the beat of digital culture
home | about us | feedback

blog:
daily relay

topics:
technology
culture
the net

reviews:
books
games
gear
music
software

search mindjack

Mindjack Release
join to receive announcements of new issues

served up by hosted by bopjet

 

First Interview with Richard Linklater

Director of Slacker, Dazed and Confused and Waking Life
by Jon Lebkowsky

[This interview was conducted while Linklater was editing "Dazed and Confused."]

Jon Lebkowsky: I recall reading an interview you did after SLACKER came out, and it seems to me that you had something very different in mind for your next feature.

Richard Linklater: I had eight different things I was working on, it could have been any of them. When asked what I was going to do next, I always said something different. Actually, that's how this new film, "Dazed and Confused," came to be. I told a writer in Washington, D.C. about it, and he called a friend who worked at Universal, and it kind of got back to 'em. I just described my teenage movie. I could have described anything, but I described that one....

JL: I take it this won't be another "American Graffiti..."

RL: Naw, it's got too bad an attitude. [Laughter] "Graffiti" was nostalgic, it was that high school world everyone wished they grew up in..."Dazed and Confused" is the world everyone *did* grow up in.

JL: Does it have its roots in Texas, like SLACKER did?

RL: Yeah, well, not in quite such a big way...I mean, it doesn't declare a town or anything...it's a small town in Texas...medium size, you know, 50,000 people. It's not Austin, it's just a suburban town.

JL: I grew up in a town of 30 or 40 thousand.

RL: Where?

JL: It was in West Texas, called Big Spring. Wide spot in the road, y'know? At the time, it was a growing concern, because the had oil. They had a refinery outside town. Now there's nothing there...oh, they had an Air Force Base, but it closed, too.

RL: Oh, right, all that's changed, huh?

JL: And I remember some of the stuff we did when we were teenagers, especially those long drives in the country.

RL: Oh, I know, it lets the imagination run wild, all that room to kinda roam around.

JL: Yeah, looking out for the Hook Man.

RL: Yeah, yeah. [Laughs.] Yeah, he's out there somewhere.... I think more people grow up like that than in big cities...you grow up in some crummy little town somewhere, and then you gravitate toward the big city first chance you get.

JL: Is there any alignment of this film with SLACKER? Any carry- over, any sense of similar attitude?

RL: Oh, I think so, yeah. Some people are jokingly referring to it as a "prequel" to SLACKER. It's not that simple, but it's got a similar kind of drifting feel....

JL: Are you familiar with Bob Black, "The Abolition of Work?"

RL: Yeah, sure. Yeah, that's great!

JL: I was wondering if you read that, or if you considered that, when you were working on SLACKER.

RL: A little. I remember even at the SLACKER opening I put a reprint of "The Abolition of Work," just that one essay...I got a bunch of free copies somewhere, and left a big stack of them at the theatre exit.

JL: Loompanics has a full collection of essays...I was looking at your book, and noticed that you're familiar with Loompanics.

RL: Oh, sure. Yeah, [referring to a reprint of "The Abolition of Work"] they print this...you can buy this from them?

JL: You can order those for $1.00 apiece...

RL: From Loompanics?

JL: No, I don't think so...I think it's from Bob Black himself...there's ordering information in here...Feh! Press.

RL: Do you think that is Bob Black?

JL: My guess was that it is...something he was publishing, maybe at cost...he doesn't seem to be a greedhead...

RL: Be a what?

JL: A greedhead.

RL: No, no, he's quite the opposite, I would imagine.

JL: He probably advocates share-right, open copyright.

RL: Yeah, I'm like that, too. It's like, hey, you know...open information. SLACKER was bootlegged extensively on video before it came out. Now it's playing in countries where they never really got the right to show it. What the hell.

JL: And have you read SLAM! by Lew Shiner?

RL: Never read it, no...

