Oh yeah, sure, I intentionally made her look like Bill Clinton’s wife! I have the power to do that with an actress, remould her face and hair so that she looks like somebody else entirely. What kind of comment is that? I mean, okay, Ebert might be correct, maybe Rebecca De Mornay did look like Hilary Clinton — when Hilary Clinton was better looking — but that certainly had nothing to do with me. It just happened to be that she resembled Hilary Clinton and that’s all it was. There was no underlying theme, tone, or message intended from that. If there was some kind of political subversion going on there, it was certainly nothing I knew about.
Before we move on, do you have any final thoughts about Lumet?
Only that I’m glad I worked with him. Sidney had always been one of my heroes. I was such a big fan of his, it was a big thrill to get the opportunity to work with him. We had some nice times together on Guilty as Sin, but I shouldn’t have…well, I criticized something in The Verdict, and I think Sidney took exception to it.
What was that criticism exactly?
In The Verdict, Paul Newman plays this alcoholic lawyer who is trying a big case. One day, this female lawyer, played by Charlotte Rampling, comes along and they begin a love affair. It turns out that this woman is secretly working for James Mason who is the opposing attorney in the case. Mason gives her a big cheque to pay her off and she puts the cheque into her purse. Later on, Jack Warden, who is assisting Newman in the proceedings, opens the purse to look for some matches, finds the cheque and realizes that she is, in fact, spying on them for Mason. Sidney and I were discussing logic in the script for Guilty as Sin and I said to him: “Look, logic means nothing because nobody ever pays any attention to it. For example, in your picture The Verdict, James Mason gives Charlotte Rampling a cheque. Do you know that in real life if Rampling had received a cheque from Mason, she could have had him disbarred? Mason is supposed to be playing one of the most ruthlessly brilliant, cunning, and experienced attorneys in the city, and yet he is stupid enough to give this bimbo a cheque — signed by him — that she could then use to either blackmail or destroy him. He could have lost his entire career, his whole firm would crumble, from that one action. It would not only be the end of the lawsuit, it would be the end of him! He could have even gone to jail for bribery and the unlawful subordination of a case. Mason would never have given her a cheque. Nobody in their right mind would give somebody a cheque for bribery and then let them walk around with it. More than that, it’s certainly convenient that the cheque is in her purse and Jack Warden finds it. It’s absurd and doesn’t make any sense at all. It would have been easier to have come up with some other device rather than that.” [Exhales] Well, after I’d finished my speech, Lumet looked at me like I had just stabbed him in the heart. After that, things were never the same again between us.
I can understand Lumet’s reaction, but the logic of your argument is faultless.
Oh, absolutely. I even talked to Martin Ransohoff about logic. I remember telling him: “You once made a picture called Jagged Edge in which Jeff Bridges plays the murderer. In the first scene of the movie, Bridges’ wife is tied to a bed and the maid lies dead on the floor. He is alone in the room and is about to kill her, but he’s wearing a mask. If the maid is dead and the wife is tied up and is about to be slaughtered, why does Bridges need to wear a mask? What is the point of him doing that? Of course, the only reason is because the camera is there and the audience are watching, and you want to place doubt in their minds as to the identity of the killer. Okay, fine, but then at the end of the picture when he comes back to kill the female lawyer who has defended him in his murder trail, he puts the mask on again! Bridges is coming into the house to kill her and she knows beyond reasonable doubt that he is the killer, so why does he have to wear a mask?” It didn’t make any sense to me, but Ransohoff was looking at me like I was crazy! [Laughs] But you know something? Both The Verdict and Jagged Edge were very successful and nobody ever mentioned these points that I’ve raised. I was merely telling Lumet and Ransohoff that logic doesn’t always apply in movies. If the picture is playing successfully, the audience never seems to ask these important questions. I can never understand why they don’t.
Digging up a director’s past lapses in logic during conversation is certainly an effective way of alienating you from them. Believe me, I know!
