Episode 115: Filmmaker Amy Scott on her documentary, “Hal.”

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with filmmaker Amy Scott, discussing her terrific documentary, “Hal,” which takes a deep dive into the life and films of director Hal Ashby (“Harold and Maude,” “Being There,” Coming Home,” “Shampoo”).

LINKS

A Free Film Book for You:  https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12

Another Free Film Book:  https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6

Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/

Amy Scott Website:  https://www.amyelizabethscott.com/

“Hal” Documentary website:  https://hal.oscilloscope.net/

“Hal” Trailer: https://youtu.be/GBGfKan2qAg

“Harold and Maude Two-Year Anniversary” Documentary: https://youtu.be/unRuCOECvZM 

Eli Marks Website:  https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/

Albert’s Bridge Books Website:  https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/

YouTube Channel:  https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcast

Dying to make a feature? Learn from the pros!

"We never put out an actual textbook for the Corman School of Filmmaking, but if we did, it would be Fast, Cheap and Under Control." 
Roger Corman, Producer

★★★★★

It’s like taking a Master Class in moviemaking…all in one book!

  • Jonathan Demme: The value of cameos

  • John Sayles: Writing to your resources

  • Peter Bogdanovich: Long, continuous takes

  • John Cassavetes: Re-Shoots

  • Steven Soderbergh: Rehearsals

  • George Romero: Casting

  • Kevin Smith: Skipping film school

  • Jon Favreau: Creating an emotional connection

  • Richard Linklater: Poverty breeds creativity

  • David Lynch: Kill your darlings

  • Ron Howard: Pre-production planning

  • John Carpenter: Going low-tech

  • Robert Rodriguez: Sound thinking

And more!

Write Your Screenplay with the Help of Top Screenwriters!

It’s like taking a Master Class in screenwriting … all in one book!

Discover the pitfalls of writing to fit a budget from screenwriters who have successfully navigated these waters already. Learn from their mistakes and improve your script with their expert advice.

"I wish I'd read this book before I made Re-Animator."
Stuart Gordon, Director, Re-Animator, Castle Freak, From Beyond

John Gaspard has directed half a dozen low-budget features, as well as written for TV, movies, novels and the stage.

The book covers (among other topics):

  • Academy-Award Winner Dan Futterman (“Capote”) on writing real stories

  • Tom DiCillio (“Living In Oblivion”) on turning a short into a feature

  • Kasi Lemmons (“Eve’s Bayou”) on writing for a different time period

  • George Romero (“Martin”) on writing horror on a budget

  • Rebecca Miller (“Personal Velocity”) on adapting short stories

  • Stuart Gordon (“Re-Animator”) on adaptations

  • Academy-Award Nominee Whit Stillman (“Metropolitan”) on cheap ways to make it look expensive

  • Miranda July (“Me and You and Everyone We Know”) on making your writing spontaneous

  • Alex Cox (“Repo Man”) on scaling the script to meet a budget

  • Joan Micklin Silver (“Hester Street”) on writing history on a budget

  • Bob Clark (“Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things”) on mixing humor and horror

  • Amy Holden Jones (“Love Letters”) on writing romance on a budget

  • Henry Jaglom (“Venice/Venice”) on mixing improvisation with scripting

  • L.M. Kit Carson (“Paris, Texas”) on re-writing while shooting

  • Academy-Award Winner Kenneth Lonergan (“You Can Count on Me”) on script editing

  • Roger Nygard (“Suckers”) on mixing genres

This is the book for anyone who’s serious about writing a screenplay that can get produced! 

Amy Scott Transcript

 

First, I want to say thank you for making the movie and thank you for making such a great movie because he totally deserved it. I would always wonder why of all the directors of the 70s and 80s, he was never really heralded the way he should have been. I think part of it has to do with that he had no discernible style. So, you couldn't really pick him for something. But before we dive into that, tell me a little bit about your background before you made Hal?

Amy Scott: Well, I'm from Oklahoma. I moved to Chicago, out of college and in college, we studied a lot of, I had a great professor at ODU at the University of Oklahoma. I don't think he's there anymore. But he really hipped us to the coolest documentaries. I had no idea that you could be a documentary filmmaker, like from Chris Marker to the 7-Up series to Hands on a Hard Body. It was just a really great, great, well-rounded Film and Media Program.

Anyway, I moved to Chicago. I wanted to be a director and a DP, but I fell down, I had gotten a job at the University of Chicago. I think I faked my way into it. I was supposed to start on a Monday, and I fell on the ice and broke my arm on a Friday. So I was like, “I can't shoot. I can't film. I can't use my arm to film and hold the camera. I need to learn how to edit. So I learned how to edit with my right hand, and I loved it. And then I just did that for like 10 years. Well, I mean, I still do it. But it was like this accidental career path.

You're an accidental editor.

Amy Scott: An accidental editor. That became something that later, I just valued as such an important skill set. I use it now. I have wonderful editors that I work with. But we speak the same language. And I think with the story structure, that you have an eye for things in the edit bay and now it really, really helps my ability to break down a three-act structure or figure out where the narrative arc is, and things like that. I think would have taken me a lot longer, had I not fallen and broken my arm.

It was sort of a similar path for Hal Ashby, starting in editing.

Amy Scott: Totally. I loved his films and then when I read Nick Dawson's book, and I started to learn more about him, I really, really connected with him. Because of things that he would say about filmmaking and editing and being in the edit bay and being obsessed with every frame. I felt like, being seen and heard. Like, “Oh, this is how I feel about it, too. I don't feel like such a freak of nature, and lots of people feel this way.” I really connected with Hal and he didn't make The Landlord I believe until he was 40 years old.

He was up there.

Amy Scott: Yeah, up there.

For a first-time filmmaker, that's a late start.

Amy Scott: And that was about the same age that I made the Hal movie.

What was your first experience with a Hal Ashby movie?

Amy Scott: The first film that I saw that I can remember was with my friend Jason in college. I was watching Truffaut and Cassavetes and so I thought that I had a very well-rounded understanding of the new Hollywood. And my friend Jason said, “Have you ever seen Harold and Maude?” I had no idea what he was talking about. He was a couple years older, and he was like, “Oh, honey, you're gonna skip school today. We're gonna watch it.” And I swear to God, we watched it. I couldn't believe what it was. I couldn't believe I'd never seen it. It somehow gone past me.

As soon as it was over, I was like, “Stop. Start it again.” We have to rewatch it. We where there for like eight hours, watching it on a loop. David Russell compares it to The Catcher in the Rye as a sort of like rite of passage for people at that age. It hit me right straight through the heart. And then from there, I think I saw The Landlord, someone had screen of The Landlord in Oklahoma City. And I was like, oh my god, this is incredible.

I live in Minneapolis, where Harold and Maude ran at The Westgate theater for two and a half years. I saw the movie quite a bit there. And then, because I was in a film program, and knew someone who knew the film critic for the local paper, when Ruth and Bud came to town for the two-year anniversary, he sorts of dragged me along with him. So, I had dinner with Bud Cort and hung out a little bit with Ruth Gordon. I made a little documentary on Super 8mm of my perspective on their experiences.  I was 15 years old or something and although I knew their itinerary, I couldn't drive. And so I would go to the TV station and shoot some stuff there with them and then they were on to something else. I had to hop on a bus to keep up with them.

Amy Scott: That's incredible.

Yes, my only regret was on that when I had dinner with Bud that I didn't ask better questions. I was sort of starstruck and there's a lot of question. I would ask him now—that I've tried to ask him—but you know, he's not too communicative.

Amy Scott: Yeah. That's incredible that you that you have that footage and I would love to see it.

It was really, really fun and interesting. Ruth Gordon was very much Ruth Gordon, very much Maude. She didn't suffer fools. So, you've seen Harold and Maude, seen The Landlord. At what point did you decide that a documentary had to be made?

Amy Scott: Well, okay, I was pregnant with my first child, and was finishing up Nick Dawson's book on Hal, you know, on Hal’s life. And I thought, I just couldn't believe there was a documentary. But this is before the market became oversaturated with a story about everyone's life. At the time, I just thought, oh my gosh, there's so much here. This guy, his films should be really celebrated. And he should be more known and revered in the canon of American 70s New Hollywood, because he's so influential.

And that's why it was important that we include David O Russell and Adam McKay, and Allison Anders, Judd Apatow. They could draw a direct connections, like the film family tree. When you see the wide shots in Harold and Maude, you think of Wes Anderson. Or, you know, the music, you think of David O Russell. I mean, his influence was everywhere. I started to connect the dots and I thought, oh, my gosh, we've got to, we've got to make a film here.

But I'd never done anything like that. I had directed smaller documentaries. I tried to make a film about this band called The Red Crayola and that was a hilarious attempt on my part. To try to chase them around the globe and on no money. That was my only experience outside of editing. So, fortunately, I had hooked up with my producing partners that I still work with now. I just met them at the time and they hired me to edit some cat food commercials. So it was editing Friskies or Purina, I don't know what it was. It was just looking at cats all day.

And I was about to give birth but I was working trying to lock down the rights And the rights came through one afternoon and I just pulled them (the producers) in and I was like, let's do this together. We didn't know what the hell we were doing, but it was so great and so fun. We approached it, like, all hands-on deck, and we were a little family making this thing. So, that spirit has continued, thank goodness, because of what we put into the Ashby movie.

What do you think were his unique qualities as a director?

Amy Scott: Gosh, so much. I just think he really had an eye. He could see stories. You said something earlier, that all of his films are not the same and therefore it's hard to go, oh, he's this style of filmmaker. But the thing that they all have in common is that he has a very real and raw approach at looking at humanity. Sort of holding the mirror up and showing us who we are, with all of our faults and complexities and layers of contradictions and failures. So he's able to see that and find the stories of humanity. And that's the connective tissue for me. He also had a sick musical taste; I mean, he sort of found Cat Stevens. The soundtrack to Shampoo—I think that's why it's not in wide release right now, as I can’t imagine having to license Hendrix and Janis and the Beach Boys, you know?

That's true. But I'll also say he had the wisdom to let Paul Simon do the small musical things he did in Shampoo, which are just as powerful or if not more powerful.

Amy Scott: So, powerful. So much restraint. Incredibly powerful. I feel like Hal, because he was not—from all of our research and talking to everyone and girlfriends and collaborators—he wasn't a dictatorial director. He didn't lay down mandates. He was really open to hearing from everybody and making it feel like it was a democratic scene and everyone has an equal voice. If you had an idea, speak up.

But at the end of the day, he was like, okay, here's the vision. And once he had that vision, I think that's where he really got into problems with the studio system. Because that was such a different time. The studio guys thought that they were also the director, that they were also the auteur. I cannot imagine a world where you throw your entire life into making a film and then a studio head comes along and tries to seize it from you. I mean, that would give me cancer, you know, from the stress. I can't imagine.

It certainly didn't match with his personality at all.

Amy Scott: No, not at all. What I thought was so fascinating was how open he was to ideas. I love that about him and it resonates in my microscopic ways of connecting to that now. Man, every time it pops up, I'm like, I feel this little Hal Ashby devil angel on my shoulders.

Yes, but it's odd. Because it's not like they didn't know what they were getting. It's not like he hid that part of his personality. You would know, immediately from meeting him that...

Amy Scott: Yeah.

With Harold and Maude, it was just a weird perfect storm of a crazy executive like Robert Evans saying yes to all these weird things. And then the marketing team at Gulf and Western/Paramount going, “we have no idea what to do.” You know, I had the Harold and Maude poster hanging for years. And it's the most obvious example of a studio that cannot figure out how to market a movie. The Harold and Maude different color name thing. It's just so obviously they didn't know what do.

Amy Scott: I know I love when Judd Apatow was talking about that. That's really funny.

So, what was the biggest thing that surprised you as you learned more about Hal?

Amy Scott: What surprised me was that side of his temperament. He did look like this peace love guy.  He was an attractive man but, you know, this long hair and long beard and so cool and I had a really myopic like view of what I thought his personality was. I thought he was a super mellow guy. And then I got in and started reading the letters. My producer, Brian would read the letters in his voice as a temp track that we would use that to edit to cut the film. And we were rolling, dying, laughing, like falling down, like, oh, my God, I cannot believe that Hal would write some of this shit to the head of Paramount or whoever. It was like, wow, this guy is not at all who I thought. These were fiery missives that he was shooting off into space.

It wasn't like just getting mad and writing an email. I mean, he had to sit on a typewriter.

Amy Scott: Typewriter and they were very, very long. I mean, the sections that we used in the film, were obviously heavily cut. We couldn't show like six pages of vitriol. The best part about the vitriol though, he wasn’t just vomiting, anger. It was a very poetic. He had a very poetic way of weaving together his frustration and expletives in a way that I just loved.

And then we turned the papers over to Ben Foster. That's why we wanted him to narrate—be the voice of Hal—because he's always struck me as an artist that totally gets it. Not a studio guy and he was all over it. He was right. You can really identify with this sort of, you're either with us or against us artists versus, the David and Goliath. So, that was most fascinating to me.

I knew—because of the book, because Nick did such a great job—I knew Hal’s story. Leaving his child, leaving Leigh. It's one thing to read about it in a book and it's a completely different thing to go meet that person, to sit with her. She's since become a dear friend to me. I feel like she'd never really spoken about that, about her dad and that time of her of her life. I think revisiting trauma on that level, and working through a lot of those emotions with her, was really heavy and not what I intended. When I set out to make the film, I was thinking about the films of Hal Ashby. I didn't think it would get as heavy as it did. I'm glad that we went there and that she took us with her. I feel really, really thankful. I think she got a lot out of it. We certainly did.

It really did show you just how complicated he was, the reality of his life, when you see the child. And she was so eloquent on screen.

Amy Scott: So great. He had some generational trauma too and then you put it all together, and you're like, okay, well, this is somebody that's really adept at looking deep into the human condition. He’d been through a lot. He'd made a lot of mistakes and he's been through a lot. So, of course, this checks out. And he's just so talented and creative, that he can make these films that are this really accurate, fun and funny and sad and tragic and beautiful portrayals of humanity.

Well, let's just if we can't dive into a couple of my favorites just to see if anything you walked away with.