JL: In the back of this, he talks about Loompanics, and he says "A major inspiration for this novel is 'The Abolition of Work' by Bob Black..." This novel's about a guy who gets out of Bastrop prison and moves to Galveston, moves into some rich lady's house that's full of cats.

RL: In Galveston?

JL: Yeah.

RL: I was just in Galveston...that sounds great...who is Lew Shiner? That sounds familiar...

JL: Lew Shiner is a Texas writer who used to write science fiction. I think he's living in Houston now, but he used to live in Austin. There's a group of science fiction authors who have lived in Austin, like Bruce Sterling, Howard Waldrop...

RL: His character was in a correctional institution...is this autobiographical?

JL: Naw.

JL: The character in this book gets involved with a bunch of skaters...I think that Shiner started reading Thrasher, and got carried away. [Laughs]

JL: So DAZED AND CONFUSED is like a prequel to SLACKER, in terms of attitude?

RL: Oh, yeah...it's kinda what the disgruntled teenagers are doing, the ones who know that everything is pretty fucked, and hate the whole power/social hierarchy that they're having to deal with. The only difference between them and the characters in SLACKER is probably just five or six years of reading time.

JL: College?

RL: Yeah, college. It's kinda like high school, they're still trying to fit in with the others, but not doing too good a job, or certain ones are doing too good a job....

JL: You grew up in Houston, didn't you?

RL: Houston, and some in Huntsville, Texas.

JL: So I guess this town is more like Huntsville than like Houston?

RL: Yeah, closer to Huntsville, but a lot of the experiences in it really took place in Houston. It was weird going from a town of 20,000 to a town of 4 million...it's not that much different when you're seventeen, you're doing the same things, riding around looking for something to do. I think it was that aspect that made me think that my high school experience wasn't that different from anyone else's. The plight of the teenager never changes. The oppression you're fighting is always the same.

JL: That's where it starts. That's where they start pushing you into slots.

RL: Yeah, yeah. Even in the movie, the junior high's very old and traditionally built, early 20th century, very beautiful brick, and the high school's cold and institutional, ugly, boring, sterile...[laughs]

JL: That's the high school I went to!

RL: That's when they start getting you...you know, the whole design of it, the prison feel.

JL: Do you see any connection between what you were describing in SLACKER, the kind of people you were showing there, and the hippies of the sixties, or the beatniks of the fifties? Other than just rebellion?

RL: Yeah. There's always been a group...they seem to be labeled through most generations, but the eighties group didn't seem to have a label. As if mainstream society kind of forgot that people like this still existed. It's not unique to any generation, I mean, every generation has a group, a certain percentage that probably hasn't changed much either over the years...a percentage of people who just aren't buying into the trend of the day.

JL: It's hard to look at Ronald Reagan and George Bush every day, and remember that you've got blood flowing in your veins...

RL: I know, I know. And I think it was even more intense in the eighties. I have another movie I want to do that starts off in '85, and is similar to SLACKER in a way, but deals more specifically with people out of work, who eventually go off on their own tangents. The eighties were a prime time to do that, but I think the difference between the eighties and the sixties was that the media paid no attention to it. The media is so corporately controlled, and these people aren't a consumer group as much as the others, so the idea was let's just phase 'em out, and forget 'em altogether.

JL: To me, that's almost forcing the evolution of this independent scene, where you have zines and you have smaller independent films, and guerilla television.

RL: Yeah, that's all you have. The major media is so...we need the alternate channels of communication opened up through human necessity, 'cause we're not getting it anywhere else. People can't ever be denied, they're going to create their own network. That's what's so cool about computers and videotapes and zines...

JL: They all seem to be connected. The people who do zines are on the computer networks...have you ever done much with computers?

RL: Not a whole lot. I have, a couple, but I can't say I have...

