Backstory 1: Interviews with Screenwriters of Hollywood’s Golden Age. By Patrick McGilligan. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. 382 pages.
By Patrick Charsky
When Film Historians look back to the beginning of sound Cinema one hundred years from now where will they look for information about how it really was? Will they look to the Moguls or Movie Stars? Perhaps. Some searching for a deeper understanding will come to Patrick McGlligan’s excellent foray into Hollywood lore; Backstory1. Backstory is the first in a series of five books about Screenwriters working in Hollywood.
In searching for information about the Golden Age of Hollywood, Historians will seek out Screenwriters to learn from the soldiers of the motion picture industry. They will search out writers’ voices who never had a voice in a time when Hollywood reigned supreme over the World. McGilligan accomplishes this feat grandly. He shows a range of opinions and stories from the people you never heard of, but who made possible some of the best films ever made.
The review will consider three aspects of the book. First it will look at the different kinds of voices in the book. From “Company men and a woman”, to Screenwriters admittedly on the Left, and to odd balls who worked outside of the system or were blacklisted and had their screenwriting career ended. The second part of the review will discuss the accuracy of the information the screenwriters talk about. There is a lot of squabbling over those precious credits; who wrote Gone With the Wind? Who came up with the unforgettable ending of Casablanca? Lastly we will consider if the Golden Age Screenwriters are still relevant to contemporary Cinema.
Patirck McGilligan has written extensively about Cinema. In addition to Backstory 1, there are four other books in the series that document Screenwriters’ lives and work. A prolific biographer, he has published books about Hollywood celebrities like Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicoholson, and Mel Brooks. He is an adjunct Professor at Marquette University’s Film and TV Department.
The book is unique in its treatment of Screenwriters. Never before has a book gone so far as to arrange and allow Screenwriters to be heard. There have been other books about the Golden Age. McGilligan references these in his first rate introduction to the book, which serve as primary sources for further reading. Backstory reveals a treasure trove of early sound films to epic masterpieces from the 1950’s. If there ever was a course about the Golden Age of Hollywood, Backstory 1 could serve as a primary text for students.
One of the strengths of Backstory 1 is its diversity of voices from the Golden Age. The book is structured around sixteen interviews with Screenwriters who were successful to one degree or another in the Studio System that prevailed at the time they were working. The interviews give voice to Screenwriters who were known as lowest on the totem pole of the Studio System.
Some of the writers had worked for twenty years or more for a specific studio. W. R. Burnett worked in the Studio System from the earliest days of talkies. In his interview, he says he didn’t want to be a “company man” because that would engender ill feelings toward him from other writers. His interview shows what it was like to work with studio heads. It is incisive, funny, and deeply informed; his memory is crystal clear. Another screenwriter who worked in the studio system was Lenore Coffee. She was the only female screenwriter to have worked in the studio system documented in the book. Her interview provides a glimpse into a woman’s view of the Golden Age of Hollywood. She worked on “Women’s” pictures mostly. Her career started out in the Silent era but progressed into feature films as the age of “Talkies” dawned. Chatacteristially she avoided any talk of politics.
Opposite of her was John Lee Mahin. Mahin worked in the Studio System during its heyday, he contributed to Gone With the Wind, and knew Victor Fleming well enough to tell an interesting anecdote about Vic being exasperated with the production and giving up. Later he would be wooed back to finish the famous last scene in Gone With the Wind by Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable. Casey Robinson was another “company man.” He grew into such a success that he was making five thousand dollars a week at Metro. Despite the money, he quit because according to Robinson, “Metro is the graveyard of writers.”
These interviews comprise stories about what their lives were like, mostly how much they got paid. It also details their interactions with studio heads like Cecil B. DeMille, Daryl F. Zanuck, and Howard Hughes. Each has their own view of Hollywood and the politics of the times. Mahin was a staunch Conservative who had no sympathy for the “Hollywood Ten.” Burnett felt similarly, but was more sympathetic. Through these interviews the deep Conservatism of the big studios is revealed. If you were a Communist, or sympathizer, working for the big studios wasn’t going to last long. If you worked at organizing writers, then your career would be compromised.