Obviously, Harold and Maude hold a special place in my heart. I've just loved reading Nick’s book and reading and hearing in your film and in listening to commentaries about what Hal did to wrestle Harold and Maude into the movie that it is. I forget who it was on one of the commentaries who said there were so many long speeches by Maude that you just ended up hating her. And Hal’s editor's ability to go and just trim it and trim it and trim it. I compare what he did there to what Colin Higgins went on to do when he directed and he simply didn't have it. He had the writing skill, obviously, and the directing skills. He didn't have that editor’s eye. I don't think there's a Colin Higgins movie made that couldn't be 20 minutes shorter. If Hal had gone into Foul Play and edited it down, it would have been a much stronger comedy. 9 to 5 would have been 20 minutes shorter. Probably a little stronger. Anyway, you don't recognize that. It's all hidden. It's the edit. You don't know what he threw away and that's the beauty of Harold and Maude: within this larger piece he found that movie and found the right way to express it. So, what did you learn about that movie that might have surprised you?

Amy Scott: Everything surprise me about it. You know, we were never able to get Bud Cort. You know Bud Curt, he's so special and so elusive and we thought we thought we were gonna get him a couple times and then it was just a real difficult thing.

But you have him from the memorial service, and that's a great thing.

Amy Scott: Oh, yeah. Anytime he's on camera, he's bewitching. He's incredible. So we went again with the letters. I just didn't realize that Bud and Hal we're so close. I mean, obviously, they were close. But they were very tight. They had a real father son, sort of bond.

Charles Mulvehill, the producer, also talked about how difficult it was to make the film. I didn't know that Charles ended up marrying one of the women that is on the dating service that Harold's mom tries to set up. That was interesting, too. It's hard for me, to tell you the truth. We did so much research on all the films, so there's little bits and pieces of all.

Jumping away from Harold and Maude—just because my brain is disorganized—Diane Schroeder was with Hal for a number of years and she's in the film. She was sort of a researcher archivists, she wore many hats. I did not realize that on Being There, she really needed to nail down what was on the television Chauncey Gardiner learned everything from TV, so it was really important what was on it. When he's flipping, it's not random. She and Hal would take VHS tapes in or I guess it would have been Beta at the time, whatever the fidelity was, but they would record hundreds of hours of TV and watch it. She got all these TV Guides from that year, 1981. But what was a three year’s span, she had all the TV Guides.

She had everything figured out. It was like creating the character of Chauncey Gardiner, with Hal and then Peter Sellars got involved, and he had certain thoughts about it, too. I was just so blown away by the fact that that much care and effort and painstaking detail would go into it. When you see it on screen, it's definitely a masterpiece because of those things. Just the defness of editing, of leaving things out, is what makes it good. That is such a such a really hyper detailed behind the scenes thing to know that. When we were going through his storage space. I remember asking Diane, why are there boxes and boxes and boxes of TV. She said, “oh, yeah, that's Chancy Gardener's.” I said, I cannot believe you guys saved this. Really funny.

It's interesting because they would have done all that in post now. And they had to get that all figured out, before they were shooting it. That’s a lot of pre-production.

Amy Scott: Oh, an immense amount of pre-production. Hal set up an edit bay in his bedroom. It’s the definition of insanity. I had that going on at one point in my life and it's not good. It's not good thing to roll over and it's like right there like right next to pillows staring at you. You need some distance.

When I saw Being There for the first time for some reason I was in Los Angeles/ I saw it and of course loved it. And then came back to Minneapolis and someone had seen it and said, “don't you love the outtakes?” And I said, “What outtakes?” They said, “over the end credits, all those outtakes with Peter Sellars.” And I said, “there were no outtakes.” In the version in LA, they didn't do that.

Amy Scott: I wanted to add this, but we just ran out of time. We found all these Western Union telegrams that Peter Sellars wrote to Hal, just pissed, just livid, furious about that. He said, “You broke the spell. You broke the spell. God dammit, you broke the spell.” He was so pissed that they included those outtakes and I agree with them.

It’s not a real normal Hal move, is it?

Amy Scott: No, it's honestly the first time that I'd ever seen blooper outtakes in a film like that. That’s such an interesting 80s style, shenanigans and whatnot. But, yeah, no, you want them to walk out on the water after watching him dip umbrella in the water and think about that for the rest of your life.

Exactly. I think they left it out of the LA version for Academy purposes, thinking that would help with the awards. But then years later to look at the DVD and see the alternate ending and go, well, that’s terrible. I'm glad you guys figured that out. And then apparently, was it on the third take that somebody said, he should put his umbrella down into the water?

Amy Scott: That's so smart.

It's so smart. Alright. Shampoo is another favorite.  I'm curious what you learned about that one, because you had three very strong personalities making that movie with Robert Towne on one side and Warren Beatty on the other and Hal in the middle. It's amazing that it came out as well as it did. Somehow Hal wrangled it and did what he did. What did you learn there that sort of surprised you?

Amy Scott:  Well, that aspect is what we wanted to really investigate. Because Hal had a pretty singular vision. Hal as a director—at that stage—was becoming a very important filmmaker. So, then how do you balance the styles of Robert Towne and Warren Beatty? These guys are colossal figures in Hollywood, Alpha dogs. I wish that we could have sat with Warren. It was not for lack of trying. I think a lot of these guys that we couldn't get, it's like, yeah, that's what makes him so cool.

Bruce Dern. I was trying to chase down Bruce Dern at the Chase Bank, and he got up one day and I was just like, I knew, let it go.

But Shampoo, everything we learned, we put in the film. Robert Towne talked to us. And then there was the audio commentary that Hal had from his AFI seminars. Caleb Deschanel spoke pretty eloquently about it being like watching a ping pong match going back and forth between Robert and Warren about what the direction should be. And then the director sitting in a chair probably smoking a joint, waiting for them to finish. It seems like they might have needed a sort of mediator type presence to guide the ship, like have a soft hand with it, you know?

You can't have three alphas in the room at the same time. Nothing would get done. You need a neutralizing force and it seems like that's what Hal was it. He just had a really great taste, you know? My favorite element of that movie—besides Julie Christie's backless dress—would be Jack Warden. Anytime Jack Warden comes on screen, I'm like, just want to hang with him for another half hour. I can just watch that man piddle around and be funny.

I remember reading an interview with Richard Dreyfus after Duddy Kravitz came out, in which he was blasting the director, saying that they ruined Jack Warden’s performance in post-production. And Jack Warden is amazing in Duddy Kravitz. I don't know what they he thinks they did to it, because he's just fantastic.

Amy Scott: He must have just been astronomically amazing and funny, which is what I imagined he's was like.

I took away two things from Shampoo. One was—having seen Harold and Maude as often as I did—recognizing that the sound effects of the policeman's motorcycle as being the same one as George's motorcycle as he's going up the Hollywood Hills. Exact same ones.

But the last shot as he's looking down on Julie Christie's house and the use of high-angle shot, it is one of the saddest things I've ever seen. It's just a guy standing on an empty lot looking down onto the houses below, but it's … I don't know. Given the guys he was dealing with, I don't know how he made that into a Hal Ashby movie, but he did.

Amy Scott: He did. Well, it seems like it's moments like that yeah, there's so much melancholy loaded into that moment. Because George is such an interesting character. Now, I'm realizing that you and I have just blown, we've just spoiled the ending shots of both Being There and Shampoo.

Anybody listening to this who hasn't seen those movies deserves to be spoiled.

Amy Scott: Get on the boat. But yeah, that always got me. I think it's all of those really like, foggy misty Mulholland Drive shot of George on his motorcycle, anytime he's alone. Because he crams his life so full of women to try to fill the hole or the void or whatever he's got going on that's missing in his life. And he's just trying to shove it full of women. So, when he's alone, and he has nothing and no one you're like, oh, my God, this is the saddest thing I've ever seen.

It really is. I don't know. Maybe you can fill me in on this. I remember reading somewhere that the scene—his last scene with Goldie Hawn—they went back and they reshot it because somebody said he's standing. He should be sitting. And I'm always interested in directors who hear that and are willing to go back and do it.

The other example is Donald Sutherland in Ordinary People in his last scene. Telling Redford, “I did it wrong. I should be done crying. I was crying when I should have been done crying.” and they went back and reshot. His portion of it is no longer crying because the director went, you're right. And that simple notion of Warren Beatty should be sitting down, and she should be standing over him.

Amy Scott: She's got the power.

Yes. But I'm not sure a lot of directors would have said yes to that. Like, “We don't need to go back and do that. We're overscheduled we got other stuff to do …”

Amy Scott: Oh, I don't think Hal cared about the schedule at all. Everything that I read or, you know, even Jeff Bridges talked about, like them being over budget and he's like, “you know, all right, let's figure out a creative solution to this. It's going to take as long as it's going to take.” He never seemed to really get riled onset or let those sorts of parameters hold all the power and guide the filmmaking. He was in complete control of that.

Having that sort of attitude about things, that just spreads to the whole set. That spreads everywhere and makes it easier for everybody to work.

Amy Scott: It does.

Let's do one last one. Coming Home is interesting for me because I had friends who ran a movie theater here in town. It was just a couple of running it and I would come by from time to time if they were busy. I’d go up and run the projector for them. They had one of those flat plate systems, so you only had to turn the projector on. It wasn't that big a deal. But you know, I was young and it's like okay, now I'm going to turn the house lights down … I got to see the first five minutes of Coming Home a lot. Probably more than I saw the rest of the movie. Was there anything you learned about the making of that film that surprised you?

Amy Scott: Yeah, I didn't realize how hard it was to get that film made. Jane Fonda is the one that's really responsible for Coming Home even existing. Nancy Dowd had a book and Jane really fought hard to get it made. By the time it got to Hal, it was different, there was a number of rewrites. And it obviously had to be cut down significantly.

I never think—it's never my go-to—to think that one of the actors is the one responsible. Usually it comes to you in a different way, and especially if he's working with Robert Towne and the like. But I thought that was really cool and really interesting that Jane spoke about showing what our veterans were going through. This wasn't new, because you had like The Deer Hunter would have been the comparable. And that's a wildly different take on what coming home from the Vietnam War was like. But also, the woman's journey in that film, and the sexuality of all of that was just like, wow. Only Jane Fonda can speak about it eloquently as Jane Fonda does.

I also didn't realize— when we were sitting with John Voigt—that he was really method in the way that he didn't get out of his chair, I mean, for days on end. Going into crafty in the chair, learning how to do go up ramps and play basketball and all the things that you see was because he wouldn't get out of the chair, which was wonderful.

I really enjoyed talking with Jeff Wexler, and Haskell. That interview that we did with Haskell, I'm so thankful for because, you know, Haskell passed away, not that long after we film. That was one of his last interviews. So, it was really special. He came to the set and Haskell is like, a film God to me and my team. For me, I lived in Chicago so Medium Cool, was one of the coolest things ever. Meeting him and talking with him was so interesting.

I loved hearing about the opening. You can just tell it’s Haskell Wexler. You know it's a Hal Ashby film, but the way it starts and having seen Medium Cool, and going into that opening scene, where the all the vets are non-professional actors. They were actual vets that had come home and those were their true real stories. Now we would say it's sort of hybrid documentary and scripted, but it was like a really early use of that kind of style. And that's what made it feel so real and then you start in with the Rolling Stones, it's just such a masterly, powerful film.

I'm always curious about that sort of thing where he has a lot of footage and he's creating the movie out of it and what would Hal Ashby be like today? How different would his life be if he had everything at his fingertips and it’s not hanging out a pin over in a bin and he had to remember where everything was? I don't know if that would have been any made any difference at all?

Amy Scott: He was an early pioneer of digital editing. He was building his giant rigs and was convincing everyone that digital is the way to go. Which is so cool and so mind blowing. But I think it was born out of a place of independent film, of democratizing the access and taking the power away from the studios. And knowing that you could do this cheaply in your home. It was so actually tragic to learn that. What could he have done? Because his output was just, he put out so much so many great movies. So, what could he have done if the infrastructure was even more accessible and sped up technologically?

Imagine an 8-part streaming series directed by Hal Ashby, what would that be?

Amy Scott: Just be incredible. Well, I know that he was wanting to work. He had so many films that we found. And we found script after script. One of them, I was so, “damn, that would have been cool,” was The Hawkline Monster. A Richard Brautigan science fiction Western novel. It's so trippy and so cool. I feel like every couple of years, I hear about some directors says, “we got the rights, we're gonna make it.” And I'm like, when are they gonna make it? It's so long.

And imagine what his version of Tootsie would have been.

Amy Scott: Oh, I know. Yeah. No joke.

Just seeing those test shots. Wow.

Amy Scott: I know, it would have been a different film.

I read a quote somewhere that one of the producers or maybe it was Sydney Pollack, who said, they took the script to Elaine May. And she said, “yeah, it just needs…” And then she listed like five things: He needs a roommate that he can talk to …  the girl on the TV show, she needs a father, so he can become involved with him … there also has to be a co-worker who is interested in him as a woman … the director needs to be an ass, he should probably be dating the woman. It was like five different things. She said the script is fine, but you need these five things. So, what did they have? She just listed the whole movie.

Amy Scott: Right. Well, we're talking about Elaine May. She’s someone that needs a film.

She does. And why aren’t you doing that?

Amy Scott: Listen, I'm telling you. I've tried. This is another one that I've tried for years. You know, here’s a real shocker: It's hard to get a film about a female filmmaker funded. It's a hard sell.

She probably wouldn't want to do it anyway

Amy Scott: She's so cool. My approach has always been that she has so much to teach us still. So, I would love to get her hot takes on all those films. A New Leaf. I mean, the stories behind that thing getting made.

Like the uncut version of A New Leaf.

Amy Scott: Exactly. I want to hear it from her. So, yeah, that's high up on my list. I really, really want to make one with Elaine.

Was there anyone else you really wanted to get to? You mentioned Warren didn't want to talk to you. Anybody else?

Amy Scott: I would have loved Julie Christie or, you know, more women would have been great. Bruce Dern was so great and so funny and I’d seen him a number of times. I saw he was at a screening of one of his movies. He talked for like, an hour and a half before they even screened the film. He was whip smart in his memories. I was so upset that we couldn't work it out because I knew that he would be incredible.

Just his knowledge of movie industry, having been in it so long.

