freight breaker. You were a bit lucky, it seems.
Luck has enormous amount to do with it. Oh God yes. It’s good to be talented and take your opportunities when you get them, but sheer luck has an enormous impact. The reason why Hal Ashby hired me for the first time to be a DP was a series of coincidences. Gordy and I had made a movie for Hal Ashby before, Gordy had been the DP and I’d been the operator, so he knew me. (It’s The Landlord.) He wanted us to come to the East Coast to make The Last Detail. In those days the unions were divided between New York and Los Angeles, and if you were making a film on the East Coast, you had to use East Coast people. Since this was after The Godfather, Gordy had become a big star, he was off, I can’t remember what he was doing, conquering Hollywood… He wasn’t available. The other person Ashby tried to get was Haskell Wexler, but Haskell didn’t have a card on the East Coast. It was just a whole series of things that happened that made me the DP on The Last Detail. He said, alright, let Chappy do it. So they hired me.

Martin Scorsese and you made some unforgettable films now deemed classic. What made you such good partners that you kept working together?
Again I think it’s just a matter of things happening by chance. You’d have to ask Marty, but I think we worked well together on Taxi Driver. He hired me there again because it was going to be made in New York, he had to have an East Coast cameraman, they didn’t have any money, it was a low-budget movie, they couldn’t hire a big, expensive cameraman, so he hired me. We did Taxi Driver and I think it turned out pretty good. But when he was going to do The Last Waltz, he was originally planning to hire László Kovács, with whom he worked the previous year on New York, New York. Kovacs backed out, said he was too swamped to do it, so Marty only hired me then as a second choice. Again it turned out pretty well, but again, it was a coincidence. He knew I was able to do elaborate planning, which was needed because The Last Waltz had, I don’t know, ten cameras all over the place, and he knew I could figure that stuff out, he was confident about me. I’m not sure why he hired me on Raging Bull, though, I’m certain he had access to lots of people… It seems to me we saw movies the same way. We got along fine, I don’t remember ever arguing with him. At the end of Raging Bull I thought I’ve had enough. This sounds wrong, it’s not that I was fed up with Scorsese, it was just that I felt I’ve done enough Marty Scorsese movies and that I needed to seek another direction, another challenge.

Just to go back to Taxi Driver for a bit. You said Paul Schrader’s script was one of the best things you’ve read. It was a low-budget, small film, but when you made it, did you have the feeling this was something people will be talking about for decades to come?
I don’t think so. I’ve never had that experience. And I worked on The Godfather, and Jaws, Raging Bull, and so on. All these movies turned out to be pretty well-known, but I don’t know that during that time that you ever think how a classic is being made. On The Godfather, for instance, they were constantly trying to shut us down, threatening to close us, complaining all the time. And the same on Jaws, constantly trying to pull the plug during the first two months. So who knew? No, I don’t think I knew Taxi Driver was to be so great. I knew it was a wonderful script, that the film had New York, that it just had New York, but that I knew people are going to be talking about it like we’re doing right now? I don’t think anyone of us knew that. And I didn’t have the time to sit down and think about it, we were working our ass off!

How did you pull off that unbelievable scene at the end, where Travis lies on the couch covered in blood and the camera glides around the room over the massacre?
(laughs) We cut through the ceiling. Marty wanted to do it, and it was an old beat-up building on the West Side that was kind of falling apart, so we took a chance. I drew a line where it should be, the grips took chainsaws and they cut it! And it worked. They had to brace the outsides of the building so the structure wouldn’t collapse, but it worked.

You weren’t a huge fan of Raging Bull when it came out.
That’s true. Paul Schrader and I watched it, he wrote one version of the script, we were both kind of disappointed in it. We thought it was brilliantly done, that everybody had done a marvelous job, but that it didn’t add up as a movie so much. Paul’s script was rather different from what was finally shot. I saw the film, however, many years later and realized I had been wrong, and Marty had been right, that it really was a wonderful film. I just hadn’t got it at the time, it was stupid of me. I hadn’t quite got it, its horrible poignancy about how everything in your life finally just comes down on you and you can’t avoid it. Which is a very grim thought, but certainly true. I hadn’t quite realized it was what the movie was saying. Well, you know, we all mess up sometimes.

Is it a film you’re most proud of?
Well, technically I’m very proud of it. As a movie, I think it’s wonderful, but I believe Taxi Driver is a better movie. I’m proud of my work there, too, for that matter. It’s not as demanding as Raging Bull, but I think I did a really good job and that I did just the right job. I let New York light itself. I’m proud of both of them, but I prefer Taxi Driver as a movie. Raging Bull is a technically perfect movie, it’s just that I got more emotion from Taxi Driver.

Bridge to Terabithia was a film I enjoyed, it did great at the box office, the critics loved it. Why did you retire after shooting it?
I was seventy years old and I was tired! The reason I did Bridge to Terabithia in the first place was that it was a children’s movie. The laws of the state of California state that you can’t make children work 15 hours a day. There was a time when they did, you know? Judy Garland and those other child stars, they fed them speed and they worked forever, but you can’t do that now. The shooting schedule stops at ten or twelve hours. I can’t tell you how wonderful that is. You try being seventy years old and working fifteen hours a day. See how you like it! I think the last three movies I shot were all children’s movies. I was running out of steam, just getting tired. I couldn’t work those hours anymore. The hours in the movie business are scandalous, they really are. You know, I don’t know how many times a year grips or electricians work for fourteen or fifteen hours and then drive home one hour away and fall asleep, crash and die. The hours are terrible. And they’re getting even worse.

You said cinematographers were a dying breed of professionals, that the rise of technology might make their position obsolete.
Well, cinematographers in the old, traditional sense are a dying breed, yes, because the technology has changed so much that the same skills are not needed. Skills of screen direction and framing size not so much, but even that’s loosening up a lot. But the skills of lighting and getting it “just right” in the old-fashioned filmmaking sense no longer apply because you can change everything in postproduction. You can screw up badly and still fix it in postproduction. I don’t like that blue wall, make that wall red. The light is too low here, fix it a bit, good. I think that the task of cinematography has changed, but I don’t think it’s disappearing. I often think you should probably just get any old wally to shoot it, and that the cinematographer should take over in postproduction and paint it. Cinematographers are more and more painters than they used to be, you know? I don’t know anything about technology, I’ve never shot digital, but that might be wonderful for new cinematographers, to just sit there and paint. Paint her face, paint that wall, you can do anything. That’s the direction it seems to me that the cinematography is going. That and the other end of cinematography which should be taken more seriously is Raoul Coutard expanded to the hundredth degree: shooting with your cell-phones. The emotionally most gripping images we see now are things people shoot with their cell phones. Aleppo, for instance. No cinematographer on set is going to do anything as powerful as that. So there’s painting in postproduction and shooting with your cell phone, either one of them is a real and strong option, I think.

 
In loving memory of Michael Chapman (November 21, 1935 – September 20, 2020)

An interview conducted by Sven Mikulec. Production still photographers (Taxi Driver): Josh Weiner & Paul Kimatian. Special photography by Steve Shapiro © Columbia Pictures, Bill/Phillips, Italo/Judeo Productions. Production still photographers (Raging Bull): Brian Hamill & Christine Loss © Chartoff-Winkler Productions, United Artists.

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 Michael Chapman: Cinematographers, in the Traditional Sense, Are a Dying Breed appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.


To the Wonder: The Lyrical Appeal and Influence of Richard Donner’s ‘Superman’

$
0
0

 

By Tim Pelan

Richard Donner, director of The Omen, the Lethal Weapon series, The Goonies, but oh so especially the golden standard of comic book movies and feel good Americana, 1978’s Superman The Movie, was rightly honored on Wednesday 7 June by the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences. Superman’s tagline famously stated “You’ll believe a man can fly”—Donner refused to accept an actor laying on a board, and pushed grasping producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind (Equity got involved when they discovered cast and crew were being stiffed out of a double pay cheque for two Superman movies being shot back to back) every which way he could to deliver a film that was faithful to the character and spirit of his childhood hero. “[The first draft script] was disparaging. It was just gratuitous action. I’m reading this thing and Superman’s looking for Lex Luthor in Metropolis, and he’s looking for every bald head in the city. And then he flies down and taps a guy on the shoulder and it‘s [Kojak’s] Telly Savalas, who hands him a lollipop and says, ‘Who loves ya, baby?’ I was brought up on Superman as a kid. There was a whole point in my life where I read Superman. So when I was finished with it, I was like, ‘Man, if they make this movie, they are destroying the legend of Superman.’ I wanted to do it just to defend him.” He called up friend Tom Mankiewicz to knock the script into shape with him (credited as “creative consultant” after much wrangling with the Salkinds), greeting the startled screenwriter as he pulled up to his driveway by running out in the Superman costume that was delivered with the hated script. Donner told him, “The most important thing when you look at it is this: make a love story. And prove a man can fly.” So he read it and he called me that night and said, “You know, there’s a lot we can do with this.”

Donner was the ultimate inside man in the industry. A struggling actor in the 1950s, he graduated to director’s assistant to Martin Ritt on a live TV show after he questioned some direction. Ritt told him, “Your problem is that you can’t take direction. You ought to be a director.” Making the transition gradually to film, under the auspices of George Blake, a director, producer and writer of documentaries and commercials, he came to realize that, compared to the rudiments of television, “the actor rules and the camera served the actor. I learned what a reverse was… the camera worked for the actor… you could swing it around, reverse it, and you didn’t photograph it. Whereas live TV, if you’ve got over-the-shoulders, you saw the other camera. I fell in love with film.” Television’s loss was the movie lover’s gain.

On Superman, Donner had a clear vision, almost of three movies in one, with distinct styles, linked by the thread of the Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman journey—a “lasso of truth” to use the parlance of uber-fan Patty Jenkins’s Wonder Woman. Krypton would be avant-garde, strange, heightened; Smallville, Norman Rockwell by way of Terrence Malick—high school touchdowns, wide open vistas, a yearning for home and honesty; and Metropolis–bustling, wise-cracking, a cartoon New York, alive to possibility. All grounded by what Donner termed “verisimilitude”: absolute truth and belief in the scenario and character on screen—no mugging to camera.

 
Back to Patty Jenkins, and a quote of hers from a New York Times interview that’s doing the rounds:

“Did you say cheesy? Cheesy is one of the words banned in my world, I’m tired of sincerity being something we have to be afraid of doing. It’s been like that for 20 years, that the entertainment and art world has shied away from sincerity, real sincerity, because they feel they have to wink at the audience because that’s what the kids like. We have to do the real stories now. The world is in crisis. I wanted to tell a story about a hero who believes in love, who is filled with love, who believes in change and the betterment of mankind. I believe in it. It’s terrible when it makes so many artists afraid to be sincere and truthful and emotional, and relegates them to the too-cool-for-school department. Art is supposed to bring beauty to the world.”

Central to the film’s sense of wonder is, of course, the flying sequences—showcased most spectacularly when Christopher Reeve’s Superman first rescues Margot Kidder’s Lois Lane as her helicopter dangles precariously from the roof of The Daily Planet; and later, when he drops by her apartment balcony for an exclusive interview (Superman: “I’m here to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way.” Lois: “You’re gonna end up fighting every elected official in this country!”) and Peter Pan and Wendy style flight around the city nightscape. The idea behind the latter, says Donner, was “Just a couple of teenagers going for a ride for the first time. Sweet, honest, and real.” Along with wires, pulleys, cables, dollies and old fashioned fish wire tugging on Superman’s cape, the director credits Zoran Perisic and his Zoptic Front Projection system for making the flying sequences so believable (along with the performances, of course). Superman and Lois’ flyby was snatched over several months, filmed in between multiple major sequences over the two films (Donner was ultimately replaced acrimoniously by the Salkinds with Richard Lester, who reshot much of Superman II). The miracle is how flawlessly and charmingly it flows, especially the wonderful seemingly seamless one-take camera move from Superman disappearing, to Clark arriving at Lois’ door, and the “Will he? Won’t he?” dilemma of whether to reveal his true identity.

The set was built at Pinewood Studios, based on an apartment scouted at New York’s Central Park West. As Superman takes hold of Lois the camera moves to a wide shot, and they are now harnessed separately. There were multiple takes to get a smooth take-off. Donner referred to the chosen take as a “desperation take,” the best they would get.

 
As they fly above the front-projected, light-bejeweled city, Margot Kidder’s eyes are wide with wonder. “Here’s a secret about Margot,” Donner recalled. “See how wonderful her eyes are? When we first started shooting, she came to work one morning and said, ‘I’m in terrible trouble. I scratched my eye putting my contact lens in. I can’t wear my lenses. I’m screwed.’ I said, ‘It’s OK. We’ll protect you. Don’t wear your lenses.’ And when she didn’t have her lenses in, she was so wide-eyed and wondrous, that from then on, I would never let her wear her contacts. She would try to sneak them in, but the makeup person had to hand signal to me if they were in.”

Front projection shots were placed on the ground, subjective shots looking down at the apartments passing by below Lois, putting the audience in her position. Zoran Perisic’s front projection equipment was much lighter and more versatile than similar rigs in existence. It had both a zoom on the camera, and on the projector, both connected so the camera could move past people, zoom in and out, and roll the projector around. Donner eventually got Warner Brothers to stump up the cash for it after the Salkinds were reluctant to finance further development. When the first tests were done using it, “there was dead silence. A couple of guys that ran the flying unit were crying, because it was so good.”

The clouds were actually layered smoke on a set, about 20 feet off the floor. They got about 20 minutes or so to use it before they had to air out the entire stage, and layer the smoke again. The harnessed actors’ shadows were projected from a 2000 watt lamp, which is supposed to be the moon. “We built a round piece of white plastic, painted moon markings on it, and photographed it. We put it on a crane sticking up in the air, and that went on the stage. The rest of the lamp was covered in black cloth.”

 
Lois’ internal monolog “Can you read my mind?” was originally a song written by Leslie Bricusse, to be sung by Maureen McGovern—Margot Kidder tried singing it, but is no singer. In the end, back to that word “verisimilitude”—it just felt more honest and real, that we are privy to her voiced thoughts in this strange moment. Lois’ diaphanous gown and Superman’s cape billowing both distract from the harnesses guiding them. At one point a cape was designed with thin ribs for wires that would be manipulated. In the end, a thinner cape was used, with multiple small fans to make it and Kidder’s dress react as if to the high air current. To get rid of any visible wires, Wally Veevers, responsible for flying effects, had his people “separate the color film into three pieces of film, one red, one blue and one yellow. Then they would make black-and-white prints of each of those, and then with magnifying glasses and tiny little brushes, paint out the wires on all three black-and-white strips. Then they’d put them back together again, print that over the three-color separations, then put the color separations back together. And by God, the wires were gone.”

Finally, they land back on Lois’ balcony. With a jaunty wave, Superman steps off and is gone; she walks indoors in a daze. This is Donner’s genius touch. How to show Clark appear at the door seconds later, without an obvious cut?

“It was important to show the relationship of Clark Kent to Superman, and the only way I could do it was to have him be with Lois, then the moment he leaves, reappear as Clark. It was physically impossible because you couldn’t get him off the wires, out of his costume, and into Clark Kent clothing in 20 seconds. But I wanted it to be in one shot, so we designed her apartment and cut off about a third of her balcony. That third had been built at Shepperton Studios and we filmed Chris saying goodbye and flying away. Lois is in front of a front projection screen, but it looks like she’s standing on her balcony with Metropolis behind him.

 
Months later, Lois’ terrace set was finally built at Pinewood, and we continued the process of this shot. The foliage is there for subterfuge, to hide the break in the projection unit. He flies away, and she goes through little bushes on her balcony, takes a beat, stops to think and coins the word ‘Superman.’ This was before Zoran’s 35-pound invention. So at that moment, we freed the camera from the 2,000-pound projector, and connected it to a dolly, which had never been done before because the camera was usually part of the projection unit itself. This had to be perfectly timed, and then the camera slides with her.

Lois goes to the door 20 seconds after Superman has flown away, and he appears in the doorway as Clark Kent. It was one of those technical feats that could have been done with cuts, but it wouldn’t have had the same emotional impact. The shot ends with his deliberation; is he going to tell her he’s Superman? I wanted a much smaller mirror, but our production designer John Barry said, ‘Shouldn’t we see the size of Superman and Clark in the same frame, feeling his stature?’ So he put in this large mirror. You can see how his back straightens up. It’s a dual image: Clark in the front, but Superman in the back.”

“It’s such a feel-good movie,” Jenkins says of Superman, the film that was to her “what Star Wars was to so many little boys… It hits all those main buttons so delightfully. I think that grand, simple storytelling has gone out of vogue. But there are thousands of years of telling stories in a similar way, and knowing how to tell them is an art form that takes time and patience. It’s about withholding, rather than bombarding people or going too fast. You have to tell a great story and then have confidence in that story to tell it well. Richard Donner does that here.”

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 »

 
Above: The Godfather author Mario Puzo came up with the story and co-wrote the screenplay for both Superman and Superman II. He’s seen at left with producer Pierre Spengler and director Richard Donner, courtesy of Warner Bros. Entertainment.

Here’s a rarity: Mario Puzo, David Newman, Leslie Newman, Robert Benton & Tom Mankiewicz’s script for Superman [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.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 
Watch Making Superman: Filming the Legend as filmmakers and cast discuss the making of Superman.

 
Watch Taking Flight: The Development of Superman, as the cast and crew discuss the story of how Superman was made.

 
Watch The Magic Behind the Cape, an in depth look at how the special effects for Superman were created, presented by the legendary Roy Field.

 
Richard Donner on Superman, Cinefantastique Vol 08 No 4 (Summer 1979).

 
An exclusive Fantastic Films magazine interview with director Richard Donner.

 
Superman: Screen Tests—a special feature on the 2003 and 2006 DVD editions of Superman (1978). There is an optional commentary on the Lois Lane tests.

 
Director of Photography Geoffrey Unsworth and crew on the Krypton set. Widely considered one of the greatest cinematographers of all time, his other credits included Beckett, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Cabaret, for which he won an Academy Award, courtesy of Warner Bros. Entertainment.

 
Geoffrey Unsworth and Richard Donner on location in New York City. Sadly, less than two months before the opening of Superman, Unsworth passed away in France while working on Tess. This final work would earn him his second Academy Award for Cinematography in 1981, courtesy of Warner Bros. Entertainment.

 
The majority of the photos in the article are from the personal collection of Jim Bowers. CapedWonder.com’s mission is to honor and celebrate Christopher Reeve’s legacy as an actor, humanitarian, teacher and family man; and to honor the directors, filmmakers, writers, cast and crew of the classic Superman movie series. Photographed by Douglas Luke, Bob Penn, Dave Friedman, Michael Ginsburg & John R. Shannon © Warner Bros., Dovemead Films, Film Export A.G., International Film Production Distributors, Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images. Please visit the website and support: The Society of Motion Picture Still Photographers. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
We’re running out of money and patience with being underfunded. 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 To the Wonder: The Lyrical Appeal and Influence of Richard Donner’s ‘Superman’ appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

40 Years of Hurt, Face-Hugging Dreams of Breathing: Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien’

$
0
0

Alien poster art by Brian Taylor

 

By Tim Pelan

Ripley’s words to the Xenomorph in Alien 3 sum up how we all feel: “You’ve been in my life so long, I can’t remember anything else.” And now forty years of hurt has director Ridley Scott’s original Alien, a self-proclaimed “Texas Chainsaw Massacre in Space” coming home to screens big and small in this, its 40th anniversary year, in eye-poppingly, chest-burstingly clear 4K goodness. In a sense, the Commercial Towing vehicle Nostromo has always been in a state of arrested return from Thedus, a noir voyager, subject to unwelcome intrusion. Bumps in the night terrors of a collective psycho-drama, unfolding on a loop, viewed repeatedly by horror-hungry hordes who’d never seen the like of its deadly piston-jawed pulse pounding dysmorphia before—those too young to see it until snatches on home video aversing themselves with passages from the novelisation—“Mother wouldn’t let us chase this beacon, Nobodaddy Dean Foster was our guide.” (A Portrait of ALIEN as a Young Man, by Simon Barraclough.) Guessing at cryptic centre spread photo captions of what awaits the hapless crew, awakening from a central lotus (each slow dissolve in the film on John Hurt’s rising, bleary eyed Kane (John Hurt) like a further blossoming petal), Jonesy the cat impervious to their suffering—“Snatched stills, radio trailers, schoolyard rumors from older brothers, fever dreams of suffocation, choking hazards, Heimlich birth pains, H. R. Giger counters.” If Star Wars was a passage into another world far, far away (“My primary influence was 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Wars,” Scott stated. “That first Star Wars was formidable. But Star Wars was a fairy tale.”) Alien, and Scott’s later Blade Runner, were seminal grown up works of unsettling quietude and dread, benchmark standards for immersive science fiction world building and naturalistic next-door normality, for all their futuristic settings. Repurposed NASA jumpsuits, detailed signage worthy of an article of its own, and tonnes of recycled junk and aeroplane carcasses a living, breathing blue-collar workplace do create. And what we create, the Alien, “a tough little (and growing!) son of a bitch” destroys.

Speaking of memory, that word was the originally attached moniker to the genesis script by Dan O’Bannon, who collaborated with John Carpenter on his student film Dark Star, expanding it from fifty to eighty-three minutes for a cinema release. As well as writing duties, he also helped edit and design the film (along with future Alien concept designer Ron Cobb), and played the role of Pinbacker, the slacker astronaut responsible for bringing an alien on board. Dark Star’s astronauts, bored in space “in this once-sterile spaceship in a rundown condition, like some old bachelor apartment,” would be a nascent form of the inured, bickering Nostromo crew. “There was a great sense of reality, oddly enough, in Dark Star,” Scott believed, “especially of seedy living. It showed you can get grotty even in the Hilton Hotel if you don’t clean it. Everything starts to get tacky, even in the most streamlined surfaces.”