JL: There's a lot of spontaneous interaction online, a lot of things happening with no geographical constraint, so you have these movements...a movement springs up on the two coasts, and it's here so much faster. There's always been a connection between Austin and San Francisco, for instance...when something happens in San Francisco, the guys who are online know about it now...raves are one example. There's a rave scene in Austin now...we went to a rave a week or so ago, and most of the people I saw there that I knew, I'd met online. And there really seems to be a real similarity in attitude between slackers and hackers....

RL: Oh, yeah. Very much in the face of how you're "supposed" to do it...open channels of communication and copyright infringement...[laughter]

JL: And it's harder and harder to squash because there's too many means of communication.

RL: They who think they're getting hurt by it are so outnumbered, so greatly, and they don't quite have the means of control. I mean, they try to, but it's beyond them. The numbers are on our side, I think, if the law and other things aren't.

JL: We thought that in the sixties...I think the difference now is not just in the numbers, but also in the infrastructure. We may have the infrastructure...but I don't know, computer networks depend a lot on the phone company and the government. I suppose they could yank the foundations that support the networks, but that would be hard for them to do now...

RL: Yeah, it's almost like they're so big that you can kind of use them in your own way for your own means...but that's their fault, y'know? That's the small price they pay for having world monopolies on everything. The hand-me-downs in this society are better than most, y'know? The freebies and the things you can kind of latch onto....putting this in the best spirit....

JL: It used to be that you could live off the fat of the land, but that's harder to do now. I guess in Austin it's not so bad...

RL: Yeah, but generally, like in New York City...I feel sorry for my friends in San Francisco and New York, it's impossible. You have to have your slave days just to pay the rent and keep going. That's the toughest thing of all, maintaining your body so your spirit can be free. It's tough.

JL: That's pretty much what SLACKER is about, right? Its success seems kinda paradoxical.

RL: I guess I was surprised at the success of SLACKER. For all these reasons, I thought it would totally be an underground film. I figured I'd be trading videos and selling them in the back of some magazine. That for me would be the most likely channel for it, if anything, as I was making it. I think it's kind of a neat thing that something like that could pop up, that the mainstream and the underground are joined at certain places. Had SLACKER been made in the sixties, it would never have got the distribution. They didn't have distributors who dealt with films like this at all. Whereas in the eighties there are these middle-level distributors who kind of have a foot in both worlds, and that's where SLACKER found a niche.

JL: In the sixties we always figured we would have to infiltrate government agencies, the corporate world, and so forth, so people have been doing that. So there's an accessibility there where there may not have been any before.

RL: I know, and that's what happened. There are people who are cool, they're from the sixties and the seventies, with these cool attitudes...through their own interest and competence they find themselves at some higher position, and whatever they're doing, for whatever reason, they're up there but they're still kinda cool, and have these kinda leanings...Hollywood's a lot like that, too. Everyone in Hollywood imagines, on one level, that they're kind of cool, innovative. Most of them are full of shit, but they think that they're kind of radical and liberal, and there's that kind of Hollywood liberalism that's kind of nauseating...but it's there, and that can be pushed a little bit. Armchair liberals...that can be a good thing, in the right circumstances that can work for you. Usually it doesn't. That's the death of everything, any change, that kind of attitude.

JL: There's definitely a political element in SLACKER. Were you thinking politically when you made it?

RL: Sure, just my own scattered, eccentric politics.

JL: Do you think you're getting more focused with that?

RL: Not really. I'm no more or less focused than I was three years ago, when I was first making SLACKER. I'm about the same, even more disgruntled, I guess.

JL: To what extent was it theoretical, and to what extent gut-level? It seems to be to be pretty gut-level....

RL: Yeah, it is. Gut level based on a lot of theory, but that's how I guess I work. I read a lot and take it in, but once I come down to putting it into any form, or any kind of representation, I quit thinking and just feel, go with the gut, and what comes out is what you really are.

JL: I really had a sense of the Austin scene. I never would have imagined that anyone could have captured the drag scene the way you did.