Amy Scott: My gosh, yeah.

He even worked with Bette Davis.

Amy Scott: Yeah, he's national treasure. Exactly. I was just staring at a poster. I have framed poster of Family Plot in my kitchen.

That's the movie that was going to make him a star, according to Hitchcock. It still has one of the greatest closing shots of all time. I think I read that Barbara Harris improvised the wink, and that's another person who you should make a documentary about.

Amy Scott: Oh my gosh. Barbara Harris is something. Do you remember what was the film that she was in with? Dustin Hoffman and Dr. Hook scored it. It's a really long title.

Who Is Harry Kellerman And Why Is He Saying These Terrible Things About Me?

Amy Scott: That is such a phenomenal Barbara Harris performance. I mean, Dustin Hoffman is incredible. He's always great. But Barbara Harris really shines and I guess I'm like, that's who she was. Yeah, I think she was difficult. Well, I don't know, difficult.

She had stuff she was dealing with.

Amy Scott: She had issues and Hal had to deal with those on Second Hand Hearts too.

From a production standpoint, people are interested in hearing what your Indiegogo process was Any tips you'd have for someone who wants to fund their film via Indiegogo?

Amy Scott: Oh, boy. Well, that was a different time, because I really don't know how films are funded at the moment. This came out five years ago, but it took us like six years to make. So, during in that time, you could at least raise enough capital to get through production.

The Indiegogo campaign enabled it so that we could even make the movie, because everything past that point, nobody ever got paid at all. But at least that way, we could buy film stock and pay the camera operators and our DPs and stuff. So, that was hugely important.

At the time, I remember thinking like, oh, no, how are we ever going to get anybody to because you had to make these—I don't know if this is still the case—but you had to make these commercials for your project or like a trailer to get people's attention. And you had to be all over Facebook and crap like that. So, I was like, oh, no, how am I going to make a thing that shows that Hal Ashby's important to people that want to give money?

A friend somehow knew John C. Reilly and mentioned it to him. It was like, we just need a celebrity to come in for like, you know, half a day or one hour. And he said, I'll come on down and do that. And he came. I couldn't believe it. The generosity of this man. He didn't know us at all. But he knew and loved the films of Hal Ashby and wanted to give back and pay it forward.

So, he came down and because of him, we have a really funny, awesome little commercial trailer.  I have no idea where that thing even is. I'd love to see it because I had to do it with him, which was terrifying, because I am not a front of camera person. I didn’t know what to say. And he said, All you have to do is ask for money. I'll all do the rest of the talking.

I remember seeing it.

Amy Scott: It’s been stripped from Indiegogo which probably means that we used a song that we weren't able to. That was back in the early days of crowdfunding, where you could just take images or songs and  I'm sure I used the music of Cat Stevens, and then, loaded up with a bunch of photos that we never paid for.

Well, that brings up a question of how did you get all the rights to the stuff you got for the finished movie? Was that a huge part of your budget?

Amy Scott: No. The most expensive thing always to this day is music. Music is going to get you. Outside of that, thank goodness, there's this little thing called fair use now, which wasn't the case in documentary filmmaking for a very long time. But now you can fair use certain elements, photographs, or news clips, video clips, anything that sort of supports your thesis that you're making about your subject and supports your storyline falls under the category of fair use.

So, I think what our money did pay for is the fair use attorneys that that really go over your product. They went over out fine cut, because we couldn't afford to pay for multiple lawyers to look at it. So you give them a fine cut, you hold your breath and hope that they say, oh, you know, you only have to take out a couple things. And you're like, oh, thank God. Okay, and then you change it.

I believe, because we never had any money, that we submitted to Sundance and got in on a wing and a prayer. And then had, you know, two weeks to turn the film around and get it, finished. I remember we were like, you know, pulling all these all nighters, trying to change the notes that the legal said XY and Z was not fair use and trying to swap out music with our composer. It was a wild, wild run.

Isn’t that always the way? You work on it for six years and then suddenly you have two weeks to finish it.

Amy Scott: That's how it shook out for us. It was like really, really pretty funny, because you're going on a leisurely pace until you're not. And then it's like, alright, it's real now. I thought for years, I think my friends and casual acquaintances thought that I've lost my mind. Because every year, I'd see people that I would see occasionally and they're like, hey, how's it going? What are you working on? I'm like, I'm just working on this Ashby's movie. And they were like, year after year, like damn. She's like, we need to reel her in and we need to throw her a lifeline. No, really, I really, really am. So, it was pretty funny. We were. We did it.

People have no idea how long these things take.

Amy Scott: It's unfunded. But you know, then we got lucky after that, because we nearly killed ourselves on Hal. Then we kind of fell into the era of streaming deals and streamers. And then people were like, oh, we want to make biopics and we want to give you money to make a biopic. And that was truly our first rodeo. We're like, oh, my gosh, what? This is incredible. We can get paid for this.

Now that's falling away. This streaming industry is, you know, collapsing in on itself as it should, because there's no curation anymore. And it's like, let's return to form a little bit here, guys. So, we're just riding the wave. I say it's like we're riding trying to learn how to ride a mechanical bull this industry. I’m a tomboy. So, every local Oklahomans is up for the ride.

Let me ask you one last question. I'll let you go then. So, as a filmmaker, what did you learn doing a deep dive into the work of this director and editor and you are a director and editor? So, that's sort of a scary thing to do anyway, to be the person who's going to edit Hal Ashby. What did you learn in the process that you can still take away today?

Amy Scott: Well, listen, we joke about it all the time. My producer, Brian Morrow and I are constantly going, oh, what would Hal do? Everything that he stood for, as a filmmaker. The film will tell you what to do. Get in there, be obsessed be the film, all of those things.

I get this man because I feel the same way. So, when we like took a real bath in Hal Ashby's words for years, that sort of that shapes the rest of your life as a filmmaker. You're not like a casual filmmaker after going through like the Ashby's carwash. That stuff's sticks.

But I'm proud. I'm proud that that we pulled it off. I'm proud that we were able to make the movie. Somebody would have done it, because Hal is too great and too good, and he just has deserved it for so long.

The only thing that we've ever wanted was that we wanted people to go back and watch his films, or to watch him for the first time if they had never seen him. And then to take his creative spirit forward. Be in love with the thing that you make. It’s your lifeforce.

So, otherwise, what is it all for, you know? So, yeah, that's what I got from him.

Episode 106: Writer/Director Eric Mendelsohn revisits “Judy Berlin”

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with filmmaker Eric Mendelsohn, who revisits the lessons he learned while making his debut feature film, “Judy Berlin.”

LINKS

Judy Berlin Trailer:  https://youtu.be/23PlEaTy9WA

Edie Falco Interview about Judy Berlin: https://youtu.be/AoC5q5N-6kY

A Free Film Book for You:  https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12

Another Free Film Book:  https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6

Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/

Eli Marks Website:  https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/

Albert’s Bridge Books Website:  https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/

YouTube Channel:  https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcast

Dying to make a feature? Learn from the pros!

"We never put out an actual textbook for the Corman School of Filmmaking, but if we did, it would be Fast, Cheap and Under Control." 
Roger Corman, Producer

★★★★★

It’s like taking a Master Class in moviemaking…all in one book!

  • Jonathan Demme: The value of cameos

  • John Sayles: Writing to your resources

  • Peter Bogdanovich: Long, continuous takes

  • John Cassavetes: Re-Shoots

  • Steven Soderbergh: Rehearsals

  • George Romero: Casting

  • Kevin Smith: Skipping film school

  • Jon Favreau: Creating an emotional connection

  • Richard Linklater: Poverty breeds creativity

  • David Lynch: Kill your darlings

  • Ron Howard: Pre-production planning

  • John Carpenter: Going low-tech

  • Robert Rodriguez: Sound thinking

And more!


Write Your Screenplay with the Help of Top Screenwriters!

It’s like taking a Master Class in screenwriting … all in one book!

Discover the pitfalls of writing to fit a budget from screenwriters who have successfully navigated these waters already. Learn from their mistakes and improve your script with their expert advice.

"I wish I'd read this book before I made Re-Animator."
Stuart Gordon, Director, Re-Animator, Castle Freak, From Beyond

John Gaspard has directed half a dozen low-budget features, as well as written for TV, movies, novels and the stage.

The book covers (among other topics):

  • Academy-Award Winner Dan Futterman (“Capote”) on writing real stories

  • Tom DiCillio (“Living In Oblivion”) on turning a short into a feature

  • Kasi Lemmons (“Eve’s Bayou”) on writing for a different time period

  • George Romero (“Martin”) on writing horror on a budget

  • Rebecca Miller (“Personal Velocity”) on adapting short stories

  • Stuart Gordon (“Re-Animator”) on adaptations

  • Academy-Award Nominee Whit Stillman (“Metropolitan”) on cheap ways to make it look expensive

  • Miranda July (“Me and You and Everyone We Know”) on making your writing spontaneous

  • Alex Cox (“Repo Man”) on scaling the script to meet a budget

  • Joan Micklin Silver (“Hester Street”) on writing history on a budget

  • Bob Clark (“Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things”) on mixing humor and horror

  • Amy Holden Jones (“Love Letters”) on writing romance on a budget

  • Henry Jaglom (“Venice/Venice”) on mixing improvisation with scripting

  • L.M. Kit Carson (“Paris, Texas”) on re-writing while shooting

  • Academy-Award Winner Kenneth Lonergan (“You Can Count on Me”) on script editing

  • Roger Nygard (“Suckers”) on mixing genres

This is the book for anyone who’s serious about writing a screenplay that can get produced! 


TRANSCRIPT -EPISODE 106

Eric Mendelson Interview

[JUDY BERLIN SOUNDBITE]

 

John

That was a soundbite from “Judy Berlin,” which was written and directed by today’s guest, Eric Mendelsohn. Hello and welcome to episode 106 of The Occasional Film podcast -- the occasional companion podcast to the Fast, Cheap Movie Thoughts Blog. I'm the blog's editor, John Gaspard.

 

Judy Berlin, starring Edie Falco, as well as Madeline Kahn, Bob Dishy, Barbara Barrie and Julie Kavner, was Eric Mendelsohn's feature film debut. The film was an Official Selection of the Cannes Film Festival … won Best Director at Sundance … Best Independent Film at the Hamptons Film Festival … and was nominated for three Independent Spirit Awards. Eric is currently the Professor of Professional Practice, Film, at Columbia University.

 

I first spoke to Eric about Judy Berlin years and years ago, for my book, Fast Cheap and Under Control: Lessons Learned from the Greatest Low-Budget Movies of All Time. In the course of that interview, Eric laid out a handful of really smart filmmaking lessons – lessons that, if followed, might be the difference between making a successful film … or making no film at all.

 

I was curious: What did Eric think about those lessons, all these years later?  Before we got into that, though, we talked about the origins of Judy Berlin …

 

[MUSIC TRANSTION]

 

John

What was the impetus that made Judy Berlin happen?

 

Eric

It's answerable in a more general way. When I get interested in making a script or making a film, it's because a group of feelings and images almost in a synesthesia kind of way, come together and I get a feeling and I say, oh, yeah, that would be fun. And for Judy Berlin, the set of feelings were definitely having to do with melancholy, hopefulness, the suburbs and my intimate feelings about them being a fresh place that I hadn't seen, represented in the way I experienced them. Things as abstract as how everyone feels in autumn time, I guess, maybe everyone does. I don't know. Maybe there are some people who are just blissfully unaware of all those sad feelings of you know, autumn, but I felt like they were worth reproducing if maybe they hadn't been in that particular locale. I think this is a funny thing to say but against all of that sadness, and kind of hope against hope, being hopeful against hopelessness, I had this sound of a score to a Marvin Hamlisch score to Take the Money and Run. And I actually asked him to do the music and he said he didn't understand such sadness that was in the movies that this isn't something I do. Which is really true and I didn't get it and I wanted to persist and say no, but that score for Take the Money and Run, that has such like almost like a little kids hopefulness about it.

 

That's what I wanted. It was like a river running underneath the ground of the place that I had grown up with. And I think the other inspiration for the movie was pretty, I don't know, maybe it's called plagiarism. Maybe it's called inspiration, the collected feeling that you can distill from the entire works of Jacques Demy, and I loved Jacques Demy 's films. They gave me a license. I saw them and said, Well, if you can mythologize your own little town in the northwest of France that maybe seems like romantic to Eric Mendelsohn from old Bethpage, Long Island, New York but truly is a kind of a unremarkable place at the time it was made, that I can do it with my town. I can mythologize everybody, and love them and hate them and talk about them and so those are some of the feelings that went into it.

 

John

But they all came through. So, what I want to do is just go through the handful of lessons that you told me X number of years ago, and let's see what you think about them now. So, one of the big ones that turns up again and again, when I talked to filmmakers was the idea of write to your resources. And in the case of Judy Berlin, you told me that that's a great idea and you thought you were: It takes place over one day with a bunch of characters in one town. When in fact you were really making things quite difficult for yourself by having middle aged people with homes and cars and businesses and professional actors who all had other things going on.

 

Eric  03:35

And multiple storylines is a terrible idea for low budget movie making. Each actor thought oh, I’m in a little short film. I, however, was making a $300,000 movie about 19 characters. What a stupid guy I was.

 

John  03:53

Do you really think it was stupid?

 

Eric  03:54

It was. You know, everyone says this after you have graduated from that kind of mistake or once you've done it, you look back and say I would only have done that because I didn't know any better. I know you haven't finished your question. But I also want to say that writing or creating from ones’ resources also includes what you are able to do, what you are able to manufacture. In other words, I didn't have enough writing skill to concentrate on two characters or one character in house, like Polanski, in his first endeavors. I didn't I had small ideas for many characters. It's much more difficult to write a sustained feature film with two people. So, I was writing to my resources in a number of ways, not just production, but in my ability as a writer at that point.