The next group of interviews reveals a Left-wing in the Golden Age of Hollywood. Writers like Julius J. Epstein, Richard Maibaum, Philip Dunne, and Donald Ogden Stewart. Each of these screenwriters professed to be staunch Liberals who supported Roosevelt or, later on, Adlai Stevenson. Epstein worked for Warners most of his early career. He wrote the classic Casablanca with his brother. Whether he wrote the famous ending is a matter of controversy. Maibaum was the genius behind the adaptation of Ian Fleming’s James Bond novels. Maibaum and Epstein are both self-deprecating and humble about their grand accomplishments in Screenwriting. Dunne is equally humble about his many years writing for Fox. Dunne wrote some of the most memorable films of the 1950’s, even though he is not so proud about them. Dunne was deeply involved in the politics of his time, but remained a gentleman through and through in his interview. Lastly, Donald Ogden Stewart may have been the most Left of all the interviewees in the book. Stewart’s screenwriting career was ended prematurely by the HUAC controversy and he was unable to write after 1949. It is a tragedy that his talent was never allowed to bloom further.
The next batch of Screenwriters from the Golden Age are unique in that they were from a different country, chose to work free-lance, or had some success, or were a couple that chose to leave Hollywood and return to Broadway.
James M. Cain was a very well known novelist who tried to work in Hollywood for many years with some success. His novel The Postman Always Rings Twice was a success commercially and was heralded as one of the great hard boiled novels of all time.. The film has been produced four times; twice in Hollywood, once in France and another time in Italy by Luchino Visconti.
Norman Krasna was ahead of his time. He wrote completely free-lance in an era where the contract writer was the standard way to work in the Studio System. Krasna went on to great success with many hits, his major theme being mistaken identity. Many of his films were risque for 1930’s and 40’s.
Charles Bennett was from England. He is the only non-American to be interviewed for Backstory. He endured hardship many times, but found success working with Hitchcock on his early films, and with Cecil B. DeMille on his WWII films. Goodrich and Hackett were a married couple with deep ties to theater. They penned some of the best romantic comedies of the era including Father of the Bride.
These last group of writers show that it wasn’t required to work as a contract writer to have success in Hollywood. For Krasna and the Hacketts straddling the nation with gigs in both Hollywood and Broadway were their way of succeeding as writers. It is rare for that to happen in contemporary times. James M. Cain, despite being a big name in Europe as a novelist, was never enormously successful in screenwriting. He spent the later part of his life in suburban Maryland and said he never watched his movies or hardly any movies for that matter.
Many of these writers spent years trying to make it work in the Studio System. With rare exception they left after many years of struggle, worn down by constant criticism, writing by committee, and pictures that flopped. They turned back to theater or novel writing from which they had come. The most successful turned out films that never won awards or critical acclaim. Many worked as “fixers” on screenplays, brought in like mercenaries to re-write screenplays that had problems. The stories they tell aren’t of lavish lifestyles, but of working on film after film for a credit. Some of the screenwriters were bitter about their time in Hollywood.
Another area where multiple voices are expressed in Backstory is on the subject of credits. As McGilligan explains working in the Studio System was more writers by committee than the Auteurs we have in Cinema today. Before reading the book I only knew one screenwriter from the whole list; Julius J. Epstein. He wrote, with his brother Philip, Casablanca. However, in the book Casey Robinson claims he had found the play Everybody Comes to Rick’s, the play on which the movie is based, before the Epstein’s ever thought of writing the script. He also claims that he wrote the famous ending between Bogart and Bergman. Further along, Howard Koch says he had a role in writing the script. A claim refuted by Epstein in his interview. Epstein says Koch had nothing to do with writing Casablanca. It is controversies like these that make Backstory essential reading and important in deciding who gets those all important credits and the awards that may follow.
John Lee Mahin relays another story about credits. This time it is about Gone With the Wind. Mahin says he wrote some of Gone With the Wind but was uncredited. W. R. Burnett and Mahin both worked on Scarface (1931) where there were six credited writers on IMDB.com. Movies with multiple credits were all too common in the Golden Age of Hollywood. Perhaps this is why writers were so frustrated and movies not taken seriously as literature.