O’Bannon was stuck on Memory (the name suggestive of Kane’s post face-hugger wakeful recollection of only a “smothering”), and was contacted by fellow struggling screenwriter Ron Shusett, hoping to collaborate. Shusett was struck by the strength of the opening, which follows closely Alien’s structure, down to the chestbursting exit. After that, Shusett recalled, “The monster wasn’t clear, and he (O’Bannon) didn’t know where to take it,” so he suggested taking it to low-budget schlock-meister Roger Corman, until Chilean auteur Alejandro Jodorowsky interrupted the flow with his grand idea to bring Frank Herbert’s celebrated sci-fi novel Dune to the screen. For that, amongst a gallery of other collaborators (Chris Foss, ship design, Metal Hurlant artist Moebius for space suits, and of course Swiss artist H. R. Giger for the alien designs), he wanted O’Bannon for the effects. He’d already asked and dismissed 2001’s Douglas Trumbull, believing him to be arrogant and hide-bound, preferring instead O’Bannon’s more youthful (malleable?) energy.

 
The then impossible to realize affair inevitably collapsed, only getting as far as an extensive pre-visualisation bible. O’Bannon suffered a breakdown and was admitted briefly to a mental institution. He returned to L.A broke, sofa surfing (as opposed to Dark Star’s space surfing) with Shusett. Necessity being the MU-TH-ER (Nostromo’s corporately coerced computer system) of invention, they dug out the Memory script and got to work. To move it on, they employed a discarded O’Bannon idea called Gremlins, about a WWII B17 bomber returning from a raid on Tokyo, besieged for real by the critters that crews blamed for mechanical failures. The B17 became spacecraft The Snark, after Lewis Carroll’s poem, wherein each crewmember would be picked off one by one until a final confrontation (the ship’s name switched to Leviathan, then finally Nostromo). The script was now entitled Starbeast. Roger Corman was interested, but friend Mark Haggard, a writer/director, believed he could hook bigger fish. Ron Cobb was asked again to bring his laser sharp design eye to concept illustrations to sell the project. “You could almost use them as blueprints,” Scott said later, retaining the artist, as he did with Giger, Foss and Moebius. O’Bannon now felt the title was strictly B-movie stuff. Struggling to think of anything better, he settled on the elegant simplicity of Alien (“I loved that it was both noun and adjective.”).

A deal was struck with production company Brandywine, headed by Gordon Carroll and David Giler, and writer/director Walter Hill (The Driver, The Getaway, 48 Hrs, Southern Comfort, and many others). Hill was initially going to direct the script which was by now heavily redrafted by him and Giler. The original writers were retained as visual design consultants on the 20th Century Fox vehicle, now greenlit by then head Alan Ladd Jr. Hill decided directing this cumbersome beast wasn’t his bag, and eventually Brit Ridley Scott was chosen on the basis of his sterling work on his 1977 Cannes “Best Debut” winner The Duellists. After being delivered the script, which he devoured, he was in Hollywood in 24 hours to lay out his approach, struck immediately by the fact that, for him, “it had the beauty of something that is absolutely about function.” The project, a “perfect organism” now had the status of “elevated horror”, to use a contentious phrase from today. Albeit still on a tight, inventively employed budget of 8.5 million dollars. Every dollar well accounted for, as Scott, a talented artist who’d studied first graphic design at West Hartlepool College of Art, then via scholarship, a course in Theatrical Design at London’s Royal College of Art, methodically storyboarded everything himself. His detailed sketches have become known as “Ridleygrams”. “My technique, my style, if you will, really comes from my education and by finding my own way through the commercial field,” Scott has said. “If I were pressed to describe my style, I’d have to say it is called reality. No matter how stylized it gets, underneath it’s real.”

“We live as we dream—alone,” now quoth the cover of Alien’s script forebodingly, the words from Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, just one of the author’s influences on the film—the knackered space tug/ore refinery Nostromo is named after Conrad’s novel of corruption, revolution, and corporate amorality. A novel where individuals are “swallowed up by the immense indifference of things.” In the film translated to the stark, brutal indifference of the void of space and the terrors it hides, and “The Company,” who seek only to profit at the expense of their own. Discomforting music plays over a slow pan to the right over a ringed planet, whilst white monolithic slabs slowly form the ominous title—Alien. If the monolith-centred drama of 2001: A Space Odyssey invited us to consider the birth, ascent and re-birth of mankind into a “star child,” gazing serenely upon the Earth and us, the viewer, with untold possibilities, then Alien represents the Freudian nightmare tucked away in the recesses of the mind. A disturbing perversion of birth: life from death, invasive and toxic.

The ship is a character in its own right, and from the off, it is unsettling. As the crew sleep in suspended animation, the camera prowls and glides slowly through the darkened, empty corridors and cluttered spaces, human detritus, such as empty paper cups, left behind from the last period of activity. The camera is never still, our wary eye on what horrors are to come down these shock corridors.

 
“At the culmination of many long voyages, each covering many years, these ships—no doubt part of armadas owned by private corporations—look used, beat up, covered with graffiti, and uncomfortable,” said director Ridley Scott. Artist Ron Cobb designed the grungy, industrial Nostromo interiors, with an emphasis on functionality, and a definite hierarchy. There’s the bridge, with its assigned stations; the pristine cryo chamber and ship’s computer Mother’s blinking Zen bubble; the raucous, sloppy Mess; and the underworld, or hold/garage level, with clanking chains and dripping leaks, oily floors and walls, and venting steam. The refinery the vessel tows was itself based on the power stations of the UK’s South Shields, near where Ridley Scott grew up. The director added the towers, reminiscent of the cooling towers from his youth.

Scott and his director of photography Derek Vanlint made use of the corridors built in lighting to light the scenes, the sets so real and claustrophobic there wasn’t room for normal rigs. Dimmer switches adjusted lights while dry ice simulated steam. John Hurt on the maze-like set: “There is no escape. It is one of the elements of a thriller.” As much as the gut-wrenching reveals of the star beast when it does burst forth, either from Kane’s stomach or later descending from the garage shadows to Jonesy the cat’s detached observance, the ship is equally unsettling: the camera glides, and we never know what’s around the corner. Instruments and alarms, steam and the ever-present thrum of engines, penetrate our psyche. Joshua Comaroff and Ong Ker-Shing, in Horror in Architecture state that:

“Modern buildings (or spaceships!), like modern subjects, thus come to contain unspeakable cavities… Those who work in design and construction are familiar with these obscene and recessive spaces, how they contradict the resolved bourgeois exterior.”

The monster from the id invades the workaday environment: from the earlier mentioned Portrait of ALIEN as a Young Man, by Simon Barraclough in the BFI Film Classics Alien book:

 

The little learning in my throat was stillborn

while yours is using airshafts and is always

in the corners, in the basement, in the shuttle.

 

 
Ah yes, the monster. Or creature, as it more often referred to. A biomechanoid “thing,” homicidally intelligent, possibly artificially created and gestated in those “eggs” within the crashed “Space Jockey” horseshoe vessel, also known as “The Derelict.” Who are you? Who, who, who who? Rock band The Who were testing their laser on the sound stage next to Scott’s at Shepperton Studios, where the party of Kane, Dallas (Tom Skerritt) and Lambert (Veronica Cartwright) investigate the sepulchral cargo. Scott borrowed the band’s laser for the thin film hovering over the eggs (“like a placenta”). When Kane breaks the seal, the yokes on him (sorry!). Nottingham Lace? In yer face!

Giger created the majority of the creature life stages (except the iconic chestburster—his design for this resembled a plucked turkey. Roger Dicken refined the idea into a “penis with teeth”), and also the derelict vessel and its doomed pilot, the space jockey, body fused to his control chair, rib cage exploded out, a harbinger of horror to come. Giger was initially to have only a small advisory role. The Swiss avant-garde artist was renowned for his fever dream paintings of erotic “biomechanicals”—particularly arresting to Scott was his collection of paintings in a book entitled The Necronomicon, which O’Bannon showed him. Scott knew a version of this was his beast. He was alternately hired and fired by queasy bosses, before Scott put his foot down, and he was retained in a design role for six months. Giger demanded bones for his unearthly sculpted corridors and vaginal vessel. From Roger Luckhurst’s Alien BFI Companion:

“The search of the craft is rigorously uncanny, in Freud’s sense that what seems the most dreadful and unfamiliar leads back to what is most ‘homely’: the mother’s womb. The sexualized architecture of the ship was consciously constructed that way, and they let Giger have free play with the design of the interiors: vaginal openings into the derelict craft, the uterine, organic corridors resembling the extruded mastications of an insect nest, the appalling scale of the fossilised Space Jockey they find peering into a telescope or perhaps down the barrel of a giant, phallic gun. This set was a brilliant realization of Giger’s fusion of the biological and mechanical.”

 
(For those disappointed with Ridley Scott’s return to the Alien-verse with Prometheus, in a quest to examine the backstory of who the Space Jockey and his kind were, or for those who just appreciate such things, there is a fan-edit by @JobWillins (real name Daniel) called Derelict, in which he fuses Prometheus with, as Ridley Scott described the link between the two, its “Alien DNA.” Daniel states that, “Prometheus wasn’t exactly an Alien prequel, but this treats it as such by intercutting the events of Alien with Prometheus in a dual narrative structure. Derelict is also in black & white to better marry the visual quality of the two originals (and also because both films look great in black & white). Roughly 30 minutes has been cut from Prometheus and about an hour of Alien has been used in its place. Some content from the deleted scenes of Prometheus was also used.” You can view it on Vimeo via this link (password is squidbaby).)

Someone (unattributed) on the Alien set recalled of Giger that,

“All these trucks pull up one day loaded with bones. They had been to medical supply houses, slaughterhouses and God knows where else, and the next day the studio was full of bones and skeletons of every possible description… You’d go into Giger’s studio and you’d see this guy looking like Count Dracula, dressed all in black, with his black hair, lily-white skin and blazing eyes… I don’t think he dares take off those clothes, because if you did you’d see that underneath he’s not human. He’s a character from a H. P. Lovecraft story.”

Beneath that fanciful facade though even Giger gagged at what he was delivered, flesh and detritus still clinging in spots to the bones. He used only cleaned and blasted dry bones in his work. Not such a vampire after all…

The other image, apart from The Necronomicon that defined the look of the fully grown Alien was Leni Riefenstahl’s photograph of a two-meter tall, rail thin, Nubian warrior. To achieve the look he wanted, Scott reluctantly accepted he needed a man in a suit, and the search began.

 
It didn’t take long. Casting agent Peter Archer bumped into the very man by chance in a London pub. Kenyan Maasai student Bolaji Badejo was studying Graphic Design in London, and was simply asked if he wanted to be in a movie. At six feet ten inches tall, lithe and pencil thin, he was perfect. He studied Tai Chi and mime to achieve the slow, purposeful and graceful movements of the creature creeping around the Nostromo’s dark and dank passages and air ducts. He also had to be able to spring into sudden, violent action. “I remember having to kick Yaphet Kotto (the engineer Parker), throw him against a wall, and rush up to him. Veronica Cartwright was really terrified. After I fling Yaphet Kotto back with my tail, I turn to go after her, there’s blood in my mouth, and she was incredible. It wasn’t acting, she was scared.”

One difficult shot the director and Bolaji tried to pull off was to have him suspended from a rig, “nesting” high up in the ceiling of the dank hold, where Brett (Harry Dean Stanton) comes to find Jonesy the cat. He was supposed to be curled up and slowly unfold, lowering down to grab Brett, but the rig was too uncomfortable for him. This is probably where stunt double Eddie Powell came in.

Eddie was a regular stunt performer for Hammer Films. No slouch in the height department either, he regularly doubled for the vertically affluent Christopher Lee. He went on to perform in many genre favourites, such as Aliens (again as an alien), James Bond, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Batman, Krull, and Enemy Mine. Eddie replaced Bolaji in the harness, but even he found the requisite shots difficult in the alien suit. In the end the longer shots of the alien quietly descending and raising the hapless Brett up to his doom were achieved by several close-ups and quick cuts.

Another time for Eddie to shine was when Dallas is hunting the alien in the air ducts. The memorable moment when Lambert sobs for him to get out as the signal of the creature draws nearer, and he turns to find it spring at him: that was Eddie in the suit. Bolaji simply couldn’t fit in the tight space, fully suited up, and perform.

 
The alien costumes, created by Carlo Rambaldi from Giger’s design, cost more than $250,000. The iconic fibreglass head was shaped around a human skull. With the head on, Bolaji stood at over seven feet, towering on many occasions above the height of the sets around him. He could only wear the heavy head piece for up to twenty minutes at a time. “They must have had about 2000 tubes of KY jelly, just to get the effect of that slime coming out of his mouth,” he said.

But it is surely the chestburster scene, the final moment the entire crew are together, after the facehugger has detached from Kane and the crew partake of a “last supper” before re-entering hypersleep for the voyage home, that sealed Alien‘s reputation as a classic. A little known influence for this was screenwriter Dan O’Bannon’s Crohn’s disease, a digestive disorder. According to Jason Zinoman’s book Shock Value: How a Few Eccentric Outsiders Gave Us Nightmares, Conquered Hollywood and Invented Modern horror, “The digestion process felt like something bubbling up inside of him, struggling to get out.” From this pain came the idea of the alien punching its way out of John Hurt’s chest.

A popular misconception is that this was Hurt’s first scene, after his 11th-hour replacement of Jon Finch, who took ill on the set of the bridge his first day, having to be lifted bodily out of his seat, a sickly yellow: he was diabetic. Scott drove to original choice Hurt’s Hampstead home that night, the actor now available after a previously contracted obligation collapsed. There was no time to read the script, he essentially got “a long pitch” and was in. “We must go on,” as his Kane would say, ever the oblivious boy scout, eager to explore. “We have to go on.”

 
After Kane has been attacked by the facehugger bursting forth from the disturbed egg on the Alien craft, he is brought back aboard Nostromo. When it surprisingly detaches itself later and he awakes, seemingly unharmed, the crew retire to the mess for a last meal before returning to hypersleep for the trip home. On page 59 of O’Bannon and Ron Shusett’s script, the next cycle of the alien lifeform makes its shocking exit, and entrance:

“Kane’s face screws into a mask of agony. A red stain, a smear of blood, blossoms on his chest. The fabric of his shirt rips open and a small head, the size of a fist, punches out.” As Kane begins to choke and struggle, watch science officer Ash (Ian Holm) initially casually observe, detached (pun intended). There’s something off about him, as the crew discover later. He’s the Company cuckoo in the nest, an android tasked to ensure that whatever they discover and pick up as a result of the signal they’ve been diverted to, gets home for investigation and exploitation.

When Hurt begins to react violently and thrash about, the other actors restrain him across the table. A clever edit from one side to the other allowed a gap for technicians to place Hurt beneath the table. Only his head and arms remained above, and a fake chest cavity lay across the table, from which the beast would burst forth. Amusingly, during the long set ups, Hurt would remain in that position, smoking a cigarette.

 
The other actors had of course read the script, but they had no idea how visceral the scene would be. The stage direction merely read, “The creature exits out of Kane’s chest.” The chest cavity was stuffed full of organs and pigs blood from the local meat factory. Under the hot studio lights the smell quickly became revolting. When the actors came on set, the crew were all wearing waterproof ponchos. Four cameras were ready to roll for optimum footage. Sigourney Weaver (Ripley) could see the screenwriters huddled in the corner, gleefully awaiting the mayhem to come.

A thin cut was made in the cavity T-shirt so that it would rip easily when the puppeteer below thrust the creature upwards. At first it didn’t come through, so when they tried again the actors were already leaning in, and the amount of blood that burst forth really shocked them. Veronica Cartwright got a face full and actually flipped right over in surprise on the now slippy floor. She realised the cameras were still rolling and had to scramble back in shot.

To have the creature then shoot off across the table, a slit was cut through it, and someone yanked the puppeteer, who was lying on a small camera dolly. The tail whipping back and forth was achieved by inserting a thin tube through it and pumping it with compressed air. It is telling that there are no outtakes of actors or crew bursting into laughter. The atmosphere was highly charged: nothing like this had ever been seen before.

 
The film critic David Thomson can attest to the stories of audience members leaving when the scene came up, repulsed and disturbed: his wife left, he stayed, fascinated. “I think very few people then foresaw that the monster was going to demand birth from Kane’s body,” he recalled later. “We had not really understood the title, Alien, until this scene, and the absolute parasitic subduing of one organism by another. We did not know, and had not yet acquired, that metaphoric sense of invasive illness that has been conveyed by AIDS. Cancer was the most evident route of the metaphor. And the nausea, the gulping and retching, came in the sudden upheaval of understanding, of what had been down Kane’s throat. For the man had been made pregnant.”

The relatively well-known John Hurt’s brutally early dispatch was akin to star Janet Leigh’s surprise early killing in Psycho’s shower scene. But this was the 1970′s, and blood was spilled in eye-popping claret, not squeamish black and white.

In space, no-one can hear you scream, Alien’s tagline read. But across the world, at each fresh screening, audiences would be heard to scream, and scream again. Horror, specifically body horror, would never be the same.

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 »

 
Ridley Scott talks about the hundreds of problems involved in taking an essentially fantastic idea and making it real on-screen. This article, Flashback: The Filming of Alien, originally appeared in American Cinematographer August 1979.

When, as a director, you are offered a project like Alien—or any science-fiction film, really—it is an offer to start with and becomes a confrontation afterwards. The problems gradually emerge, and on Alien there were many, many, many of them. People ask me, “What is the single individual problem you had the most difficulty with?”

There wasn’t one. They were all difficult—and if you had let one of those problems slide by without solving it, a weakness in the impact of the film would have been the result.

I want to emphasize that I don’t think of Alien as an “effects” film. It’s not. I had decided in advance that it wouldn’t be an effects film, in the usual sense of the term. I think there is a danger in that sort of designation. All too often what people refer to as “effects films” won’t stand on their own, because of weak story or weak characterizations. I felt that Alien should be primarily a film with a story about seven real characters—and that this would be the strength of the film, not the effects.

Now, it so happens that you can’t do a film like Alien—which does involve effects—without making sure that they are going to be up to the standard set by Star Wars, Close Encounters and the Big Daddy of them all, 2001: A Space Odyssey. One has to try to reach that level. The best thing that happened to Nicky Allder and his effects team was having a strong story and characters who were very strong. These elements were essential to creating a “real” film.

As for the problems—there were thousands of them, all happening together, but I feel that we had probably the best outfit I’ve worked with in ten years of filmmaking. They had the kind of reliability of someone saying, “Yes, I’ll make it work by such-and-such a date.” And, Bingo, it happens! That’s pretty rare, but they were an absolutely amazing outfit. A lot of them were sort of artists in their own right, even though they were dealing with equipment and things like that. There’s a kind of free-thinking in Nicky’s Allder’s mind, for example. You can see him piecing together the problem you have presented him with. Then he’ll say, “Oh, yes—I can use a little bit of this and a bit of that.” I found him ordering 12 memories for a tracking dolly he had devised himself. He thinks in very simplistic terms: “I want 12 memories—one for pan and tilt, one for diagonal right, one for diagonal left, etc.” There is that great simplicity that one usually finds in the great artists.

In the beginning I didn’t quite know what I was going to be getting myself in for, because I’d never gotten involved with effects before. I had never really been a science-fiction fanatic, although I felt that at some point I would like to have a shot at such a subject.

When the script was offered to me, I went to Hollywood to meet the producers and discuss changes and budget. The proposed budget was $4.5 million, which was impossibly low for that particular movie. In London we had been doing a kind of cost breakdown of the script and had estimated the budget at about $13 million, which was far too high for 20th Century Fox. I used to be an art director, so I had the tedious task of storyboarding the film, which took five or six weeks, while everybody else was budgeting along behind. We came down eventually to $8.5 million and went forward from there.

The project seemed to gather momentum very quickly. Even while we were still budgeting and there was a sort of on/off feeling, we were talking to cast and things like that, because an impossible starting date—only four months off—had been established. That was ludicrous in terms of preparation, especially since we were trying to press-gang the best people, who were already sort of semi-involved with something else. But getting the best was absolutely the key to making the film.

The storyboard I did was essential, because the whole thing has an abstract spirit of intention until somebody sits down and says, “Physically we are going to do this and we are going to do that and it will look this way.” You can’t budget on an abstract basis—which means that, in the very early days, you’ve got to get very specific about how things are going to be. For example, it helps tremendously if the effects man knows how a sequence is going to go. He is able to very carefully structure around that, knowing what things he can legitimately hide.

Once we had done the overall, sort of general storyboard, there was then drawn a storyboard for each day of shooting. That day-by-day planning added up to a four-inch slab of storyboards. It was just huge. Drawing it all out like that is very tedious, but necessary in the sense that while you are drawing you are actually helping yourself think. It’s like a writer with a problem who, by doodling, can focus his attention and get things flowing. I’ve seen voluminous storyboards on King Kong and The Hindenburg, both of which relied much more on opticals and mattes than our film did, but they certainly simplified matters. In Alien there were no mattes or opticals or cheating—just pure physical effects, which seems to be the best way of achieving reality.

To explain my method for choosing a crew, and particularly the cinematographer, I have to backtrack a bit in my own career. I came out of BBC television where I had been doing drama series and drifted into advertising. I had found television quite frustrating because there were so many people involved in the making of it that it eventually drove me mad. You could never quite get to the point of visual perfection that one wanted to achieve. Also, working with tape, it was almost impossible to get a satisfactory result. Even if you are shooting for television, you’ve finally got to go to film in order to get something that is really successful. Ten years ago I entered the television commercials field, which was then relatively new in England. I worked in it for a year as an art director, then started getting offered advertising commercials to direct.

At that time—10 years ago—I had a lot of trouble dealing with what I call “traditional feature cameramen” because they underestimated the whole field of advertising film. They would, therefore, just do it and walk away from it. I found myself having to hire feature cameramen who weren’t particularly interested and I got very frustrated by this. I then came across a couple of guys who were new to the field. One had been a rostrum cameraman (Frank Tidy) and the other (Derek Vanlint) had been a still photographer with a studio in Soho, but wanted to get involved with film.