 

John  04:53

Yeah, you're right. It is really hard. I don't know why they always say if you're gonna make a low budget movie, have it be two people in a room. That's really hard to do. The idea of let's just tell a bunch of stories does seem easier and I've done that myself a couple times and it is for low budget easier in many respects. My stuff is super low budget, no one's getting paid. We're doing it on weekends, and you can get some really good actors to come over for a couple days and be really great in their part of the movie and then you put it all together. Another advantage is if you have multiple stories, I learned this from John Sayles in Returns of the Secaucus Seven, he said I couldn't move the camera. So, I just kept moving the story. It allowed him to just, I can't move the camera, but I can move to the next scene, I can move to these people, or I can move to those people there. And it also allows you an editing a lot of freedom, because you can shift and move and do things. So, the downside you had of course was on just a strictly production shooting day level, very hard to do what you were doing. But it did allow you to grow a bit as a writer because you're able to write a lot of different kinds of characters and different kinds of scenes.

 

Eric  05:57

Remember, I always say this, you know, you sit in your room, and I believe you need to do this as a writer, you sit in your room and you say to yourself, she slams a car door harder than usual. And then you realize later she drives a car, where am I going to get a car from? She enters her house. How am I going to get a house and if I have seven characters, and they all have cars, that's a job in itself. One person could spend their summer looking for seven cars. But that's the least of your problems. When it's houses, cars, clothing, handbags, all of it.

 

John  06:30

Yeah, when you're starting out, you don't necessarily realize that every time you say cut to something in your script, that's a thing. You've got to get it. I did a feature once that had four different stories and there are four different writers and a writer came to me with his finished script, which was brilliant, but it was like 14, 15 locations that I had to shoot over two days. So, how do you do that? Well, you end up spending four days on it. But the other hand, another writer who understood screenwriting, handed me a script that was four locations, but brilliantly combined and figured out. So, in two days, you could shoot them all because he knew what he was doing. And that's something you don't necessarily learn until you're standing there at six in the morning with a crew going, I don't know what I'm doing right now, because I screwed myself up and I wrote it and that's sometimes the only way you can learn it.

 

Eric  07:16

I think it's the only way. The only way. Look, you can be precautious, you can, it's no different than life, your parents can warn you about terrible, ruinous, stupid, love affairs that are going to wreck you for a year. Are you really going to just not get into them because of what smart older people said? You throw yourself at a film in the way that hopefully you throw yourself at love affairs. You're cautious and then you've just got to experience it. And I think the difference obviously is in film, you're using lots of people's time, effort money, and you do want to go into it with smarts and planning. I still say that you should plan 160%. Over plan in other words. And then the erosion that naturally happens during production, this crew member stinks and had to be fired a day before. This location was lost. This actress can't perform the scene in one take because of memory problems. All of that is going to impact your film. Let's say it impacts it 90%. Well, if you plan to 160%, you're still in good shape in the footage that you get at the end of the production.

 

John  08:29

Yeah, I'm smiling, because you're saying a lot of the things you said last time, which means it’s still very true. Alright, the next lesson was, and this is one that I've embraced forever: No money equals more control. You spoke quite eloquently about the fact that people wanted to give you more money to make Judy Berlin if you would make the following changes. Looking back on it did you make the right decisions on that one?

 

Eric  08:51

Yes. I'll tell you something interesting. Maybe I didn't say this last time. But I remember my agent at the time saying to me, we could get you a lot of money. Why don't you halt production? We'll get you so much money that will get you--and this is the line that always stuck in my head-- all the bells and whistles you want. Now, I'm going to be honest with you what he said scared me for two reasons. One, I had worked in production for a long time in my life and I knew that if you stall anything, it just doesn't happen. It just doesn't. That the energy of rolling downhill is better than sitting on the hill, potential energy and trying to amass funds. But another thing and I was scared privately because I said to myself, I don't even know what the bells and whistles are. I'm afraid to tell him that I don't know what they are. And I'd rather I think that's those bells and whistles are for some other savvy filmmaker that I'll maybe become later. But right now I have the benefit of not knowing enough and I'm going to throw myself and my planning and my rigorous militaristic marshalling of people and props and costume names and locations and script. I'm gonna throw that all at the void and do it my cuckoo way because once I learned how to make a movie better, I'll have lost a really precious thing, which is my really, really raw, naive, hopeful, abstract sense of what this could be. And that thing that I just said with all those words was not just a concept. I didn't know what I was making, in the best sense possible.

 

I was shooting for something, shooting it for an emotional goal, or a visual goal for a dramatic goal but I didn't put a name on it. I didn't put a genre to it. So much so that by the time I got to the Sundance Film Festival, and I read the first line of a capsule review, and it said, A serio-comic suburban. I almost cried, I felt so bad that I didn't know what I was making in an objective sense. In a subjective sense, obviously, I knew exactly what I was trying to do. But objectively, I didn't know it could be summed up by a review. And it hurt me so badly to think I was so mockable and now I'm going to embarrass myself by telling you what I thought I was making. I didn't think I was making something that could have a boldface thing that said, serio comic, multi character, suburban fairy tale. I didn't know that. I really thought I was like writing in glitter on black velvet or I don't know, I didn't even know that it could just be summed up so easily.

 

And I think I've written a lot of scripts since that one, and many haven't gotten made, but each time I reject and issue an objective determination of what the thing is that I'm working on, prior to sitting down. Is that the best way to work? It is a painful way to work. My friends will tell you that. I have my great friend and filmmaker Rebecca Dreyfus always says that I have creative vertigo, that I don't know what I'm doing for months and years on end and then I looked down and I say, Oh, God, I think it's a horror film. Or I think I've rewritten a Dickens story. And I get a nauseated kind of, you know, dolly in rack, focus thing. It's not, I'm telling you, I'm not describing a creative process that is painful for me to realize, always later on what I'm doing. And I still hold, that's the only way I can do it. I will not go into a screenplay and then a film saying this is a serio comic black and white, multi character, suburban, who wants that? I go in thinking, I'm making something that I don't know, that no one's seen before and then we'll see what they think.

 

John  12:54

You know, we were very similar, you and I in that regard. In addition to low budget, filmmaking, as I've gotten older, I've gotten into novel writing and mystery writing, which I enjoy. And the parallels between independent publishing and independent filmmaking are really close. One of the things that people say all the time in independent publishing that I back away from is you have to write to market. You have to know who your audience is, what they like, and write a book for them. And I can't do that. I can write a book for me that, you know, if I slip into dementia in 20 years and read it, I won't remember writing it, but I would enjoy it because all the jokes are for me and all the references are for me...

 

Eric  13:32

I think you and me, doing the exact right thing, according to me. And you'll be happy to know, because I teach at Columbia Columbia's film grad school, we have an unbelievable group of alumni people, you know, like, you know, Jennifer Lee, who created Frozen and the people behind Making of a Murderer and Zootopia. And all they ever say when they come back to speak to our students is nobody wants a writer who is writing to the industry. They want something they haven't seen before that is new, fresh, odd, and still steaming be you know, out of the birth canal.

 

John  14:14

Yep. The corollary to that, that I tell people who are writing and also people who are filmmakers who want to work that way is the more you can take economics out of the process, the more you're able to not need to make money from what you're doing, the happier you're going to be. Because every movie I've ever made has never made money and it didn't matter. It wasn't the purpose. The purpose was, oh, this is interesting idea. Let's explore this with these 12 actors and see what happens. But if you can take economics out of it, you completely free.

 

Eric  14:41

You free and I'll tell you what, I know. Again, it's just a perspective, one person's perspective. But everyone, you know, you want to leave on the earth some things that you felt good about, whether they're children or ethics or some civic thing you did for your town, or a movie. And all the people I know who made tons of money always are talking about coming back to their roots because they're so unhappy. Like, I get it. I get it. And all these actors who want to do work for no money, it's because they feel like well, I sure I made a ton of money, but I didn't get to do any of the stuff I really care about.

 

I remember in my first real attempt at filmmaking after film school, a short half hour film that starred the late Anne Meara and Cynthia Nixon in an early film role and F Murray Abraham did the voiceover. And I was 20 something years old, and the film did very well and it was just a half hour movie and we showed it at the Museum of Modern Art. And after the screening, a woman came up to me and I don't remember what language she was speaking. She was Asian, and she tried to explain to her to me, what the movie meant to her, but she spoke no English and she kept tapping her heart and looking at me. Anne Meara was standing next to me and she kept pointing like and then making a fist and pounding her chest and pointing to like a screen in the air, as if she was referencing the movie. And then she went away. Anne Meara said, listen to me now, it will never get better than that. I understand completely. For the movie I made after Judy Berlin, which is called Three Backyards and a movie I produced and cowrote after that, called Love After Love. I didn't read the reviews. Who cares?

 

John  16:27

Yeah, that's a pretty special experience and good for her to point that out to you.

 

Eric  16:31

Her husband in a bar after a production of The Three Sisters told me that--this is pretty common. This is Jerry Stiller, the late great comedian said to me, I was about to tell him what the New York Times had said about his performance. He said, no, no, no, don't. Because if you believe the good ones, then you have to believe the bad ones. And I've since known that that is something that's said a lot. But if a review isn't going to help you make your next movie, then don't read it.

 

Marlena Dietrich, in my favorite last line, paraphrased from any movie, gets at why criticism is unimportant for the artist. In the end of Touch of Evil, she says, “what does it matter what you say about other people.” It's just, you either do or they did to you or you experience all that garbage of what people say it goes in the trash, no one except for maybe James Agee’s book, there's very few film criticism books that people are desperate to get to, you know, in 50 years. But you take a bad movie, I watched some summer camp killer movie the other night, and I thought I'd rather watch this than read what somebody said about this movie. I’d rather watch somebody's earnest attempt to fling themselves at the universe than a critics commentary upon it. Yeah. Anyone who gets up at five in the morning to go make a movie has my respect and I don't even you know, on the New York Times comments online commentary site, I refused when it's about artwork to come in even anonymously. Nope!

 

John  18:05

Okay. You did touch on this. But it's so important and people forget it. I phrased it as time is on your side. You talked about being prepared 160% and having Judy Berlin, every day, there were two backups in case for some reason, something didn't happen and the advantage you had was you had no money. But you had time and you could spend the time necessary doing months of pre-production, which is the certainly the least sexy part of filmmaking, but is maybe the most important and is never really talked about that much.

 

How much you can benefit from just sitting down and putting the schedule down? I mean, we used to, I'm sure with Judy Berlin, you're using strips and you're moving them around and when we did our 16-millimeter features, we didn't even spend the money on the board. We made our own little strips, and we cut them out and did all that. You can do it now on computers, it's much easier, but it's having that backup and that backup to the backup. You don't really need it until you need it and then you can't get it unless you've put it in place already.

 

Eric  19:06

Well, I'll say this, I have to disabuse some of my students at Columbia by telling them that there is no like effete artist who walks onto a set-in filmmaking with no idea about scheduling. That character fails in filmmaking. That every single director is a producer, and you cannot be stupid about money, and you cannot be stupid about planning and in fact, Cass Donovan who is an amazing AD and one of my good friends. She and I sometimes used to do a seminar for young filmmakers about scheduling your movie and I always used to say, you know, a good schedule is a beautiful expression of your movie, where you put your emphasis. And it comes out in the same way that people say like oh, I just like dialogue and characters. I'm not good at structure. There's no such things. You need at least to understand that a good structure for your story can be a beautiful, not restrictive, rigorous device that's applied to your artistry, a structure and a story is a beautiful can be a beautiful thing and the expression of the story and the same thing is true with the schedule.

 

The schedule is an expression of your story’s emphases. If your story and your resources are about actors, and you've got an amazing group of people who are only doing the project and lending their experience and talent, because they thought this was a chance to act and not be hurried. Well, that expresses itself in how many days and how many shots you're going to schedule them in. And I love how a schedule expresses itself into an amount of days and amount of money and allocation of funding. I love it. There is no better way to find out what your priorities were and I love it. And in terms of planning, one of the reasons I don't understand or have an inkling to investigate theater is I don't want something that goes on every evening without my control, where the actors sort of do new things or try stuff out and the carefully plotted direction that you created can get wobbly and deformed over time. Instead, I like the planning of a script and now I'm not talking about pre-production. I'm talking about I like that, with screenwriting, you go down in your basement for as long as you need. So, maybe I'm afraid of shame and I don't like to present stuff that is so obviously wrong to whole groups of people. I like to go down in the basement for both the writing and the pre-production and get the thing right.

 

You know, there are so many ways to make a movie that I'll also I want to place myself in a specific school of filmmaking. To this point in my directing life, I've created scripts that are meant to be executed in the sense that not as disciplined in execution as what Hitchcock or David Lean, we're shooting for, but not as loose an experiment as Cassavetes, or let's say, Maurice Pilar. We're going for, everyone has to find their own expression. In other words, if you are Maurice Pilar or Cassavetes, or Lucrecia Martel, you have to find your own equation, you have to find your own pre-production/production equation where the room for experimentation.

 

I haven't really wanted to experiment on set, I know what shots I want, and I get them. The next film I make may be different. But everyone has a different equation and every script and every director are going to find their own priorities that are expressed in the project and then the execution. The fun thing was, the last movie I worked on, was something I've produced and co-wrote ,called Love After Love. And that was directed and co-written by Russ, and Russ and I spent years writing a script that we knew that was intended to be elastic, and to be a jumping off ground for the kind of impromptu directing he does. Now, a lot of what we wrote ended up in the movie, but sometimes he would call me from the set and say, this isn't working and that was exciting, because we knew that would happen. And he told the cast and the crew before they went into the project, before they went into the short film he made before that called Rolling on the Floor Laughing. This is intended to be a porous experiment ,with a firm spine of drama that is not porous.

 

So, we've created a drama and interrelations in that script that then he went off, and those couldn't budge. Those were fixed the dramatic principles and dynamics. But he worked as a director in a completely different way than me and I was very happy to loosen my own way of working and then as a producer, make sure that he had what he needed on the set, and that the pre-production, production and even editing--we took a year to edit that film--was based in an idiosyncratic methodology of his particular artistry, not mine.

 

John  24:34

And why I think is so interesting about that is that you know, you made sure that everybody involved knew going in we're doing this kind of movie and this kind of movie has … I remember talking to Henry Jaglom, about I don’t know which movie it was, you know, Henry has a very loose style of what he does. But it's still a movie, and he was talking about, he was shooting a scene and an actress either jumped into a swimming pool or push somebody into a swimming pool. And he said, Why did you do that? She said, I was in the moment. Yeah, and he said, yes, this is a movie and now I have to dry these people off and I have to do the coverage on the other side. So, you need to know where the lines are, how improvised is this really.