RL: I guess that's from living around there, being a part of it but not really being a part of it. I was always a filmmaker. I didn't think I ever really knew what was going on in Austin. I just go to a lot of movies, the library, and just walk around a lot....

JL: There's a kind of osmosis.

RL: I was the camera in this movie, just kind of floating around and hearing things and following people. But I guess I never felt that connected to it. It seems like I'm most connected now, whether I like it or not.

JL: There's always been this set of people who live around the drag. I was like that, I was a drag vendor, wrote for the Rag. Lived in a house on 32nd street where Janis Joplin used to live, and when she died, the girls downstairs said her ghost passed through the house.

RL: Great story. I think Janis lived in just about every house...!

JL: I know, I know. That's what I thought, too!

RL: When I lived behind Mad Dog's,. everybody said she'd lived there for a while.

JL: She may have, she probably lived in a lot of houses.

RL: I think she did. Sounds like she moved around a lot. Yeah, it's a neat scene, I like it, being there in the shadow of the University. I moved from the film house, but I still live near there.

JL: The scene changed a lot from the sixties through the eighties.

RL: I'll bet.

JL: People started building everywhere in town.

RL: Yeah.

JL: And the Armadillo World Headquarters came down.

RL: That must have been a nasty period. I think I moved here on the tail end of the big business corporate everyone-trying-to-get- rich-off-of-Austin phase. I got here pretty much during the bust period, or just moving into bust.

JL: I think that Raul's and Club Foot were a reactions to that, I mean initial reactions.

RL: Yeah, it's like they're reactions, and they end up getting swallowed up by it, because they always own the lease. You can have your fun for a while, but if you don't own it, you're out.

JL: How did you decide on the narrative form for SLACKER?

RL: I'd been thinking about it for years and years. It was one of my first film ideas. I remember I was riding to Houston at about three in the morning, and I just had this idea. When you're just starting work in films, then everything's a possibility. Had I ever gone to film school, I probably never could have thought of it. But I remember just riding and thinking, "Why can't a film just go from one thing, to the next, to the next, to the next...." Cinema is perfect for a structure like that. The film is just totally real and wide open like that, in the way that people perceive cinema as real, kind of seemingly real.

JL: There are few films where you could do that and pull off any kind of continuity.

RL: Yeah, but I think, because I thought about it and then I actually made the film six years later, that I had this six years of gestation time, to think, How would this work, how would it be able to still not...on one level it's very alienating, but on another, it's kind of engaging. It came down to the neighborhood, or kind of capturing a group or a feel or an environment, have that be the star, and all the people coming through it are just momentary travelers. The star is really that segment of Austin.

JL: You've probably heard this before: I went to see the film, and I had quite a laugh, I thought it was pretty funny, but I took my wife to see it, and she cried, and was really depressed.

RL: Wow. I love that.

JL: Completely opposite reactions.

RL: I know, isn't that amazing? I had people who come up and say, "Yeah, it's so depressing." But I've had people go, "First time I laughed, but the last time, it was really dark and depressing." Some people say the opposite, "I thought it was really depressing, and then, next time I went, I just laughed and thought it was funny," and I was like, "Wow, this is really strange...." It really comes down to what the individual feels about their personal relation to the kind of life that the film depicts, and how they judge that way of life.

JL: Yeah, I think it's really a strength of the film, that it can elicit such diverse responses.

RL: I even see it in myself a little bit. I'll look at it one time, and I'll just go, "God, I was insane, what was I thinking?" If I wasn't doing this film, I would have been an assassin or something. [Laughter] And then other times I can see it, and just laugh and go "Ah, you know, it's just some crazy ideas." I think it just really fluctuates with where your mind and body are at that moment. But I've met people in other towns who say, "Oh yeah, I lived in Austin for a while. I can't wait til this comes out on video, I'm gonna rent it and watch it. Any time I ever think I miss Austin I'm gonna watch it so I'll see what I'm not missing at all." And other people watch it, and they move to Austin, or they move back. That's about the gamut right there, isn't it?