It’s A Wonderful LIfe was written primarily by Goodrich and Hackett, but there are four other credits listed for the screenplay on IMDB.com including the director Frank Capra. Goodrich and Hackett said they had a terrible time working with Capra and swore they would never work with him again.
In the Golden Age credits meant everything. Having your name on a film could lead to greater pay, greater roles like director or producer, or bigger projects as a writer. Prior to Auteur theory, the Golden Age meant a rabid scramble for screen credits. Backstory shows just how important those credits were to Screenwriters. They had to fight for recognition and many times, as is evidenced in the book, they took uncredited contribution rather than have their name roll past in the opening of the film.
Backstory gives a voice to the voiceless or now dead Screenwriters of the Golden Age. Everyone remembers Coppola or Tarrantino, but who remembers Philip Dunne, Norman Krasna, or Niven Busch? It is the great success of this book to reveal the great writers of the Golden Age who were undervalued and unappreciated during their time.
Why study The Golden Age of Hollywood? Why read McGilligan’s Backstory 1? I think Backstory 1 is not only an essential text for Screenwriters, but also for anyone who wants to understand the origins of Hollywood. The Studio System is long dead. Laid to waste by the advent of Television. The contract writer has morphed into the free-lancer. The studios taken over by large conglomerates.
Still issues of gender, freedom of expression, working conditions for writers, and what it means to be a success permeate not just The Golden Age but today’s contemporary media industry. Backstory 1 shows how writers fought for those things they thought were important. Many of them paid a dear price during the McCarthyism of the 40’s and 50’s.
With Independent movie theaters closing all over the country and Disney controlling 38% of box office, it is a very trying time to be Screenwriter. It makes the “bad old days” of the Golden Age look like a better time. Working as a contract writer while the studios cranked out hundreds of films a year seems much better than long periods of unemployment in an intensely competitive business. The “bad old days?” They never had it so good.
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
Book Review of Kazan on Directing by Elia Kazan (2009)
Kazan on Directing. By Elia Kazan. New York: Random House Publishing, 2009. 329 Pages.
By Patrick Charsky
Elia Kazan was a better director than Orson Welles. Many critics cite Citizen Kane as the best film ever made. However, On the Waterfront makes Citizen Kane look old and thin. Kazan’s life’s work was more robust and superior to Welles who made a few films of little impact after Citizen Kane. In Kazan’s own words, his thoughts about Mr. Welles, “In Mr. Welles’ productions there is a certain vitality and energy, but no total meaning, no sense of the thick fabric of life, of it’s real BODY. Welles reduced theater to theatricalism, and this is anemic fare.”
Elia Kazan was the best actor’s director of twentieth century American drama. Through the application of “the method” he brought a deeper characterization than had ever been seen on a stage or at a movie theater. This review will focus on his treatment of seminal characters which he dramatized in several famous plays and movies.
Kazan on Directing is Elia Kazan’s life work as a director put into book form. The chapters focus on his productions for theater in part one and his movie productions in part two. In the final section, Kazan goes into detail about the pleasures of directing and what it takes to become a director. The most interesting parts of the book are his notes about characters from his most famous productions. Blanche DuBois from A Streetcar Named Desire, Willy Loman from Death of a Salesman, Terry Malloy from On the Waterfront, and Cal Trask from East of Eden. These are his best efforts at directing and his greatest characters brought to life.
The Group Theater is where Kazan cut his teeth as a director. He started out as an actor but quickly moved into directing. At the time, The Group Theater was created to rival the Soviet Union’s theater group led by Stanislavsky. Kazan learned directing by learning “The Method.” “The Method” was based around principles that reflected human behavior on the stage realistically. Kazan was heavily influenced by Marxism. It shows in his notes about his early productions, especially his direction of Arthur Miller’s All My Sons and Death of a Salesman. According to editor Cornfield, “For a decade the Group Theatre members argued and fought among themselves, broke into factions that hated and admired, despised and adored each other, but their approach was at base steadily coherent enough to revolutionize American Theatre and consequently American Film.”