 

Eric  25:15

And everyone has different lines, and you make movies to find out how you make movies. You write screenplays to find out what that feeling is and whether or not you can interest an audience in it. You don't write a screenplay to execute Syd Fields, ideas about story or the hero's journey. I'm not a hero. I don't have a hero's journey. I have my journey. The task, the obligation is to see if I can take that and still make it dramatic and interesting to a group of hostile strangers, normally called an audience,

 

John  25:52

As Harry Anderson used to say, if you have a bunch of people all seated facing the same direction, do you owe them something.

 

Eric  25:58

Yeah, it's unbelievable. A friend of mine who works in theater saw a terrible show and he works on Broadway, and he works on all the big shows that you have heard of. So, I can't give the title of this one particular production. And he said, you know, I feel like telling these people because he works in lighting. He said, I feel like telling these people who create these shows that every single audience member who comes to see the show at eight o'clock that night, woke up at seven in the morning, and they're tired, and they worked and you better provide something at eight that night.

 

John  26:33

Exactly. I remember talking to Stuart Gordon, the guy who made Reanimator, and he was big in theater before he got into horror films. And he said we had one patron who always brought her husband, and I'll say his name was Sheldon, I forget what the name was. And he would consistently fall asleep during the shows. And my mandate to the cast was our only job is to keep Sheldon awake. Yeah, that's what we're there to do is to keep Sheldon alert and awake. And I think at all the time as you're watching something on film, you're going is that going to keep Sheldon awake, or is that just me having fun?

 

Eric  27:01

No, he didn't ask this question, so it's probably not. But a lot of students are not a lot, actually but some students will say to me like, well, what I have to know the history of movies? Why do I have to know that when I'm going to create something new? And I just think because you're not. Because there is a respect for a craft. Forget the art of people who have been doing this for ages. And to not know it puts you in the position of the only person on set who doesn't realize that. Every single crew member is a dramatist: the script supervisor is a dramatist, the set decorator is a dramatist, the costume designer, the cinematographer, the producer. So sometimes my students in directing will say to me, well, I thought this shot was interesting and I said, Okay, you may think that's interesting. But I'm going to tell you something scary right now: your producer, and your editor will know immediately that you don't know what you're doing and that that won't cut. It is not a secret this thing you are doing, this skill. Learn what other people, what the expectations of the art form are, please, and then build from them and break rules and expand but don't do it naively.

 

John  28:06

Yeah. When I wrote the first book, it was because I had done an interview with a couple guys who made a movie called The Last Broadcast, which came out right before Blair Witch, which had a similar project process to it. And one of them said to me, he said in talking to film students, one thing I keep seeing is everyone wants to reinvent the wheel. And so I put the book together, because here's all the different lessons, you can you're going to end up learning in one way or another, you might as well read them now and like you say, not find out that that won't cut because it won't cut. It just won't cut.

 

Alright, you did touch on this lesson earlier just in passing, but it's a good one and it's sometimes a tough one. I just called it Fixed Problems Quickly and it was about if there's a crew member who's not part of the team, it's easier to get rid of them two weeks out, then two hours into the shoot.

 

Eric  28:54

Yep, it still holds, and it happened on the film I made after Judy Berlin as well. Someone who had worked on Judy Berlin came on to the new production of Three Backyards, and I tried my best to keep this untenable relationship working. But like a rotten root on a plant, it started to rot everything around it, and everyone would like to be the well-liked captain of the ship. But that also means firing crew members sometimes. We had a very, very big key position on that film, and we had to lose them a week before we shot. I'll tell you something else about Three Backyards. It was a week before we shot it. Is it okay that I talked about that?

 

John  29:39

Absolutely. We're talking about what you've learned.

 

Eric  29:42

Yeah. So, after Judy Berlin I made a film called Three Backyards with Edie Falco and Elias Kotes and host of other people. A very strange movie it was, I am not joking. I haven't said this. So, not that this is some big reveal that anyone gives a shit about but before, a week before we shot it was called Four Backyards. I've never told that because I didn't want anyone to watch it with that mindset and start to say, and we even kept the crew quiet and said, please, we don't want this to get out that it's you know. And I cut out an entire storyline a week before shooting. Now, when I tell you that it was an actor, a very amazing actor in that storyline, the fourth backyard, who I had to call, who was already doing driving around on his motorcycle in the location, going to visit places that had to do with his storyline, costume fittings, everything had been done locations we had gotten, I had to call them and say we're cutting, that your character and that storyline. It was still to this day unbearable. I don't expect you know, the guy is very well known and successful, and you know, has done far more important things than my little movie. But I still feel guilty to this day. I feel nauseous to this day that I did that, that I had to do it.

 

We got to a point where it was clear, the expression of the film called Four Backyards would be running through one take per shot, per setup and running through with no time to work on the characters, no time to give these amazing actors, you know what they wanted. We'd be run and gun and I just said, I'm not this old, you know, to making this movie so that I can re-learn terrible lessons and put these actors through that kind of experience. So, I cut an entire storyline that was dragging down this buoy, let's say in the water and then once we cut it off, and I of course I don't mean the actor or the performance, the potential performance. I mean, the production. Once that fell to the bottom of the sea, the buoy lifted and bounced and righted itself. And I lived with that decision knowing I did the right thing, but that it was hard.

 

We also lost one of the key, we lost our production designer I would say about 15 days before shooting, and that was another one of those kinds of decisions where I said get it done now. I will say this offline on Three Backyards. There was a crew member who had, the minute I shook hands with them, I knew this is that kind of poisonous sniping inconsolable person. But I leave those decisions to department heads and that's not my job to get in and say this person seems awful to me. But that's my feeling. They worked for about, let me say this carefully, they worked and it and became exactly the problem that I had predicted. They initiated a work stoppage that was uncalled for, unprofessional, and everyone was aware.

 

They pretended not to know what location we were going to next and didn't show up. We were delayed I think 40 minutes. On a low budget movie, 40 minutes is unsustainable. And I will just say this, I had to make the decision because we were so deep into the film, whether or not firing that person would cause such bad feelings in the remaining crew or free us up in a way that was similar to what I described earlier. I decided to keep the person and it was I believe the right decision because we were close enough to finishing the film that I believed I would no longer reap benefits from firing them and that leads me to a sentence that I probably told you when I was 20 or whatever how old I was when I spoke to you.  I'm now 57.

 

On a movie, you want to be effective not right. In other words, a decision that is morally right on a film which is a temporary, collapsible circus tent where people strangers get together and work for a month, being morally right can hit the main pole of that circus tent really hard and collapse. You want to be effective not right. The right decision in a movie. It is the one that gets forward motion. In that particular case, I took my revenge out later, I kept the person, I bit my tongue and swallowed my pride and said I'm so sorry, let's negotiate. How can we make you happier? However, after we finished production, my more powerful friends in the industry never hired that person again. That person was fired from large TV productions that they were on and given no reason and I felt absolutely thrilled with that.

 

John  34:48

Well, it does catch up with you. The next one is one that I use all the time and you just put it very succinctly you said, Fewer Takes, More Shots.

 

Eric  34:57

So, I can talk about that. I want to be specific though, that it's for my kind of filmmaking. If you're shooting every scene in one shot, this cannot apply. But in the edit room generally, is a very broad stroke comment, generally, if you're a more conventional visual director who tells stories with shots, you get stuck on one shot in one setup, especially if it's a master and you're trying to get it right. You have no other storytelling ability. You don't have the move in. You don't have the overhead shot. You don't have the insert shot of the finger of the character touching a teaspoon nervously. You don't have any other storytelling ability if you get stuck in one setup.

 

So, a lot of people always say, you know, remember, your first take is probably your best take. That's a good truism. There's an energy that you get from nervous actors, nervous camera operators in a first take. So, sometimes your first take has a great spontaneity about it. Sometimes it lingers for a second or third take. The idea that you are going to beat that dead horse into the ground with subsequent takes going up through 13, 15, 19 to get something perfect flies in the face of the actuality, which is that editing, performance, the rhythm of the eventual scene through shots and takes creates what the audience experiences. That the idea of perfection is a great way to flatten your actors, kill your dialogue, ruin your scene.

 

It's like when I first made a pie ever in my life, nobody taught me and I didn't really look at a book. I was preparing a meal for a woman who was coming up to her country house and I was upstate using the house. And I thought to myself as I carefully cut the butter into the flour and created a little pebbly, beautiful texture, and then gently gathered those pebbles of flour and butter and sugar together into a ball. I mistakenly thought that if I took the rolling pin and roll the life out of it, I would be making the best crust possible. And it tasted it was inedible. It tasted like shoe leather. And I said what did I do wrong? And they said, the object she said to me when she arrived, the object is to gather those delicate, beautiful pebbles together and lightly make it into a crust that retains the little particles, the delicate interstitial hollows. Not to flatten the life out of it. And the same is true about shots. The more angles you have, if that's the way you shoot, create a sense of life. That's about as good as I can say it.

 

John  37:49

Well, you know, I want to add just a couple of things. When I did the book, originally, I talked, had a wonderful long conversation with Edie, Falco about Judy Berlin. She was trying to get her brand-new baby to go to sleep while we talk and so it's very quiet recording of her talking.

 

Eric  38:04

That's my godson Anderson.

 

John  38:05

Oh, that's so sweet. She said about multiple takes. She said there's a perception sometimes with filmmakers that actors are this endless well. And she said, I'm not, I'm just not. Unless you're giving me direction to change something, it's going to be the same or worse. Again, and again. And so you know, of all the lessons from the book that I tell people when I'm making presentations, fewer takes more shots. The thing, a corollary of attitude, is if you're going to do another take, tell them to do it faster, because you're gonna want a faster version of it. You don't realize that right now, but you're gonna want one.

 

Eric  38:38

Here's a great way of saying it. I feel people mistake, directors mistakenly think that they are making the film on set. The filming of a movie is a shopping expedition for, drumroll please, ingredients. If you are shooting one take per scene, sure, get it right, you have your own methodology. But if you're going to be telling a story in the traditional narrative way, where a bunch of angles and performances in those shots, setups angles, will eventually tell the story of a scene that let's say for example, goes from pedestrian quotidian to life threatening, remember that you need the ingredients to then cook in the edit room of quotidian, seemingly boring escalating into life threatening.

 

Making a movie on set in production is shopping for the ingredients and you come home and then you forget the recipe and say, what did I get? What was available? What was fresh? What does that mean if you're not talking about food? Well, this actor was amazing, and I lingered on them and I worked on their performance because it's going to be great. That's one of the ingredients you have to work on. In the edit room, this actor was less experienced, and I had to do more setups because they couldn't carry a scene in one shot. That's what I have to work with now in the edit room.

 

When you're in the edit room, you're cooking with the ingredients you got in the fishing expedition called shooting. That's why my students say to me, well, why am I going to get extra footage? Why am I going to get anything but the bare minimum? Why am I going to overlap in terms of, well, you think you're only going to use that angle for two lines, we'll get a line on either side of the dialog, so that you have it in case. And they say, that's not being professional. That's not being precise and accurate. And I'd say it's a fishing expedition, especially if you're starting to learn film. You don't go shopping for a party and say, I think everyone will have about 13 M&Ms. You're buy in bulk, because you're getting like, oh, it's a Halloween party, I’ll need a lot of this, a lot of that and a lot of this, and then you cook it later.

 

John  41:04

You know, one of the best examples of that is connected to Judy Berlin, because as I remember, you edited that movie on the same flatbed that Annie Hall was edited on...

 

Eric  41:18

I still have it, because the contract I made with Woody Allen was that if no one ever contacted me for it, and I bore the expense of having to store it, I would keep it. And so I got it and nobody ever asked for it. Nobody uses it anymore.

 

John  41:34

But the making of that movie is exactly that. They had a lot of ingredients and they kept pulling things away to what was going to taste the best and all of a sudden, this massive thing … You know, I was just talking to another editor last weekend, o, I pulled out this, the Ralph Rosenblum’s book, but...

 

Eric  41:49

Oh, yeah, I was just gonna mention that. The best book on editing ever.

 

John  41:51

Although Walter Murch’s book was quite good. But this is much more nuts and bolts.

 

Eric  41:56

And much more about slapping stuff together to make art.

 

John  42:00

That one lesson of: don't spend all day on that one take over and over and over. Let's get some other angles is …

 

Eric  42:06

I'll tell you what happens. I may have said this in our first interview, but I will tell you from the inside, what happens. It's terrifying and if you start with a master, a director can get terrified, because to move on means more questions about what's next. Was it good? And you can get paralyzed in your master shot if you're shooting in that manner. And then the actors aren't doing their best work in the master, especially if it's a huge master, where there's tons of stuff going on. They're going to give you some better performance, if you intend to go in for coverage and you by the time you do that you may have lost, you know, their natural resource. They might have expended it already. I've been in that situation where I got lost in my master and you almost have to take a pin on set and hit your own thigh with it and say, wake up, wake up, move on, move on.

 

John  42:58

Yeah. All right, I got one more lesson for you, because I'm keeping you way too long. It's a really interesting one, because it's when I talked to Edie about it, she didn't know you had done it and she thought, well, maybe it helped. But Barbara Barrie played her mother in Judy Berlin, they had never met as actors, as people. And you kept them apart until they shot, because you wanted a certain stiffness between them. I just call that Using Reality to Your Advantage. What do you think about that idea now?

 

Eric  43:25

Edie isn't someone who requires it, you know, she's one of the best actresses in the world.

 

John  43:30

And Barbara Barrie wouldn't have needed it either. I'm sure.

 

Eric  43:32

She wouldn't have but I do think there's a … look. This is a funny thing about me and my evolution from Through an Open Window, which is the half hour film, to what I'm writing today. I always thought that film was interesting in the same way that I thought military psyops were interesting: that you could control or guide or influence an audience's experience of the story in ways they were unaware of. So, I always liked those hidden influencers. Even in advertising, I thought they were interesting. You see how this company only uses red and blue and suddenly you feel like, oh, this is a very, this is an American staple this product. I love that shit and after I'm done with a script, I know what I'm intending the audience's experience to be I want to find anything to help me to augment that and if you're a fan of that kind of filmmaking, would the shots have a power outside of the audience's ability to see them? They know that the story is working on them and they think the audience thinks, oh, I was just affected by the story in that great performance. They have no idea that the director has employed a multitude of tricks, depth of field to pop certain actor’s faces out as opposed to wider shots that exclude are identifying with other characters, moving shots that for some reason, quote unquote some reason meaning every director is aware of how these techniques influence an audience, suddenly make you feel as if that moment in the story of the character are moving or have power have influence while other moments have nothing.