I suddenly found it much easier working with these cameramen because I didn’t have the huge pressure of a very experienced feature cameraman who was trying to employ a very heavy, big feature shooting technique. I liked a more natural approach to lighting for the sake of realism.

So I’ve worked with Frank Tidy and Derek Vanlint for 10 years and we’ve gotten to know each other very well. All this time, while making advertising films, I had it in the back of my mind that I would at some time be doing feature films, and the people working with me have, in a funny sort of way, come along the same route. Frank Tidy photographed my first feature, The Duellists and Derek Vanlint, of course, photographed Alien.

In evolving a visual style for Alien (most of the action of which takes place inside the spaceship), there were certain special problems. If you are dealing with conventional rooms—whether they be Napoleonic or modern-day New York or whatever—you have a definite place that your light source is going to come from—normally your windows or the lamp on the table. In this instance there were no such sources.

I originally had the idea of lighting everywhere at once, so that I would have total freedom of movement through the corridors of the spaceship. It was a big set and I wanted to avoid the process of setup-by-setup shooting—which finally is the best way, actually. I loved the way 2001 looked, but we didn’t want to emulate it by going high-key with a lot of overhead light coming through ceilings filled with plexiglass. We wanted our lighting to be very directional and, for the sake of the mood of the story, rather low-key, gloomy, melancholy, depressing.

So we made up a section of set and started experimenting. We got into a terrible tangle of variations because I wanted to use some tube [fluorescent] lights, but mixing them with tungsten lights and an occasional Brute meant that you had three different types of light and Derek Vanlint was nearly driven mad trying to get the right combination of filters to balance everything correctly. It was murderous, because even going by the book didn’t quite work out. We went through two or three weeks of just having someone standing in the corridor, changing the whole combination of lights and filters, but we could never quite get a satisfactory balance. It was always a little off.

Also, my ideal notion that, by lighting the entire set, you could put an actor anywhere in it and, with a little bit of flagging, be ready to shoot just didn’t work. It started to look as though we were shooting TV. Both Derek and I were unhappy that we just weren’t getting what we wanted visually, and also we were tending to throw away a lot of the niceties of the set. So we just went back to normal shooting, which was basically: find your setup, have whatever bulb combinations you wanted for set purposes, but light the scene with more conventional equipment. Frankly, I prefer that method—and certainly for a project like this. It was better than trying to out-think yourselves simply to move along at great speed.

To Derek and me—coming from where we have come from—the visual aspects of a film are terribly important. They’re not everything, but they’re a hell of a lot. A cameraman ought to be involved in the sets, but frequently he isn’t. He often just walks in, looks at the set and lights it. But Derek was drawn into everything, including colors, textures and that sort of thing. In the filming of commercials we’re used to incorporating everyone into the planning process, so that everybody will know what everybody else is doing and everybody will be working off everybody else for the visual aspect of whatever the subject is. That’s a honing process, and it’s as important to me as the actors and the script.

There is an immense schedule pressure in the making of feature films, but the process of feature-making is, by its very nature, slow. The more you go for quality, I’m afraid, the slower it gets. There’s no point to shooting simply to stay on schedule. You’ve got to see it through the viewfinder, and if it’s not there you haven’t got it. That quite frequently can become a nightmare for the director as well as for the cinematographer.

Making a feature is marvelous, I think, but it’s a nightmare while you’re doing it—a sort of love-hate process. It was that way for me and for Derek, as well, on Alien. I think it’s very important to have the sort of relationship with a cameraman where you can go into the corner and say, “It’s not working today, is it?” You can then discuss it quite calmly and find out why it’s isn’t working, what you’re doing wrong. It is usually a very private thing between these two individuals only. It would be frustrating to have such discussions with actors sitting and waiting, but I’ve discovered that the best way for me to work is not to have the actors near the floor at all when I’m lighting. I’d rather just have them out of the way, in their dressing rooms reading or sleeping, because there’s nothing worse than having actors standing around and waiting. It drains them. You can see the adrenalin falling out of them while they are hanging about, so we are usually very careful about scheduling actors in.

In the making of Alien we were, of course, confronted with something more than actors. Once you accept a script like that, the next question that comes up very fast is: What form is the creature going to take? In this case the problem was made four times as difficult, because the Alien changes in varying degrees on several occasions. Therefore, you were dealing, in this instance, with four different entities. One could argue for months about what shapes they were going to be.

We went and saw visuals of what had been done before, where you get the old Blob crawling across the floor, or a dinosaur with claws and bumps and warts, and I said, “Oh, God—it can’t be that!” but the form that the Alien would take became my primary concern, and when I went to Los Angeles I saw some artwork in a book by H. R. Giger. There was a half-page in that book that was just amazing. I’ve never really been so shook up about anything. I just said, “This is the basis of the creature.” From that point on we had a very factual, very specific, superbly rendered representation of what the Alien would finally be. It was valuable to know what his final stage would be, because then you could work backwards and biologically create stages of his development. In this case, it was necessary to do that. You had to be, in order for it to look real. You had to develop a basic understanding of how it would work, how it would move. It’s the same with any biological sort of creature that you are constructing. You’ve got to think of it in anatomical terms.

In this case we went from the final stage of what he was and jumped back to what he would look like as a baby. There had to be a certain shape related to the final stage, and that’s partly how we arrived at the nasty one. The thing that sprung out of the egg—the “perambulatory penis,” as we used to call it—is the father. It is an abstract entity, in a sense, because all it does is plant a seed. Once having conceived, it dies, and the next generation takes on characteristics of whatever life form it landed on. It could have been a dog, in which case the Alien would have taken on a dog form. The result is a combination of two elements: the original creature and whatever host it uses.

During the course of designing, the Alien went through many changes, becoming more refined and more animal-like. I wanted it to look animal-like rather than fantastic—because the word fantastic means “not quite real,” and I wanted it to look real.

Designing the creature in all of its phases was a difficult problem—getting the forms and textures right and all that—but getting from the design on paper to the actual thing was the worst area. What may look great on paper you may never be able to get to look right when you construct it, or you may have such a colossal weight problem that it becomes an impracticality. The mechanism of how we would make the face and head function became just too much, in the short time that we had, for Giger to tackle. We had put a workforce of people around him that would come up with all the elements involved in the derelict spaceship, the interior of the derelict, and the Alien. Sculptures and working scale models of these would then be handed to the Construction Department, which would have to build them and make them work. Every process was difficult, and to keep it within its budget was even more difficult.

At this point, Carlo Rambaldi, who is a mechanical genius, came onto the project. He was an industrial designer originally, so there was a great deal of practicality attached to his artistry. He looked at the head, loved the artwork and the whole intention of the film and, even though he was up to his eyes in other things, he was somehow able to say, “Okay, I can get involved in the face and make various things happen.” and so, he came in for three or four weeks, working with Giger.

Carlo Rambaldi designed the mechanics of the head, made the lips work, made the jaws function. Normally you can’t stand to have the camera take a close look at things like this, but it was so good and I was so pleased with it that I just did a huge closeup on it.

I feel that in the process of feature-making, the director should be involved straight through—and so I have been. The editor, Terry Rawlings, was cutting the film behind me all the way. As I was shooting he was editing, so every night I was able to see what was happening. We would discuss it and he would make refinements, then carry on making assemblies as the footage was coming in. This worked so well that eight days after the end of shooting in October we were able to show 20th Century-Fox a two-hour and 22-minute cut.

Of course, long before that stage was reached, the people at Fox had got wind of the fact that we were working on something special and I think that it grew in their estimation from the original $4.5 million film they had planned to something that might really have a shot for them the following year. And so, very soon, the May 25 release date became a fact that we had to stick to. Consequently, Fox then kept a very close eye on it all the way through.

We had to keep showing cuts four times during the filming—leaving huge gaps here and there for special effects shots and miniatures. The Fox people were fully convinced that they were going to run the film in theaters on May 25, so, at whatever cost, we had to get it out. This meant that at the end of shooting the principal action there was no let-up whatsoever. I had to go crashing straight across from Shepperton to Bray Studios, where the effects and miniatures were to be shot. Derek had finished at Shepperton and now I was joined at Bray by the miniature effects director of photography, Denys Ayling, and special effects supervisor, Nick Allder, who came across with his floor effects unit from Shepperton.

I got involved with the model-making and shooting and found it to be just amazing, really interesting. I had my editing rooms at Bray, so I was editing while still shooting. The process of filming miniature shots carried on right up to the last minute. You do it and it’s not quite right, so you do it again—and maybe again, until eventually there comes a point where you have to be practical and say, “That’s good enough.” The whole process was a railroad track right through to May 25. There was no let-up at all.

In the making of a film like Alien, there is a whole large group of individuals who tend to get overlooked and who don’t get enough emphasis really. The art department is a prime example. Their budget alone approached $2 million. That means that there was a huge amount of designing apart from the overall visual concept. Then there was the challenge of taking that visual concept and building it in the form of sets that will work on film. You are then actually constructing reality. That can be well done or it can be really badly done. I feel that in the case of Alien it was extremely well done.

There were several key people in the art department who worked closely with Michael Seymour, my production designer, who really steered the whole thing in terms of the way it looked and who designed an awful lot of separate things. It takes a lot of courage to handle a budget like that but he made it work.

Mike had two great guys working with him—art directors Roger Christian and Les Diley. It was Diley who really designed a lot of the exterior planet work and who was very involved in the model of planet terrain that was placed around the derelict spaceship. The derelict was a miniature about four feet across and it was sculpted by Peter Boysey. It was an absolutely superb sculptural work.

Roger Christian is a very special talent in that he is a master draftsman. There is an absolute art in what I call “graffiti” and it involves layers on layers of detail. It really is a form of graphic sculpture and everything looks like it works.

Then there was the construction manager, Bill Welch, who saved the film company a lot of money by holding strictly to the schedule and always knowing where he was in relation to his budget. The carpenter and painter units working under him totalled nearly 200.

It takes an army of dedicated people to make a feature film—and on Alien we had a marvelous army.

 

RIDLEY’S NOTES

“The currently running 40 Years of Alien: 40th-Anniversary exhibit at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts has unveiled several previously unseen production documents from the making of the original 1979 film. Most notable among them are ‘Ridley’s Notes’—the original character biographies drafted by Ridley Scott to provide the cast with material to base their performances upon. These notes were previously mentioned in interviews with Scott and others, but have never surfaced online until now. While they were believed by some to be the source of the character biographies featured on the original 1999 Alien DVD and the crew dossiers shown during the inquest scene in Aliens (and featured as an isolated bonus feature on the Alien Anthology Blu-ray set), this is now established to not have been the case.” —Alien Archives

RIPLEY

Good middle class background.
Intelligent woman.
High IQ.
Product of Officer Training Academy; following father’s footsteps.
First class passing… out… geologist first and first class pilot second.
Became Midshipman (apprentice) on passenger vehicles.
Disliked the life, for the same reasons that Dallas preferred not to do it. (Captain’s table bullshit.)
But unlike Dallas is a good socializer and politician (petty).
Made it to first officer easily.
Bored.
Volunteered for long range super tanker stint—not for shares—but ambitious to see other side-of-hill.
Instead of adventure finds tedium, routine and jaded companionship—still believes she will find the “Grail”.

Has never been tried—never been under duress—interesting to see how she could/would react under pressure situation.
She can come on strong and tough even to Parker.
She finds total authority.
Follow her own personal doubts.
Finds she has high sense of morality—“Can’t leave this […] around in space
Or simply she doesn’t like to lose.

 
In addition to the character biographies, several other preproduction documents have also been displayed, including previously unseen casting and audition notes.










 

DAN O’BANNON

“So at first I thought I would have Cobb doing that monster—he’s quite superb—it just didn’t happen to be any of his monsters that I landed upon in my head when I was thinking about the script. When they started to do it the big way, the first guy I started pushing at them to do the monster was Giger. I had a heck of a time trying to get the producers to hire Giger. They really didn’t want to get involved because he’s not a movie professional, he was some ‘whing-ding,’ in Zurich. They wanted to find somebody who had done this before, that they could count on. Well, when Ridley came to the project; while Ronnie was rushing up with the original draft of the script I was rushing up with copies of Giger’s work. Ridley saw Giger’s stuff he was showed. He said ‘This is it!’” —Dan O’Bannon on Alien

 
Screenwriter must-read: Dan O’Bannon’s screenplay for Alien (Walter Hill & David Giler made revisions and additions to the script) [PDF1, PDF2]. (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray (4K UHD) of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers. Absolutely our highest recommendation.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 
To celebrate the movie’s 40th anniversary, author J.W. Rinzler takes you behind the scenes with never-before-scene images, interviews, and more: The Making of Alien.

 
“Like Alien itself, this issue of Mediascene—a large format, newsprint-style magazine—is now forty years old, and includes a three-part selection of interviews, concept art, Ridleygrams and more, as well as a beautifully pulpy Alien centerfold. Reproduced here is all the Alien-related content from the issue. Due to the problematic size of the magazine, our digital reproduction is not of optimal quality, but the images are sharp and the text is legible throughout.” —Alien Archives

 
Although Alien is only Ridley Scott’s second film, it plants him squarely in the midst of a rare breed of directors. While there is controversy over Alien’s, comment and content, the word critics are using most often to describe the film’s visual integrity is: splendid. Twenty-odd years ago, Scott was a youngster with an artistic bent-and no clear idea what to do with it. “I went to the Royal College of Art in London,” he says, “but at that time their film department consisted of a steel wardrobe with a Bolex camera in it and an instruction book. No classes whatsoever.”

 
Fresh from his work on The Warriors, producer Walter Hill discusses his role in the making of Alien.

 

SIGOURNEY WEAVER

I felt the role was going to be a tough one. All the characters and relationships in the film were written very loosely and the casting people were trying to choose actors who would bring an individuality to the roles. As a matter of fact, after I read the script I came back and they said, “Well, what do you think?” And I told them I felt that the human relationships all seemed very bleak. I thought it was best to put all my cards on the table because if they really wanted a “Charlies Angel” I knew it wouldn’t be right for me. But they were the first to admit that it was going to take a lot of development and close working together. —Sigourney Weaver, 1979
I was excited about being in a movie and since it was my first time out, I was very easy-going. I didn’t realise until the four months were over that I’d been experiencing such tension. Every day Ridley would let me get behind the camera to look at each scene and I could tell Alien was an incredible film to be a part of. It was always fascinating seeing Ridley work and how he put it together. He’s an amazing man, a genius, and I think Alien is beautifully directed. He is one of those directors who will come up to you after you’ve done a scene who will say, ‘Well, I don’t fucking believe that.’ At first I’d be taken aback and wonder, ‘Where’s the stroking, where’s the diplomancy?’ And there just wasn’t any. And that’s why I liked him so much. In an industry where there’s so much bullshit I really appreciated his just getting to the point. We didn’t have to waste time. We rarely rehearsed and if we did it was only a day in advance of shooting. It was a high-pressured set. Ridley operated the camera. He hadn’t worked that much with actors and I think one of his priorities today is to become not an “actor’s director” but to be better with them. I remember one time I asked for his help on a problem I was having with Ripley. And he thought about it for a long time and then he came over to me and said, ‘What if you are the lens on… (and he named a sophisticated camera)… and you’re opening and shutting…’ And there was a long pause. Finally I said, ‘Ridley, I’ll have to think about it,’ And he looked crestfallen because he hadn’t helped me and he added, ‘Well, let me think too.’ He really wanted to be part of the process. But having me be the iris of a lens? I said, ‘That’s okay, Ridley. I’ll figure it out myself.’ And I did. But I loved him. —Sigourney Weaver, 1984

 
Storyboards for Alien drawn by Ridley Scott, with his handwritten notes, show how the director visualized the first encounter with the extraterrestrial monster. Courtesy of DGA Quarterly.

 
“In the video below, a laid-back Scott, cigar in hand, discusses how storyboards, sketches, and other pieces of hand-drawn imagery help him make movies. Telling how he’s found locations, envisioned scenes within them, and used drawings to build those scenes, Scott offers an insight into the look and feel of his own work and useful advice to fellow creators, whether or not they work in a visual medium. His inspiration begins with an activity as simple—but nonetheless a source of ‘great enjoyment’—as looking at industrial landscapes out the window of a car. Sometimes he even begins thumbnail sketches then and there, in transit. Not only does his drafting background enable him to do that, but it leads to closer working relationships with his professional storyboard artists. Conferring with them mentally prepares him to ‘hit the floor’ and shoot the scene. He reveals that, whether you’re directing a $120 million motion picture, painting a painting, or even writing a blog post, you face the same challenge: ‘Get rid of the white canvas. Get something right across the canvas. Otherwise you’re always looking at that area of white, which is like a blank sheet.’ He notes that his methods have led to some calling his films ‘overdesigned and over-thought out,’ but admits that, at this point, ‘I’ll probably just stay with the plan.’” —Ridley Scott Demystifies the Art of Storyboarding

 

DEREK VANLINT, C.S.C.

Lighting a gigantic spaceship with low-ceilinged, four-walled sets and many special effects—plus the vast terrain of an alien planet, called for methods that were out-of-the-ordinary, to say the least. This article by Derek Vanlint, Flashback: Alien and Its Photographic Challenges, originally appeared in American Cinematographer August 1979.

My involvement as director of photography of Alien came about as the result of direct contact with its director, Ridley Scott, over a period of years, working on advertising films. My experience with feature films was very limited. I’d done a couple of small pictures (which I’d rather not talk about), but Alien was to be my first big feature. I had been asked to do features many times before, but had always walked away from them, based on the money difference between director/cameraman on commercials and the money they offer European cameramen to do American films. However, Ridley is a very talented guy and a very graphic director and has always been fun to work with. Since he was to be involved, I knew from the word go that the picture would end up looking nice and that it would do me no harm whatsoever to be involved in it.

I’m not a technical cameraman. I’m very much a “put it up, look at it and light it” person. I can’t go into vast detail about how I pre-plan this and pre-plan that. In Alien the way everything looks is the result of discussions with Ridley—how he felt about the visual aspects of certain scenes, the lighting style that was dictated, the particular mood of the moment in relation to the sets that were involved.

The sets and corridors were all built with very low ceilings. They were four-wallers, so that meant lighting through grills or hiding lights or having in-shot lamps. I think the look of the film is due to the nature of the sets, plus the fact that I could light with non-conventional equipment‚ such as 747 aircraft lights, “panic” lights, a certain amount of neon and fluorescent units, and a great deal of special effects light.

We did very limited tests, unfortunately, on fluorescents before we started shooting, and we could have done with starting two weeks later than we actually did. The construction manager, Bill Welch, asked for the picture to be put back two weeks, but because of bookings and distribution schedules we had to go ahead on the date that had been set. This did create some problems for me in that I had to have three crews on at once throughout quite a good part of the picture—rigging, de-rigging and pre-lighting. I suppose a lot of people have experienced that.

It was a big challenge but, fortunately, I had a good lighting gaffer, Ray Evans, who gave me excellent support. The two giants in England, Samuelsons and Lee Lighting, were very, very helpful to me, knowing that it was my first feature, and they did come forward with quite a few suggestions in terms of equipment and lighting that would go into certain restricted spaces.

Ridley had done one feature before, The Duellists, which had received quite good notices and, as a result of that film, he got Alien to do. I think producers are basically nervous at the outset about schedules and getting finished on time, so for the first three weeks or so, until they saw things on the screen, it was all a bit nervy. After the first three weeks, when I think the people back in America realized that the picture had a good style, things eased down a bit. Not having experienced big features before, I don’t know whether this kind of feeling prevails on every picture, but I found it a bit more nerve-wracking than doing commercials.

The governing factor in establishing a lighting style for Alien was the requirement that there be three levels of light—the ship before people came out of deep sleep, a working level of light for the ship when the ship goes bananas and all of the conventional light sources are going out, one had to create the impression that the illumination was coming from explosions, panic lights and things like that.

I’m a reasonably low-light photographer under normal conditions, but I had to work at even lower levels for the neon-lit scenes. In addition, there were the low ceilings, close walls and high percentage of camera movement to be taken into consideration. We were also using two cameras during most of the picture, shooting our crosses at the same time—so, whereas I normally key from ¾ back, it was virtually impossible to do this with the two-camera technique—especially since we were shooting anamorphic and had to worry about keeping lights out of the shot. One had to be able to sort of cheat lights through grids and use practicals that actually existed in the shots, but most of the time there was the necessity of overriding the fluorescents, because of the problems we all experience with mixing fluorescent and normal incandescent light.

I found a reasonable balance level between the ordinary warm-glow fluorescents and putting something like a half-blue on the incandescent lights and using a very gentle gelatine, like an 81B to knock out a little of the blue. But dimmers and things like that helped tremendously on the incandescent lights. The flames from flamethrowers held close to faces were, I suppose, a bit unpleasant for the artists, but they were very, very good about it.

For the planet sequences, where they touched down looking for the source of electrical impulses that the spaceship was receiving, I used a couple of searchlights and a light that has become lovingly known in England as the “Wendy Light.” It was designed by Bill Chitty and built by Lee’s for David Watkin [BSC] to use in lighting the night exteriors for Hanover Street. This merely meant that I could cut down on the number of lights needed to light H Stage. Several people were a bit wide-eyed when they saw how few Brutes I had on the stage for lighting the whole thing, but the effect worked quite nicely. The searchlights gave me the possibility of playing them on long shots and I don’t think anyone notices too much that I panned them around a bit.

Just to kind of define the Wendy Light: It is a whole series of quartz bulbs made up in four panels. I seem to recollect something like 81 bulbs per panel, times four, and I had to be pulled up on chains. It’s a pretty impressive light and it blew a lot of people’s minds when they saw it going into the studio. As I’ve said, it was designed as an exterior night light and I think they lit three streets with it in one mean go on Hanover Street. For us this light really was a great time-saver. When you are working basically with only three lights on a huge set it does make life easier than when you have a whole series of Brutes that can keep getting into the shot.