A Streetcar Named Desire was Kazan’s legendary production. He made a stage production and the film version with essentially the same cast, except Vivien Leigh took over the role of Blanche Dubois from Jessica Tandy. Kazan’s characterization of Blanche Dubois shines with a newfound depth that hadn’t been seen in American Theater before. Kazan believed that Blanche was an “anachronism.” She was living in a fantasy World of the nineteenth century American South. Kazan writes in his notes about the character of Blanche ``She is a refuge, punch drunk, and on the ropes, making her last stand, trying to keep up a gallant front, because she is a proud person.” It is only when she is raped by Stanley Kowalski that her World is finally violated and no hope is left. Through sexual violence, and her sex life, the sad character of Blanche is revealed. Her sexuality is the central characteristic which draws the audience to her. Kazan’s analysis was an in-depth exposition of a woman’s desire or need for protection from a male. A value of the Old South, a value to be obliterated by a New South more violent, in the form of the “sexual terrorist” Marlon Brando as Stanley.
In his notes, Kazan compares Blanche to Scarlett O’Hara. I think this is a great comparison since both women are beholden to the old values of a civilization that has ceased to exist. Only Scarlett lived during the time of it’s last gasp for air. Blanche lives in it like a fantasy. Both women are not allowed to assert their rights, they must depend on men for their survival. Scarlett marries three times and survives the Civil War and Reconstruction. Blanche has a different fate; she doesn’t succeed in finding a man to protect her, she is fired from her job as an English teacher, rejected by Karl Malden, and finally committed to an asylum.
Kazan does an excellent job of finding the “spine” of Blanche’s character. Kazan had to work hard with Vivien Leigh to adopt his theory of Blanche. Before Kazan and Leigh worked together, Leigh had been portraying Blanche in a different way from what Kazan wanted. Leigh eventually adapted to Kazan’s method and she won an Oscar for her performance. Kazan’s method was to use psychology to show Blanche’s life of desperation, rejection, and alienation.
The other legendary character that Kazan brings to life is Terry Malloy from On the Waterfront. Marlon Brando’s performance shows a man who was deeply troubled by his life. The famous scene where Terry and his brother ride in a car and Charley must kill his brother or risk his own life exposes what Terry has become “a liability.” He pleads with his brother “I could been somebody. I coulda been a contender.” Kazan analyzes the character of Terry in comparison to Stanley Kowalski, he writes that Terry is “deeply troubled inside, alone, abandoned, betrayed, and he needs help. Kowalski needs nothing.” Terry Malloy is an extension of Kazan who testified in front of the HUAC committee. Terry testifies before the New York City Crime Commission. What Terry goes through symbolizes what Kazan went through. The beating Terry gets from the gangsters who control the waterfront physicalizes the ostracism that Kazan endured from the theater and film communities because he named names.
Kazan and screenwriter Bud Schulberg both endured acrimony from their HUAC testimony. Cornfield writes of the beating scene’s symbolism “the brutal beating that Friendly and his henchmen give Terry might be it’s most ‘Kazan’ moment, his complaint and his pained expression of injustice” Instead of a beating Kazan’s reputation suffered blows that he would never entirely recover from. He did have some form of revenge against his adversaries “the financial and critical success of the film was Kazan’s revenge on the ‘Hollywood system,’ and he was particularly happy to accept his Academy Award in New York rather than in Hollywood.”
It was a bittersweet few years for Kazan, he had achieved enormous success. Ten years later, however, Kazan would struggle to find films to make and endured significant opprobrium in the press and filmmaking communities. After America, America Kazan directed a number of flops and his directing career ended with an adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Last Tycoon.
It seemed that History would forget Elia Kazan. “The Method” would be subsumed by franchise stars and megamergers in Hollywood. Kazan is the best actors’ director of twentieth century American drama. Today that sounds like an ailment to be avoided. But in Kazan’s time it was a worthy title to be coveted. Kazan is the most famous proponent of the method acting style. He will always be remembered for using the Stanislavsky based method. It will stand as a testament to realism in theater and film. HIs use of “The Method” brought about two award winning roles in Blanche Dubois and Terry Malloy. Among many of Kazan’s characters these two stand as his best work as a director.
