Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule has the best coverage anywhere of the whole "I (Heart) Huckabees" on-set "maelstrom" (as proprietor Dennis Cozzalio calls it), including the now-infamous YouTube clips of the battles between Lily Tomlin and writer-director David O. Russell. There's also an excerpt from the Playboy interview with George Clooney discussing various meltdowns during the shooting of "Three Kings," and an appearance by Tomlin and co-star Dustin Hoffman on "Good Morning America," promoting "Huckabees." Plus, there's a fantastic string of comments that you won't find anywhere else.
Dennis wonders:
Can working with a volcanic director actually be good for the creative process? If not, why (besides the money) would actors and crew members tolerate such behavior? Is this kind of threatening, off-the-rails, abusive behavior somehow actionable? And if not, why would anyone want to work with Russell again? "Huckabees" may be brilliant, it may be a mess, but one could hardly call it complacent—it’s in there scrapping for slivers of enlightenment and understanding right along with the people who made it and the audiences who choose to see it and run with it, and perhaps some of this striving, searching, reckless clashing of tones and spirits that are vital to the movie can be directly traced to this kind of passion, however misplaced it might seem. These are the questions. I have no answers.Over at The Hot Blog, David Poland cites a few excerpts from Sharon Waxman's 2004 New York Times set-visit piece on the turmoil of "Huckabees" ("The Nudist Buddhist Borderline-Abusive Love-In"). Here's another piece from that story that sets the scene for one of the clips:
The actors do take after take in the crowded car, with Mr. Russell, as is his habit, constantly throwing new lines at them from a few feet away. The dialogue is poignant and bizarre at the same time, and the scene culminates with Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Tomlin weeping simultaneously and loudly.My 2¢: It's inexcusable, counterproductive and unprofessional to berate anybody on a set in front of the rest of the cast and crew. If you have to scream or vent over "creative differences" (or personality flaws), then call the person aside and hash it out in your office or your trailer. Who does Russell think he is? Ari Gold?While the cameras roll, Mr. Russell berates the actors: ''Where's the [expletive] reaction?'' he swears at Mr. Hoffman.
The actors look tired. As he has throughout the shoot, Mr. Russell is touching them -- a lot, and sometimes in private places. At one point, Mr. Wahlberg grabs the director's megaphone, shouting: ''This man just grabbed my genitals! It is my first man-on-man contact!'' At other times, the director whispers into the actresses' ears -- lewdly, they later say -- before a take.
So far, the actors have been remarkably tolerant of Mr. Russell's mischief. As Ms. Huppert later observed in a phone interview, the actors knew Mr. Russell was intentionally trying to destabilize them for the sake of their performances. ''He is fascinating, completely brilliant, intelligent and very annoying sometimes, too,'' she said. They also know he has created superb films from chaotic-seeming sets before. Besides, he's the director and the writer; now that they've cast their lot with him, they really don't have a choice.
Tomlin had worked with Russell before (on "Flirting With Disaster"), so perhaps she knew what she was in for. She pushed back pretty hard, but she wasn't cowed by Russell (as Dustin Hoffman seems to have been, at least in these clips). If you create a set in which tantrums are allowed or encouraged, then you're going to get incendiary blowback. Some actors feel these kinds of shenanigans by an "artistic genius" are just part of the process. Others would say it's absolutely unacceptable -- the kind of thing that wouldn't be allowed (or nobody would stand for) in any other workplace. (I knew a newspaper editor who screamed a lot and once threw a stapler at a writer, but management did not view this behavior as permissible.)
I recently re-watched Peter Bogdanovich's "Directed By John Ford," wherein John Wayne, James Stewart and Henry Fonda all recount stories of how Ford embarrassed and humiliated them on the set -- but (and this is key, I think) Ford didn't lose his temper. He may have been angry, or sullen, or grumpy, or he may have just been trying to knock them down a notch and re-assert his authority (as if anyone would ever question it!), but he didn't lose control of himself. He was firm -- maybe even cruel -- but not abusive.
OK, not everyone has the temperament of John Ford. Many directors are stern or harsh -- even "borderline abusive" -- when it comes to getting what they want from their cast or crew. Think of Robert Altman, Henry Hathaway, David Fincher (watch out for those directors named David -- they want lots of takes!), Sam Peckinpah, Stanley Kubrick... or David O. Russell. None of them has a reputation as a pushover.
But I have the same kinds of questions that Dennis has. It's one thing for artists to be assholes in their personal lives, but is it ethically acceptable for them to subject their collaborators, co-workers or subordinates to their self-indulgent, abusive behavior? I think not. Except, maybe, studio executives, who are too often (passive-aggressive) adversaries rather than collaborators. They're fair game. You can yell at them all you want, especially if they yell at you first.
...Henry Hathaway (who famously made Dennis Hopper do , David Fincher ...
