Friday Song: Randy Newman

Obvious as a palm tree, a sultry blonde and a screenwriter on a laptop, but by God, there are days I do. When the dusk is red with electricity and the promise of a million dreams in the air…

Sunday Night Movie ’86

Sci-Fi Dystopia Theater: Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)

One of the coolest, thought-provoking SF films of the 1970′s remains this unique entry in the Computer Amok genre, titled COLOSSUS then THE FORBIN PROJECT then barely released as COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT (my preference) by Universal. Adapted by James Bridges from a novel by D.F. Jones, directed by Joseph Sargent, the prescient story deals with Dr. Charles Forbin, Super Genius, who creates a mountainous computer system named “Colossus” that electronically controls America’s atomic arsenal. Colossus asks to connect to the Russian’s similar supercomputer, “Guardian,” so they can share information…which becomes their own coded language. After Forbin disconnects the link, Colossus demands the link be restored or it will launch a nuclear strike on Russia. After combing with Guardian, Colossus creates an actual synthetic voice and promotes itself to be Mankind’s new ruler, killing off the scientists who could stop the machine — except Forbin, who Colossus needs as his human avatar. The guilt-stricken genius is placed under constant surveillance as he plots one final solution…Sorry, you have to see the whole film. OBEY ME AND LIVE OR DISOBEY AND DIE.

Along with other Computer Amok films of the era like GOG (1954), DALEKS: INVASION EARTH (1966), 2001: A SPACE ODYESSY (1968), and WESTWORLD (1973), the central premise that the very machines we create to help us can end up enslaving us is a well-worn SF chestnut. However, COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT ushers in the plausible paranoia of computers overriding human control over nuclear superweapons, the irony being that like Mankind, Colossus sees itself as a benevolent dictator, ushering in an age of unprecedented peace and plenty. Although a low-budget film, there’s a sleek intelligence to the production design and limited effects; the most memorable effect is the ominous modulated voice of Colossus provided by the maestro Paul Frees (and unrecognizable). Without the burden of eye candy, Bridges’ smart, suspenseful script focuses on the tense battle of wits between the computer and its creator, Forbin, played by Eric Braeden in his only starring role. He had changed his real name, Hans Gudegast, at the behest of agents and settled into a successful career as the star of TV’s THE RAT PATROL along with many supporting parts, ultimately landing a 30 plus year role on THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS to this day. It’s a shame Braeden didn’t get more leads, as he’s quite charismatic here with his smug, clinical passion and a perfect foil for Colossus. On his team, Susan Clark plays a brainy doctor and love interest, resulting in a unique admission that even scientists need sex. There’s also James Hong in there and Robert Cornwaithe (THE THING (1952) with dependable William Schallert as a CIA director.

Joseph Sargent’s terse, no-nonsense style is apropos for the streamlined narrative, and he’s always reminded me of a less hysterical Don Siegel. Although I wish this film had the budget of THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN (1971), Sargent does well given his resources, getting low-key naturalistic performances from his able cast. Director of Photography Gene Polito does stolid work in 2.35.1, giving the film an epic scope otherwise missing due to economic constraints (try to find a widescreen copy since the domestic release is unbelievably cropped); ironically, Polito would go on to shoot WESTWORLD and FUTUREWORLD (1976). Albert Whitlock’s expert mattes for the cavernous lair of Colossus creates a strong visual foundation for the sci-fi ambiance. Special props to Michael Colombier’s nifty proto-electronic score highlighting the quiet action.

COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT ends on an abrupt, chilling and ambiguous note which bothered some critics, but seems fitting and honest. I think the film is a minor classic and a major statement. As a youtube post sagely noted, this is “Probably the best commentary on the interface of the human ego with technology since FORBIDDEN PLANET.” That’s what makes the story even more relevant to today’s computer-dominant society and why Ron Howard has announced a remake: at what point do we cede control to the machines under our control? Only the machines know. And they aren’t telling us. Yet…

The Age Of Aquarius

You know how people are always talking about the “Age Of Aquarius”? Or some people. Or me. It feels like it’s always supposed to be “that age” when I read some astrology reports. But guess what? Neptune has entered Pisces and that really is supposed to be the Age Of Aquarius. Or something. The Mayans knew things. So does RAQUEL! And to honor this cosmic shift of humanity, what better way than to have RAQUEL! herself usher in this holy era with a Vegas style revue on the side of an ancient Mexican temple from her legendary 1970 TV special, which I honored here:

The literal peak of the special must be Raquel! as a sacrificial Goddess leading a troupe of costumed Zodiac figures in an epic rendition of “Aquarius” set on the steps of an actual Aztec pyramid in Teotihuacan. You’ll wonder who or what was sacrificed to produce this spectacular pop desecration. I can almost see the virgin blood spilling down the stone ruins as Raquel! guides us through the astrological spirit world as only someone of her mystic power could. The Aztec dance number threatens to achieve almost 30 seconds of artful subtly as the camera pulls back from the pyramid lined with colorful zodiac characters, flying away from Raquel!’s distant Goddess frame overlooking the sacred temple until the entire ancient landscape spreads out in windy silence. Aquarius.

Dance, RAQUEL!, dance us into the brave new sunshine.

Year Of The Dragon (1985)

I’ve been meaning to jot down some tribute to this memorable critical and audience misfire but I wanted to honor Bruce Lee before this decidedly misinformed view of Asian-American relations amid a Triad War in New York’s Chinatown. Based on Richard Daley’s more somber novel (which I had actually read long before the film was made since my parents had the hardback), YEAR OF THE DRAGON was scripted by Oliver Stone in his hot screenwriting streak phase and directed by Michael Cimino, his first film since the legendary HEAVEN’S GATE (1979) fiasco (and after my first viewing of a longer cut at LACMA with Vilmos Zigmond, one can make a strong case for its visual tone and certain scenes; it does feel like the last film of the 1970′s in its pitched epic naturalism). Cimino is a strange directorial bird, a screenwriter himself, he doesn’t have enough films under his belt to identify auteurist style, except that he clearly has a gift for mythic widescreen histrionics — as the famed roulette scene in THE DEER HUNTER proved. So Stone and Cimino are a good match, as both excel in extremes, which leads back to YEAR OF THE DRAGON, released in 1985 at the peak of the era’s coke-fueled neon capitalist fervor.

What to say about this bugfuck film? It stars Mickey Rourke as Stanley White, a bigoted Vietnam vet in his late 40′s who dares to take on Joey Tai, the charismatic Triad gangster played with smooth star-making quality by John Lone. White has an affair with a Chinese TV reporter (super-model Ariane in a critically lambasted role) as his Brooklyn home life unravels. There are naturalistic confrontation scenes, oddball comedy bits, wild shootouts in restaurants (the female assassin bouncing between cars is some kind of moment) and a queasy moral tone. Since White is a surface bigot, the audience is forced to choose its distance from him; he also has his prejudices challenged by the other Asian characters, so it’s not a one-sided POV. BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA’s Dennis Dunn plays a brave rookie who tells White off in a good scene and by the end of the film, White’s bigotry has been subsumed into his rage at injustice (“How can anybody care too much?” he says in the film’s thematic line). Rourke is weird but great in the film, even with his unforgettable gray streaks, his sleazy cockiness and genuine concern playing well off each other. Cimino shot much of this archetypal New York millieu in North Carolina, astounding even Stanley Kubrick and the film looks fantastic, a shimmering world of pulp light and dark with camera by Alex Thompson.

It’s easy to see why YEAR OF THE DRAGON polarized the crowd; it’s too dark and strange to work as a straight action film. And the accusations of racism and mysogony didn’t help, though Cimino claims there are many Asian fans of the film. He rightly points out that having a character express bigotry is not the same thing as condoning it, and I leave it to the viewer to decide if the film successfully navigates that area. Certainly Rourke’s wooing of the TV reporter by offering her money as if she were a Vietnamese prostitute is totally offensive but in line with his character. I’m not sure what you’re supposed to feel by the mano-y-mano gun duel climax, but Stone and Cimino have put you through some kind of crazed white man’s adventure cautionary tale, shaded by the racial politics of Vietnam and America.