 

In Three Backyards, funnily enough with Edie, I had a scene where Edie was, the whole, Edie's whole storyline was about her desperate, unconscious attempt to connect with this other woman who was a stranger to her. And I refused to show them in a good two shot throughout the entire film. I separated them. I made unequal singles.

 

When their singles cut, they were unequal singles tighter and wider, until the moment that I had convinced the audience now they're going to become best friends. And I put them into their first good, easy going two shot. And that kind of manipulation is done every moment by every filmmaker directing. In one aspect it is a mute, meaning silent in an unobtrusive, persuasive visual strategy for enhancing the story. So, whether you're keeping two actors away from each other during the course of the day before their first scene, because the scene requires tension, or whether you're separating them visually until a moment late in the movie, where they come together, and they're coming together will suddenly have tension because they're in the same shot. Those kinds of persuasive manipulations are what visual storytelling, otherwise known as directing is about.

 

John  43:33

Yep, and there's a lot of tools. You just got to know about them because a lot of them you're not going to see, you won't recognize, though until somebody points out, do you realize that those two women were never really in the same shot together?

 

Eric  47:06

Every well directed movie has a strategy. Sometimes they're unconscious, but you don't want to be unconscious. As the director, you want to be smart. You want to be informed about your own process, and I think smart directors … Here's what I always say to my students: learn a lot, know a lot, then feel a lot.

 

So, what does that mean? It's just my way of distilling a whole bunch of education down into a simple sentence. Understand what has been done and what you can do, and what are the various modes of directing and storytelling. And then when you get into your own script, feel a lot. What do I want? Why isn't it working? Add a lot of questions marks to the end of sentences. Why can't this character be more likeable? Why isn't this appealing? Why haven't I? How could I? And it's a combination of knowing a lot and being rigorously intellectual about the art form that you want to bow down before you want to bow down before what works and what doesn't work. I would say that you want to bow down before the gods of what works and what doesn't work. You know, you don't want to look them in the eye and say, screw you, I'm doing what I want. You bow down and say, I don't even understand why that didn't work. But I'll take that lesson.

 

You want to feel a lot. You want to be open on the set. One of the hardest things to learn is how to be open on the set. You want to be open when you're writing. You want to be open when you're editing. It's a real juggling act of roles that you have to play, of being naive, being smart, being a businessperson, being a general, being a very, very wounded flower.

 

You know, I remember reading, as a high school student, Gloria Swanson's autobiography. And then it's so many years since I read it that I might be wrong. But I remember they said what are you proudest of in your career. And she said without hesitation that I'm still vulnerable. And I didn't even know if I understood it at the time, but I get it now.

 

You want to be smart. You want to be experienced. You want to have a lot of tools and know the tools of other directors and still be naive and vulnerable and hearable and have your emotional interior in tech. Those are hard things to ask of anyone, but if you want to be in this industry, an art form that so many greats have invested their life's work toiling in, then you owe it to yourself to be all of those things.

 

[MUSIC TRANSTION]

 

John

Thanks to Eric Mendelsohn for chatting with me about the lessons he learned from his debut feature, Judy Berlin.

 

If you enjoyed this interview, you can find lots more just like it on the Fast, Cheap Movie Thoughts Blog. Plus, more interviews can be found in my books -- Fast, Cheap and Under Control -- Lessons Learned from the greatest low-budget movies of all time ... and its companion book of interviews with screenwriters, called Fast, Cheap and Written that Way. Both books can be found on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Google and Apple Books.

 

And while you're there, check out my mystery series of novels about magician Eli Marks and the scrapes he gets into. The entire series, staring with The Ambitious Card, can be found on those same online retailers in paperback, hardcover, ebook and audiobook formats. And if you haven’t already, check out the companion to the books: Behind the Page: The Eli Marks podcast … available wherever you get your podcasts.

 

That's it for episode 106 of The Occasional Film Podcast, which was p roduced at Grass Lake Studios. Original music by Andy Morantz. Thanks for tuning in and we’ll see you … occasionally!

 

Episode 104: Editor Roger Nygard (“Veep,” “Curb Your Enthusiasm”)

Filmmaker Roger Nygard (“Trekkies,” “Suckers,” “The Nature of Existence”) on cutting comedy, the need for editors to also be filmmakers, creativity and why sometimes you have to cut great jokes.

LINKS

A Free Film Book for You:  https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12

Another Free Film Book:  https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6

Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/

Eli Marks Website:  https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/

Albert’s Bridge Books Website:  https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/

YouTube Channel:  https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcast

Roger Nygard Website: http://rogernygard.com/

Cut to the Monkey (The Book):  https://www.amazon.com/Cut-Monkey-Hollywood-Behind-Scenes/dp/1493061232

The Truth About Marriage (Trailer):  https://youtu.be/VeFI_4WC2OI

Dying to make a feature? Learn from the pros!

"We never put out an actual textbook for the Corman School of Filmmaking, but if we did, it would be Fast, Cheap and Under Control." 
Roger Corman, Producer

★★★★★

It’s like taking a Master Class in moviemaking…all in one book!

  • Jonathan Demme: The value of cameos

  • John Sayles: Writing to your resources

  • Peter Bogdanovich: Long, continuous takes

  • John Cassavetes: Re-Shoots

  • Steven Soderbergh: Rehearsals

  • George Romero: Casting

  • Kevin Smith: Skipping film school

  • Jon Favreau: Creating an emotional connection

  • Richard Linklater: Poverty breeds creativity

  • David Lynch: Kill your darlings

  • Ron Howard: Pre-production planning

  • John Carpenter: Going low-tech

  • Robert Rodriguez: Sound thinking

And more!

Write Your Screenplay with the Help of Top Screenwriters!

It’s like taking a Master Class in screenwriting … all in one book!

Discover the pitfalls of writing to fit a budget from screenwriters who have successfully navigated these waters already. Learn from their mistakes and improve your script with their expert advice.

"I wish I'd read this book before I made Re-Animator."
Stuart Gordon, Director, Re-Animator, Castle Freak, From Beyond

John Gaspard has directed half a dozen low-budget features, as well as written for TV, movies, novels and the stage.

The book covers (among other topics):

  • Academy-Award Winner Dan Futterman (“Capote”) on writing real stories

  • Tom DiCillio (“Living In Oblivion”) on turning a short into a feature

  • Kasi Lemmons (“Eve’s Bayou”) on writing for a different time period

  • George Romero (“Martin”) on writing horror on a budget

  • Rebecca Miller (“Personal Velocity”) on adapting short stories

  • Stuart Gordon (“Re-Animator”) on adaptations

  • Academy-Award Nominee Whit Stillman (“Metropolitan”) on cheap ways to make it look expensive

  • Miranda July (“Me and You and Everyone We Know”) on making your writing spontaneous

  • Alex Cox (“Repo Man”) on scaling the script to meet a budget

  • Joan Micklin Silver (“Hester Street”) on writing history on a budget

  • Bob Clark (“Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things”) on mixing humor and horror

  • Amy Holden Jones (“Love Letters”) on writing romance on a budget

  • Henry Jaglom (“Venice/Venice”) on mixing improvisation with scripting

  • L.M. Kit Carson (“Paris, Texas”) on re-writing while shooting

  • Academy-Award Winner Kenneth Lonergan (“You Can Count on Me”) on script editing

  • Roger Nygard (“Suckers”) on mixing genres

This is the book for anyone who’s serious about writing a screenplay that can get produced! 

TOFP Episode 104 - TRANSCRIPT

 

Damon Wayans Jr  00:00

License and registration please. I’m going to write you a ticket.

 

Larry David

A ticket?!

 

Damon Wayans Jr 

It was a bad decision on your part to honk at a police officer.

 

Larry David  00:06

Oh, are you above the beep?

 

Damon Wayans Jr  00:07

Absolutely. I'm a police officer. I protect your rights.

 

Larry David  00:10

My rights to beep. That's one of my rights.

 

Damon Wayans Jr 

But you don't beep me.

 

Larry David

That's a right. That's America, we're allowed to beep.

 

Damon Wayans Jr  00:16

Yeah, well, I'm allowed to write this ticket.

 

Larry David  00:19

Good. Write it.

 

Damon Wayans Jr  00:20

Getting smart with me, boy.

 

Larry David  00:21

I'm not getting smart. I am smart. By the way. I'm smart and of course, I'll be protesting this ticket. I hope you enjoy your day in court.

 

Damon Wayans Jr  00:29

Here you go. Have a nice day.

 

Larry David  00:33

Thank you.

 

Damon Wayans Jr  00:33

Thank you.

 

Larry David  00:34

You made my day.

 

John Gaspard  00:37

That was Larry David and Damon Wayans Jr. In a scene from ‘’Curb Your Enthusiasm,’’ which was edited by today's guest, Roger Nygard. Hello, and welcome to episode 104 of The Occasional Film podcast, the occasional companion podcast to the Fast, Cheap Movie Thoughts blog. I'm the blog's editor John Gaspard. Today we're talking with filmmaker Roger Nygard. In addition to being a director, and editor and a screenwriter. Roger is also the author of a terrific book, Cut To The Monkey, A Hollywood Editor’s Behind The Scenes Secrets To Making Hit Comedies. In it, he explores the nature of editing comedy, with advice from some of the comedy experts he's worked with over the years. Larry David on Curb Your Enthusiasm, Julia Louis Dreyfus, and David Mandel on Veep. Plus, Sacha Baron Cohen, Alex Berg, and many, many more. The book gives us a great jumping off point, I could talk to you about film —and I have in the past – under any sort of structure.

 

Roger Nygard  01:44

There’s no reason to stop that now.

 

John Gaspard  01:46

But the book does raise some interesting points that I want to talk about because not only did I learn stuff about you reading, Cut to the Monkey, but I also learned some stuff about myself that I had not considered seeing what I've done in moviemaking, through your eyes. So, we'll start right at the beginning. You have very supportive parents, when it came to what you were doing creatively as a youngster. Is that safe to say,

 

Roger Nygard  02:11

Yeah, well, particularly my mother, it's really a mother's job, and I guess my mom did her job in that category, which was when I came home in from kindergarten, they give you crayons, and you'd have to draw a picture, everyone does that. I would hand it to my mother, all proud, and she would say, “That is amazing. You are so creative, you're so talented.” She would fill my head with this delusion that I carry to this day that I'm talented. So, it gives me a framework to keep trying, despite the constant failures over and over again, and eventually, you one of them sticks. I guess, I succeeded here because I didn't give up.

 

John Gaspard  02:53

It doesn't mean also give yo a trampoline effect in your head that you can just bounce back pretty quickly from rejection, just because you have this basis of, no, you're cool. You're fine.

 

Roger Nygard  03:03

Yeah. Well, the thought that I have when something goes wrong, I get a bad review, or someone doesn't like my script, or someone critiques a documentary. My first thought is not, oh, I'm not good enough. My first thought is, oh, what idiots, they don't get it. So, it's their fault, not mine, that they don't like my work.

 

John Gaspard  03:24

I haven't gotten to that degree yet.

 

Roger Nygard  03:27

But it's quite a useful delusion. I know it's a delusion. But I'm stuck with it. Because my mother instilled in my framework of my mind as it was soft and solidifying, she got me when I was young.

 

John Gaspard  03:39

Yeah. I was in the same situation, parents who didn't really understand what I was doing, but recognized the passion I had for it and were just very encouraging. I'm always reminded of Steve Martin stories, and the one where he has brought his parents to see his first movie, The Jerk. As they come out, his father turns to him and says, well, it's not Charlie Chaplin and you go, well, that's a whole different parenting style that I was brought up with. That's the opposite of what you had; and that’s what he's fighting against. In reading the book and reading what you went on to do, I kept coming back to he was so lucky to have that basis of ego, I guess, that allows you to bounce back into business that very often is pushing you down.

 

Roger Nygard  04:25

Oh, we're all dealt a hand, a certain amount of talent and it's genetic and its sort of here's what you're given. Now, play your hand, the best you can see. Steve Martin had an amazing hand he had a straight flush, and so, he was able to overcome whatever difficulties his parents and others put in front of him because of his immense talent. I, on the other hand, am a completely mediocre talent, but pressed forward by this pressure of support that I felt and so …  one thing I learned and maybe I'm jumping ahead a little bit when I made a documentary called The Nature of Existence when I was really questioning existentialism and my own reason for being and what is the point of everything. I learned from that journey, that the point of everything is to be creative, daily, and that's what brings me happiness. So, it's not like I have to force myself to be creative. It's built into my need to be, and we all have a need to be happy. And I'm the same as everyone else. I enjoy the result of my labor, my creative labor daily. A little bit of that Minnesota work ethic, Scandinavian work ethic, is that if I don't put forth some effort during the day, I feel like a complete loser at the end of the day. So I have to have some kind of something to show for myself for the day, some work I put in, some results. Whether it's cleaning the garage, or writing a book, either one, or both are immensely satisfying to have completed, or feel like I completed something today, and look back on myself and go, wow, I did that. I feel really good about myself and then my mother's programming is all part of that, see, you did it, you can do it, you're good. and it's a self-perpetuating process.