Similar to his peers William Wyler, Orson Welles, and Roberto Rosselini, Kazan was an innovator of stage and screen. His production of All My Sons and Death of a Salesman rival those of Wyler’s The Best Years of Our Lives. His films have more substance than Welles’ Citizen Kane. And he is just as much a proponent of Realism as Rosselini was in his groundbreaking Paisan. He stands alone among twentieth century directors for his commitment to the method, to acting, and to realism. Kazan wrote about what must be done when searching out a piece of drama “you have to dig down past the dead leaves, the pretty dead leaves, the twigs, the gay green grass, the sod itself- down to the heart of the drama and TEST THAT.”
In this era of franchise tent poles and Superhero films, Kazan seems outdated and forgotten. The question presents itself, will Kazan be remembered? Will his characters and his method be forgotten? Will they someday have a renaissance? If a student is led to Vivien Leigh or Marlon Brando, they will discover Elia Kazan. They will discover his work, his plays, his films. Kazan will not be forgotten, nor his contributions to directing, he will live on in the hearts and minds of anyone who wants to make serious dramatic works.
By Patrick Charsky
Elia Kazan was a better director than Orson Welles. Many critics cite Citizen Kane as the best film ever made. However, On the Waterfront makes Citizen Kane look old and thin. Kazan’s life’s work was more robust and superior to Welles who made a few films of little impact after Citizen Kane. In Kazan’s own words, his thoughts about Mr. Welles, “In Mr. Welles’ productions there is a certain vitality and energy, but no total meaning, no sense of the thick fabric of life, of it’s real BODY. Welles reduced theater to theatricalism, and this is anemic fare.”
Elia Kazan was the best actor’s director of twentieth century American drama. Through the application of “the method” he brought a deeper characterization than had ever been seen on a stage or at a movie theater. This review will focus on his treatment of seminal characters which he dramatized in several famous plays and movies.
Kazan on Directing is Elia Kazan’s life work as a director put into book form. The chapters focus on his productions for theater in part one and his movie productions in part two. In the final section, Kazan goes into detail about the pleasures of directing and what it takes to become a director. The most interesting parts of the book are his notes about characters from his most famous productions. Blanche DuBois from A Streetcar Named Desire, Willy Loman from Death of a Salesman, Terry Malloy from On the Waterfront, and Cal Trask from East of Eden. These are his best efforts at directing and his greatest characters brought to life.
The Group Theater is where Kazan cut his teeth as a director. He started out as an actor but quickly moved into directing. At the time, The Group Theater was created to rival the Soviet Union’s theater group led by Stanislavsky. Kazan learned directing by learning “The Method.” “The Method” was based around principles that reflected human behavior on the stage realistically. Kazan was heavily influenced by Marxism. It shows in his notes about his early productions, especially his direction of Arthur Miller’s All My Sons and Death of a Salesman. According to editor Cornfield, “For a decade the Group Theatre members argued and fought among themselves, broke into factions that hated and admired, despised and adored each other, but their approach was at base steadily coherent enough to revolutionize American Theatre and consequently American Film.”
A Streetcar Named Desire was Kazan’s legendary production. He made a stage production and the film version with essentially the same cast, except Vivien Leigh took over the role of Blanche Dubois from Jessica Tandy. Kazan’s characterization of Blanche Dubois shines with a newfound depth that hadn’t been seen in American Theater before. Kazan believed that Blanche was an “anachronism.” She was living in a fantasy World of the nineteenth century American South. Kazan writes in his notes about the character of Blanche ``She is a refuge, punch drunk, and on the ropes, making her last stand, trying to keep up a gallant front, because she is a proud person.” It is only when she is raped by Stanley Kowalski that her World is finally violated and no hope is left. Through sexual violence, and her sex life, the sad character of Blanche is revealed. Her sexuality is the central characteristic which draws the audience to her. Kazan’s analysis was an in-depth exposition of a woman’s desire or need for protection from a male. A value of the Old South, a value to be obliterated by a New South more violent, in the form of the “sexual terrorist” Marlon Brando as Stanley.