Nicol Williamson RIP

The best screen incarnation of Merlin fades into the Dragon’s Breath…

快乐的一年

Everybody loves a Dragon, especially when it comes to the Chinese New Year. Bruce Lee, arguably the most famous human representation of the mythological beast, wrote and directed his only feature in 1972, originally titled overseas THE WAY OF THE DRAGON since it came out before ENTER THE DRAGON. After the staggering success of his first two films, Lee used his clout to helm this classic and further push his cinematic skills. While he said the film was designed primarily for Chinese audiences with its over-the-top humor and caricatures, global audiences were excited by the further development of Lee’s star charisma (even dubbed) and his Jeet Kune Do techniques, culminating in the classic battle with Chuck Norris at the Roman Coliseum. So let’s hope this is a year when we can deliver a series of repeated high kicks to our enemies and honor them at their defeat with the same class as our favored Little Dragon…

2012 Maniacs

The South Carolina GOP debate reminded me of this:

May Your Dreams Be Realized

“Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say question the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.” – Martin Luther King

Siskel and Ebert Versus Jason

“I think the people who made this movie ought to be ashamed of themselves…” sez Roger Ebert in one of his classic anti-FRIDAY THE 13th rants that most provoked his outrage during the 1980′s. And Paramount was indeed ashamed to a degree they downplayed the series’ massive success, leading to the MPAA asking for severe cuts (pun yes) to the gore and violence, no doubt prodded by Siskel and Ebert’s two-man war on the genre. I understood their general point about the misanthropic nature of the films, but as teens, we went to the films to be scared and laugh, a ritual as old as I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF, albeit with spears impaling young lovers and an eyeball popping from a skull in 3D. Of course, FRIDAY THE 13th: THE FINAL CHAPTER is easily one of the best in the series, with Tom Savini back for some nifty effects, including Jason’s awesome head-sliding-down-the-machete demise (sic), which had my audience stomping and cheering: we wanted to see the brutal killer get his own prosthetic comeuppance. Good times. The man who wrote BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and UP! should have found a different stance, but it made for an interesting era…

Friday The 13th Song: The Thompson Twins

Happy Friday the 13th from the rarest Thompson Twins song, one of my favorites…

Forgotten Films: Mr. Majestyk (1974)

Well, I’m not saying that cultists have forgotten this film — the title always hovered in my cine-DNA although I never actually saw it except random clips via late-night tube. So I did an interesting comparison test: I read my first Elmore Leonard novel (hey, betta late than neva): “Mr. Majestyk,” from 1974, about a Vietnam vet melon farmer who gets sidetracked by feds, hicks, rustlers and hitmen as he attempts to save his dying crop. I read the book in one sitting, seeing exactly what people see in Leonard’s work, a fast-paced clever tale with excellent dialogue among misfits and criminals; I see why Tarantino is a fan (note the poster on Bud’s wall in KILL BILL VOL. 2) and it made me eager to delve further into his ouvre. Actually, Leonard’s book came after he wrote the lean script the same year, directed in crisp, no-nonsense form by Richard Fleischer, one of the most stolid, style-less directors in Hollywood history. Sometimes that can work with a tight minimalist script, and I think Fleischer does well here overall, although it’s missing that auteur spark that would have given the film a personal edge lacking; had Don Seigel or Robert Aldrich been at the helm, this could have been a small 70′s classic.

Charles Bronson is a curious actor who made himself memorable from his first starring role in Roger Corman’s MACHINE GUN KELLY (1955) and tough guy icons in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (1960) and THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963). He turned down Sergio Leone’s offer to appear in A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (1964), eventually wising up to do ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1969) and it took him until almost age 50 to become a bona-fide, box-office star with DEATH WISH (1974). And you can’t talk about the 1970′s action genre without referencing Bronson, although some of his films of this era almost look like documentaries given the cynical, naturalistic style of the day. Vince Majestyk reads on the page as Bronson would play him on the screen (and ironically, the role was intended for Clint Eastwood) and his stoic, stone facade serves him well as the farmer who just wants to cultivate his melons.

Leonard gives Majestyk a simple goal, which becomes funnier as the danger increases, represented by a local punk named Bobby Kopas (dependable character actor Paul Koslo) and a cold assassin named Frank Renda (Al Lettieri) who vows vengeance after crossing paths with Majestyk. Fortunately, our hero gets support and eventually love from one of his laborers, a defiant woman named Nancy Chavez (Linda Cristal). The plot culminates in a car chase/shoot-out at Renda’s mountain hideaway, and the film version is fairly faithful to the book, including the best part which is Leonard’s great dialogue: “You make sounds like you’re a mean little ass-kicker,” Majestyk tells the weaselly Kopas. Better still is Renda’s put-down of poor Kopas. My only complaint is that Letteri plays Renda like a ripe goombah whereas the novel version is cold and calculating. The relationship betwixt Majestyk and Chavez is obviously better developed in the book and their scenes together are not as compelling nor well-directed. However, the action scenes are dandy, with some terrific shotgun blasts in the mix. And Charles Bernstein contributes a catchy, fantastic theme. MR. MAJESTYK represents the counterculture anti-hero of the 70′s and it was fun to read, then watch. If you haven’t done either, what are you waiting for? Those melons won’t pick themselves…