In addition to Alien being my first big feature, it was also my first real experience with the anamorphic format, and it took a few days for me to get used to it. At first I hated it, because I like to box my lights in very, very tight to people—and because of the nature of the lights I like to use and the particular style I work with. However, after a few days I got used to it and loved it, Frankly, I found it very difficult, when I went back to the commercials, to get used to the smaller format. It’s a bit like an Englishman who goes abroad and drives on the right-hand side of the road; it seems to be more difficult to get used to driving on the left when he goes back to England. At least, that’s been my experience.

There was a great deal of discussion prior to the start of filming about light levels and the synchronization of the TV monitors that were spaced all around the ship, in the mess area and through the corridors. Very early on I suggested that we should shoot the picture at 25 frames rather than 24, which would put us in a kind of automatic sync and save us messing around with shot widths. It would just be a question of bar lines. I think there was no problem at all where the PVSR camera was concerned. We were using the PVSR mainly and, at times, the Panaflex. I forgot the reasons why we seemed to have to wait to get rid of bars and things, but all-in-all, it was quite efficient. One or two times, when the spaceship was blowing up, we did go out of sync with it, but we knew we were out of sync and left it that way, because with the running bar line in the middle of the picture, it helped accentuate the panic and chaos that were going on in the ship, and that things were not as they should be—so it was quite a useful graphic.

Throughout the picture we had two operators. Ridley operated principal camera and I operated second camera. We tried to work out all sorts of tracking devices to get through the corridors with their limited widths and sharp bends, and we had a really sweet guy come in and demonstrate the Panaglide, but we felt that within our time limitations it would take us too long to get used to it, and we really wished to operate the cameras ourselves.

For our pre-title sequence, we did put tracks down and used a Fisher dolly. It looked quite nice. But most of the other movements were too fast or too wide to use tracks, so a lot of hand-holding was done. Most of the hand-holding, especially the panic stuff, was shot by Ridley, who’s a bit more physical than I am and quite good at running backwards. He fell on his seat a few times, but generally it worked out quite well.

We had originally pre-planned a general set lighting for quite a good part of the spaceship, in order to avoid taking time to light each setup individually. I had worked it out with Ridley and Mike Seymour, our production designer, that with certain light panels and with selected sections of the ceiling covered in plastic, we would use quite a lot of overhead light coming down to blend with the floor light. However, it didn’t quite work out the way we planned, because the actors, while very, very good, were laid-back types who tended to work out where they were going to stand and how they were going to make exits. More often than not they ended up in very muddy areas, and the way we hoped would work—speeding through with one-set lighting—just didn’t happen. I think it was a slight pot dream on our part to begin with, because it could never work for us that way.

Another factor that had to be considered was that we had a black actor (Yaphet Kotto) in the cast, and one obviously had to bring the light up on that sort of skin and use reflective light. It was a slightly harder quality of light than I usually like to use, but it was very, very necessary—especially in low-light areas.

Once again, being sort of new to feature filming, I was absolutely intrigued by the matte shot kind of developments that were taking place on H Stage. I had a section of the derelict spaceship 100 feet across by 30 feet high which, once we decided the actual shape of the shop, where the light would be hitting it and how the matte artist would build onto it, was easy to light because of the nature of the surface. We also kept everything wetted down all the time and the ¾ back to backlight that I was using was absolutely emphasized by the water.

When I first saw the giant derelict vehicles set on the storyboard it frightened the life out of me, but once you switch that first light on, you find that it’s the same as any other set—only bigger. While reading the script and seeing the artwork for those giant sets on the planet initially worried me, the real difficulties were encountered in the light, small setups where people moved around a great deal—especially since you were covering them with two cameras and had television monitors in the scene to worry about.

I think that in one or two instances I could have put in a bit more fill than I did but when I saw Gordon Willis’s Interiors it made me feel a lot happier to know that there was someone else who was coming down to that kind of key.

During the sequence where the spaceship is blowing up, most of the light was coming from spinner lights, which are like the panic lights that you put on top of your car at night if it is broken down. In fact, they gave me more illumination than the approximately 15 10Ks on trip switches that I had pushing through the side of the grill. They never had a chance to come up to maximum because the grills cut out 60% or 70% of the light and we were also beaming them through tracing paper to sort of hide the fact that we were using, in fact, packing case grills put together.

For that blowing up sequence I was also using what we call “scissor arcs,” which are open arcs with two carbons coming together and being pulled apart manually, without any mechanism at all. They are the lights we use for lightning effects. They produce just a series of flashes, but make a hell of a noise. During that sequence I noticed that Ridley used the sound of the scissors arc for one of the explosions.

Photographically, the final look of Alien, especially in terms of light direction, bears no relationship to my kind of advertising show reel, where I use a great deal of diffusion and really go pretty heavily into putting tracing paper and Plexiglas in front of my lights. As far as possible, when everything was alright aboard the spaceship, I tried to make the lighting look as though it was coming from natural sources. But when the ship was ready to blow up, the low level and extreme movements made it necessary for me to use more hard light than I normally use. But this was the effect that was required for the mood of the picture, and it was vastly different from anything I had done before. I was quite pleased with the finished result.

In the communications room of the spaceship, where Tom Skerritt talks to Mother, there were I forget how many thousands of little bulbs covering the walls, and the actual color tone was governed by the bulbs we were using in there. They were well down in color temperature—somewhere around 2000 degrees Kelvin. I came in through the ceiling with something like a 1000-watt lamp diffused through tracing paper and with a half-MTA gelatine to keep it kind of yellow, so that it looked like the room was lit by the actual small bulbs. I put very little additional light in there, but we did put the image from a 16mm projector onto the faces of Skerritt and Sigourney Weaver while they were in there, in order to simulate the reflection from a television monitor. It was a piece of film with a few numbers on it and a lot of black and splashes of varnish.

For the sequence showing the eggs in the hold of the derelict vehicle, we used a kind of general light and then put a laser across the top of the place and a lot of smoke into the set. Then we took the camera up and down through the laser beam. It was great fun, but I wish we’d had a bit more time to experiment. The sequence was shot right near the end of the schedule when time was short and we had people on our backs to get off the set so that they could revamp the eggs. One of the eggs had a top that opened for a hand model to come through with a few pounds of liver and a sheep’s stomach and David Watkins in particular, seemed to absolutely thrive on that sort of thing.

There was a separate egg that we played around quite a bit with, trying to get the shape inside it to move. We bought a hand puppet in rubber with claws and we put it on a platform so that I was able to get a light underneath it and behind it. It frightened the life out of me when I saw it in the rushes.

When we did the chest explosion for the first time (the sequence at the beginning of the film that special effects did so well) we showed some pretty hairy things. It’s the first time I ever had to walk out of rushes and, funnily enough, it was the footage from the camera I was shooting. It was just the welter of blood that got all over Veronica Cartwright when the creature came through the chest that I couldn’t take. I went out and was rather ill—and I was ribbed quite a bit about that for the rest of the picture.

I had a very short time before shooting started to do tests, but I did very little more than test equipment because the sets were not finished until the day we actually started. The stuff that I had pre-rigged, unfortunately, had to be moved out because ceilings had to be dropped in and there were masses of carpenters and painters at work.

Our first sequence, after the characters had awakened and come out into the cabin of the spacecraft involved tucking 500-watt and 1000-watt spotlights under seats and the poor devils who were acting had to climb over these lamps and, at times, must have got their knees very, very warm, but they were quite good about it.

The Allen sequence in the escape craft I photographed with a CSI spot with a dimmer on the front. It was a direct spotlight to give a general strobe effect. Also, if I remember correctly, I was using about four of the ordinary strobe flashlights—all of them fixed to a kind of very, very small stomach dolly to give an out-of-sync, random strobe effect. So it was a mixture of half-frame exposures and full-frame exposures not at any particular time interval. I thought it looked very, very good in the escape vehicle when the creature climbed out of the wall. It was a bit difficult for people to work in, because they ended up getting quite dizzy over a period of time. I remember that when we were setting up in the escape vehicle we had to switch them off, because they were the principal source and one became very, very dizzy with them.

Photographing Alien was for me a unique and challenging experience, but also a stimulating one. The audiences seem to be responding to the film as we had hoped they would, and I’m quite pleased with the result.

 

TERRY RAWLINGS’ ‘ALIEN’ EDITING SCRIPT

In loving memory of Terry Rawlings, Film Editor on Alien, Blade Runner and Chariots of Fire (4 November 1933—23 April 2019)

When Ridley was going to do Alien, I got a call from his office because he wanted me to do the sound. I said I didn’t want to do the sound, I wanted to cut it! So he said “You better come and meet the producers then”, which I did, and they were so interested in Watership Down, they kept asking me about it, and so I was talking all about that, and then at the end of all this I just said, “Well, can I be the editor on this film?”, and Gordon Carroll and David Giler, who were there, said “Of course!” I tell you what, I was flying my 747 home! It was fantastic! But I’ve never worked so hard as I did on that film. We spent hours doing that picture. Alien was one of the most exciting periods of editing I have ever had, I think, because I was doing this really for the first time on my own, having done Sentinel. Watership Down wasn’t quite the same. But this, even though it wasn’t a big film when we first started—it was going to be just an ordinary little horror film, or a little space journey film, nothing special—and yet it just developed into this monster, literally! —A Conversation with Terry Rawlings

Thanks to the wonderful effort of Dennis Lowe, as well as the Alien Experience website, we’re able to check out legendary film editor Terry Rawlings’ Alien editing script, which contains a lot of material that was either cut from the film, or never shot in the first place, scanned in its entire 240 pages of invaluable historic testimony. You can download the PDF document here (NOTE: For educational and research purposes only). Rawlings’ rich resume includes work on Blade Runner, Chariots of Fire and both Scott’s and Fincher’s installments in the Alien series.

 
A gem from 1979, Carolyn Jackson interviews Ridley Scott about his film, Alien. The discussion ranges over a variety of topics including Scott’s move from directing commercials to feature films, his decision to both direct and act in the film, and choices that affected the film’s MPAA rating (“If you start reducing those elements, then you start watering down the film.”) He also talks about the special effects used in the film, explaining the process of rotoscoping. Footage is awful for the first few seconds.


Open YouTube video

 
“Released in 1980 by Thinking Cap Company, ALIEN: The Authorized Portfolio of Crew Insignias from The UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL SPACESHIP NOSTROMO was a limited edition, individually numbered collector’s kit featuring prints, patches, buttons and notes by concept artists John Mollo and Rob Cobb. Sold out for nearly 40 years now, presented below are the complete ‘Concepts and Derivations’ booklet notes, which never seem to have found their way online before, as well as the previously reproduced art prints.” —Alien Archives












 

THE BEAST WITHIN: THE MAKING OF ‘ALIEN’

This made-for-DVD documentary treats horror and science fiction film fans to a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Alien, the terrifying classic about a spaceship crew trapped with a hideous monster that’s hunting them one by one. Features interviews with director Ridley Scott and master designer H. R. Giger, as well as with star Sigourney Weaver and other members of the cast and crew, who share their experiences from working on the project and discuss the special efforts that went into bringing it all together.

 

‘ALIEN’ VAULT

The new book Alien Vault gives you a terrific insight into the insane amount of craftsmanship—and the craftsmanlike touches of insanity—that went into Ridley Scott’s Alien. Ian Nathan’s new book is a ridiculously comprehensive and beautifully assembled tribute to one of science fiction’s all-time great movies. And nowhere is it more impressive than in delving into the creative process of H. R. Giger. —How H.R. Giger’s Brilliant Madness Helped Make Alien “Erotic”

 

‘ALIEN’ DIARIES

H. R. Giger worked in the Shepperton Studios near London from February to November 1978, creating the figures and sets for the film Alien (1979) directed by Ridley Scott. The film became an international success, earning Giger an Oscar. In the transcribed Alien Diaries, published here for the first time as a facsimile, H. R. Giger describes his work in the studios. He writes, sketches, and takes photographs with his Polaroid SX70. With brutal honesty, sarcasm and occasional despair, Giger describes what it is like working for the film industry and how he struggles against all odds—be it the stinginess of producers or the sluggishness of his staff—to see his designs become reality. The Alien Diaries (in German transcription with an English translation) show a little-known personal side of the artist HR Giger and offer an unusual, detailed glimpse into the making of a movie classic through the eyes of a Swiss artist. The book contains almost completely unpublished material, including drawings, Polaroids showing the monster coming to life, and several still shots from the plentiful film material that Giger took in Shepperton.

 

GIGER’S ‘ALIEN’

Giger’s Alien is the rare documentary on the artist H. R. Giger that was directed by J. J. Wittmer and H. R. Giger himself. It was filmed in 1975-78 and had a very limited release overseas on VHS and LaserDisc. You are taken inside his studio to watch him create one of his famous pieces, carving a mountain of clay into the famous Alien from the movie of the same name. You will also see him designing the Alien Eggs and the Derelict ship and interior use in the movie, as well as rare deleted scenes from the movie itself.


Open YouTube video

 
Starlog Magazine issue 26: ‘H. R. Giger: Behind the Alien Forms.’

 
2018 BAFTA Fellowship recipient Ridley Scott talks making his way from directing commercials to sci-fi classics like Alien and Blade Runner.

 
Ridley Scott’s sci-fi horror about a lethal extraterrestrial predator stalking the crew of a ship flying through deep space, is 40 years old this year. Watch the original trailer.

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

 
We’re running out of money and patience with being underfunded. 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 40 Years of Hurt, Face-Hugging Dreams of Breathing: Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien’ appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

‘DOES THIS LOOK LIKE A SICK MAN TO YOU?’: The Horror of Identity and the Identity of Horror in David Cronenberg’s ‘The Fly’

$
0
0


 

By Travis Woods

TELEPOD 1: STATHIS

He watches Her, trembling and nerve-twitched, eyes darting, lips pulled back over protruding teeth left exposed by a rictus of grim, grotesque transformation. His skin is soured and sallow, stretched tight over gaunt cheekbones that look to razor through his stinking flesh like insectoid mandibles long dormant and now violently awake. She does not see him—She is preoccupied with some Other. He can smell on her the scent of sex, and of laughter (…at his expense? Of course it was, of course they laughed at him, the freak, the nothing), and of happiness, and maybe even of some deeper, more permanent thing, an emotion that with the increasingly thin control he has left over his hyperactive consciousness he refuses to give a name. She cannot be allowed to feel that for some Other. She is his.

He is nothing without her. Without her, he is not human, not a person. Without her, he is not himself.

This is a cruel fact he has come to learn in recent days, as the man he once knew as himself—handsome face in the mirror; a rational, scientific mind—quickly devolved into this misshapen, bedraggled monster, the frayed filaments of his self-control warping against the pressure of this growing larval horror within him, this new self…or…perhaps…not a new self at all? Perhaps the true horror is that this is his real self, some awful and repressed identity he’d managed to deny all these years, until the emotional annihilation of love had utterly dissembled him, then brutally reassembled him to find what was once buried deep beneath the flesh is now here, rotting on the outside, while the person he once confidently showed the world has sloughed and shriveled deeply inward, nothing but a construct, a dream of a man now over.

Maybe the real nightmare in all of this, he thinks with as much coherence as his decaying logic centers will allow, is that mine has been a story not of transformation, but of revelation.

But that thought collapses to a subconscious buzz as She multiplies in his red-veined eyes, his sleep-starved mind unable to contain these thoughts just as his eyes cannot contain Her, countless identical Hers approaching, closer now, still unaware of his jittery, presence even as She envelops more and more of his field of progressively compounded vision, compounded because of the welling, angry tears—

 
“What are you doing here?”

The shock with which science journalist Veronica Quaife (Geena Davis) greets her former lover/current editor Stathis Borans (John Getz) as she discovers him, disheveled and distraught, stalking her as she shops for her new lover/interview subject, Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum), is that of anger inked with revulsion and fear. Stathis has not only violated her privacy, but has confronted her with the revelation that the “Stathis” she thought she knew was only a fleshy paradigm, a mask torn to tattered bits by the real Stathis lurking beneath it—a sexually jealous and insecure stranger with a toxic mélange of simmering male anxieties—who is now thrashing about in the mindless throes of ego-death. Veronica’s choice to leave Stathis, to find happiness and love with a younger, more brilliant man, has robbed him of his ability to define himself with anything other than his own masculine insecurities and presumed sexual failings, and he emotionally disintegrates before her eyes.

“Don’t you get it?” she hisses at him. And then, referring to her coverage of Seth’s revolutionary project, as well as the feelings she is developing for the young scientist, Veronica asserts that “I’m finally onto something big.”

“Yeah, what?” Stathis gasps, wide-eyed and feral. “His cock?”

Stathis nakedly reveals to Veronica a crude psychosexual vivisection of his worst, most childish fears and uncertainties flayed open for her to see, a man unable to securely define himself without the placation of her love and attention, wholly unequipped for the responsibility of being an emotionally secured adult. “You’re too perfect,” he chuckles maniacally while dropping to his knees, “you’re a goddess! Thanks for making my paranoid fantasies come true!”

 
While arguably one of the more mundane moments in a film that also features Jeff Goldblum’s good-natured (if tragically insecure) scientist transmogrifying into a monstrous and murderous mansect, Stathis’ emotional meltdown highlights not only the nauseous thematic nucleus of David Cronenberg’s 1986 remake of The Fly, but of his disturbing cinematic body of work overall: that the most horrific reality faced by sentient beings is not that we are locked within inescapable meat prisons designed to decay before collapsing into death, but that the one thing we hold to be truly immutable within that prison, the one thing we hold to be truly our own—our identity—is just as susceptible to disruption and infection as our pitiable bodies. If our minds, our selves are generated by the biological motor of the brain, and the brain is as vulnerable as our bodies to everything from hormone imbalance to terminal disease, aren’t we—the essential, intangible us, you, me—just as vulnerable to change as our physical selves? And if so, what does that make us, if anything at all? If our bodies change, if our brains change, does the intangible we change as well? And if it does, if the thing we think of as identity is simply an unprotected cell clump sheathed within a thinboned skull, part of a larger physiology programmed to eventually nonexist soon after its existence begins, what definitions do we have aside from those we desperately scramble together as a bulwark against the animal—or insect—instincts that lurk within the basest level of our biological shells?

It’s a question Cronenberg couches within romantic metaphor in The Fly, the story of a love triangle between a woman and two toxically insecure men who cannot assimilate the emotional complexities of intense, adult love, and whose weaknesses drive them to desperately fuse with this woman and thus be finally, comfortingly defined; both men instead become radically transformed by their inability to control being “made crazy by the flesh” of said woman (like the film’s telepods, these men understand fusion only in the literal sense of physical coupling). Stathis Borans inwardly suffers this transformation—or revelation—of “true” identity, whereas Seth Brundle’s mirrored experience is literalized by his mutagenic morphing into “flyness” as his crippling immaturity is wrought outwardly across his body before wholly degenerating his mind. As such, Stathis and Seth are designed as funhouse reflections of the other—each has duel connections to Veronica both professional and romantic, both defeminize (and thus attempt to neuter and disempower) Veronica with the gender-neutral nickname “Ronnie,” both are men who outwardly project (and cling to) the rationality of science to hide their weaknesses, and both share the initials S.B. (even Seth’s name is a disemvoweled transmutation of “Stathis”).

As writer and film studies professor William Beard notes in his excellent book-length dissection of Cronenberg’s oeuvre, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg, it’s in The Fly that

“human closeness, romantic attachment, sexual intimacy, are all seen as leading inexorably to visceral horror—a combination of sexual alienation, fear of the sexual other (which is both woman and the feelings woman arouses in the male self), sexual guilt resulting from these feelings, fear of loss of control and loss of self, terror of the spirit’s subjugation to and foundation in the body, and its inevitable dissolution in bodily decay, disease, and death. This is the state of ‘flyness.’”

 

TELEPOD 2: SETH

The Fly is David Cronenberg’s masterpiece; it is also the crucial evolutionary pivot-point of his ongoing cinematic vision. An operatic crescendo to the first, most body-centric movement of Cronenberg’s filmography, it is the summation of the “body horror” films that preceded it (works populated by the parasitic sex-zombies of Shivers, the body-warping id-rage of The Brood, the television-rotted cerebellums of Videodrome, the time-hammered bodies of The Dead Zone, et al.); it also serves as the teleportation point that leads to the more internal, emotionally-complex and probing explorations of identity-obsession to come (everything from the twinned misogyny of Dead Ringers to the self-confusion/confused selves of A History of Violence and Eastern Promises). In 96 devastating yet perfect minutes, Cronenberg disassembled a camp monster movie premise and reassembled it into the dark, sumptuous poetry of the 1980s’ most brutal, and brutally honest, love story.

“One of the things that you inevitably deal with if you’re working with actors is identity,” Cronenberg has mused. “When you say [as an instruction to an actor about their character] ‘something you don’t want to do,’ who’s the you? Where is the you? Of what does that you consist? Of course, anybody who is working in the arts eventually must deal with the question of identity, even if it’s only the identity of the artist. What is the you that wants anything? And what is the you that controls the I? All of those things are perfect subjects for exploration.”

The Fly, to which Cronenberg fuses these existential questions of identity that have double-helixed within his work, begins and ends within the sum totality of Seth and Veronica’s relationship, portrayed by two actors who themselves were a real-life couple. The film’s own identity is intrinsically tied to both romances, real and fictional—its narrative feeds and thrives upon the undeniable emotional and sexual chemistry of Davis and Goldblum; even further, it abruptly begins only when Seth and Veronica meet and he begins to define himself (“What am I working on? Something that will change the world, and human life as we know it,” Seth brags in the film’s opening line, using scientific prowess as his only awkward means of flirtation), and the film then brusquely stops the second Seth dies, the relationship ends, and his self-definition of identity that was shaped by that relationship dissolves into clumps of bullet-imploded goop on a concrete floor…as the same splicing of scientific expertise and sexual self-doubt that engendered Seth and Veronica’s meet-cute beginning also brings about their shattering end.

 
The original 1957 short story “The Fly” by George Langelaan (and its subsequent 1958 cinematic adaptation, as well as Charles Pogue’s original script for Cronenberg’s remake) centered on a married couple; the decision to present Veronica and Seth as new lovers was Cronenberg’s own rewrite, as he felt his vision would be better served by a story about newfound seduction and romance, with all the interlocking changes and terrors that would bring to a sexually immature man’s life. And, as he notes in his director’s commentary for The Fly, the film is in many ways the “most traditional love affair that I’ve depicted in my movies,” and yet, beneath the surface, “strange things are happening.”