In his notes, Kazan compares Blanche to Scarlett O’Hara. I think this is a great comparison since both women are beholden to the old values of a civilization that has ceased to exist. Only Scarlett lived during the time of it’s last gasp for air. Blanche lives in it like a fantasy. Both women are not allowed to assert their rights, they must depend on men for their survival. Scarlett marries three times and survives the Civil War and Reconstruction. Blanche has a different fate; she doesn’t succeed in finding a man to protect her, she is fired from her job as an English teacher, rejected by Karl Malden, and finally committed to an asylum.
Kazan does an excellent job of finding the “spine” of Blanche’s character. Kazan had to work hard with Vivien Leigh to adopt his theory of Blanche. Before Kazan and Leigh worked together, Leigh had been portraying Blanche in a different way from what Kazan wanted. Leigh eventually adapted to Kazan’s method and she won an Oscar for her performance. Kazan’s method was to use psychology to show Blanche’s life of desperation, rejection, and alienation.
The other legendary character that Kazan brings to life is Terry Malloy from On the Waterfront. Marlon Brando’s performance shows a man who was deeply troubled by his life. The famous scene where Terry and his brother ride in a car and Charley must kill his brother or risk his own life exposes what Terry has become “a liability.” He pleads with his brother “I could been somebody. I coulda been a contender.” Kazan analyzes the character of Terry in comparison to Stanley Kowalski, he writes that Terry is “deeply troubled inside, alone, abandoned, betrayed, and he needs help. Kowalski needs nothing.” Terry Malloy is an extension of Kazan who testified in front of the HUAC committee. Terry testifies before the New York City Crime Commission. What Terry goes through symbolizes what Kazan went through. The beating Terry gets from the gangsters who control the waterfront physicalizes the ostracism that Kazan endured from the theater and film communities because he named names.
Kazan and screenwriter Bud Schulberg both endured acrimony from their HUAC testimony. Cornfield writes of the beating scene’s symbolism “the brutal beating that Friendly and his henchmen give Terry might be it’s most ‘Kazan’ moment, his complaint and his pained expression of injustice” Instead of a beating Kazan’s reputation suffered blows that he would never entirely recover from. He did have some form of revenge against his adversaries “the financial and critical success of the film was Kazan’s revenge on the ‘Hollywood system,’ and he was particularly happy to accept his Academy Award in New York rather than in Hollywood.”
It was a bittersweet few years for Kazan, he had achieved enormous success. Ten years later, however, Kazan would struggle to find films to make and endured significant opprobrium in the press and filmmaking communities. After America, America Kazan directed a number of flops and his directing career ended with an adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Last Tycoon.
It seemed that History would forget Elia Kazan. “The Method” would be subsumed by franchise stars and megamergers in Hollywood. Kazan is the best actors’ director of twentieth century American drama. Today that sounds like an ailment to be avoided. But in Kazan’s time it was a worthy title to be coveted. Kazan is the most famous proponent of the method acting style. He will always be remembered for using the Stanislavsky based method. It will stand as a testament to realism in theater and film. HIs use of “The Method” brought about two award winning roles in Blanche Dubois and Terry Malloy. Among many of Kazan’s characters these two stand as his best work as a director.
Similar to his peers William Wyler, Orson Welles, and Roberto Rosselini, Kazan was an innovator of stage and screen. His production of All My Sons and Death of a Salesman rival those of Wyler’s The Best Years of Our Lives. His films have more substance than Welles’ Citizen Kane. And he is just as much a proponent of Realism as Rosselini was in his groundbreaking Paisan. He stands alone among twentieth century directors for his commitment to the method, to acting, and to realism. Kazan wrote about what must be done when searching out a piece of drama “you have to dig down past the dead leaves, the pretty dead leaves, the twigs, the gay green grass, the sod itself- down to the heart of the drama and TEST THAT.”
In this era of franchise tent poles and Superhero films, Kazan seems outdated and forgotten. The question presents itself, will Kazan be remembered? Will his characters and his method be forgotten? Will they someday have a renaissance? If a student is led to Vivien Leigh or Marlon Brando, they will discover Elia Kazan. They will discover his work, his plays, his films. Kazan will not be forgotten, nor his contributions to directing, he will live on in the hearts and minds of anyone who wants to make serious dramatic works.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)