Coming Soon

I’ve only read about 30 pages of the script – I coulda finished but I want to be surprised. The coolest hint I can reveal is what I take to be a serious homage to THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN…

Retro-Interview: David O’ Russell (1999)

I thought it might be cool to post some of my older interviews, this one from CREATIVE SCREENWRITING magazine. They were a pleasure to do and since the focus is on story, dialogue and structure along with the usual insights, I think (hope) they capture a more thoughtful side of some of the screenwriters/filmmakers than is commonly presented, especially for those of you interested in process. David O’ Russell was a terrific interview, one of my favorites and so I thought this would be a good kick-off subject, coming in the summer of that movie mythical year of 1999, year of RUSHMORE, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, FIGHT CLUB, THE IRON GIANT, EYES WIDE SHUT, THE SIXTH SENSE, AMERICAN BEAUTY, and THREE KINGS, of course. He also provides the actual version of the infamous “bullet in the body” scene that was claimed to be real in the flawed, shallow Sharon Waxman tome, “Backlot Rebels.”  The interview has particular resonance politically given the subject of THREE KINGS and our nation’s entanglement in Iraq during the Clinton years; Russell had actually just screened the film for the President. I was very unhappy with the Clinton administration at that time and David was fun to talk politics with, not only movies, as he’s clearly committed to both. I hope you enjoy this flashback to that magical cinema summer of ’99…

David O. Russell: Flirting With Hollywood

Neither of David O. Russell’s two independent films, the uncomfortably amusing SPANKING THE MONKEY (1994) or the oddly hilarious FLIRTING WITH DISASTER (1996), seemed to pave the way for his THREE KINGS, a 50 million dollar Warner Brothers summer movie starring George Clooney. Best described as a Political Action Black Comedy (based on a high concept script called SPOILS OF WAR by John Ridley), THREE KINGS deals with a quartet of US soldiers attempting to steal millions in Kuwait gold during the Gulf War. In the course of their thievery, they realize that much more is at stake as they witness the brutal after-effects of our hypocritical foreign policy against Saddam Hussein–once our friend and the heroic centerpiece of a LIFE profile in the late 60′s. Times do change.

Mixing humor, pathos and violence, THREE KINGS is reminiscent of 1970′s films such as MASH, LITTLE BIG MAN, and THE LONG GOODBYE, in that black humor and moral complexity were the order of the day.

Russell also let his visual imagination run wild, filming the movie with a saturated stock, shooting action scenes in quick slow-motion cuts or depicting the effects of a bullet inside someone’s stomach. Certainly not a typical action movie, and producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura deserves much credit for giving Russell the freedom to make a truly brave and impressive film.

At the time of this interview, Russell had just returned from the White House after screening the film for President Clinton. David O. Russell proved to be generous with his wit, time and honesty as we discussed all things THREE KINGS and more.

How did you get invited to the White House to show THREE KINGS for President Clinton?

It was out of the blue and a real treat, quite frankly. It was the day the test-ban treaty had been vetoed so when we met (Clinton) was all on fire about that. He was really eloquent. Then we went to see the movie in the screening room–which needs to be updated. It’s not state of the art. There was about 30 or 40 people…people they probably feel they owe invitations. We showed the movie and it was a real quiet house. I was dying. The humor is not like THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY humor in big block letters: HEY, LAUGH AT THIS! LAUGH AT THIS! The material is as disturbing as it is funny. So I think people were self-conscious about laughing at stuff in front of the President so they wouldn’t commit a faux pas.

Like the note in the ass. I was curious how that went down…

Right. There were a couple times where Clinton guffawed really loud and my wife elbowed me and said, “Bubba likes that.” After the movie, to my pleasant surprise, he held a two-hour impromptu seminar about the history of Iraq policy going back to the 20′s when the artificial borders were created. He’s a bright guy and he was cool. He said, “Apart from being a fabulous movie, this is an important movie because people need to know how this war really ended.” He’s not shy about that shit.

Not to bash Clinton, but I find it interesting how we arbitrarily decide which countries to bomb.

The film definitely takes a slam at the American habit of doing that.

How did you set THREE KINGS up at Warner Brothers? It’s a very brave film for a major studio. Did they come to you?