 

Roger Nygard  06:02

So, every day I'm creating, working on the next book, working on the next script, editing TV show, whatever it is, it's all creative. I remember reading a study once I think way back in college, how there was this nursing home where they had 100 residents, and they gave everybody a plant. And 50% of the residents, they said, here's a plant, we'll take care of it, you have no responsibility. The other 50%, they said, here's the plant, you need to water this and take care of it, it's your responsibility. And the ones with the responsibility for the plant lived longer, because they suddenly had a reason for being in their life and it's about creation, they're creating life out of this plant and keeping it alive and it's what's innate in us is to create. And most of us, I guess, we get married, we have children and that child, that's your project for 20 years, or 18 years, or however long it takes to kick them out of the basement. You brought forth a small version of yourself, you created life and you're trying to make a better version of yourself, by putting what you can into that that new entity. And that creativity takes over your life for this two decades. Then a lot of people find themselves back where they started, what do I do now and then they're taking pottery classes, or painting or dancing classes and back to finding ways to express their creativity again. And when a human beings are not expressing creativity, they become depressed. And if you give someone a paper who's depressed and say, take 10 minutes and draw a picture of a plant or a giraffe, just draw a picture, while they're drawing the depression is not a part of their mental framework, because they're expressing creativity, they have a purpose, even if it's for that five minutes. So, you and I, as filmmakers, we put that forth that energy into a film or a product, ultimately, that has a larger result of some kind, we finish it, we show it to our community or social network, we get feedback and then that self-perpetuating loop continues. Some of that feedback is negative, some of its positive, but it's good to get any feedback. Because we're social creatures, we need that feedback, we need to engage and be creative and that's a lesson that I learned from the beginning of from age seven until now.

 

John Gaspard  08:07

It shows up in the book. I should say, I love the book, Cut to the Monkey. I knew I would because I knew your voice and, in the times, we talked in the past, I've always come away with stuff that I remember that I keep using. It's a terrific book about how to be a good editor. It's also a really good book about how to get a job as an editor, how to keep a job as an editor. I noticed you slipped in there in the middle of the book about screenwriting, which was a nice little diversion, where they also know this a screenwriting book, and then it's back to being an editing book. But that's sort of selfish on your part. Because as an editor, the better the screenplay that you're dealing with, the easier it's going to be for you to edit and you also have some great ideas about story and structure and how a scene works.

 

Roger Nygard  08:46

Editors or writers. They're the same. It's another type of writing. To be a good editor, you also have to understand writing.

 

John Gaspard  08:54

That's true. We first crossed paths, you must have still been in Minneapolis at that point. You had just shot Warped, which I get the sense you finished in LA but you started here.

 

Roger Nygard  09:10

I moved to Los Angeles after college. I graduated from the University of Minnesota in the fall of 1984. In 85, packed up my Celica, drove it over the mountains, barely made it and got a job. I was originally going to go to graduate school, and I applied and got turned down everywhere except USC, I got into USC, the number one school everyone else said no. And by the time my semesters came around to start, I had already found a job and once I did the math, I thought okay, I could start spending $50,000 a year on grad school or I can keep working here and take my grad school money and go make a short film, which I will now own because you don't own it. It's USC owns your film, and there's no guarantee you get to direct at USC, you have to earn the right and very few do. So, it seemed to me a better equation and that's what Warped was, that was my grad school money being poured into making a short film and I went back to Minnesota where I had more than contacts and was able to pull it off on a lower budget. But you and I had actually had crossed paths even earlier way back at the University of Minnesota at a place called UCV, University Community Video, you were making a film at the time, what was your first feature length film called?

 

John Gaspard  10:16

We did two on video. Deception was the second one.

 

Roger Nygard  10:20

Oh, I remember Deception. That was what I remember seeing and being influenced, and oh, wow, these guys just made a movie using video, using the same equipment I had access to. I aspired to achieve what you were doing at that time and that would be like 1982.

 

John Gaspard  10:38

82, yeah and we were not embraced by the University Community Video people because to them, we're using video as cheap film, which they thought was a bad thing and we thought was a good thing.

 

Roger Nygard  10:51

Their idea of art was very specific. Art had to make you feel bad. I have an opinion that I like to make people laugh and feel good. I get turned down a lot by film festivals for my films, because they're too entertaining.

 

John Gaspard  11:08

I remember seeing Warped and thinking, this guy is a really good director and a really good editor. When we look back on our earlier films, I don't know what you think about Warped. But I remember thinking, this guy is going to get a job in LA directing, and editing, because I've never seen such sharp editing. And then in reading the book, I learned that our paths were very similar. We were each given regular 8 cameras at a very young age. But what I realized in looking at your path was, we both start with regular eight, and then I moved on to Super Eight and in terms of editing, at that point, I'm a pretty good editor, I'm shooting a lot of coverage. I'm cutting it together really nicely. It flows and it has the rhythms you want and then I hit a speed bump. When I went to Film in the Cities school, in my junior and senior years of high school, I spent every afternoon at this film school. And Kodak had just come out with their single system sound camera, and we could now shoot dialogue and that as an editor, absolutely put the brakes on me, because I could no longer edit, because I had to deal with the sound. So, the first couple of things I did were Woody Allen-esque long takes, and you just join them together. And then I did a feature in Super Eight sound and was able to get in there and make the edits and you can imagine your pictures here and your sound is 24 frames away and you have to cut the sound, because that's what's going to throw people off. The visual, they won't mind so much. But if the sound isn't right. And I did a couple of features in Super Eight sound, and it steered me toward a dialogue-driven kind of writing, then like you, we moved into video, and suddenly we had a little bit more freedom. But if you remember, in those days, it was a cumbersome system, you're using three quarter inch tapes.

 

Roger Nygard  12:50

Right. The 30 pound PortaPack.

 

John Gaspard  12:52

But we did get better at it, but you still had that problem of it was very linear, you add this shot, and then you put on that shot, and then that shot and if you want to go back, you literally had to go back and redo everything and it wasn't at a point where there was a computer that was going to remember it.

 

Roger Nygard  13:07

These are the same problems Charlie Chaplin faced going from silent to sound and so, you followed the same path as Chaplin.

 

John Gaspard  13:14

What did you learn in that phase of your career when it came to — I think we're kind of fighting the editing system at that time to do what we want. Do you have memories of that?

 

Roger Nygard  13:23

Well, when I discovered video, yes, it was a whole new world because at the same time that was around, it was just before and as MTV was being born and this idea that you could cut so much was new, and it changed how I thought about filmmaking. I was breaking things down into shots and building more of a visual essay, I was much less pursuing the dialogue long takes, the road you took and more pursuing how to cut a bunch of images together set to music, which was in the direction of MTV. And that led me to shooting these early music videos and filming bands like I filmed Dare Force in concert and I ended up working with Eddie Estrin of Rocking Horse, who did some music for one of my early shorts and was combining music and images. Eventually, I realized I needed to start telling stories though.

 

John Gaspard  14:20

When you're editing video, at that point, you're not really fighting the system. The system was working fine for you.

 

Roger Nygard  14:27

I was learning what the system could do. I hadn't gone to film school yet. I hadn't started writing scripts. All my early films were essentially the same story, which is the story that they—if you watch silent films— it's the same story they tell. It's a chase. Somebody has something and the other people are chasing him for it. Keystone Cops is just a nonstop chase, Buster Keaton lots of foot chases and car chases. And it's the easiest story to tell without much of a plot. And Warped even has a car chase in it, once I finally stepped up to doing narrative. It was so ingrained in me there's got to be a car chase. So, even working in car chasing with an old lady chasing another girl on foot tried to run her down. I guess part of that was, I was always in my mind imagining, I'm going to go to Hollywood and make James Bond movies or something because I loved what James Bond, particularly the Roger Moore era, because it was so funny. I loved the comedy. That's what I was really enamored with. A lot of people want to pick on the Roger Moore era, but I love that era.

 

John Gaspard  15:29

It is the silliest era for James Bond.  Okay, so, then what's your first 16-millimeter piece, was that Warped?

 

Roger Nygard  15:35

Warped was shot on 16 millimeter, yes. It was really the only time until I shot a documentary called Six Days in Roswell, which we shot on Super 16. But otherwise, after Warped, then I moved to 35 millimeter. I followed what is now more much more common even when people still use film, I made a Digital Intermediate, I filmed on 16 millimeter, but I went to a post house and transferred it all to one inch masters and then from that made three quarter inch dailies tapes, and I edited and then onlined on video, so I never went back to film.

 

John Gaspard  

You're ahead of your time there.

 

Roger Nygard

It saved money and gave me more flexibility. There was much more I could do when I wasn't limited to just cutting together the film, there's so much more you there are many more ways to manipulate in the world of video. The reason I think I became a good editor or a great editor, whatever level I am, is because of a turn of bad luck. After I made my first feature film, High Strung, it was very difficult to get my second film made. I had a three year stretch where I didn't have much income coming in and I was $30,000 in debt and I took a job writing, producing and editing promos for TNT Latin America, during those two years by being forced to edit promos—when you've got to cut something down to a 15 second spot—it forces you to understand and realize every frame is crucial and anything extraneous has to go. So, I spent those two years cutting those promos. It's like shooting layups practicing my craft and all those tricks I learned during that period, I took forward into making my Trekkies, the way I cut Trekkies, and the way I work on Curb Your Enthusiasm. It's because I had that time where I was forced to go into the trenches and cut these promos.

 

John Gaspard   16:49

What a great bootcamp to go through, we probably didn't realize at the time that what was going to be sort of your superpower.

 

Roger Nygard  17:27

Yeah, big problem for a lot of filmmakers is that when they get too much success too early, they haven't gone through a boot camp. So, they end up making all of the typical Film School mistakes on their big feature and then it shows. You’ve got to get that out of your system. So, you can create a product that doesn't have all those typical flaws that every filmmaker makes when they start out.

 

John Gaspard  17:55

But what do you think is the biggest misconception the general public and starting filmmakers have about what it means to really be a good editor?

 

Roger Nygard  18:03

Well, the thesis of my book—in Cut to the Monkey, I have a chapter about it specifically. You don't want to be an editor who cuts films, you should be a filmmaker who edits. To be a great editor, you need to be great as a filmmaker. So, what I recommend to film students is to learn about the world, learn about every aspect of filmmaking, then choose your specialty, whatever it is, whether it's wardrobe, makeup, editing, cinematography. And particularly, you should understand story structure. That's the most important thing anyone going into filmmaking should understand is how stories are put together in such a way that audiences like to receive them, you know. Three Act structure. There's a reason for Three Act structure. It's not something that's forced on people by Hollywood, it's something that the Greeks realized way back when they were putting on their shows, their plays, that humans like things told to them in a certain way. This is the way we'd like it and if you don't present a story that follows this structure, you're going to lose the audience. No matter what your job is, whether it's an editor or cinematographer, the better you understand how story works, the better you can do your job. That's the least I think, understood and most important aspect for editors that I try to impress upon people. Here's a rule of editing: you want to enter a scene—or in screenwriting same rule‑you want to enter every scene as late as possible, and get out as soon as you can. As soon as the climax of the scene occurs. You don't want to dribble on past the punch line. So, oftentimes, like especially on Curb Your Enthusiasm, we're dealing with improv scenes where I'm trying to find the best in and out points. They may have shot a seven-minute scene or a six-minute scene or even a three-minute scene that's twice as long as it should be. I'm realizing that the ending came in the middle, they reached the best point and the rest—as funny as it is—is completely unnecessary and then it has to go away.

 

Or we don't need all this preamble at the beginning. Let's get right to the conflict, right to the problem, right to the argument, right to the dead body, the infection, the insurrection, whatever. The inciting incident of the whether it's the movie or each scene. Each scene must have a moment where something is conflictual. If you think about it, every one of your or my favorite movies—everywhere anyone listening to this—all your favorite movies are a fight between one thing and another. One person and another. One person and society. A person and the environment. We love watching people fight,. Some movies even have the word vs. right in the title, Godzilla vs Megalon. We know who's going to fight who, Superman versus whoever. We know, every Marvel movie is a fight between our hero and the bad guy and the bad guy is stronger. So, our hero is doomed and it's quite a struggle to get to the end where the hero emerges victorious. Once the bad guy is vanquished, the movie is over. Obviously, you can't go on past that or the audience is, you've lost them. They know when a movie is over. And then editor has to know when a movie is over and when a scene is over. And you know that because you have studied the language of cinema and the art of story and literature.

 

One thing I wished I had done more taking more classes in college was in literature and studied more classic literature. That was my weakest link in my curriculum. When I went to the University of Minnesota, I majored in communications because it was the closest thing they had to filmmaking. But I had no minor because I wanted to take a class in every single discipline, from biology, to physics, to meteorology, to psychology, I wanted to learn about the world. I took one literature class, and I wish I had taken six or many more, maybe I should have minored in literature, because that would have been the most useful tool moving forward.

 

John Gaspard  21:57

One of the things that I find interesting in editing is the misconception that people have when it comes to continuity being the editors fault or they'll go oh, she was holding a cup with one hand, and now she's holding it with the other or whatever it is. And I believe that 99% of the time, that's the editor saving something and making it work when it didn't work.

 

Roger Nygard  22:17

Well, you have to watch for continuity, you have to try to match things so it doesn't stick out and pull the audience out of the story. That's one of your missions. But our rule on Curb Your Enthusiasm, and my rule is: comedy over continuity. If it's funny, we don't care which hand the pen was in. And, that said, these days we'll do on a typical Curb Your Enthusiasm episode, 100 digital effects shots. Now you don't think of those TV shows as digital effects heavy, but they are and many of those are to take that pen out of the hand that wasn't supposed to be in. Or to change a t shirt. Or to put a jacket on somebody that he was supposed to be wearing and they forgot. We're changing everything now so that we can get the maximum comedy. It doesn't matter the cost in continuity, if it's funny. There are times also where on when I was editing Veep, the showrunner, Dave Mandel, would want to cut six lines. The problem was they were walking from room to room as they're delivering those lines. Selina Meyer, she says a line in one room, and then Dan responds to it in a completely different room. But you can't tell, you know, maybe it's a slightly different color, but you don't, people don't really pay attention to those things if you keep it moving, and keep the energy moving forward and keep the jokes coming. They just feel like that it's all part of one construction.

 

John Gaspard  23:45

You've gotten caught up in the story and they're not looking for that thing. In reading the book and seeing your phrase, word baggage, I'll let you define that first and I'll tell you my experience with it.

 

Roger Nygard  23:55

You might notice if you watch people talking—and we're probably included—that they say things like, umm, like, you know, and they pause. They throw all of this, what I call word baggage, into their performances. Actors do it a lot, especially when they're trying to remember their lines. And my job as an editor is to scrape away those barnacles, to get rid of it all. One of them that the big one is, they'll say Look or Listen, before they start speaking. It's an announcement that says I'm about to speak.  Look at me everyone, I'm about to speak. I get rid of the announcements, I get rid of the word baggage, I get rid of the pauses so that it flows as elegantly as possible with as little in the way between a setup and a punch line for a beginning and an ending. Whatever the two poles are that I have to get between I want to get through there as quickly and efficiently and elegantly as possible by getting rid of all that word baggage without speeding things up just to speed them up.

