"A high-wire act": Interview with Peter Bogdanovich, The Cat's Meow (con.)

Cynthia Fuchs

Let's see, short rich guy or old rich guy? Which one to choose? Dunst tries Izzard's Chaplin on for size.

CF: The film is attentive to how the characters deal with these crises so moment to moment. I was struck in particular by the shots of Kirsten Dunst's face when she has to choose between Chaplin and Hearst.

PB: Complicated, what goes on there with her. That was a difficult scene, and we didn't get it right in the writing or anything, until right before we made it. There were a number of scenes like that. There were many scenes that we didn't touch, that we shot as Steve wrote them. But some we had to redo, and think out. I kept thinking that we ought to have a scene with the three of them, and there wasn't one. There was a separate scene where Hearst threatens Chaplin, and another where he threatens her. And none of us -- the actors and I -- thought those scenes worked. The interesting thing was, when we got into that scene, we found that Marion had very little to say. And Kirsten was very smart. She said, "I don't think she'd say anything. I think she'd just listen." And she doesn't, until Hearst leaves.

But she has a lot of reactions -- I think there's more reaction time on her than the people talking. And to me, Marion's the heart of the movie. I empathize with her more than anyone else. I thought she was the most intelligent, and most sensitive person in the film. She's the only one who really takes the guilt on herself.

Hermann's Hearst ruminates on the bad news. "By and large, movies are about the performances; that's what people remember: faces, emotions."

CF: It sounds like you work closely with your actors.

PB: They tell me that. They say I talk with them more than other directors. To me, that's what it's about. There's where you put the camera. And there's what do you do with your actors, which is the most important thing. By and large, movies are about the performances; that's what people remember: faces, emotions. My job as a director is to get the best possible performances out of the actors. And that happens when you create an ensemble and they feel comfortable. On the set, you're the only audience they've got. So it's important that they trust you and they feel that you understand their problems. Having been an actor, and continuing to act. I usually say to the actors, "Look, I'm just an actor. I just don't happen to have a role in this script. I'm here to help."

As far as where to put the camera, which is also something that I think is my job, my goal is always to be where I think the performance will be best shown and where the meaning and impact of the scene will come most clearly across. You can't make that determination until you have the actors play for you. Every picture's different. But on this picture, we brought the writer with us to Europe to work on the script. I insisted on it; I knew we be doing some rewriting, and he's a nice guy and a good writer, and wanted to bring him into the democratic process. There was a lot of improvisation and we kept certain lines, about 50 percent was kept as it was. But I think that's how a picture attains its freshness, if you're not exactly sure of it until right before you shoot it.

CF: That takes a bit of confidence.

Directing the ingenue. "That's part of making pictures. I think that it should be a high-wire act."

PB: Well, it does. The confidence is that you will get it. Experience helps. I'm not saying I wasn't anxious during the making of the film. It was a nervous-making picture, but we got through it. That's part of making pictures. I think that it should be a sense of a high-wire act.

CF: I've heard you say in an interview that you think films should be difficult to make.

PB: Yes, I do think that. I think the challenge promotes creativity. How do we do this with no money and no time? How do we do it right? The challenge on this film was a very short shooting schedule [31 days], but we had good actors. And the key was to not shoot much, just to shoot what we needed, not coverage or luxury shots. And we didn't shoot many takes. It's always a miracle when a movie turns out well.

CF: I don't imagine that a lot of people set out to make bad films.

PB: No, I don't think they do, though some films are hackwork going in. But I think everybody tries to make a decent picture. In security will tend to make you shoot more and take more time, thinking that you'll get something better. But actors usually, if they're any good, give it to you early on.

CF: So there's a certain tension here, between knowing you're only going to shoot a set amount of film, but wanting to have some flexibility with the actors.

PB: Yeah, it's not so much flexibility in cutting: I had none. But on the set, yes. I shoot pretty much the way I intend to cut. My first film, Targets [1968], was made in 23 days. And then Picture Show in 60 days. And after that I had longish schedules, 50 or 60 days. What's Up Doc? was 72, because we needed four weeks to shoot the chase sequence.

But I don't like to shoot a lot of coverage. It's the way I learned. All the directors I admired most were very confident with what they did and how they felt. John Ford used to put his hand over the lens to stop the camera. And Hitchcock cut in the camera.

My approach with actors is to get right in there with them. And if they're not used to that, they kind of wonder what I'm doing, and I explain that I'm trying to help them give the best performance. Sometimes, when we're in a hurry, and we don't have any other way to do it, I'll give them a line reading, as a way of indicating an emotion or a nuance I don't really know how to get to otherwise. Some actors really like that, and others don't.

CF: And you're apt to rewrite or work on scripts.

PB: Yes, even if I don't write the screenplay, I've always had a lot of input. I didn't get any credit on Mask, but I worked through nine drafts on that. There's a Writers' Guild rule in the U.S., and it's prejudiced against directors. Unless the director has written 50 percent or over of the script, he gets no credit. In Europe, there isn't that sort of thing.

CF: The studio system allowed for the idea of the auteur to emerge, if only as a reaction against that system. How do you think it works today, in terms of what directors can do or how they're treated? There are some stars, of course, like Cameron or Spielberg, but the promotions system seems actor-driven, or better, FX-driven.

PB: The politiques des auteurs, which started with Truffaut and the French New Wave, was a way of taking the product of the old studio system, and proving that while it seemed to be impersonal and factory-like, beneath the surface, it wasn't. There were a number of directors and personalities who were vivid and apparent, despite who their collaborators were. It was a way of saying, "Look at Howard Hawks," because people didn't know his name, he was so versatile. That's how I got into film appreciation on a higher level.

So when people ask me "What's your favorite movie?" I don't really have one. I have favorite directors. Today, there's hardly any talk about the auteur theory, which is what they call it over here, and that's not a correct translation, because it's not a theory -- it's a political position. The French tend to be political about their artistic choices. Today, there are certain clear auteurs around -- Spielberg and Scorsese. And it's ironic, because everyone gets that ridiculous billing: "A So-and-So Film." A kid who just came out of film school gets it.

CF: How do you think about doing interviews as opposed to giving them?

PB: It's okay. I don't have to prepare as much when I give one, as when I do one. My life is sort of my preparation. I have to be careful, though, as I have a tendency to be too candid. Doing an interview is fun, it really just comes from being curious about certain people, asking things that I find interesting.