7 Deadly Cines Q & A
[from Cine-Sanity website - now defunked, posted for posterity's proverbial sneeze]
~questions prepared for me by P.R.
These are nuts and bolts type questions. The questioner must ask questions that interest him, and I'm not interested in the process, or inspiration, or philosophy. I never can get through most interviews, because my eyes glaze over when the Artist starts expounding on his Art. I'm interested in the finished product. Many of the interviews I've seen end up being a combination of egotism fed by fawning adoration (in which interviewer is toadying up to get in good graces of Artist).
~P.R.
1. What three famous American films would you have liked to have made, and why?
1. The Maltese Falcon.
2. Cabaret.
3. Altered States.
Why?
I must admit I am very much entranced by a movie/films look. All these pictures have a look that attracts me. The DP [director of photography] not only understood both the directors and the storyboard measures, they also could translate the script into their own visions while utilizing their experience to the fullest. But to only claim the look, the shear cinematography, is the whole of the picture isnt true. You can see the beauty in Paul Morrisseys Blood of Dracula, enjoy the excellent soundtrack, then be laid empty by the lack of script and the horrible acting. Nah, you must delve deeper, take the butterfly knifes blade and know how to use it. Yes, soundtrack, or the lack of one, does also engage my interest. That is another plus. Then one must turn to the actors. Are they motivated effectively to show us the characters soul or do they die on their marks? In all of these 3 pictures, we see the soul of all of the characters. The directors surely knew what they were doing.
This was John Hustons first outing with the captain bars in place. BUT he does his job like a veteran. Not only did he direct, he converted Raymond Chandlers best selling noir novel by doing the script. Bob Fosse is a marvelous choreographer, a master of sexuality, and a superb director. You just have to forget his miserable Star 80. We have to give him a break with that monster following the excellence of Sweet Charity [a box office bomber], Cabaret, and All that Jazz... Then there is the perpetual explorer: Ken Russell. Another beloved father to my filmmaking.
BUT WHY would I want to make these pictures?
They stir me. They get those essential circuits in my creativity greased. So why not? To work with the DPs would be a gift. The Maltese Falcon was shot by Arthur Edeson, Geoffrey Unsworth ennobled Cabaret, and Jordan Cronenweth caught the allegory of Altered States with much assistance in the Special Effects department by Bran Ferren - without him the mystical realms would have lain flat on the screen.
To work with them, I know my ideas for those scripts would surely have been realized.
Then to the casts...
Humphrey Bogart in his first lead after playing hoodlums in B-Movies, Peter Lorre in his prime [devilishly sincere and very stylishly handsome], Sydney Greenstreet in his green applish first role for The Maltese Falcon. Cabaret is also perfectly, if not better, casted. The glorious Joel Grey as the minimally entitled Emcee, Michael York threatening his movie star personae as a bisexual, and Liza Minnelli as the self destructive Sally Bowels. How could these have been better cast? And finally, we turn to Altered States. William Hurt in his first role and a lead at that. Blair Brown in her intellectual sincerity and marvelous sexual liberation, dispelling the meek weaker sex myths, exposing the emancipation of the late sixties, while also maintaining a feminine sense. Any of these casts, if they believed in me, would make for a very creative time on the set as well as an easy time for the editor. Or a difficult time, because such talent enlightens directors, and makes a picture more than anyone could dream of priceless.
2. Hitchcock said that actors were sheep.
a. What do you think he meant?
Let us gather our flocks and lead them to a most certain slaughter. Control seems crucial for some directors. Not everyone is a Robert Altman, who learns the true essence of a project while on the set, interacting. Many people ARE puppets, NOT actors. Not everyone wants to have fun. Or their studios decide the casts. The studios with their star machines, making talentless hacks into movie stars. The Method and The System are frightening terms because you have to relinquish control and put yourself out there, where you could easily fail. Instead, people want to come to work, click their timecards, and go home afterwards. This assures nothing changes in them.
b. What is your attitude toward actors?
When I look at people to play parts I often seek both people capable of improvising and those that will just play themselves. The stretch is nothing in the latter case, but to find someone that can go beyond, to find the heart of a scene and throw away the script is deliciously fun for everyone.
3. Many directors have produced masterpieces by stringently following a script, thus giving the writing aspect great importance.
a. Do you believe in working from a strong script?
No.
b. Why, or why not?
I feel a script is a base to use. Then I turn to the storyboards. Lately, I use storyboards to write my scenes. And if I can indeed find someone that can improvise, who can read and get what the scene is about and what is needed to be expressed, then we just go into the scene as a massive rehearsal process, often using one to three takes to get what I need. Afterwards is the true art form of a film: the editing process. That is where you search for the core and seek the true meaning of what wasnt apparent even after the filming is in the proverbial can.