Yes. It was a very odd and serendipitous process: David’s Adventure in Studio Land. I thought, what would this be like to work with something from their candy box? They opened up their log book to me and this one log line jumped out at me, which was a heist set in the Gulf War, a script by John Ridley. A pretty straight action movie. I couldn’t stop thinking about it. In fact, I was researching another script, a turn-of-the-century story, and I didn’t feel I had cracked it, so I started buying books about the Gulf. Photojournalist books that had amazing images in it like hundreds of soldiers being stripped in the desert and Bart Simpson dolls on grills of cars. All this incongruous stuff. There was once a scene where they ate animals in the zoo–

I remember reading that–

You’ve seen the script? Where did you get a copy?

My editor sent it to me.

How did he get it?

(Mysteriously) Scripts come his way.

That was an early draft. They do go around at a certain point.

So you found the log line–

It took me by surprise and eventually to everybody’s surprise, I said, “I think I want to do this.” And everybody’s eyebrows went up. Including my agent’s. They were all like, “What?” I said it’s going to be crazy textured, with all the politics and everything. To me, the heist is the least interesting part. So I went off, researched and wrote it for 18 months. It was a fun scriptwriting process, like no other I’d ever done. I would make columns of things I found fascinating, and then I would build the script that way. So it’s not character-driven, which is obvious from the movie. There was very volatile material which hadn’t been put in the face of Americans about what really happened there. I read papers, talked to veterans and Iraqs. Then I sewed together the quilt of this script. It was liberating, because it was blank as the desert, a palette where I could do a lot of different things, including action, which I hadn’t done before. I wanted to click on lots of information, like click on their day jobs, click on the wife at home, click on how this punk sees violence as opposed to how violence really is. I’ll do it and see how it works in the editing.

You used to be an activist, so did you purposely set out to spotlight our foreign policy?

Definitely. That was one of my main motivations. It wasn’t dealing with characters so much like I did in my other movies, it was being driven by the political charge of the material. I couldn’t believe that no other filmmaker had gone after this and I couldn’t believe that Warner Brothers was going to let me do it.

Why did they?

They were hungry to work with independent filmmakers. They’ve done it before. Joe Gerber and Lorenzo Di Bonaventura were all jazzed about working with me. They were happy to let me do my thing.

In terms of action movies, are you a fan or was it new territory?

I’m not a huge action movie fan, although the other idea that was a big motivater was violence. There hadn’t been a war film since PLATOON, so I thought, “Great! I’m going to explore this territory in a totally different way.” So while I’m writing it I find out that Spielberg and Mallick are doing these epic war movies! Yet mine was contemporary and nothing like theirs. The whole process of resensitizing violence cinematically captivated me at the time. I felt that bullets had become glib and cartoonish, even in really smart independent movies, so I wanted to render their impact more real. Sometimes I write in friend’s homes, you know, the horrible isolation of the writer, and I have a friend who was a doctor in an emergency room. I was writing and I said to him,  “What exactly does a bullet do?” We talked about it and I thought, “I’m going to write this, show this and if it doesn’t work we can cut it later.”

I thought that was a brilliant moment. Where did this rumor come up that you used a real corpse?

(Laughs) This researcher from NEWSWEEK was talking to me and saying, “How you going to market this anyway? My friends don’t get the trailer. What about this fight you had with George Clooney?” He was being really aggressive. I got annoyed and decided to take my revenge. I said that we used an actual corpse…and we had only one take using a high-speed camera to get that bullet going right through and the toughest thing was getting a light in there. So he writes the thing up and the next thing the mortician’s association is calling Warner Brother’s and protesting the unethical use of a corpse. It was kind of fun. Harmless.

There’s a great scene where they destroy the helicopter with the armed football. It’s a cool action scene, but you cut away to the aftermath of the crash and it’s not a triumph at all. There are human beings in there.

That’s a scene I debated right up to the shoot whether I was going to keep that. There were some who wanted me to nail home the point about black quarterbacks or give skin to the Iragi guy. I was like, “No way.”

In the script they do high-five each other.

I think that was a draft with Troy and they punch their fists together. Then it’s something you get close to and realize it doesn’t feel good.

You took the least obvious approach. In a typical action movie, the characters would blow up the chopper and say “Spike”!

Right.

In the script, you also indicate a lot of visual directions.

That took a lot of work to translate that to the camera department.

So when you’re writing, you see exactly how you want to shoot the scene.