Made Dennis Hopper do what?
I don't think this conduct is acceptable either. The article says that "the actors knew Mr. Russell was intentionally trying to destabilize them for the sake of their performances," but I really don't think berating them and touching their "private places" is the way to go about it.
JE: Sorry -- incomplete thought. I meant to go back and fix it. I was going to say that Hathaway made Hopper do 80 takes of a scene, but when I went back to check the facts, it sounded like more of a mutual battle of wills. Hopper refused to do the scene the way Hathaway wanted him to, and so Hathaway just kept making him do it over and over. As a consequence, Hopper found it very difficult to get work in Hollywood. This was before his "lost" booze & drug years...
There are plenty of friendly, enthusiastic, easy-to-work-with directors who produce brilliant and challenging work. There is no excuse whatsoever to have these spoiled brats running the show, surrounded by "enablers". I've worked with many different directors, and time and time again I've seen that a happy crew makes a better film. Witness Pixar's success: not one bad film, and it's considered one of the top 10 companies in the world to work for.
Clint Eastwood has cranked out many films, and directs with a very gentle and confident hand. That's the key - confidence in your ability to direct. Whenever I meet a shouter or an abusive director all I see is someone terrified of failing.
I was really dissapointed seeing the clips. I'm a big fan of O. Russell's movies, and I'd heard reports of his eccentricities, but this is ridiculously unprofessional and intolerable behavior. I have no idea why any actor would work with him a second time.
The most disturbing part of the clip with Tomlin, Schwartzman, and Hoffman in the office is the scared woman crouching in the corner who gets files and whatever else was on the desk thrown at her. You see the way he behaves, and then you see Schwartzman hugging O. Russell at screenings and everyone talking up what a brilliant guy he is.
His films always do have a tension that i've felt uncomfortable with. There's a sex scene in Huckabees that would be difficult for any actor even under good circumstances, but I can't imagine how degrading and dehuminizing it must have been with a fanatical tyrant screaming at you the whole time.
There's room for a director to show eccentricities, or even a bit of manipulation to get something out of an actor. I've heard stories about Werner Herzog (probably in the documentary "My Best Fiend") in which Werner made the brilliant (and also extremely difficult) Klaus Kinski do hours worth of one take in "Aguirre" just after he chops the guys head off so that Kinski was well enough worn out that he would perform the scene the way Herzog wanted him to. Or Kubrick manipulating George C. Scott on the set of "Dr. Strangelove" to get the over the top performance we see on film today, BUT when the manipulation goes beyond getting a performance as a character and instead personally attacks the actor - then it's uncalled for.
I worked with a director once who took his actor's through such personal turmoil over a 36 hours shoot (Why we said yes? Because his vision was only matched by his passion). To be awake that 24th hour and have this director play off personal situations to make you feel a certain way during a scene was intolerably cruel. It's something I will never allow myself to be put through again as an actor, and will never do so as a director.
See, this is my problem with DVD extras for modern films -- no one in Hollywood is ever going to publicly say something nasty about people they might have to work with again. With older films no one has a problem saying that John Farrow was a jerk, or Marilyn Monroe took a dozen takes to get, "It's me, Sugar" right. The only modern films I've seen where people have been honest about what went on on set is the Alien series. (Yeah, there is that Hearts of Darkness documentary for Apocalypse Now, but Coppola refused to include it on the recent DVD.)
Yes, he did act like a maniac, but people seem to be completely glossing over the extent to which Ms. Tomlin was practically begging for him to explode. Especially if she's worked with him before, she had to know that running her mouth with countless "F" bombs and sarcastically calling him "brilliant" would set him off. What did she expect? Yes, directors should act professional, but so should actors. She's every bit as to blame as him, and at least he was defending himself when he did it, she just seemed to be complaining about his process.
I did a little more digging, and found this.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/blogs/?p=365
It's refreshing to hear what she has to say about it. I've always thought both were talented, and it was sad to see them act like children.
The NY Times story can be accessed for free on their website at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/movies/19WAXM.html?ei=5090&en=1582858e26412bdf&ex=1253246400&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=
Incredible stuff.
Sometimes, in order to achieve a certain depth you have to send your actors in a seemingly different direction mentally. This is a known and proven method in direction. Russell takes it to an extreme, but it's a predictable path, so you should know what you are getting into as an actor. If his films were horrible it'd be a different story possibly. However, I believe that 3 Kings and Huckabees are outstanding films. I look forward seeing more from this guy in the future (however long his career lasts).
Great behind-the-scenes stuff here. I had no idea any of this took place during shooting and post-production. Theres a certain uneasiness I get watching "Huckabees." I can't quite describe it exactly-something seems a little off in each scene.
And if David Russell was an asshole to Naomi Watts I will personally kick his butt, she's my favorite actress!