4. Is there a novel you would like to make a film of?
No. Besides, a film can't do justice to a novel. Only a mini-serie can touch on such a work. Short stories and novellas make for better celluloid. There, the answer is still no.
a. Why does it inspire you, and what would be the problems in doing it justice?
I need to work from my own ideas. Sure this makes me very unattractive to any studio picking me up and giving me a shot with their finances. It has to be this way. I have to be on the path to finding my own soul, becoming a greater mortal when I do anything creative be it film or words or ink and paint. Otherwise, why do it? Money. Sure, but this is my only life. Why waste it?
5. As a filmmaker, do you desire a wide audience?
a. Could you, emotionally and practically, accept the reverse obscurity and no financial remuneration for your work?
No. I do want an audience. Even if its small. Preferably Id like to scratch out my own space in the vast indifference of filmmaking. Somewhere my own, like Jim Jarmusch has done. I wouldnt mind offshore sponsors as long as they didnt put any restrictions on my creativity.
6. Some directors have been involved in many aspects of their films (in "Citizen Kane" Welles was director, actor, and collaborated on the screenplay; Chaplin even wrote the music for some of his films).
a. What hats do you think you can wear?
Perhaps this sounds rather like an egomaniac, but I really need to be part of everything. Of course, I cant write a soundtrack, but that doesnt mean I cant give my score writer ideas, samples, of what is needed, then turn them loose. I do know there are far better DPs out there. I am merely a child with my little digital camera. With this in mind, I can plan out the shots; make the partnership a fusion where I can grow as an artist while not holding the cinematographer back from their own creative inspiration.
b. What aspects should you delegate to others?
Like I said, the score will have to be influenced by me, and then turned loose to the musician so they dont feel boxed in. After discussing the shots, the DP and his assistants can line up the shots, find out what they have to use in available light [a requirement of mine], before we work together further. I havent a quarter the experience most DPs have. As long as they are willing to take chances, to let themselves go... Costumes. Again, I need to be in the planning process. Lately, I give my casts an idea of what Im seeking and let them make up their own garb. I love that independence. And of late, Id prefer to not be acting. Outsiders, off the set, get the notion that I want to play a certain role so I can be wild. People love to gossip, to actually make up stories and basically lie. The role may require that I make out with an actor. Be it a woman or a man. With experience, I have learned the disconnection a set kiss has. Its empty after the scene ends - when both participants check out of their character and go to the next setup. In my case, I couldnt get anyone to play the lead so had to assume it myself. Now theres some kind of strange buzz around me and I can get a lead. But before, it was just me. And I had to do what I felt as the filmmaker was required of the character. I enjoy playing, improvising, finding the core, but now have to jettison myself from the scenes because we do live in a small town. Maybe Ill pick it up again in a while, when it doesnt matter and Ive etched my niche in the system.
7. What turns you off when viewing a film?
As Jim Jarmusch has stressed: Everything has been done before. BUT you dont have to cop out. You dont have to apply a TV sitcom formula to your movie. What I really hate is to know where a picture is going and being shown I was correct. I want to be challenged as an audience member. Not that you have to make everything experimental, you can be normal as hell, just dont use the same used up patterns, the same camera angles, and the same worn out dialogue. Give me something more.
a. Give specific examples from specific films.
State and Main. It has a pretty good cast: Phillip Seymour Hoffman and William H. Macy - personal favorites in other movies. And David Mamet as the Director. He was great with Focus. So what happened? I kept rooting for this comedy, wanting the vital more and was sadly disappointed. My question is: why did Alec Baldwin fight so hard for this script that he got a Producers credit? I still feel he did a good job in the local drama, Heavens Prisoners.
Why does it turn me off?
Its a story about Hollywood. Of LA types taking over a small town as their location and attempting to exploit the locals ignorance. That, in itself, intrigues me. Unfortunately, there were no interesting camera angles, no profound dialogue, no standout performances or fascinating scenes, and no surprises. That is why I wonder why it was even made. I could see the scenario too easily and knew the conclusion way before its arrival. Why? I stress this to ask: Why make it at all? Hollywood was brilliantly revealed in Vincente Minnellis The Bad and the Beautiful. Then emphasized after the collapse of the studio system in his follow up picture, Two Days in Another Town [not yet released on DVD]. If one desires some new exposure to the mania of moviemaking, I recommend Peter OBrians recent film, Hollywood North. I imagine State and Main was done with the best intensions: to expose the sloppy egotism of Hollywood and poke fun at itself. But sadly, it came off like some made for TV movie, which lacks creativity and originality. I am certainly glad I bought it for a buck plus sales tax at a Walgreens and didnt spend the full price of a ticket.
# # #Labels: Film, Independent Filmmaking