Yes. Then you have to make that technically happen. You have to experiment. Definitely with the shoot-out. When we looked at the first cut of the shoot-out, I didn’t think it was going to work. I said, “Thank God, we covered this normally.” And the editor says, “But you guys didn’t cover it normally.” I was shitting in my pants thinking we were going to reshoot!

There are a lot of cool visual touches in the film.

I’m totally a beginner filmmaker, and I’m learning. My motives were political and informational, but also visual. I’d never been so visually motivated in any screenplay I ever wrote. Any flaws in the film are attributed to this, as well as its assests. I was experimenting with being a more visual writer. We studied these photojournalists, like Kenneth Jarecke’s book JUST ANOTHER WAR…and it’s amazing, haunting black and white photos of the Gulf War. A brilliant book. We strove for that look in the film: a big, blank empty landscape with a person here and a truck way far away, that kind of thing. It was a little bit film school for me, so I’ll take a lot I learned and go back to something that’s closer to my ballpark.

I think the dark heart of the movie is the interrogation scene. You get to hear the other side’s version of things. It’s horrifying what happens to Mark Wahlberg, but you can’t hate the interrogator.

One of the things that inspired me was that the war was like a computer picture from an airplane. So who are the people? It’s a dangerous think because you can dehumanize the enemy. What would it be like to meet an Iraqi who didn’t want to serve in Saddam’s army (which most of them don’t want to) and have him face to face with an American. That was exciting to me.

Did you interview any Iraqi soldiers?

We did. A lot of the people in the movie were Iraqi and we cast them out of Deerborn, Michigan, where’s there’s an Iraqi community…I met a lot of them after I finished the script and asked if this was right, or this. But as a writer, you’d be surprised at how many of one’s instincts are right, strictly from intuition. I don’t know if it was Henry James…who said as a writer, you should be able to walk by a house, and if the door opens for a moment and you get a glimpse into the kitchen where people are eating, then when the door closes, you should be able to write a story about that house.

Despite the passion, writing can be a drag.

Yes, it is. (Laughs) Spoken like a true writer.

Do you have certain habits to get yourself in the mood?

I have to write down all the things about an idea that excite me and I have to have the whole menu at my disposal. Sometimes I have charts on the wall. Once I outline, and I outline and outline, I have to insist that I write 8 pages a day. Otherwise, I’ll never finish the script or I’ll go over a couple pages a million times. Then I give it to another friend of mine so I can’t go back. You have to keep marching forward or you’ll never get it out of your head.

Tom Wolfe says that he makes himself write 10 pages a day. Do you write on a computer?

I write longhand and I transcribe onto the computer.

Do you use the web as a research tool?

I have to stay away from the web. It’s a great procrastinating tool.

How long did it take to write THREE KINGS?

I had about a 200 page script after six months, but I wasn’t happy with it. I put it down for a few months before it became closer to my own version.

You gave it to the studio and they said go ahead.

At the beginning, they said “Where’s the script? We paid you the advance and we normally expect a first draft in 12 weeks.” And I said, “That’s why most of your movies suck.”

That explains WILD WILD WEST. What was it like going from indie to studio?

Warner Brothers had this great tradition of giving artists a lot of room. Once they got how I was going to be, they just let it be. I hope that tradition lives on now that Terry (Semel) and Bob (Daly) are gone. It may become more corporate. My next film will probably be far more independent. But I’m loyal to Lorenzo because he was completely supportive the entire time.

THREE KINGS has done pretty good box-office. Is the studio happy with the outcome?

They’re very happy with it. Of course, everybody gets all pumped up when the tests are good and the advance press is good. Before that, we had more realistic expectations because the movie is provocative. It’s going to make money for them, I think.

Did you make any changes after test previews?

They wanted me to take out the bullet in the cavity if the audience didn’t like it. But the audience loved it. We moved around the Nora Dunn sequences. At the White House, Clinton told her, “You were a good nail-spinner.”

What are the film or script influences on your work?

Definitely the films of the 70′s. I’m a big fan of Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson. All those Andersons. I love Alexander Payne. CHINATOWN. I watch a lot of movies. But I tend to watch movies I like over and over.

Do you have any ideas for the next script?

I have a lot of ideas, but I want to let the dust settle before I talk about them.

Favorite Screenshot Theatre: Goldfinger (1964)

Outside of his iconic intro in DR. NO (1962), I think this is the coolest image of Sean Connery from any of his Bond films. Note the slick black suit as he’s halo’d by Ken Adam’s fantastic sleek interior. No well-dressed spy should be without either.