“Strange things” infest the plot of The Fly like larval maggots egged just beneath the film’s skin, ready to burst when pressure is applied. On the surface, the 1986 film is superficially similar to the short story and its original film adaptation: a scientist invents a pod-based matter teleportation process; the scientist transmits himself as a guinea pig through the pods, unaware that an errant fly slipped in with him, so that while they are disassembled separately, the two beings are then reassembled together; chaos ensues. It is there, though, that the similarities between earlier iterations and Cronenberg’s film end, with the most significant variances between versions of The Fly found in Brundle’s reasoning for building the telepods, and what drives him to test them on himself. It is within these changes that Cronenberg’s “strange things” hatch and furiously, irrevocably consume the remainder of the film, and Seth, in a mesmeric fable of self-annihilation.

~ ~ ~

In Cronenberg’s The Fly, all decisions made by Seth and Stathis are driven by their mounting insecurities as men, each choice an attempt to assert control over that which threatens their perception of their own masculine identities. The shy, eccentric Brundle attempts to woo Veronica with his telepod system, not for renown in Particle magazine but in order to assuage his own romantic loneliness. Even his invention of matter-teleportation itself is an attempt to assert control over weakness—the frequently motion-sick Brundle (“When I was a kid, I puked on my tricycle”) will never get carsick or airsick again if his creation is successful; and as Helen Robbins notes in her essay “More Human Than Human Alone: Womb Envy in David Cronenberg’s The Fly and Dead Ringers,” the pods themselves are an anxious male appropriation of female reproductive power that he forever lacks as a man, “with their frankly uterine shapes and vulviform glass doors, [the pods] are clear womb simulacra; the lingering shots of his naked fetal crouch in the transmitter pod figure his teleportation project as an attempt to give birth to himself.” Yet before Seth can “give birth” to his idealized version of self, there must be a kind of intercourse to both (re)create him and stave off sexual competitors.

 
Seth invites Veronica to document his project as a means to control her, to keep her from sharing his discovery with Stathis and Particle before the machines are ready. Doing so draws her closer, and inflames Stathis’ sexual jealousy while weakening his sense of self. Seth and Veronica fall in love, with Stathis’ increasingly intrusive, unstable behavior (such as violating Veronica’s apartment to take a shower—“Happened to be in the neighborhood, felt a bit scummy”) pushing her even closer to Seth. After a failed telepod experiment malfunctions and literally turns a baboon inside-out (just as it will figuratively invert Seth’s insecurities, tearing them out and making them flesh), Seth comes to the conclusion that his telepod computer “can’t deal with the flesh. I must not know about the flesh myself, I have to learn.” Veronica responds by initiating sex, and in teaching him “about the flesh,” introduces the lonely, isolated man to a torrent of new emotions he has never experienced, nor is his identity equipped to integrate. And as Veronica gives his skin a post-coital nibble, muttering “it’s the flesh, it makes you crazy,” Seth has a revelation: the computer must be made “crazy for the flesh” in order to understand the nature of processing physiology. But during his reprogramming of the system, he does not consider that the pods, like himself, lack the experience or maturity to process that form of “crazy.”

Nor does Stathis, who—his sense of self now emasculated—moves to publish an invasive article on Seth’s life and telepod system in order force a confrontation with Veronica. Seth, entrenched in newfound insecurities as a sexually active man with an identity now made vulnerable by that same activity, is unable to understand Veronica’s abrupt, seemingly clandestine meeting with Stathis as anything other than some kind of sexual rejection of his self. He drinks himself into a rage, muttering jealously as he paces his lab (“Stathis Borans is her old boyfriend. From the Desk of Stathis Borans. How about under the desk of Stathis Borans? She works for her old boyfriend, and runs out late at night to see him. Is this the Ronnie game? I’m catching on…”). Finally, in a frantic need to reassert control over his life, he opts to test teleportation on a human subject for the first time: himself. And, as in versions past, he does not enter the pod alone—though, unlike his predecessors, it is his boozy, resentful rage that blinds him to the fly that lands just beside him, that disappears into the stuttering teleportation light with him, that joins with—and eventually reveals—him.

 

TELEPOD 3: VERONICA

“It is a horror film… it is also a romance, it’s a love story. It’s very emotional, it’s very passionate. It’s not a gore-fest, it’s not a slasher movie. It’s also very funny, not in a sense of parody or camp, but it’s an ironic and darkly humorous film, I think. Gore is perhaps the most spectacular aspect of it, but it’s certainly not all that there is in the movie…” Cronenberg said during a surreally schmaltzy interview as part of The Fly’s 1986 press tour. Yet despite the limitations of the morning-TV interview format, he succeeded in articulating the unique fusion at the heart of the film, the genetic splicing of cinematic identities and genres that allows The Fly its centerpiece position in his filmography.

 
The Fly is a fascinating merging of the two aesthetic currents flowing through Cronenberg’s work at the time: the cold but deeply personal “Cronenburgundian” vision (his preferred term) that literalized the forces that dominate our lives as ravagers of our flesh (a concept, prior to The Fly, most fully realized in Videodrome), and the somehow impersonally personal adaptations of other writers’ work designed to explore the emotional facets of the human condition (something Cronenberg had only begun to do with his prior film, 1983’s Stephen King adaptation The Dead Zone). The Fly is a strange, telepodded hybrid of these two films, as if the humanism of The Dead Zone buzzed its way into Videodrome’s telepod, and the resultant re-assimilation of the two showcases the Cronenburgundian aesthetic at its most Grand Guignol horrific, but at the same time softened with his most human and humane characterizations. The ultimate result is a film of extremes, in which each evolutionary leap in body-horror is matched by a devastatingly concomitant emotional holocaust.

These two concurrent forces are represented by The Fly’s two greatest special effects: the Academy Award-winning makeup designs of Chris Walas, and Geena Davis’ performance as Veronica.

~ ~ ~

At first, the teleported Brundle seems the same, if not better. He’s more confident, more powerful, more masculine—in the earliest stages of his unknowing union with the fly, he is much like a teenager in love, on top of the world and totally secure in his sense of self. But, also like a teenager, Seth’s nascent insecurities manifest, both in action and in flesh, and the high of a new love is more than he can facilitate—it turns to suspicion, mistrust, and jealousy while his body begins to corrode, the fly’s DNA revealing itself and malignantly spreading to the surface. Seth’s slow, agonizing transformation into Brundlefly mirrors the revelation of his true self, once buried deep within and now excavated by his mutating body. His self-imposed identity of a rational man of science crumbles like his flaking skin, revealing the terrified and angry adolescent insect that always lurked beneath. Therein lies the true horror of The Fly: that who we are is just as capable of becoming diseased as our bodies; that our constructed identities can fail us as easily as our porous immune systems. That, in the end, all we are is a collection of highly corruptible cells wedded to merciless biological instinct.

 
And as Seth’s true self is as loosed into the world as the fly’s DNA is within his system, he careens across the spectrum of masculine toxicity. He peacocks through the streets of Toronto, wearing a leather jacket over a newly-formed ripcord musculature that cables his body, his desperate projection of a “man.” He arm-wrestles men in bars for the sexual ownership of their women, ultimately ripping a brawler’s wrist in half. He screams and tantrums in anger at Veronica when she can no longer keep up with his voracious sexual appetites, and furiously resents her implication that his telepods damaged him (“Does this look like a sick man to you?” he asks, aggressively punching holes in a wall during a scene nauseatingly familiar to victims of domestic violence) when she refuses to be teleported herself. Later, after weeks of angry absence, he calls her, small and terrified and teary, muttering that he’s afraid to be without her, a monster of man whose body has betrayed him, whose sense of self has left him, a man left (literally) to climb the walls of his lab as he degenerates into the worst, most putrid aspects of himself.

Amidst all of this horror stands Geena Davis as Veronica, the lone voice of sane humanity in the film’s deliberately schematic universe in which she, Seth, and Stathis are the only inhabitants (indeed, aside from a handful of speaking roles sprinkled throughout a bar and doctor’s office, they are the only real characters in the film, both reducing it and elevating it to a level of fable). In a performance that traverses a prismic array of human emotions and experiences, from joy to comedy to romance to lust to drama to abject horror, Davis’ Veronica is, despite the film’s title, the soul and center of The Fly. She is both the audience surrogate who bears witness to the figurative horrors of small men such as Stathis and Seth as well as the literal terrors of the Brundlefly, but is also the fully conceived and—no pun intended—fleshed-out female character who must share the world with them. And as much as the film is a nightmare of identity, it is also the portrait of a woman forced to navigate a world mediated by the wanton fears and desires of insecure men. The tale of these men, so desperate to be defined by the security of a woman’s love, cannot be told without the absolutely integral portrayal of that woman; the film’s success as an emotional narrative rests solely on Davis’ shoulders.

It is her heartbreak that engenders our own when she intends to confront Brundle about her just-discovered pregnancy, only to find him degenerating far more quickly than before (with Goldblum at a career-best within Walas’ stunning, sickening full-body makeup) and unable to tell him the truth as he famously monologues about an insect’s inability to compromise or feel compassion, sounding as much like a description of an abusive man as it does the encapsulation of a fly, before finally warning her that “I’m an insect who dreamt he was a man and loved it, but now the dream is over and the insect is awake…I’ll hurt you if you stay.”

 
The overwhelming horror is compounded when she collapses into Stathis’ waiting arms outside, demanding an abortion—Brundlefly overhears this and is enraged, while Stathis wants to control the situation, demanding Veronica “wait a few days” because she’s not “in the right state of mind.” Thus the wrenching despair of the film’s third act is not just in Brundlefly’s self-inflicted decay, but in the efforts of these men to deny “Ronnie” autonomy over her own female body and identity—both men, struggling to reassemble their masculine selves, again seek to quell (or at least dictate) her female power. And while Stathis eventually relents, Brundlefly refuses to let her abort his child, kidnapping Veronica in order to fuse her and the baby to himself, an act that he hopes help him become human again; in assimilating with his love and their child, he will be himself again, his identity will once again be whole.

It’s a plan that, like all his others, ends in failure. Stathis acts in a rare act of selflessness (though it should be noted that he only acts “like a man” to protect Veronica once Seth is no longer a viable sexual competitor; Stathis’ own masculine identity is again able to coalesce around his self-image) and manages to destroy the pod connection with a shotgun (though at a cost: in their war of attrition, Brundlefly dissolves his competitor’s hands and feet with corrosive fly enzymes, externalizing Stathis’ “only half a man” terrified inner state).

When Veronica takes the gun, the pathetically malformed and miserable Brundlefly gently angles the barrel against his skull. It’s a moment of wordless, sickhearted tragedy that is almost beyond the mind’s ability to comprehend (but not Davis’ staggering ability to portray) as the man she loves soundlessly begs her to end his self-created misery, but it is also a final moment of selfishness, in which Seth now requires his misery to live on within her, cemented with this act of assisted-suicide. And when the shell explodes his skull in jellied, Rorschach’d fragments across the laboratory floor, all that he ever was, his entire identity, revealed to be sludged and slimy matter now ripped asunder, we watch as the light fades and Veronica is left crying in the meaningless dark of the world these men and their fears have created.

 

~ ~ ~

For all its horrors both emotional and bodily, perhaps The Fly’s most chilling and dreadspattered revelation is contained in its unceremonious ending: the film dies when Seth dies, it ends when his consciousness, his identity, ends. No tidy ‘50s b-movie life-lesson about scientific hubris, no last-minute plan to return his mind and body to what they once were; the world just fades to black as those who survive him look on in their misery. In doing so, The Fly ultimately reveals itself to be a film about death—death of love, death of the ego, death of identity, death of life—and about the questions of self posed in the face of death: “Where is the you? Of what does that you consist? What is the you that wants anything? And what is the you that controls the I?”

As our bodies change, evolve, and age, what becomes of the selves contained by those bodies, even dictated by those bodies? Are we the same? Are we different? Are we anything? Is identity real, or just the insect-dream of already-dying biological matter? Are we self-constructed? And if so, what dark foundations are we built upon—or against? If our bodies are prisons that encase our identities, what do our identities imprison? And if something awful is in there, buzzing in the dark—

What does that say about us? About you? About the person next to you, the one you love and trust?

Like life, David Cronenberg’s The Fly begins by generating an onslaught of ontological questions.

And like life, it collapses into its final darkness without an answer, an insect turning in its sleep, the dream now over.

Travis Woods lives in Los Angeles. He has a dog and a tattoo of Elliott Gould smoking. Bob Dylan once clapped him on the back and whispered something incomprehensible. These are the only interesting things about him. Read more »

 
My manager gave me the original story to read… I had never seen the movie. I liked the Jekyll/Hyde aspects of it. I came up with essentially the structure of the story you presently see on the screen. The mutating of the genes rather than this Big Fly Head/Little Fly head stuff you see in the original (just how does that work, science-wise?). Because you really needed a protagonist who could emote and have facial expressions and not play his big scenes by writing everything out on a chalk board. I was on the film/ then off the film/ then back on the film/ then finally when Cronenberg became attached to direct, I was off again. My producer, Stuart Cornfeld sent me a bottle of Glenlivet scotch and a package of razor blades. He wrote: Drink the Scotch before you use the razor blades. Cronenberg re-wrote alone, though again, the script echoes my own in many ways. It’s the same only different. It’s different only the same. He has said elsewhere that he couldn’t have got to his script without mine. One always mourns the movie that is lost, but this is a wonderful movie and I got no complaints and am proud to have siginficantly contributed to it. It’s a transcendent movie. Cronenberg brought a lot of good stuff to it. —Charles Pogue

 
Screenwriter must-read: Charles Edward Pogue & David Cronenberg’s screenplay for The Fly [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.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 
An exciting visit with the master of Canadian chillers.

 
On the Ontario-based set of The Fly, the mild-mannered 43-year-old director sits quietly in his chair while first assistant director John Board barks orders to the crew. Between shots and the long set-ups of Chris Walas’ complicated special makeup FX, Cronenberg graciously ushered Fangoria around and spoke extensively on his new summer movie.

 
Acting alongside a 185-pound mutated man-insect probably isn’t the easiest way for an emerging actress to earn a living. But for Geena Davis, the romantic lead in David Cronenberg’s update of The Fly, the part was too good to let a little blood and guts spoil things. “I have a pretty strong stomach,” explains Davis in her dressing room on the Ontario-based set of The Fly. Davis, an attractive and shy brunette, last vamped her way through Transylvania 6-5000 and starred in the short-lived TV series Sara. “I never turn away when I watch horror movies, and I didn’t walk away from what went on during The Fly. When you’re behind the scenes, it all looks fake. When Jeff Goldblum throws up though, it’s pretty disgusting. Watching him vomit was certainly worse than blood squirting or eyes popping out.”

 
Chris Walas, maker of The Fly: “Though we started the designs in September, we didn’t have the lead actor or any designs locked in until the beginning of October, when we finally got Jeff. We had to basically do all our makeup pieces, suits and everything in less than a month. We would be sizing up designs and tailoring on Jeff—who was needed for filming—while still trying to incorporate all the design aspects needed for the final stage; not much time to pull a lot of stuff together.”

 
“We open with stories of one man’s brilliant idea to remake the science fiction classic, The Fly (1958), into a whole new entity. The end result was David Cronenberg’s The Fly (1986) that revolutionized the genre. Nearly every aspect of the filmmaking process is covered in this mammoth documentary, and in great detail.”

 
A distinctly Cronenbergian take on a ‘50s sci-fi tale The Fly traces Jeff Goldblum’s transformation from scientist Seth Brundle to the creature Brundlefly. This effects-heavy film posed significant challenges for the production team. Hear Denise Cronenberg, Stephan Dupuis, Mark Irwin, Howard Shore, and Carol Spier discuss some of the challenges they faced in designing the telepod, makeup, sound, and other memorable elements from the film. —The Fly: Production Design and Effects

 

MASTERCLASS WITH DAVID CRONENBERG

The following is an excerpt from the marvelous book Moviemakers’ Master Class: Private Lessons from the World’s Foremost Directors by Laurent Tirard.

I became a director by accident. I always thought I would be a writer, like my father. I liked movies, as an audience member, but I never imagined that one could actually make a career in filmmaking. I lived in Canada and movies came from Hollywood, which was not only in another country—it was in a different world! When I was around twenty, however, something strange happened. A friend of mine from university had been hired to play a small part in a feature, and to see someone that I knew in everyday life on a movie screen was something of a shock. It might seem ridiculous today, when ten-year-old children are making movies with their video camcorders, but at the time, it was like an epiphany for me. I started thinking, “Hey, you could do that too…” At that point, I decided to write a screenplay. But of course I had no practical knowledge of how to write for films. So I did the most logical thing: I picked up an encyclopedia and tried to learn film technique from it. Needless to say, the information it gave me was a little too basic. So I bought film magazines, figuring I would learn more. But I couldn’t understand a word I read.

The technical slang was just undecipherable for a novice like me. What I liked about the magazines, however, were the pictures taken on film sets, particularly those showing filmmaking equipment. I have always been fascinated by machinery; it’s something I really have a feel for. I can take anything apart, put it back together, and in the process understand how it works. So I figured the best way to learn was to actually use the equipment. I went to a camera rental company and became friends with the owner, who let me toy around with the cameras, the lights, the tape recorders… Sometimes, cameramen would come to pick up their equipment and would give me tips on lighting, lenses, and so on. And finally, one day, I decided to have a go at it. I rented one of the cameras and made a small short film. And another. And another. But I still considered it a hobby; I wasn’t seriously thinking of directing films until I wrote a script that a production company wanted to buy. Suddenly, I realized that the idea of someone else making that film was unbearable, and I refused to sell the script unless they let me direct the movie. We fought for more than three years, but I eventually won, and this film launched my career as a director.

 

A filmmaker must know how to write

As I said earlier, I always thought that my “serious” career would be as a writer, and for that reason, I think, I still consider literature a “higher” art form than film. Surprisingly, though, when I once talked about it with Salman Rushdie, whom I consider to be one of the most interesting writers of his generation, he looked at me as though I were a madman. He thought exactly the opposite. Having grown up in India, where film is highly regarded, he told me that he would give anything for the opportunity to make a film someday. It turned into a complex debate; I gave him examples of things he had written that could never be properly transcribed in images, and he gave me examples of films that no books could ever compete with. We eventually agreed that today, film and literature not only feed on one another but also complete each other. You cannot compare them anymore. However, I do think there is a big difference between directors who write and directors who don’t. I strongly believe that in order to be a complete filmmaker, you have to write your own scripts. In the past, I even argued that the filmmaker had to be the author of the original idea that the film was based on. But then I made The Dead Zone, which was adapted from a Stephen King novel, and lost a little of that arrogance.

 

The language of a film depends on its audience

Filmmaking is a language, and no language can exist without grammar. It’s the basis of all communication: everybody agrees that certain signs mean certain things. However, inside that language, there is a real flexibility. And your job, as a filmmaker, is to find, for every shot, the right balance between what’s expected, what’s necessary, and what’s exciting. You can use a close-up shot in a conventional way—to draw attention to something—or you can use it exactly for the opposite, as diversion. If you play around with film language, the result is bound to be a little more dense, a little more complex, and the viewing experience should be a little richer for the audience. However, that implies that your audience already has a certain knowledge of film language. Otherwise, they will feel lost and eventually give up on your film. In other words, in order to communicate intensely with a hundred people, you might lose a thousand on the way.

When Joyce wrote Ulysses, for instance, it was a rather experimental book, but most people were able to follow. But after that, he wrote Finnegans Wake and lost a lot of readers because in order to understand this book, you almost had to learn a new language, and very few people are willing to make that kind of effort. So it really is up to you, as a filmmaker, to decide how far you want to go, depending on how large an audience you wish to reach. Oliver Stone once asked me whether I was content to be a marginal filmmaker. I understood what he meant; there was nothing condescending in his question. He knows that I could be making mainstream films if I wanted to. And I answered that I was happy with the size of my audience. But I think this is something that a director must somehow be able to determine in advance—what kind of an audience he wants to have—because it will necessarily influence the language that he will be able to use.

 

A three-dimensional medium

I remember that the first time I found myself on a film set, what frightened me the most was the notion of space, because I was used to writing, which is a two-dimensional medium, and I discovered that film was a three-dimensional one. I’m not talking about the visual aspect of film, of course. I mean the set itself. It’s an environment where you not only have to deal with space but also with people and objects that have a relationship with that space. And not only do you have to organize all these elements as efficiently as possible, but you have to do it in a way that eventually makes sense. It might sound abstract when I say it, but believe me, when you’re dealing with it, it’s extremely concrete. Because the camera has a place of its own within that space. It’s like another actor. And in a lot of first films, I notice the same problem over and over again: the inability to make the camera “dance,” to properly organize the sort of gigantic ballet that a film set inevitably turns into. On the other hand, the wonderful thing is that most decisions come in a totally instinctive manner. Once again, when I made my first film, I wasn’t sure whether or not I would be able to direct images, because I had never studied visual arts. I had no idea whether or not I would be able to do something as basic as decide where to set the camera for a given shot.

I had nightmares in which I realized I had no opinion on the matter. But when I got onto the set, I discovered it was a totally visceral thing. I mean, I would sometimes look into the camera’s viewfinder and get physically sick because I didn’t like the frame. I wasn’t quite able to explain exactly why, but I knew it had to be changed. My instinct was telling me it wasn’t right. Today, I still rely mostly on instinct. The danger of that, of course, is that the more experienced you get, the easier it is to fall into a sort of routine. You know what works; you know what’s efficient, what’s comfortable. You end up directing the whole film on autopilot and leave no room for innovation, for surprises. So you have to remain alert. In any case, I am not one of these directors that are obsessed with the camera. It is not my priority when I arrive on the set. I prefer to work with the actors first, as if I were making a stage play, and then I figure out a way to shoot it with the camera. I approach it as though I were making a documentary of what I rehearsed with the actors. Of course, some scenes are purely visual, and in that case I start with the camera. But most of the time, my main concern remains the dramatic essence of the scene, and I don’t want anything to interfere with that.