 

What I've noticed is that the best pacing for a scene is always faster than what the actor thought it should be or the director thought it should be, or the writer thought it should be. The audience, especially now, I think people even compared to 10 years ago, and especially 50 years ago, humans are primed to receive their information rapidly. So, you have to keep the pace at a certain level or you lose them, they'll switch to watch something else. Now, that doesn't mean you cut out all the pauses. That just means that as an editor, when there's a pause, everyone pauses, because you choose for them to pause, because it's funny to pause and the awkward pause or the reason and its part of the information.

 

John Gaspard  25:31

In the book, you've got the Periodic Table of Nonsense. We could do several episodes just on going through that. But number nine is Do it Faster. And it is a huge bugaboo of mine, as a director, something I'm trying to get better at, because invariably, when you shoot it, and you're watching them do it, it seems just perfect. That's perfect and then you get into the editing room, and it needs to be 20% faster. I remember reading an interview with Tom Stoppard who has directing his first movie, the movie version of his play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. He's in the editing and the interviewer says to him, what would you change? He said, If I could change anything in this movie, it'd be to make them talk faster. And this is a guy who wrote their words, who had seen that done a million times, it seemed perfect when he shot it. And yet you get in to the editing suite, it's like, oh, my, come on. Why is this not? I don't know how to trick my brain as a director to know that is there? Is there a secret to that?

 

Roger Nygard  26:27

You become an editor, and so, that you think about editing, while you're directing. All the great directors should have an understanding of all of the other jobs on the set, including editor. One reason you should when you go to film school, you should try everything and learn everything. I learned all the roles, because I had to when I was making my first short films, because I couldn't afford to hire people to do these things. So, I ended up having to do everything for the most part. I learned from that, I started putting myself, I started acting as it were in my documentaries by making myself the host of a couple of them and that was because I couldn't afford Morgan Freeman. But I learned so much coming out of making the Nature of Existence. The first time I did that I had so much more respect for actors than I did before. It was like, just say your line, is it hard to hit your marks and say your lines and remember them correctly? Wow, that's hard. So, you have to learn everything, or you should try to learn what each of the roles in the production are if you want to be great at whatever specialty you choose.

 

John Gaspard  27:34

I think you've been part of a wave of getting dialog faster. I know you've directed on The Office, worked on Veep, worked on Curb. Those are all—particularly the last two‑their hallmark is the speed at which the jokes and the dialogue happened. And if you go back in the history of film, one of my favorite, they were very good at this in the 30s and in the 40s. And if you look at His Girl, Friday, there are a couple scenes in it where there is no editing, they are just going at 150 miles an hour, and you get all of it and it doesn't seem like they're racing, but they're going really fast. And it's something that actors of that age are able to do. I know there's a scene in What's Up Doc, which is trying to emulate that feeling. I saw an interview with Peter Bogdanovich, saying when they did this one scene with Ryan O'Neal and Barbra Streisand, it was like two and a half minutes long in rehearsal. And he said, it's got to be a minute. And they said, what do you want to cut? He said, I'm not going to cut anything. Just do it again and do it in a minute.

 

[FILM CLIP 28:31]

Judy

What's wrong?

 

Howard

The future.

 

Judy

What's the matter with it?

 

Howard

Well, judging from the recent past…

 

Judy

You know what Edmund Burke said, you can never plan the future by the past.

 

Howard

I beg your pardon.

 

Judy

I guess you're wondering what a nice girl like me is doing quoting an 18th century guy like Edmund Burke, I was a political science major at Colorado State.

 

Howard

So, you gathered your information on….

 

Judy

Hey, you’ve got a case just like mine. No.

 

Howard

No?

 

Judy

No. Advanced geology Wellesley.

 

Howard

What about the music?

 

Judy

Bennington musical appreciation, Comp Lit Northwestern University.

 

Howard

Is that it?

 

Judy

Archaeology, Tuskegee Institute, General Semantics, University of Chicago, Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M. Say when.

 

Howard

What were you trying to become?

 

Judy

A graduate.

 

Howard

Why is that so important?

 

Judy

It's important to my father. He was very upset when I was asked to leave the first college I ever went to.

 

Howard

Asked to leave?

 

Judy

Bounced. You want to know why?

 

Howard

No.

 

Judy

No. Anyway, he sent me someplace else after that, but that didn't work out either. None of them did. Some of it was very nice, I read a lot of good books. I went to a lot of movies, mostly, but something always seemed to go wrong.

 

Howard

Yes, I can believe that.

 

Judy

Well, this last time was not my fault.

 

Howard

What happened?

 

Judy

Nothing, nothing really. It was just a little classroom. It sorta burned down.

 

Howard

Burned down?

 

Judy

Well, blew up, actually.

 

Howard

Political activism?

 

Judy

Chemistry major.

 

Howard

I see.

 

Roger Nygard  29:38

You're looking for the sweet spot where it becomes the funniest. And it gets less funny when you go faster. At some point you go okay, we've gone too far, and then you go back and loosen up the lug nuts a little bit. On some shows—like when I worked on Grey's Anatomy—I realized I was going way too fast and I had to go back and slow down my pacing. Rhea Seehorn—who was on Better Call Saul—I just worked with her on a new web series called Cooper's Bar, and we were discussing this very idea of speeding things up. And she said that actors, the way she put it was, actors feel like every line that they have is the most important line. So, they luxuriate in it, they draw it out, they put in these pauses, that dramatic pause, and you’ve got to speed them up. Okay, when I'm directing, I remember my number one and two most common pieces of advice to actors were—after praising them, that was fantastic, you're great—now try it faster, and try to enunciate more. Just say clearly and faster.

 

John Gaspard  30:37

How tough could that be? One of the things you talked about in the book is something I would have a lot of trouble doing. Although I pat myself on the back for having done it a few times, in the last few features I've done on digital. Which is I think you call it cutting some B plus jokes to make an A plus joke bigger. I'm from the Joe Bologna, My Favorite Year school: you never cut funny. I imagine it's really hard, particularly if you're dealing with Curb where you say you have all this great material, and you're just throwing stuff away. Does that hurt your heart at some point to go, that's a great joke, but it just doesn't get to live here?

 

Roger Nygard  31:09

Yeah, it's hard to do to cut funny stuff. But you have to keep the overall in mind. That that's the director's job, really, you're in charge of overall. Each actor is in charge of their own lines. That's why they think theirs is the most important. But the director has to know what's most important for the gestalt of the project. It's tricky. I mean, we cut a lot of funny stuff in Curb Your Enthusiasm, obviously, the shows are much longer, shot to be much longer. The idea of curating jokes, that was Alec Berg. His theory, I met Alec when he was on Curb Your Enthusiasm, and he went on to co-create Barry, and he worked on Silicon Valley. His thought is that the most memorable movies and TV shows have four or five or six gigantic laughs belly laughs. And that's what you when you tell your friends about it. To get those gigantic belly laugh, sometimes you have to sacrifice a bunch of other B-plus jokes so that the A-plus jokes can shine. And you've got to build a framework so the A-plus jokes can land. Bridesmaids is a film that's going to be remembered for a long time because it has some gigantic belly laughs in it. Lots of comedies have come and gone that had 100 B-plus laughs that you watch it and then you move on, you kind of forget about it, because it never rose to that level of that gigantic moment. Each episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, the goal is to have several of those gigantic laugh moments. And it takes planning and some judicious sacrifices of other jokes to get there.

 

John Gaspard  32:43

I've taken up a bunch of your time, I want to ask you a couple real quick questions, and then we'll wrap up because we could literally do this all day long. Editing is such an invisible art in theory. Do you have a movie, the movie you think is really well edited that you'd love because it's so well edited?

 

Roger Nygard  32:59

Many. I can tell you the ones that influenced me. There's a movie called The Hunger that was Tony Scott's first movie. The opening scene, it's a tour de force of editing with flash forwards and flash backs and the song Bela Lugosi is Dead, underlies everything. And they cut to a monkey several times in that scene. So, clearly that stuck with me. That for sure is a pivotal movie in my mind. The Evil Dead, the Sam Raimi film, one of his early films.

 

John Gaspard 

The Citizen Kane of horror films.

 

Roger Nygard 

It really is astounding. He introduced so much to the film language in that movie that we all take for granted now through camera and dialogue and editing. It's astounding. The classic films of Hitchcock, there is nobody above Hitchcock, who would direct as an editor, he was pre editing in his mind as he shot and you can see how everything's laid out. This is someone who had a framework and a plan in mind and it's very clear there's a very strong filmmakers’ hand. Those are some examples.

 

John Gaspard  34:05

Is there a favorite edit you have in a movie when one shot is connected to another one?

 

Roger Nygard  34:12

I love experimenting with jump cuts. I'm always trying to work in jump cuts in my work. It's hard to get them through though because jump cuts call attention to themselves, but I love it when they work and many times they work as an ellipsis to get from somewhere in time to somewhere else in time more rapidly. They work best in a montage where someone has, like, a packing montage: you know, suitcase gets thrown on the bed, clothes get thrown into the suitcase suitcases slammed, out the door. It's just saving a lot of time, cutting shoe leather, cutting wasted non-informational visual material. You're cutting it out and leaving what remains. If you watch my film, Suckers, you'll see a lot of jump cuts where I didn't plan it that way when I was filming but when I got in the editing room, I started jump cutting things. Like a car pulls in, and then I cut to Louis Mandalore slamming the door of the car, I didn't need to see him turn off the car, get out of the car, we understand that. But the door slam gives me a button in the metronome of beats. So, drive in, slam, house door, he's inside: rule of three, three shots, all following a beat. I look for those whenever possible, to move things along quickly, in a stylish way that doesn't interrupt the flow of information and take the audience out of the story.

 

John Gaspard  35:37

You mentioned The Hunger. Is there one movie that you think has been most influential when it comes to what we think of as modern editing in film?

 

Roger Nygard  35:44

Well, editing is continually evolving. If you go back to The General and Buster Keaton, Buster Keaton was inventing a lot of editorial tricks that no one had done before, and are shockingly still amazing and funny. Now, people are cutting too fast, oftentimes cutting just to cut, it shows a loss of control of a scene or a movie, when you're cutting too much. I try never to cut, I try to cut as little as possible. If something's working, I'll let it play. Because I'm going to have to cut a lot to fix the dialogue. And the films that I find the most inspirational are usually ones I get lost in, I don't notice the editing. It doesn't jump out at me as though that's a bad edit that that doesn't feel right, or it's a smooth flow, a smooth, elegant flow from beginning to end because the editor steps behind the curtain and that's when I know it's well edited. There are movies where if I start getting antsy, okay, the editor failed, because you know, it's there. If there's a slowdown or a problem and it gets past the editor, scissors, it's the editor’s fault. Now maybe they were countermanded by the executive producer or the director. But then it's still a mistake, a problem in editing that whoever left that scene in or left that moment in, made that mistake.

 

John Gaspard  37:05

I'm pushing the edge of the clock here. So, I want to ask you one last thing. If you want to give just one piece of advice on how to become a better editor, what would it be?

 

Roger Nygard  37:12

To become the best at what you do whether, it's editing or anything else, especially in film, you need to absorb the language of film. So, watch movies with a notepad and take notes of everything that you notice: a line of dialogue, a great camera move, an interesting edit. And fill up those pages. I was doing this during college, I would watch movies on the weekend, I would watch three or four movies because I got a VHS recorder and I was able to tape movies off the air. I didn't really know what I was looking for yet. I just knew I was writing things down that I liked. I remember watching Sergeant York and I was blown away by that movie, the Gary Cooper movie. I would have never watched it if I hadn't been seeking out four-star movies and catching up on movies, which is what people need. Don't just rely on the movies on your favorite streamer, go back through the history of movies, watch all the great movies and take notes. By taking notes, it forces you to learn about it, to absorb it, it doesn't just wash over you, in one ear and out the other. You make a special mention in your in your notebook about it and that way it stays with you and you learn from it and you can go back then. I've gone back and watched movies to see if they stood the test of time, like Where Eagles Dare or Kelly's Heroes, that which really affected me when I was young. I have gone back and watched them and they are still they are so entertaining. Brian Hutton, who directed both those movies, was on a roll at the time making these amazingly entertaining films. They're amazingly shot, edited, the explosions. They didn't have digital effects. So, they were really blowing those things up and it's just astounding the logistics that they had to control to make those movies and to make it edit together seamlessly. I took notes then and I watched it and went back and they still stand up. So, study the language of film, you need to absorb it, and you need to take an active participation in studying it.

 

John Gaspard  39:10

Thanks to Roger Nygaard, for taking the time to talk to me about editing and screenwriting and story structure. And everything else we covered today. His enthusiasm for filmmaking is infectious. As I mentioned in the interview, every time I talk to Roger, I learned something that makes me a better filmmaker. Now that you've listened to the podcast, you should run out and buy Rogers’s book Cut to the Monkey: a Hollywood Editor’s Behind the Scenes Secrets to Making Hit Comedies. And catch up on his movies as well: Suckers, Trekkies, Six Days in Roswell, The Nature of Existence, and The Truth about Marriage. You can find links in the Show Notes.

 

If you liked this interview, you can find lots more just like it on the Fast, Cheap Movie Thoughts blog. Plus, more interviews can be found in my books, Fast, Cheap And Under Control. Lessons Learned From The Greatest Low Blood Movies Of All Time and its companion book of interviews with screenwriters, called Fast, Cheap, And Written That Way. Both books can be found on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, Google, and Apple books. And while you're there, check out my mystery series of novels about magician Eli Marks and the scrapes he gets into. The entire series, starting with The Ambitious Card, can be found on Amazon in paperback, hardcover eBook, and audiobook formats.

 

Well, that's it for episode 104 of the Occasional Film Podcast. Produced at Grass Lake Studios. Original Music by Andy Morantz. Thanks for tuning in, and we'll see you occasionally.