I’ve done it on several occasions. I can remember once having a very pleasant lunch with Hitchcock. As we were talking, I said, “I saw Strangers on a Train forty times, but I had a problem with the ending.” Hitchcock asked, “And what problem was that?” I said, “Well, Farley Granger has got to finish a tennis match so that he can get to the fairground and retrieve the cigarette lighter that will incriminate him in his wife’s murder. Okay, now what is the quickest way to end a tennis match? Of course, you throw the game and lose. But Granger is compelled to win the tennis match first before leaving to get the cigarette lighter. That doesn’t make any sense at all. What does this tennis match really matter when his life and liberty are at stake? Any sane person would just lose the tennis match as quickly and discreetly as possible. But, no, Granger has to win the match!” Hitchcock listened patiently as I said all this and when I’d finished he looked at me for a moment and said: [does an unerring impersonation of Hitchcock] “Yes, indeed, but that wouldn’t be a very interesting scene now would it?” [Laughs] I swear that’s exactly what he said! It just goes to show you, I meet these fabulously famous filmmakers and just insult them.
Two years after the release of Guilty as Sin, you did an uncredited polish on the script for the 1995 serial killer thriller, The Expert. Did you do much work on it?
I only did a little work on The Expert. My daughter, Jill Gatsby, wrote that movie. I just got the job for her, that’s all. I really had nothing to do with the film, so I couldn’t comment on it. I saw The Expert, but I don’t remember much. I thought it was passable. The movie was supposed to be a remake of Brute Force [7] but it wasn’t very good. Once again, somebody fucked around with the script.
Later that same year, you wrote the horror film Uncle Sam for William Lustig. Did you have any interest in helming that movie yourself?
No. Uncle Sam was a spec script that I wrote and then gave to Bill Lustig. I don’t recall the exact year I wrote that script because some of these events just telescope together, but I do remember that we put the project together very quickly. True to his usual form, Bill called me and said, “I’ve got the financing to make the picture — if I can direct it.” I said, “Well, you’ve got a deal as long as I get paid.” So, I got paid my money and Bill got to direct the film. I did actually shoot some scenes for Uncle Sam previously — at a July 4th parade I attended — then gave them the footage. They did incorporate that footage into the picture, but Bill directed the entire movie.
Uncle Sam shares several similarities with Bob Clark’s excellent 1972 film, Deathdream. It’s the story of a young soldier killed in Vietnam, who is wished back to life by his distraught mother only to return as a blood-drinking zombie. Has anyone ever remarked to you about the similarity between those films?
No, only you, but that movie sounds very much like the famous old horror story The Monkey’s Paw. [8] That short story has the very same idea of the parents wishing their son back to life after he has been killed suddenly in a war or some kind of accident, and threatens to return as a decayed monster. So, I would say that both of these pictures bare more than a strong resemblance to The Monkey’s Paw. I don’t deny that.
The character of Uncle Sam was first drawn in 1812 as a larger than life figure, but what does he represent in your mind and the minds of the American people?
Uncle Sam symbolises strength, patriotism, loyalty, and a sense of purpose and pride. He symbolises the U.S. Government and the people it serves, and is this colourful embodiment and exaggeration of American values. I mean, he almost looks like a superhero in the red, white, and blue uniform, only in our movie, he’s bad! [Chuckles] We subverted Uncle Sam
, which is the way I always like to do it. When you corrupt any agency, person, or product and turn it into something evil, it’s more interesting dramatically. It’s very much like God Told Me To where I turned something that was considered irredeemably good like God into something irredeemably evil.
Uncle Sam is clearly an anti-war tract.
[Interrupting] Well, yeah, but then who is really pro-war?
There certainly have been films made that were pro-war and pro-military, like The Green Berets [9] for instance, that come off like government propaganda.
Of course, but usually those movies are saying, “Oh, we’re fighting this war for peace.” That’s the excuse that is often given. For some unknown reason, peace always requires that you go to war and some Hollywood films do reflect that hypocrisy.