 

One film, one lens

The more films I make, the more minimalist my approach becomes, to the point where I sometimes shoot an entire film with the same lens—in the case of eXistenZ, a 27-millimeter lens. I have a desire to be both direct and simple, like Robert Bresson when he started shooting everything with a 50-millimeter lens. That’s the complete opposite of a Brian De Palma, for instance, who is always looking for a greater visual complexity, always trying to manipulate the image a little more. I’m not criticizing what he does—in fact, I completely understand it on an intellectual level. He just has a different approach, that’s all. One tool I never use is the zoom lens because it doesn’t correspond to my idea of filmmaking. The zoom is just an optical gadget; it’s purely practical. And I will always prefer moving the camera, because I find that it physically projects you inside the film’s space. And zooming doesn’t achieve that. It keeps you outside.

 

Actors have their own reality

Most directors today come from a visual background, and so, when they make their first film, their biggest fear tends to be working with actors, the same way some directors used to come from the stage and were terrified at the idea of working with a camera. As for directors who come from writing, like me, well, that’s even worse: they are used to working alone in a room, and now they have to deal with all that chaos! In any case, when it comes to working with actors, I think the main thing is to understand that the reality of an actor is different from that of a director. At the beginning, I saw actors as enemies because I felt they didn’t understand the pressure I was under. I was worried about trying to make the film in time and within budget, and all they seemed to be worried about was their hair, their make-up, and their costume.

These things seemed totally trivial to me, of course. But in time, I understood I was wrong. These are their tools, and they’re as important to them as the camera and the lights are to me. For a director, it’s all about the film. But for an actor, it’s all about the character. So they’re not quite on the same wavelength, they’re not quite in the same reality, but if the actors and the director communicate, they can move in the same direction together. Most young directors will try to bypass that problem by lying to the actors. I know this can happen—I’ve done it. But in time, I’ve come to realize that if you’re honest, actors will not be happy to help you solve your problems—they will make a point of it. Unless, of course, you run into crazy or out-of-control actors. I can tell you from personal experience, there are some. And in that case, all you can really do is pray.

 

I don’t want to know why I make films

There is a scene in eXistenZ where Jennifer Jason Leigh says, “You have to play the game to know what the game is about.” Clearly, that is how I regard filmmaking. I will never be able to explain what draws me toward a particular project, and it is only by making the film that I can understand why I’m making it, and why I’m making it that way. Most of my films are therefore a complete surprise when I see them finished. And this is not something that bothers me. In fact, it’s something I look forward to. Some directors say that they have a very concrete vision of the film in their head before they make it, that if they projected the film they had in their mind it would be a ninety percent match with the actual finished product. I don’t see how that could be, because there are too many small changes that occur, day after day, when you’re making a film.

Little changes that eventually add up to make a big difference from what you originally had in mind. I know that Alfred Hitchcock claimed he was able to previsualize his films shot by shot. But I don’t believe him. I think it was just his oversized ego talking. I think the most important thing is to be able to know, intuitively, that the decisions you’re taking are the right ones, without trying to explain them rationally—at least not while you’re making the film. You’ll have plenty of time to analyze it once the film is finished. In fact, if what Hitchcock said was true, then I almost pity him. Because can you imagine spending one year of your life working on a film that you’ve already seen in your head? That would be the most boring thing!

 
Documentary about the career of director David Cronenberg, with clips from his films and interviews with friends, colleagues, film critics and Cronenberg himself.

 
Cronenberg on Cronenberg. He’s given an interview in which he looks back on his major features over the course of 90 minutes.

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of David Cronenberg’s The Fly. Photographed by Attila Dory © SLM Production Group, Brooksfilms, Twentieth Century Fox. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
We’re running out of money and patience with being underfunded. 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 ‘DOES THIS LOOK LIKE A SICK MAN TO YOU?’: The Horror of Identity and the Identity of Horror in David Cronenberg’s ‘The Fly’ appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

Play for Play: How The Color of Money’s ‘One For Them’ Assignment Reignited Martin Scorsese’s Hunger for the Work

$
0
0

 

By Tim Pelan
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!” —Martin Scorsese

 
The Color of Money (1986) is another film, like The King of Comedy and Raging Bull, where director Martin Scorsese had to be flattered, cajoled, coerced into taking it on by a leading man with a taste for the material. In this case, star Paul Newman was keen to revisit his character from The Hustler, pool shark Fast Eddie Felson, twenty-five years on, a little older, kidding himself he’s a little wiser, still with that hunger in his belly for the snap of the cue and the thunder of the break. Newman was a huge fan of Raging Bull and thought the director could bring that same kinetic energy to the pool hall backrooms and big TV tournaments Eddie and protege Vincent Lauria (Tom Cruise) graduate to. He wrote Scorsese a flattering letter suggesting he could do something with the 1984 sequel novel by The Hustler author Walter Tevis. It worked, even though it was seen as a “one for them” Scorsese film (“Play for play,” In Vincent’s easy-going love of the game manner), garnering Newman a long-delayed Oscar in the leading man category in a film critics were nevertheless a little lukewarm on. Siskel and Ebert in their TV show laid the blame, perhaps unfairly, squarely on the script by novelist Richard Price, with “predictable” tropes of the old pro and the problematic protege. Tevis had taken a stab at it himself originally, but amongst other things Newman wasn’t keen on the original take on Eddie’s career path. When he wasn’t playing comeback classic tournament matches alongside his old rival Minnesota Fats (played in the 1961 Robert Rossen film by Jackie Gleason) he had a lame job selling furs, as aI recall—in the final film Eddie is a traveling salesman, selling premium bourbon to bars, the better to scope raw talent he can stake in the newly fashionable nine ball style. Price would work on a scene, give it to Scorsese, who would read it and give him notes. Price would take those notes and chisel away at the scene, then give it to Newman, who would come up with his own take. Newman would sometimes tell the others, “Guys, I think we’re missing an opportunity here.” “The minute I heard that I would groan, ‘Oh, no, here we go again,’” Price told Myra Forsberg for The New York Times.

Just like with Robert De Niro on Raging Bull, Scorsese sequestered himself somewhere sunny with his collaborators. “We were in Malibu—me and Marty Scorsese—the two New York guys on the beach. Marty’s sitting there with his jacket and his nasal spray and I was smoking a cigarette, hunched over coughing. And then Newman comes out, all tanned up, Mr. Sea & Ski, eating a grapefruit. It was the two New York clowns with the Hollywood platinum.” The film was shot in a tight 49 days after the triumvirate continued to hammer out their strategy, just like Eddie and his travelling circus of Vincent and girlfriend/muse Carmen (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) “in brainstorming sessions held in New York restaurants, apartments and offices. “We not only went over every word,” Mr. Price recalls. “We went over every punctuation mark.”

 
Scorsese was a huge fan of Newman’s anyway, which softened his natural disinclination to film a sequel of another director’s work (video essayist Scout Tafoya has an interesting take on this–see later). He felt their new take could almost work as a stand-alone piece, with little need to be familiar with the earlier work (Minnesota Fats’ part got gradually sidelined more and more, until Gleason respectfully declined to take part, feeling Fats was now “an afterthought”). Besides, thought Scorsese, “the characters in my own films seemed to have an affinity with Eddie. Characters like Eddie are always creating dramatic situations where they’re confronted with choices—and sometimes the choices will set them back morally and sometimes they set them ahead morally. And that fascinates me.” Price also seemed a good fit to work with Scorsese, as many reviews of his novel The Wanderers, about Italian-American street gangs in the Little Italy of 1960s New York, cited a Scorsese-type feel. Scorsese’s opening narration over cigarette smoke and pool chalk harkens back to that of Mean Streets and illuminates all the novice needs to know (the rest is bullshit, and you know it):

“Nine-ball is rotation pool. The balls are pocketed in numbered order. The only ball that means anything, that wins it, is the 9. The player can shoot eight trick shots in a row, blow the 9 and lose. On the other hand, the player can get the 9 in on the break, if the balls spread right, and win. Which is to say that luck plays a part in 9-ball. But for some players, luck itself is an art.”

What is interesting looking back (we all remember the cocky moves of Cruise in this) is how so much talk at the time was about Newman’s veteran appeal. Cruise as Vincent is magnetic, but back when the film was being cast and made, he wasn’t a star. Newman had met him a few years earlier, after seeing his hard wired performance in military academy drama Taps (1981), and liked what he saw, calling him “Killer”. Top Gun had only opened in May 1986, a few months earlier than The Color of Money‘s release. Cruise as ever blossoms with a mature co-star, more than holding his own, but got zip for his trouble—Mastrantonio picked up a nomination for supporting actress.

 
20th Century Fox were keen on the material but didn’t want either Newman or Cruise. Madness. Columbia also passed, until Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg at Touchstone/Disney hit the greenlight with Newman naturally filling the shoes of a character he knew well, and chosen co-star Cruise secured. The film had a strict $14.5 million budget—if the movie broached that, Newman and Scorsese would be responsible for making up the difference, and so put one-third of their respective salaries at risk to secure the deal. They ended up finishing the shoot one day early and $1.5 million under budget.

Price believed that “Newman loves playing the antihero. Like a combination of all the H’s—‘Hustler,’ ‘Hud,’ ‘Hombre,’ ‘Harper.’ He likes playing the Outrider, but the Outrider that you just can’t bring yourself to hate. He was looking for redeemable factors to come in a little earlier. He just didn’t like the guy. So we had to find out what was turning him on about the character after 25 years. You see, Marty and I like mean things—the meaner the better because the greater the shaft of light in the end. And while Newman wanted to explore aging—the fear of losing it—he just thought the character was too hard.” Newman’s an Alpha Male who isn’t afraid to play vulnerable. After taking Vincent and Carmen on the road for a while Eddie gets a taste for the green baize himself, and falls into playing with the personable Amos (a young Forest Whitaker), a hustler who laughingly fumbles his plays until he takes Eddie’s money and his pride. Humbled, he chokes putting on his jacket and sniffles about how could he be suckered so much?

Eddie’s a hustler “who’s afraid to play the game,” Scorsese said. “The kid plays the game purely for the poetry of it. He doesn’t understand anything about money, the manipulation of people, cheating.” “You gotta have two things to win,” Eddie tells Vincent. “You gotta have brains and you gotta have balls. Now, you got too much of one and not enough of the other.” Between him and Carmen, the kid is honed. “We got a racehorse here,” Eddie tells her, “a thoroughbred. You make him feel good, I teach him how to run.” Eddie shows them how to successfully work a pool hall for money, trying his best to make Vincent screw down his natural show-off talent, working their way up to a major nine-ball tournament in Atlantic City. Price believed that Eddie has become without realising it, “the thing he hated the most—the George C. Scott character in the original. He had become a stakehorse, a man who backs young pool players. We worked from the premise of what happens to a man when you take away his art—whether it’s pool playing, writing, directing or acting.” He gradually wants to feel a cue in his hands again, to make the big money himself. Watching Vincent, he confesses to his bartender girlfriend Janelle (Helen Shaver), “was like watchin’ home movies.”

 
Vincent is at first too seemingly pure and green. Hungry yes, but not street smart. The threesome enter a pool hall in search of prey. “You smell that?” Eddie asks. “Smoke?” queries Vincent. “Money,” Carmen eye rolls. She’s a hardened player too though, trying to manipulate Eddie. She actually met Vincent after taking part in a burglary of his parents’ house. Feeling Eddie is putting too much of a stranglehold on Vincent’s natural talent (the real trick to winning long term here is losing) and holding back on the money, she attempts to use her sexuality on him, inviting Eddie into her and Vincent’s room, knowing full well Vincent is away, wearing nothing but a loose fitting shirt and some panties, curling away from Eddie on the bed. Eddie susses her out immediately, slamming her against the wall. “I’m not your daddy and I’m not your boyfriend, so don’t be playing games with me. I’m your partner.”

Roger Ebert said he switched off at the whiplash editing by Thelma Schoonmaker of multiple close-up shots of balls clattering across the tables by DoP Michael Ballhaus, but to me the lipstick camera lunges of the cues in close-up and wider shots of actors making their own laser guided shots are electrifying and character revealing, including Newman’s reflection in the ball as he prepares to break.

Both Newman and Cruise were naturals—in this Russell Harty interview for Film 87, Newman deadpans the kid was nearly as good as him: “Cruise was fantastic, never had a pool cue in his hands, and he was as good, if not better than I was, in five weeks.” This, of course, was advantageous for Scorsese, who can keep them in frame with their trick shots and racking up of balls in long, unbroken takes. Cruise’s Vincent relishes being unleashed with Eddie’s treasured Balabushka cue—Dan Janes of Joss Cues made an effective mock-up to serve as this rare and expensive Excalibur to the once and future king of the hustle. “What’s in here?” he grins. “Doom.”

 
In the 1991 book Martin Scorsese: A Journey, the director reflects that The Color of Money was the first time he worked with a movie star, qualifying that, “a movie star is a person I saw when I was ten or eleven on a big screen. With De Niro and the other guys, it was a different thing. We were friends. We kind of grew together creatively… But with Paul, I would go in and I’d see a thousand different movies in his face, images I had seen on that big screen when I was twelve years old. It makes an impression.” So as Flavorwire states, he “frames Newman like a movie star, bigger than life, acknowledging those thousand movies, and he never misses an opportunity to look at that face in one of those big-screen compositions. The best comes near the end, the camera slowly circling Newman, tracking in front of him as he glances around a giant room, lost in distraction because he’s just found out he’s been had.” Eddie and Vincent had faced off and the younger man lost—on purpose, and has delivered Eddie his cut of the winning bet. Disgruntled, Eddie sees himself reflected in the cue ball, taken for a sap again. He forfeits and faces off against Vincent for another game, just them, pride at stake.

Scorsese was some way from his glory days here. The King of Comedy was a maligned dud, After Hours barely registered. Tafoya (whose video essay you can see here) believes that “Rossen was another of Scorsese’s problematic absent father figures… Scorsese stepping into his shoes strikes me as an act of empathy and curiosity, the kind for which he’s become famous. The Color of Money perhaps necessarily takes as its subject an old man who barely practices the craft that made him a legend. What would it take to get back into it? Scorsese’s there, symbolically: the young guy who doesn’t know what it feels like to have that much mileage on your soul, despite the stack of crushing defeats to his name. That was just money. [Elia] Kazan and Rossen lost more than that. The Color of Money is about re-discovering the hunger to work, about being too tired to look over your shoulder at the potential you left behind years ago. Scorsese’s at the absolute height of his powers here because no one expected him to make a film as good as The Hustler or even Taxi Driver. He showed up and made one of his most endearing works and nobody seemed to notice.”

“Eddie, what are you gonna do when I kick your ass?” Vincent taunts. “Pick myself up and let you kick me again.” Eddie lets him know he’s gonna chase him through every tournament until he wins—“Just don’t put the money in the bank, kid.” “Oh yeah? What makes you so sure?” Vincent asks. Eddie stares him down for a beat then bends to break, grinning before the freeze frame, “Hey—I’m back.”

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 »

 
Richard Price is the acclaimed author of numerous novels and screenplays. His books include Clockers (1992), Lush Life (2008), and, under the pseudonym Harry Brandt, Whites (2015). He has written many film and television scripts, including The Color of Money (1986), Clockers (1995), The Wire (2002), Freedomland (2006), and the Emmy Award-nominated 8-part HBO series The Night Of (2016). —Richard Price in conversation with Claire Messud

Screenwriter must-read: Richard Price’s screenplay for The Color of Money [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.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 
This article by Peter Biskind and Susan Linfield, Chalk Talk, originally appeared in American Film, November 1986.

How come Marty Scorsese is making a sequel?
Martin Scorsese: It’s not a sequel. Let me give the rundown. I was in London for about a week in September of 1984, after the shooting of After Hours. Paul Newman called me while I was there and asked if I’d be interested in this project. When I first spoke to Newman on the phone, he said, “Eddie Felson.” I said, “I love that character.” He said, “Eddie Felson reminds me of the characters that you’ve dealt with in your pictures. And I thought more ought to be heard from him.” I asked, “Who’s involved?” He said, “Just you and me.” I said, “Okay, what have you got?” He said, “I’ve got a script.” So he sent it to me and the next day I read it. I had a lot of reservations about it. I felt that it was a literal sequel: There were even a few minutes of film inserted in it from the first picture. It had its own merits, but it certainly wasn’t the kind of thing I wanted to do. And so I made an appointment to see Newman when I got to New York. Now, I know that he’s not afraid to play people who are not necessarily “nice.” Many characters in my pictures are also what we would call unsympathetic. So, I like the guy and he likes me and we respect each other’s work—maybe we can find a common ground. And this character of Eddie Felson is the only common ground that we have. And, of course, Fast Eddie lives and thrives in my favorite places, which are bars and pool rooms. But I have to ask myself: Can I, from my generation of filmmakers, work with somebody from his generation? I’ve admired and appreciated the guy since I was twelve years old and in a movie theater. But can this happen? At about the same time, I found out that there had been a book called The Color of Money by Walter Tevis, who wrote The Hustler. I read the book, but I didn’t really think it had anything in it in terms of a film, either. So I thought: Let’s drop the book, just keep the title. I asked Richard if he would get involved in it. It was totally starting from scratch.

Richard Price: To write the script, I spent a lot of time traveling with pool hustlers. If I’m doing a movie about pool hustlers, and if pool hustlers are sitting in the audience opening night, I don’t want anybody getting up in disgust. I don’t want anybody saying, “This is bullshit.” I want people to say, “This is true.” As true as drama and fiction can be true. The nature of pool is such that on one night, if there’s a $7,500 pot, sixty of the one hundred top pool hustlers in the nation will be under this tin roof. You can go and say, “Hey, I’m doing a movie,” and they’re all your friends, they all want to show you the inside, because they’re all dreamers in a way. They all knew The Color of Money, the book, and they all knew the movie The Hustler because that was a romanticized version of their lives. You can be like one of those guys in a red vest playing in the lobby of the Roosevelt Hotel and writing little pamphlets on trick shots, too, but you know, pool is really just hustlers. It’s kids in Members Only clothing with those sort of long, outdated hairdos and those marshmallow shoes.

What’s the thrust of the script?
MS: I felt that Eddie Felson was a very strong guy. I thought if something that bad happened to him in the first film, he would get stronger. He says, “You want to see bad, I’ll show you bad.” In twenty-five years he’s become a sharpie and a hustler of a different type. He doesn’t play pool anymore; he doesn’t have the guts to do that. But he sees young talent, takes it, and makes money with it. He takes this young kid under his wing and corrupts him. And then somewhere along the road, in the education process, he reeducates himself and decides to play again. It’s about a man who changes his mind at the age of fifty-two. The first time I met Paul Newman, I asked him why this guy would start playing pool again at fifty-two. I asked Paul, “Why do you race if you don’t win every time?” There is really no answer. We looked at each other for a while and I said, “That’s the picture.”

There’s no ethnic material in this script. But both of you have frequently dealt with Italians and Jews.
RP: This is more urban stuff than ethnic stuff. But I feel like everybody’s a Jew in the world.
MS: I feel everybody’s Italian.
RP: But all Italians are Jews.

How did the three of you work together?
MS: In writing sessions, it was the three of us constantly reworking, constantly coming up with and batting ideas back and forth. Eventually, the writing sessions took on the aspect of rehearsals. So by the time we did the picture, I’d already had two weeks of rehearsal—it was the most preplanned film I had ever made. This was also the way that I’ve worked with Bob De Niro. We’d get something we’d be interested in—maybe he’d be interested first, or I’d be—and we’d get together and see if both of us could find ourselves in it. And then we’d get a writer. It always comes down to whether I can see myself in the film, if I can express myself in it through the mouthpiece—in this case, through the persona of the Paul Newman character. And could Paul express himself in it.
RP: I know this: If these guys had left me alone to write what I wanted (because I’m a novelist and all that), it would not have been as good a screenplay by any stretch of the imagination. I’ll be the first to admit that. It would have been different, and it would have had its merits, but in terms of the requirements of the film, it would never have been as good.
MS: Remarkable meetings.
RP: Four o’clock. “Why does this guy have to play pool, anyhow?” Paul says, “Guys, I don’t know, I have to go race, so I’ll see you in about a million years.” He’d come back with a big steel bowl of popcorn.
MS: I gained seven pounds.
RP: That’s because you put butter on it. I learned a lot about writing dialogue from working with Marty and Paul. I’ve always taken pride in writing these great lines, but it was literary dialogue, an urban literary dialogue. An Elmore Leonard line or a George Higgins line looks great on the page, but when somebody is saying it, you feel like you have to stand up and say, “Author! Author! Perfect ear!” It sounds like a David Mamet thing. You just look at each other and go, “Wow, that is really true dialogue.” And everybody is at the mercy of the dialogue because the dialogue is so, like, perfect. So, they sort of decalibrated my dialogue. I didn’t go for the razor every three lines. It’s like, instead of acres of diamonds, let’s just make it a tomato box of diamonds.
MS: How about one diamond? I’d say, “It sounds like it’s written.” Very blunt. Paul would say, “It sounds like a bon mot.”
RP: A what?
MS: It means it’s written. Sounds like a play.
RP: Now my problem, frankly, is going back to a book. Because I had to unlearn a whole lot of novelistic stuff to do a screenplay. I’ve got to go back to baseball from softball, which I’m playing now. For example, I don’t know how to write a sentence more than five words long.
MS: Working with me—any word longer than two syllables is no good!

RP: It’s not just from you, but it’s the momentum, the pace. I feel like I’m Leroy Neiman and there’s a camera over me and I’m doing a quick sketch of horses neck and neck. I can’t go into depths of character, because everything has to play out one-dimensionally on the screen. There’s no internals. You can’t stop and sniff the roses; you’re playing beat the clock. My pacing is all off. My thought processes are jacked up too high. I’ve got to go back to a slow pace and think: Now, what do I really want to say? The other phrase of Newman’s that was great was when I would have an idea, but it was sort of unformed and obscure and it existed exclusively in my mind. Newman would say, “I don’t understand, what’s going on here?” And I’d explain and he’d say, “Well, let’s call that our delicious little secret.”
MS: The audience will never know!
RP: But the killer was, I’d go into meetings and my hands are shaking, and Newman’s looking at the script, and I think it’s like the Koran, it’s so perfect. And he goes, “Guys,” going dot dot dot—and I was looking at Marty and Marty’s looking at me, and he’s like my mother saying, “Didn’t I say you’re gonna get a beating?”—and then the rest of Newman’s dreaded sentence would come: “I think we’re missing an opportunity here.”
MS: When a guy says something like, “I think we’re missing an opportunity here,” our reaction is: Let’s hear what he has to say. What opportunity? We think we hit on them. But what do you think we missed—because if you think we missed, for example, the opportunity that the character could be in a Nazi uniform or blackface or something, then we are talking totally wrong. But usually he was right.
RP: I remember the moment in Connecticut when I realized that the picture was going to really get done. Newman turned to Marty and said, “Are you good at holding actors’ hands?” And he said, “Oh, yeah, excellent, excellent.” Newman goes, “Let’s do it.” I’m thinking: Shit, man, we’ve been doing this for six months; what do you mean, “Let’s do it”? Oh, you mean we were just playing at doing it?
MS: How many times do I have to tell you that? I had just come off The Last Temptation of Christ, man. That’s why I kept telling you over the phone, “Don’t tell people. Don’t say anything.”
RP: Is it still too soon?
MS: It hasn’t been released yet! It still has to be released! He’s walking around saying, “We’re making the picture.” I’d say, “Shut up, you jerk, we’re not making anything.” First Fox decided not to do it. It’s not the kind of picture Fox does. Then began the long problem of going from Fox to Columbia. Even with Tom Cruise involved as the kid, it was still difficult to get a “go” on the picture.

I thought Paul Newman was one of those automatic “yeses.”
MS: I don’t know. I think in a case like this, given the kind of film that it is, even with Newman and Cruise—it’s not what the studios need. We are now talking about censorship in America, which is worse than the blacklist, and the kind of difficulties certain unique sensibilities have. We now have to do it with a lot of style, and very cheap, in order to get projects done. There’s no guarantee of anything in this business any more unless it’s a big epic—invading cannibals.
RP: I Eat Cannibals Who Massacre Zombies.
MS: Then Columbia decided not to do it. And Katzenberg and Eisner at Disney grabbed it.

Did Disney bother you?
RP: They were great. I’d do a pornographic movie with them. Bambi Does Dallas.
MS: Portions of Paul Newman’s and my salary had to be put up as insurance against going over budget.

It’s incredible that people like you and Newman had to put up part of your salaries.
MS: I don’t know. The kind of picture I make is sort of in the margin at this point.
RP: What’s the median age of the moviegoer now?
MS: Two. They’re kids.
RP: Two of them added up together make two. Who goes to the movies? Didn’t they say that 90 percent of the audience would not have seen The Hustler?
MS: It is a crime what’s happening in the American industry. If the situation is not totally bleak, it’s news to me. I just lock into certain projects. Hopefully, I can still get The Last Temptation of Christ made someday, but it won’t be in this country, and it won’t be financed by this country. At all. Forget it. That film has nothing to do with the American industry. I mean, I love Spielberg pictures. You have those wonderful little kids. But I don’t think everyone should have to make them.
RP: It’s true. Now you’ve got all of these prepubescents. It’s not even the Brat Pack. It’s the Wet Pack.
MS: I did a half-hour TV show with Spielberg called “Mirror, Mirror” although the network neglected to tell anyone it was on. But I can’t imagine directing one of those special effects… talk to the blue screen!
RP: Since Color of Money, I’ve turned down fifty projects. Basically, it feels like people sit down and say, “All right, what’s the trend now? What’s hot? We have to get somebody to capitalize on this trend.” There’s not even anything like generic caper movies any more. It’s all tailored to, well, there’s a kid with two heads, and we’ll use this girl who’s got no arms at all, and it’s wacky and her father’s having a sex change, and it’s really wild.

Richard, did you do the scripts for the movies of Bloodbrothers and The Wanderers?
RP: No, I wouldn’t go near them because I didn’t want anybody telling me what to do on my own book, which is the nature of the game. The best thing is just to take the check; let them make a bad movie rather than no movie. But I’ve always loved movies. And I always knew that because two of my books were made into movies, I could write scripts if I wanted to. And I knew I wanted to eventually.
MS: That’s why I worry about you, Richard. You’ve got this whole thing about writing scripts. Here you are, you’re a novelist, you actually have this gift—you can sit down with a blank piece of paper and somehow the words come out and you have total control over it. And you want to be a screenwriter!
RP: Well, my last book was a very tough project—it was like giving birth to a cow—and I’d just had it for a while, and I wanted to have fun.
MS: I can’t believe you said that.
RP: I got tired of the loneliness. I wanted some group interaction. When you get out to Hollywood, everybody starts stroking you because you’re a novelist and they’re kind of in awe of people who can really write. You get hooked on the contact, the phone calls, the plane tickets, the meetings. It beats work. Then there is the fact that you make about one-tenth the money when you’re writing novels. Once you’re making screenwriter money, it’s very hard to voluntarily cut your income by 90 percent. That’s a bitch for anybody. Your life changes. I bought a loft in SoHo, my wife is pregnant. (I got fertile.) But Marty says to me, “Hold on to writing novels.”
MS: Yeah. You gotta prepare yourself for cutting the lifestyle. You have to get used to the moments when you don’t have the money. The only thing you have to rely on is yourself and your own talent. Don’t get sucked into all that nonsense. Don’t get used to the planes and the meetings and everything else. People are told they’ll have four campers with three telephones in each. But that’s not necessarily what’s important in making a movie. It’s not important to make it bigger and with more money. It’s important to remain true inside yourself and keep your own thinking straight. That’s going to show up on film.

 
Paul Newman talks to Brian Baxter on The Color of Money, Films and Filming, March 1987.



 
A few weeks before winning his first Oscar for the role of Fast Eddie Felson in Martin Scorsese’s The Color of Money, Paul Newman was interviewed by Russell Harty for the British film programme Film 87.

 

MICHAEL BALLHAUS, ASC

“When Last Temptation was cancelled, I had to rethink who I was and the kinds of films I wanted to make,” the director told American Cinematographer. “I’d gotten myself in a slower frame of mind, where I felt encumbered by bigger productions. I started planning to do a smaller film again, an independent film, and the experience I had working with Michael was a sort of rebirth for me. On After Hours, we had the chance to see if we could make a film with the energy level I had when I did Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore or Taxi Driver. The great thing about Michael on that film was that he was so enthusiastic about my shot designs. He was very, very helpful in getting exactly what I wanted. We had a lot of fun figuring out what type of lens to use, how fast or slow to move the camera and in what direction. It was like rediscovering how to make movies—together. He really gave me back my faith in myself about how to make films.”

That sense of renewed enthusiasm is also apparent in the duo’s second collaboration, The Color of Money (1986; see AC Nov. ’86), which Ballhaus ranks among his favorite projects. The dynamic, fast-paced sequel to The Hustler allowed the cinematographer to create some extremely flashy shots on, above and around pool tables—including a dazzling array of his beloved circular and semi-circular dolly shots. Working in real Chicago poolrooms, Ballhaus lit the games primarily with low-hanging fluorescent light banks that allowed him create a moody, dramatic ambience. “I lit the movie the way these pool halls were lit. I illuminated the tables’ felt surfaces, letting the areas beyond the tables fall off into darkness.” Scorsese credited Ballhaus—and stars Paul Newman and Tom Cruise, who became deft with their pool cues—for helping to make some of the show’s trick shots look easy: “Sometimes I’d think it was going to take 17 or 18 takes to get a ball to go into a certain hole, but then we’d nail it in two takes!” —American Society of Cinematographers

 

THELMA SCHOONMAKER

“Sometimes you just have to give in to the system. Scorsese comfortably admits that he made at least two movies for calculated business reasons: The Color of Money, in 1986, and Cape Fear in 1991. The early ’80s were difficult for Scorsese. ‘For a long time,’ says Schoonmaker, ‘our films were not recognized and did not make money—which was a serious problem.’ As much as critics now admire Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and even The King of Comedy, none of those movies ignited the box office. The Last Temptation of Christ had been ginned up in 1983, but six weeks before production was to begin, the studio pulled the plug. Scorsese’s follow-up to The King of Comedy was After Hours, a quirky comedy starring Griffin Dunne. The film was shot on budget and on time over 40 nights in SoHo and did fairly well as a low-budget film. But none of that mattered. ‘They saw me as outside Hollywood,’ Scorsese remembers. ‘You’re gone, you’re in independent cinema now, on the outside from now on.’ Enter The Color of Money. Paul Newman was interested in doing a sequel to The Hustler, the 1961 movie he had starred in with Jackie Gleason. Scorsese abhorred the idea of doing a sequel to anything but says he was intrigued by the character of Eddie Felson: ‘Again, it was a guy who took too many risks, overstepped the line, didn’t understand his own self-destruction, and didn’t catch on until it was too late.’ So he took the job, as a way of proving to Hollywood that he could make a box-office winner. ‘It was a calculated business move. I needed the new studio heads to think they could give me another chance, finance me again.’ Color hit at the box office, and Paul Newman took home the Oscar for best actor. As a result, at least the way Scorsese tells the story, he won the right to finally make his passion project, The Last Temptation. But the tortured production drained Scorsese financially. ‘I was never interested in the accumulation of money, you know. And I never had a mind for business,’ he explains. ‘There have been serious issues with money over the years. I have a nice house now, in New York. But there have been major, major issues. In the mid-’80s it was pathetic, I mean, my father would help me out. I couldn’t go out, I couldn’t buy anything. But it’s all my own doing.’” —Martin Scorsese on vision in Hollywood

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of Martin Scorsese’s The Color of Money. Photographed by Ron Phillips © Touchstone Pictures, Silver Screen Partners II. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
We’re running out of money and patience with being underfunded. 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 donate directly below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post Play for Play: How The Color of Money’s ‘One For Them’ Assignment Reignited Martin Scorsese’s Hunger for the Work appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

‘A History of Violence’: David Cronenberg’s Superb Study of the Basic Impulses that Drive Humanity

$
0
0

 

By Sven Mikulec

The master of the specific subgenre called body horror and the man who put out such classics as Dead Ringers and Videodrome, the Canadian filmmaker David Cronenberg seemingly stepped out of his (dis)comfort zone and delivered one of the best movies of the first decade of this century when he made the film cleverly and multilayeredly called A History of Violence. This 2005 crime thriller first appeared at the Cannes Film Festival, where it contended for the prestigious Palme d’Or, and when a couple of months later it premiered in the United States, it was almost universally hailed as a brilliant and deeply thought-out work of art. The film was based on John Wagner and Vince Locke’s 1997 graphic novel of the same name, and it presented a story of a reinvented family man struggling and causing a lot of pain and confusion to his loved ones once faced with the past he thought he managed to fully escape. A History of Violence was a moderate commercial hit, doubling its budget at the box office, but the critics loved it even more, with Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers calling it a film with “explosive power and subversive wit” made by a “world-class director at the top of his startlingly creative form,” and Roger Ebert praising its complexity hiding behind a superficial simplicity. Deserved recognition also came from the institutions, as screenwriter Josh Olson received an Academy Award nomination, just like William Hurt did for his supporting role. In our humble opinion, what David Cronenberg’s film succeeded at doing was deliver a hauntingly deep and authentic portrayal of the nature of man disguised in the form of an exciting and enticing thriller painted with the distinct colors of Americana and the Western genre. Despite the fact it’s an American film created on the postulates of the purely American genre, the message it brilliantly conveys is nothing but universal, equally uncomfortable and thought-provoking for all audiences. From a filmmaker of such pedigree and competence, and led by one of the greatest actors of today, Viggo Mortensen, we could say we expected nothing short of what was ultimately delivered.

Tom Stall is a kind and gentle small diner owner in a tiny town in Indiana. A loving husband and father of two, he gets his life turned upside down when he confronts and kills two criminals robbing his diner and threatening his employees. He immediately becomes the talk of the town, hailed by all as a real American hero. The undesired popularity and media exposure, however, brings unwanted attention from the East Coast, as a mob big shot and his henchmen soon arrive claiming Tom is actually Joey, a criminal from Philadelphia who left the mob around two decades ago and tried to secure a completely new life for himself. Tom resolutely states the newcomers are mistaken, but as their relentless hostile presence grows more difficult to ignore, the loving husband and father of two will have to face up to the darkness of his past, much to the shock of his post-criminal career family.

The iconic American mythology was very interesting to me. I haven’t set a movie in America since ‘The Dead Zone.’ It’s not like I have a message to the world. When it came to the depiction of violence, it was where did the characters learn their violence? And what was violence to those characters, but my idea of what I think violence should be. Violence is innate in humans; we are that strange creature that can form abstract concepts, so we can conceive of non-violence. There are people who think that a world full of peace would be boring and would lead to a loss of creativity. That’s an interesting, perverse argument that might some truth in it. —David Cronenberg

The complexity of Cronenberg’s A History of Violence can be foreshadowed by a quick and simple analysis of the film’s very title. Do these puzzling words refer to Tom Stall’s past that finally comes to bite him in the ass? Or is the title pointed, perhaps, at the history of the United States? And if it is, why stop at this particular country, when violence has been an integral part of any nation’s existence, when violence is an unavoidable, if unpleasant, aspect of the very nature of human beings? A History of Violence is a broad enough term to be applied to everything at once. “You could say that the title is applied to the character having a history of violence, but also to the history of America,” Cronenberg explained at one point. “I don’t think there is any country that doesn’t have a history of violence.” His main star, however, went further. “On the press tour, we’d get into a lot of debates with the press because they would focus on it being the story of America. I’d tell them they were trying to get themselves off the hook. It’s a very human story about alienation. Yes, it’s very Americana, but the details are what make a story universal,” said Mortensen. However, it’s easy to see what made people deduce Tom’s story was connected to the country the narrative was taking place. After all, the image and power of the concept of reinvention are somehow firmly tied to the American identity.

The film might start out as a drama set in a clichéd little place in the heart of the United States, but in a little while it sets down a completely different path regarding its tone, atmosphere and motifs. What still stands out in our memory is the way Cronenberg portrayed all the action scenes: without a trace of idolizing, without a drop of fetishizing, violence is shown as close, personal, physically devastating. “I didn’t want to use slow motion, not have it be cinematic, but as real as possible. There are many approaches to violence in cinema. This one is not that often used,” the filmmaker said. When a journalist commented the action scenes were beautifully choreographed, Cronenberg strongly disagreed. “They weren’t choreographed at all. It’s very brutal and it’s very accurate and very realistic. I found some DVDs teaching you basically how to kill with your hands and now I can do that.” Violence is depicted as an inescapable part of the human nature, as the whole narrative somehow cloaks itself in Darwinian robes: the main character will do whatever it takes to survive, and he’ll succeed in it only if he’s more capable (that is, more fit) than his adversaries.

Are we all, without realising it, taking part in a vast witness protection programme? Did we observe, at some time in the distant past, a deeply disturbing event in which we were closely implicated? Were we then assigned new identities, new personalities, fears and dreams so convincing that we have forgotten who we really are? These questions crowded my head as I watched ‘A History of Violence,’ a film as brilliant and provocative as anything David Cronenberg has directed. All Cronenberg’s films make us edge back into our seats, gripped by the story unfolding on the screen but aware that something unpleasant is going on in the seats around us. All Cronenberg’s films, up to and including ‘A History of Violence,’ are concerned with two questions: who are we, and what is the real nature of consciousness? Together, the films seem to parallel the growth of the mind from the womb onwards. Early films such as ‘Scanners’ and ‘The Dead Zone’ explore the blurred frontiers between mind and body, very much a new-born baby’s perception of reality. —J. G. Ballard

Directed by David Cronenberg (Scanners, Videodrome, The Fly, Naked Lunch, Crash), adapted from John Wagner and Vince Locke’s graphic novel by screenwriter Josh Olson, shot by the British cinematographer and Cronenberg’s favorite collaborator Peter Suschitzky, enhanced by the score of another Cronenberg’s career-long partner Howard Shore, A History of Violence is a gorgeous film with a dark heart and a message that’s impossible to shake. On the basic level, it’s an exciting combination of drama, action and the typically Western theme of a man with a dirty past fighting for a second chance in life, with terrific performances from Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris and William Hurt. If you scratch a bit deeper, it’s an intelligent study of the human condition and the basic impulses that drive us all. There are two pieces of trivia we should all be reminded of. According to the first one, Viggo Mortensen considered A History of Violence the pinnacle of his career. “If not the best, it is one of the best movies I’ve ever been in. There’s no such thing as a perfect movie, but in the way that the script was handled, the way it was shot… it’s a perfect film noir movie, or it’s close to perfect, I should say.” The other interesting bit tells us this was also the last major Hollywood picture to be released on VHS. Of course, this certainly won’t mean a lot to a whole lot of people, but it sure is nice to see that this whole special era of enjoying quality films ended in such a powerful, meaningful note.

With ‘History,’ I took John Wagner’s premise, title, and—god help me for using this phrase—“inciting incident,” and then leapt off and told my own story. The graphic novel was packed with story, it just wasn’t a story I wanted to tell. It’s a solid, smart and fun action thriller, but I was a lot more interested in getting into questions of identity. In the book, there’s never a moment’s doubt that the main character is the man the mob guys think he is. I felt like that was a missed opportunity. I thought it was a great chance to play with a classic “wrong man” scenario in which the wrong man is actually the right man. And that led me to start thinking about identity, and what it is that constitutes your “self.” Is Tom the guy they all say he is? Or is he the guy he’s made himself into? The freedom to stray from the material doesn’t necessarily come from the material, but from your own response to it. It also has something to do with the studio’s needs, as well. If you’re doing Harry Potter, there’s a billion fans that the studio’s trying to serve. If you fuck around with the fundamentals of the stories or the characters, you’re gonna be out of a job. But with something like ‘History,’ we were talking about a ten-year old graphic novel that had a very small print run. There wasn’t a market-driven imperative to be faithful to the material, and it wasn’t the enormous audience that compelled the studio to purchase the book. I found out when they hired me off my pitch that they’d had the same concerns with the book that I did, and had just been waiting for someone to come in and show them how to take it into a completely different direction. In the end, it’s gotta be a story you want to tell. I’ve written a lot of originals, but in the end, ‘History’ was one of the most personal scripts I’ve ever written. —Josh Olson

 
Screenwriter must-read: Josh Olson’s screenplay for A History of Violence [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. With many thanks to the brilliant Josh Olson.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

 
The following article first appeared in PopEntertainment, November 3, 2005, written by Brad Balfour, ‘David Cronenberg: A Director Looks At Violent America.’

Now transformed from a horror genre master (Rabid, The Brood, Scanners, Videodrome) to a full-blown, critically acclaimed and analyzed auteur, Toronto-based director David Cronenberg finally has made A History of Violence—the film that may be the Oscar-garnering capper of his career. With Cronenberg having done films with exploding heads, weird parasites entering various body parts, and babies growing in sacs on their mother’s stomach, this story of a simple small town cafe owner confronted with a criminal act that makes him a hero and changes his life, is downright restrained beyond belief. Yet the 62 year-old Cronenberg has crafted a timely meditation on the nature and effect of violence on a man and his family.

What did you really want this film to address?
The iconic American mythology was very interesting to me. I haven’t set a movie in America since The Dead Zone. It’s not like I have a message to the world. When it came to the depiction of violence, it was where did the characters learn their violence? And what was violence to those characters, but my idea of what I think violence should be. Violence is innate in humans; we are that strange creature that can form abstract concepts, so we can conceive of non-violence. There are people who think that a world full of peace would be boring and would lead to a loss of creativity. That’s an interesting, perverse argument that might some truth in it.

It’s in this film.
The fact that the audience finds the violence exhilarating and that the children find it attractive, even though they are repelled by the consequences, shows the conundrum we have with violence. So many people fear it, there’s so much money, energy, and government that are trying to avoid it at the same time that we outfit armies to go and commit it on other people—it’s very paradoxical and endlessly fascinating, yet it’s also very attractive which brings out the animal part of ourselves. Even the human, intellectual part of ourselves is also attracted to it. It’s not easy to lament that we are violent creatures because that is just too simplistic.

Even in the sex between Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello?
That’s right. People experienced in sex and honesty will admit that there’s a component of violence in sexuality—whether it’s subliminal or not. Radical feminists have said that any form of sex is rape. I know that they are extreme, but I know what they’re saying and there’s some truth in it. Even that which can be considered tender and intimate is, in a sense, a spatial violation. That’s what makes human sexuality so complex and reflective of every aspect of the human condition. That’s why I tend to have sex scenes in my movie; I am failing to really deliver the goods to myself and my audience in terms of looking everywhere for what’s really going on unless sexuality is in some way being examined. Especially in this movie, where there’s a couple who have been married for 20 years and has two children and the only sex scenes are between the couple. How could you really say you’ve done your scenes-from-a-marriage routine if you haven’t acknowledged their sexuality in a very specific way.

 
Yet there’s an optimism to this film.
The feeling is that, perhaps, for Edie (Bello), the Tom/Joey (Mortenson) hybrid is the full guy. Perhaps the marriage could even be a better marriage with the acknowledgment of that. Whether she can live with that or not is a whole other thing. With the sex scene on the stairs, there’s an attraction-repulsion thing happening. That’s another reason why I felt I had to have that scene. Despite the difficulty that people have with that scene, it is necessary to set up the possibility of hope in the ending.