Well, who can forget the climax of The Green Berets when John Wayne famously tells the little Vietnamese orphan, “You’re what this [war] is all about.”
It’s sickening, really. I mean, when you look back at some of the wars the United States have been involved in, all the way down to the War of 1812, when we tried to take Canada and got our asses kicked by the British that time, it’s a rather shameful history. You can then move on to the Mexican-American War, which is one of the great crimes that have ever been committed by any government. We stole half the territory of Mexico for absolutely no reason whatsoever except greed. We got away with that one, except for the heavy American casualties, of course. Then we can move on to the Spanish-American War, a completely trumped-up war that was only initiated so we could seize even more territory. Then, we can move on to World War I, a conflict we had no business being in at all. What the hell did the Archduke of Serbia getting assassinated have to do with us? It makes no sense that we had anything to do with that war. Of course, World War I then predicated World War II, which wouldn’t have happened had we not gotten involved in the First World War. Then you have the Korean War and I don’t know if that conflict was entirely necessary either. They ended up right back where they started at the 48th parallel. Then you get to the Vietnam War, which was a complete farce, and more recently this domical in the Middle East, which is just idiotic! The fact that our forces are still over in Afghanistan, supporting drug lords who are growing poppies and making fortunes off of us, it’s crazy! People are stealing the money and equipment we are sending and show no gratitude whatsoever. More than that, we are getting all of our poor guys killed over there. So, as you can see, it’s just a long and depressing history of lunacy, misery and death. That’s why I wanted to write an anti-war film like Uncle Sam, to touch upon some of the absolute chaos, madness and destructiveness of war.
Despite its cheesy violence and broad characterisations, Uncle Sam is ripe with commentary. It explores the dangers of blind patriotism and sweeping national pride and how destructive they can be. Are those themes important to you?
Yes, and that follows on directly from what I just told you: every one of those wars I mentioned was promoted as some kind of celebration or reaffirmation of patriotism. All of these conflicts are commemorated with songs, marches, and music like “Send the Boys off to War,” “Hang a Star in your Window,” “God Bless Us,” and “Put a Flag on Your Porch.” But what does all this patriotism do? Terrible things happen on account of all that flag waving, because we are being encouraged to pronounce our differences rather than our shared similarities. As a nation, America has committed an awful lot of bad things over the years in the name of patriotism. Most of those wars were unnecessary and unjust. They were fraught with greed and were ruthless attempts to expand the power of the country and seize other peoples’ lands. You know, when I see all this fuss about illegal immigrants from Mexico, I just look around the city and see the names on every street — names like El Camino and Santa Monica. I mean, everything has got a Spanish name. Why, you may ask? Because this was their land, their country, and we stole it. Now we are prosecuting them for sneaking back into their own country?
Are you a proud American?
I love America. I love living here. I love the cities, the mountains, the ocean, all of the beautiful lands we live in, but I’m not in love with the politicians.
Did the finished film adhere closely to your screenplay?
Yeah, pretty much. Uncle Sam just wasn’t very good, that’s all. I didn’t like the film particularly, not compared to what it could have been. It didn’t have a really great Uncle Sam in terms of the character’s makeup and appearance. It wasn’t exactly state of the art. They failed to create a memorable character. You could have taken Uncle Sam and really transformed him into this fabulously scary figure like Freddy Krueger. He had that potential, but they didn’t do that. Instead, he became this rather mundane villain wearing a bland-looking mask. I actually gave them a much better mask that I’d had made, but Bill had his own way. He wanted to make his own movie and he did. That’s okay. Again, Bill got the money so he made the movie.
In 1996, you penned Invasion of Privacy, the story of a mentally disturbed man, who kidnaps the woman who is carrying his child in order to prevent her from having an abortion. Did you perhaps draw inspiration for that script from some real-life episode or news story?