How did you make your casting choices?
I gradually narrowed it down. After all, the movie cost $32 million, which means I had to have an actor of a certain stature for the studio to feel that they can sell the movie. It’s very straightforward. I didn’t need a big star like Tom Cruise, but I did need somebody who is recognizable and has fans already. Very few movies can be successful with unknown actors. Even for a two million dollar movie, the producers will want a recognizable name. That automatically limits you to a certain number of people. Then there’s the age that the characters must be, within a certain range. And he has to be somebody who can carry a movie as the leading man, but, for me, he has to be more of a character actor. He has to disappear into his role as well as be subtle, eccentric, charismatic, and real all at the same time. It’s a difficult thing to find. There’s the subtle other thing that is beyond articulation which is my sensibility in terms of actors. There are some actors who I can admire in terms of their acting ability and stardom, but no compulsion to work with them. I go for certain actors that are my kind of actors.

What about an actress like Maria Bello?
The same goes for actresses. Maria is a beautiful woman, but still not what somebody says is the “ice princess” model of Hollywood these days; she’s real. That means that she bring subtlety, complexity, and possibly the difficulty of her character. I want a real woman, but not an icon.

You’ve never been afraid to show the ugliness of violence.
I don’t know, I must be fearless, it seems. For me the first fact of human existence is the human body. I’m not an atheist, but for me to turn away from any aspect of the human body to me is a philosophical betrayal. And there’s a lot of art and religion whose whole purpose is to turn away from the human body. I feel in my art that my mandate is to not do that. So whether it’s beautiful things—the sexuality part, or the violent part or the gooey part—it’s just body fluids. It’s when Elliott in Dead Ringer says, “Why are there no beauty contests for the insides of bodies?” It’s a thought that disturbs me. How can we be disgusted by our own bodies? That really doesn’t make any human sense. It makes some animal sense but it doesn’t make human sense so I’m always discussing that in my movies and in this movie in particular. I don’t ever feel that I’ve been exploitive in a crude, vulgar way, or just doing it to get attention. It’s always got a purpose which I can be very articulate about. In this movie, we’ve got an audience that’s definitely going to applaud these acts of violence and they do because it’s set up that these acts are justifiable and almost heroic at times. But I’m saying, “Okay, if you can applaud that, can you applaud this?” because this is the result of that gunshot in the head. It’s not nice. And even if the violence is justifiable, the consequences of the violence are exactly the same. The body does not know what was the morality of that act. So I’m asking the audience to see if they can contain the whole experience of this violent act instead of just the heroic/dramatic one. I’m saying “Here’s the really nasty effects on these nasty guys but still, the effects are very nasty.” And that’s the paradox and conundrum.

 
You’re a Canadian who’s made this essay about violence in America and you choose not to adorn it with special effects and visual dramatics; that makes this story so profound and so “Cronenberg…”
Yeah, it’s a tendency I have and I relate it somewhat weirdly to Samuel Beckett, and modernism. Somehow I feel that to me, one of the ultimate challenges is to not adorn, not to hide behind stuff. There are very easy things that you can do in films, especially now, to disguise yourself and make things easy and protect yourself. I’m as vulnerable as my actors, maybe more so when I direct a movie. Maybe not in the same physical way, but very vulnerable and it’s very tempting to do stuff, to hide behind it. I try not to do it, or get overly technique-y. If you can do it right, there’s a raw simplicity that’s incredibly powerful because there’s a certain truth right there. If you blow it, there’s nothing to hide behind. It’s obvious when you’ve blown it. So that’s why you get guys that do jittery camera stuff when it’s just a guy sitting in a room talking; they do stuff up here and they’ve got cranes and whatever. I just sit there and say “Ok, I’ve cast this guy for his face, for his voice, for his acting. I just want you to see that. Let’s just trust all that you’ve done and look at this guy talking.” I don’t need to do fancy, silly stuff that has no meaning or artistic purpose.

When Tom/Joey leaves small town life, is he really changed?
That’s certainly the way we played it. Imagine, he’s suddenly forced out of the identity he had and you have to decide how much of this you want to reveal to your viewers obviously, or you could spoil the movie for them.

Don’t worry.
[When he originally left the East Coast], he could have chosen to be anything—to be a Joey in Florida, or a Joey in the west coast. He could have gone to some other country and been a small time gangster. But he chooses to be part of this American mythology of itself, this kind of ideal guy in this ideal small town with a family. Non-violent. Very sweet. Very gentle with his children. And he genuinely is. He’s been that for twenty years. So he’s been very successful at that. And that’s not hiding. At that point he really wanted to become somebody else. If he got hit by a bus before the bad guys came to town, he would have been buried as Tom Stall, everybody would have thought that’s who he was and that’s who he would have been.

So when the violence breaks out, was he reverting?
No. The way we were playing it was that Joey was not actually a violent person. He didn’t have that incredible anger and rage. Because you would feel that if he had that incredibly violent temper and anger and rage for example that it would come out in those twenty years that he tried to be Tom. You know it would have come out sooner. But in this case, Joey learned violence because—being physically kind of athletic—he could be good at it, because he grew up in the streets of Philly. His brother was a mobster, the union was mobsters and to be successful and have some kind of life there, he had to become part of that. He could do violence, so he did violence, but he wasn’t particularly innately a violent person. So it was just as he says, when his brother says, “We’re brothers, what did you think would happen?” He replies, “I thought that business would come first.” For him it was business. And that was the approach to violence in the movie that I took, which is rather an imposing concept of what violence should or shouldn’t be. I wasn’t thinking about that… I’m thinking, “Okay in this movie where does the violence come from?” It comes from these guys who learned it on the streets and from the business. Its not sadistic pleasure, an aesthetic thing, or a martial art with a philosophy in fighting, it’s just business. You do it. You get it over and get on to the next thing and make as little fuss about it as possible. That’s what it is to Joey, and therefore it’s very possible for it to disappear. Now it comes back only because it’s a tool he needs, that he has. It is like the gunslinger that was the fastest gun in the west that put his guns away, you know? It has American iconic reverberations and we were very conscious of that. [Joey’s] the guy who’s reluctant to kill although he has a talent for killing, but it’s not something that gives him pleasure. That’s really the approach we took and it’s realistic in the sense that it would make it possible for him to become Tom and live that life for so long without revealing something else.

 
When you show the sex scene after the shootings, the intoxicating effect of the violence affects how they have sex with each other—as opposed to before it was revealed.
If you see the movie a second time, it becomes a different movie and only then can you really appreciate Viggo’s performance fully because we were conscious of making two movies at once and it had to work both ways—for both viewings. But once the violence cat is out of the bag it’s up for grabs. For me the most violent moment of the movie is when he slaps his son. That’s a shocking moment and you definitely get the feeling that it’s the first time he ever laid a hand on either of his kids violently. It depresses and shocks him as well as shocking his son because the violence cat is out of the bag and it’s hard to put it back in. Once again it’s a tool, but it’s a tool that has to be ready, the adrenaline has to be there, so and it comes out in the sexuality as well.

Your films have a weird air to them because they’re like American but not.
Many years ago, a producer who just started talking to me about that said, “You know, for Americans, your movies are really weird.” Now this was a long time ago, because the streets are like America, but they’re not. The people are like Americans but they’re not. It’s like the pod people kind of thing. And he said that gave [my films] that spooky edge for an American. I’m thinking, “Well that’s us Canadians, you know, we’re the American pod people. We’re like American people but we’re not, we’re quite different.” I’ve only really set a couple of movies, maybe three in America. One was The Dead Zone; another one, Fast Company had scenes that were set in America.

You’ve shot in America?
I have never shot a foot of film in America.

You didn’t shoot the exteriors of the town in America?
That was Millbrook, Ontario.

 
You can’t compare Toronto to any American city, but it’s all American cities in a sense.
Sure, it is, and there are certain essences of American cities that are totally not there. It’s because our histories are interlinked but they’re quite different. You know, we didn’t have a Civil War, we didn’t have a revolution, etc. We sent the mounted police into the western territories first with guns. Then the citizens came without guns. So there was never that sense of intense individualism that you have in America. Where a man with a gun, he’s the law, we always have had in Canada, more intense understanding of the social fabric where you have to negotiate and discuss and stuff like that.

Is the virus in History of Violence the past or is it violence itself the virus?
Well, you see, I don’t think that way, you know, in the sense that you’re bringing a concept, a sort of critical and analytical concept to bear on this movie. I absolutely don’t mind that, some very interesting and enlightening things can come out of that process. But that’s not a creative process, that’s an analytical and critical process; I don’t think of that, for instance when I was making the movie that thought would never have been in my mind. There were many thoughts in my mind but I don’t think about my other movies. I don’t think about the place of this movie in the pantheon and blah, blah. I really take each movie on its own and try to give it what it needs individually without imposing something from the outside, including what people have thought about my other movies. So you’re going to have to answer that question I’m sure.

Reflecting on your own life and on your own work, do you find that your movies are like different chapters from the same book?
Yes, I don’t deny obviously that there is a connection. The thing is that I don’t have to force the connection, because you literally make one or two thousand decisions a day as a director. There are decisions about everything from clothes to colors, to walls, to locations to actors and what wins in lighting and you’ll know that nobody else would make those same decisions. And so the movie will be enough of you, you don’t have to force it. I don’t have to say I have to put this thumbprint on it so the people will know it’s my movie. Did I answer the question?

Well, how does this chapter in the book relate to your work?
But see, I don’t have a perspective on it because I’ve just made the movie. It’s my most recent movie so I’m most involved with it and my other movies are the past and I’m just not thinking of them. It’s a legitimate metaphor that you’re using, that each movie is a kind of a chapter. I wouldn’t have made this movie the same way 10 years ago. I wouldn’t have been the same person, so it is revealing of something but I am the last person to be able to say what that something is.

 
After the heaviness of Spider is it nice to kick some people in the face?
No, not at all. Although I won’t say that didn’t have a reaction on Spider. But the reaction was that I didn’t make any money on Spider and I needed to do a movie that I could make some money on. In the sense that I couldn’t afford to do a low budget independent film whose financing was constantly falling apart and therefore we would all have to defer our salaries and not get paid. I literally did not make any money for two years and I could not afford to do that. So that was the reaction. On the other hand, Spider was still a wonderful experience and frankly I think it’s the other half of this movie. I mean, it also is about identity and the construction of it, and the possibility of it, and the consequences of it. In Spider you have a man who does not have the will, the creative will for whatever reason, to hold his identity together. He keeps disintegrating and falls apart. But each movie has a family in it. Has a past that has a huge impact on the present and its also, both movies are about identity. So I think they would be pretty interesting on a double bill for a certain very special audience.

Do you find it easier to work with an adapted screenplay?
It comes from laziness and momentum, basically. Even Brian De Palma, who wrote his original screenplays, took a while to finish writing them. You have to sit down for maybe two years to write it. Maybe it’s no good or maybe its okay but you can’t get it made. So, the pressure is on you to go with a project that a producer has already been excited about so that you don’t have to take those two years off only to find that you haven’t managed to produce something that’s worth making. When I did The Dead Zone, my first adaptation, I found it exciting to get out of myself. You can bore yourself with you. The idea that you will fuse with some other interesting, different personality and then create some third thing that neither one of you would have produced on your own is really interesting. I did that with interesting people like Stephen King, William Burroughs, J.G. Ballard, and now Josh Olson.

With A History of Violence, has your filmmaking style changed?
I don’t know if it changed. I’m always experimenting, which comes from the nature of the particular project. Each movie demands its own things, like a child. It starts to become something else. As the doting parents, I feed it what it needs so that it evolves into its own individuality. The movie tells me what it wants, which could be different from what cinema should be or from what my movies used to be; I can’t think about all that stuff—I can only think about feeding this demanding child.

Do you think Spider and A History of Violence share some thematic elements?
I only see that after the fact. It’s not like I thought of that when I started to make this movie. It’s only when I’m doing interviews and people are asking me to be analytical about my films. The creative impulses are different from the critical and analytical ones.

 
Why do people who make comedies tend to be angry and depressed and people who make very violent movies tend to be nice and funny?
It seems to be true, isn’t it? I mean there’s nothing scarier than a comedian. They’re angry, depressed, terrible people. Let’s face it. It must be. I mean I guess it’s easy to say, but it seems to be inevitably true that there’s a kind of balance that’s struck. If you’re kind of perky and funny in your life then you feel that you have to deal with the other stuff in your art and vice versa, you know.

Are you excited about the buzz about this film—given that you’re a Canadian making such an American film?
I’ve been through this before [laughs]. With Dead Ringers, I was told endlessly that Jeremy Irons was a shoe-in for best actor at the very least, but, of course, that didn’t happen. So, I realized the game-playing that goes on. Although, The Fly did win an Oscar for best special-effects and makeup, so I have done the Oscar thing. But it’s not a goal and it’s not a necessity.

What are you working on for the future?
There are a few projects that are possible. One is an adaptation of London Fields—Martin Amis’ novel; I’m a huge Martin Amis fan. Another is called Maps to the Stars, which is written by Bruce Wagner who is also an LA novelist and a close friend. Robert Lantos will be producing that if that happens. There are all things that are possible, but they are not at all for sure. They would be in the independent film range of budget and financing.

 

ACTS OF VIOLENCE

“Key scenes (eight in total) listed in chronological order are pored over and dissected by the cast and crew. It gives an amazing insight into just how fluid Cronenberg’s directional style is. No painstakingly planned storyboards are apparent, but rather a man following run throughs given by actors with a viewing lens held firmly to his eye. He wanders, looking for the right shot, whilst the actors themselves enjoy the freedom to chime in and make suggestions, evolving the scene with him. We get some fantastic behind the scenes footage of the make up used and the techniques employed to create the visceral and brutal sense of impact in the fight scenes. It is also a pleasure to have such access to things such as the tapes of Bello’s relatives whom Mortensen visited as part of his research into the role of a Philadelphian. There’s probably too much to list here as every few moments brings with it a gem of insight into the production, the plotting, the characters or even the cast and crew themselves.” —Mark Botwright

 

AN EVENING WITH DAVID CRONENBERG

Back in 2005, the Film Society of Lincoln Center paid tribute to David Cronenberg leading up that year’s release of A History of Violence. That film went on to garner widespread critical acclaim with Peter Travers (Rolling Stone) praising its “explosive power and subversive wit,” and Manohla Dargis (New York Times) calling it a “mindblower.” For their 2005 tribute, The Film Society capped off a retrospective of the director’s work with “An Evening with David Cronenberg,” which featured a conversation with journalist David D’Arcy. The hour-plus discussion touched on many aspects of Cronenberg’s extensive career through the lens of the director’s rare moment of studio favor. “I’ve been getting a lot more offers from studios,” he said, “this will last about 10 minutes but I’m—for an older guy—kind of hot right now.” In addition to his dealings with studios, the director also speaks candidly about his relationship with critics, which he describes as very strange.

 
The Treatment is a weekly journey into the heart of film led by film critic Elvis Mitchell. From an array of film industry guests, Elvis highlights one each week discussing topics from film inspirations to inner personal conflicts. With a straightforward style that understates his vast knowledge, Elvis extracts depth and insight from his many guests including David Cronenberg.

 
This documentary follows David Cronenberg as he takes his film to the Cannes Film Festival for its premiere.


Open YouTube video

 
David Cronenberg and Viggo Mortensen discuss their working relationship, which has now spanned three films together (A History of Violence, Eastern Promises and A Dangerous Method).

 

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.” —Interview with Peter Suschitzky, ASC

 

CRONENBERG ON CRONENBERG

Cronenberg on Cronenberg, a career-length interview in book form edited by the filmmaker Chris Rodley and published by Faber & Faber, offers the definitive analysis of Cronenberg’s work through the words of the man himself. The following are but a selection of extracts. —Focus Features

Cronenberg on being an auteur director

“At a certain point I realized that what I liked about the classic filmmakers of the 1960s and 1970s, like Bergman and Fellini, was that you entered a world of their own creation when you went to see their films. That world was consistent from film to film. There was a tone, a feeling, and dynamics that were consistently at work. It wasn’t really conscious on my part that I should do the same, but I started to notice that what I was doing was also creating a world that had its own very specific dynamic. That’s scary, because on the one hand I could say, ‘Well, that’s what a serious filmmaker should do,’ but on the other hand it worries you because if it comes to be expected of you it can be a trap. You worry that a film will be rejected, or won’t fit the pattern. It’s not unlike a child. I see it in how obsessive children can become. When a kid’s turned into a cat, if you try to relate to him as your son—disaster. Emotional psychic disaster. You’ve crossed the line. You’ve done wrong. Don’t underestimate the seriousness of play; the necessity to have that fantasy. For me, it’s the reason for returning again and again to certain themes. The thing that would not die, you know: disintegration, ageing, death, separation, the meaning of life…”

Cronenberg on the shocking force of his films

“I’m presenting audiences with imagery and with possibilities that have to be shown. There is no other way to do it. It’s not done for shock value. I haven’t made a single film that hasn’t surprised me in terms of audience response; they have been moved, shocked or touched by things that I thought wouldn’t nudge them one inch. For me, it’s really a question of conceptual imagery. It’s not just ‘Let’s show someone killing a pig on screen and we’ll get a good reaction.’ You would. So what? I don’t know where these extreme images come from. It seems very straightforward and natural and obvious to me as it happens. Often they come from the philosophical imperative of a narrative and therefore lead me to certain things that are demanded by the film. I don’t impose them. The film or the script itself demands a certain image, a certain moment in the film, dramatically. And it emerges. It’s like the philosophy of Emergent Evolution, which says that certain unpredictable peaks emerge from the natural flow of things and carry you forward to another stage. I guess each film has its own version of Emergent Evolution. It’s just like plugging into a wall socket. You look around for the plug point and, when you find it, the electricity is there–assuming that the powerhouse is still working…”

Cronenberg on the reasons for making art

“Catharsis is the basis of all art. This is particularly true of horror films, because horror is so close to what’s primal. We all prepare ourselves for challenges that we can anticipate. It’s only when cultural imperatives require that we avoid the discussion of things like death and ageing that the impulse is suppressed. Humans naturally prepare themselves to meet those kinds of challenges. Certainly ageing and death are two of those things. One of the ways man has always done this is through art. I’m not a big fan of the therapy value of art, in the psychotherapeutic use of art, because it’s devalued. It’s like Freud psychoanalysing Shakespeare by looking at Hamlet. But I think on a very straightforward level it’s true that any artist is trying to take control of life by organizing it and shaping it and recreating it. Because he knows very well that the real version of life is beyond his control.”

Cronenberg on his modus operandi

“People say, ‘What are you trying to do with your movies?’ I say, ‘Imagine you’ve drilled a hole in your forehead and that what you dream is projected directly on to a screen.’ Then they say, ‘Gee, but you’re weird. How can you do that strange stuff?’ I can they say, ‘You would do the same if you had access, if you allowed yourself access.’ Everybody would have weird stuff up there that an audience might think antisocial, perverse, whatever. It might even look that way to the person who created it. That’s not just your imagination up there; it’s a huge synthesis of things. ‘He’s got a weird imagination’ trivialises it and says it’s just a little arabesque. Nothing serious. Not the real person. Not the essence. But I think it is the essence of the person. Maybe the exercise is to deliver an essential part of you that cannot be delivered in any other way.”

Cronenberg on the artist’s duty to society

“Society and art exist uneasily together; that’s always been the case. If art is anti-repression, then art and civilization were not meant for each other. You don’t have to be a Freudian to see that. The pressure in the unconscious, the voltage, is to be heard, to express. It’s irrepressible. It will come out in some way. As an artist, one is not a citizen of society. An artist is bound to explore every aspect of human experience, the darkest corners—not necessarily—but if that is where one is led, that’s where one must go. You cannot worry about what the structure of your own particular segment of society considers bad behaviour, good behaviour; good exploration, bad exploration. So, at the time you’re being an artist, you’re not a citizen. You don’t have the social responsibility of a citizen. You have, in fact, no social responsibility whatsoever. When I write, I must not censor my own imagery or connections. I must not worry about what critics will say, what leftists will say, what environmentalists will say. I must ignore all that. If I listen to all those voices I will be paralysed, because none of this can be resolved. I have to go back to the voice that spoke before all these structures were imposed on it, and let it speak these terrible truths. By being irresponsible I will be responsible.”

Cronenberg on God and Man

“I’ve never been religious in the sense that I felt there was a God, that there was an external structure, universal and cosmic, that was imposed on human beings. I always really did feel—at first not consciously and then quite consciously—that we have created our own universe. Therefore, what is wrong with it also comes from us. Jaws seemed to scare a lot of people. But the idea that you carry the seeds of your own destruction around with you, always, and that they can erupt at any time, is more scary. Because there is no defense against it; there is no escape from it. You need a certain self-awareness to appreciate the threat. A young child can understand a monster jumping out of a closet, but it takes a little more—not really beyond most children, in fact—to understand there is an inner life to a human being that can be as dangerous as any animal in the forest.”

 
Here are several photos taken behind-the-scenes during production of David Cronenberg’s A History of Violence. Photographed by Takashi Seida © New Line Cinema, BenderSpink, Media I! Filmproduktion München & Company, New Line Productions. Intended for editorial use only. All material for educational and noncommercial purposes only.

 
We’re running out of money and patience with being underfunded. 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 donate directly below:

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

The post ‘A History of Violence’: David Cronenberg’s Superb Study of the Basic Impulses that Drive Humanity appeared first on Cinephilia & Beyond.

The Greater the Truth, the Greater the Damage: ‘The Insider,’ Michael Mann’s White-Collar Thrill Ride of Corporate Malfeasance

‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’: Steven Spielberg’s Gamble That Paid Off Generously


‘Atlantic City’: Louis Malle’s Nostalgic Juxtaposition of Deterioration and Renewal

‘And the Sea Will Grant Each Man New Hope, As Sleep Brings Dreams of Home’: John McTiernan’s ‘The Hunt for Red October’

‘Paths of Glory’: Stanley Kubrick’s First Step Towards Cinema Immortality

‘They Live’: John Carpenter’s Brilliantly Simple and Hugely Enjoyable Assault on Reagan’s America

Scorsese On the Ropes: The ‘Kamikaze’ Film-Making of ‘Raging Bull’

Viewing all 277 articles
Browse latest View live