No, I just made it all up. I thought the story of a man kidnapping the mother of his unborn child, and keeping her prisoner until such time as it would be illegal for her to have an abortion, was a highly original idea. In the script, the man finally releases her and she immediately has him arrested and he is put on trial. They eventually acquit him because he claims that the drastic action he took was done in order to save the life of their baby. So, he gets off, but then his psychopathic tendencies resurface again. Invasion of Privacy worked very nicely up to that point but, unfortunately, the ending of the picture is terrible.
The filmmakers tampered with your screenplay?
They rewrote the climax. They restaged it and seriously fucked it all up. They got mixed up with their own inane ideas and really made a mess of it. The best analogy I can think of right now about situations like Invasion of Privacy is this: it always seems to me that as a screenwriter, you are the guy that is taking the director through the jungle. You are leading him through some potentially treacherous territory but, just before you reach the destination, he suddenly decides to venture off blindly on his own and sinks right into a quicksand pit. That’s what happened on this picture and so they got what they deserved. They followed my script almost ninety percent of the way and just when they arrived at the ending, which, as I told you, is the most important part of a movie, they deviated. Again, if the movie is good and the ending is bad that’s all people remember. The audience will not give you credit for the early part of the film. They’ll just think it’s lousy, because they only judge you by how it works in the end. Invasion of Privacy had a very messed-up, disappointing ending that was very badly staged. A guy named Anthony Hickox directed it. His father was a very well-regarded director but, unfortunately, the father’s talents did not descend to his son. [10] His mother was also a very famous editor who edited Lawrence of Arabia for David Lean and many other great pictures. [11] She is a very fine editor indeed. I’ve actually met her, but I never met Hickox himself.
What was the ending that you originally envisioned for Invasion of Privacy?
Oh, I don’t remember now, but they basically took it and twisted it all around. They tried to put in other characters that had no business being there. They tried to build up the part of a supporting actress who was a famous Black model, [12] but she didn’t belong in the ending of the picture at all. They were trying to find some way to insert her into the movie and they stuck her into the ending. That confused everything as she had no logical reason for being there. So, it all became a shambles in the end.
What did you think of the multi-screen technique that Hickox employed in several scenes?
That was interesting. As I say, the main body of the picture was okay because Hickox followed the script. I must also add that I thought the castin
g wasn’t extraordinarily good either. The lead actress playing the mother was passable and the leading man was equally adequate. [13] That’s about the best you could say about it, although I do see a through-line in Invasion of Privacy to a lot of my earlier films. A lot of my movies deal with pregnancy and abortion, most obviously the three It’s Alive pictures and God Told Me To. Then there’s Daddy’s Gone A-Hunting in which a young woman has to resist being terrorised into killing her own child by her former lover — just as she willingly killed his child before. So, I have visited these themes and issues in my previous work, mostly because they are so potent and dramatically charged.
Invasion of Privacy clearly sympathizes with the mother, which is interesting as the issue of men’s rights has become a big one in recent years. In the U.K., there have been instances where disgruntled fathers have chained themselves to rooftops and various public places in order to protest their lack of rights and access to their children. The courts often seem to favour the mothers.
Well, it’s the mother who has to carry the baby and go through nine months of pain and discomfort followed by the agony of birth. The father’s job is over after a couple of minutes of pleasure, then he gets to walk away. Some fathers want to claim their rights, but when they do obtain them, what happens then? Do they really want to spend the time and energy it takes to nurture a child and deal with all the problems that raising a child entails? Some men fight for their rights, but when they have their rights they don’t want to exercise them. It’s like those fathers who get their visitation rights then don’t show up on the weekends when they are supposed to take the kids. The kids are waiting for them, all packed and ready to go. Sadly, for some reason or excuse, the old man doesn’t show. This goes on all the time. The father spends so much time fighting for his child, but it’s often their anger against the mother that is driving them not love for their kids. They want to punish the mother by taking away what she loves most. You know, some of the most profoundly destructive hatred that exists between people is often born out of love. That’s always worth writing about.
Larry Cohen Page 43