JL: The second or third time I saw it at Dobie, I walked out the door with my friend Joseph, and we walked over to Quack's...

RL: Seemed kinda familiar there...

JL: Did you ever feel out of control?

RL: No, surprisingly, it was very controlled in a certain way. The making of it, you mean? While we were making it? No, I felt kind of in control of the chaos, because it was so highly structured, I knew what was coming next, I knew how it ended, I knew all that, so it was just... I describe in the book, those two seemingly different aspects, one completely controlled and structured, and the other, completely open to anything, how those kind of coexist. But I think those coexist in everyone, there's a rational side of all of us, and there's a poetic, inspired, open-to-anything side.

JL: Order and chaos.

RL: Yeah, order and chaos and where they meet.

JL: Strange attractors.

RL: Yeah. They need to coexist a little bit, just to get to the point where you can enjoy the chaos, and get something out of it.

JL: Balance...

RL: Yeah, yeah, and that's what SLACKER was the whole way, it was just a balancing. So I always felt in control, because I was in control of the whole. As for specifics, they were open enough for things to change. Like with Gina Lalli, just in what happens in every scene...she told me this story traveling into India and hearing...and the smells, it was so vivid, I liked the story so much, I said "Hey, let's work that in." I was open to that, it was something I never could have written myself, but it was so, to me, in the spirit of that scene, that we just did it.

JL: You were saying that you would write sample dialog....

RL: Yeah, I'd say here's the scene, and we would work through it. Sometimes it was really close to what I wrote, and then sometimes it would just become something else entirely, but I was there to go, "Yeah, yeah! Better, better! Write that down, good!" I like working that way, it's really collaborative...the nuts and bolts of what the film is, its structure, what it's about, you have to feel very deeply, kind of be in love with that. But from then on, film's very much a collaborative medium, you're capturing life, so you can't try to control it, you just have to get in harmony with it, get in touch with it, go with that energy, and it returns to where you're alone in an editing room with a couple of other people, and you're back to total control over the image and the sound and what you can do with it, and how you can structure and control that. So it kind of comes in full cycle.

JL: Did you carry any of the actors forward to this new film, or are you doing any kind of repertory thing?

RL: No, they're so much younger. These are high school kids, so no one in SLACKER really qualifies. They're all too old.

JL: I assume you read Generation X? There's a lot of people using that term like they use "slacker," to describe or to stereotype a set of people. The other description for the Generation X bunch is "twenty-nothing," I've heard people describe themselves that way...But in SLACKER, you had all ages.

RL: I don't know where it all came down to twenty-something. We had a lot of people in their thirties and beyond, quite a few. When you think of it after the fact, they kind of narrowed it down to -- what? maybe 75% of the people were in their twenties, but it was never meant to be seen as exclusively that.

JL: Yeah, I guess Generation X is more focused on a particular age group.

RL: Doug's book is really about that, that's how he was thinking, that's what he set up to capture. He thinks in a big generational way. SLACKER's really specific to those people, and all the stuff about twenty-something and GenX, that came much later.

JL: You weren't thinking that way.

RL: No, you try not to think that way. You want to give people their room and their credit, give them their space. I never really got that there was much of a difference. The older people in the movie aren't any different than the people in their twenties. The old anarchist guy, he might as well be 21. He's a little wiser, more experienced...there is a kind of continuity there. He's a little different, but the attitude was never much different. The guy who comes out of Quack's, Mars landing and all that...I was always thinking it was a younger person, but he came in for an audition, I looked at him, and I said no, it's him. Because to be this paranoid and to have this much information and really believe it, it really takes that extra decade or two. When you're young, if you're 21 and you're thinking like that, it's kinda fun, right? As you get older, and you pile on more, it would be a little more real, that much more of it. So the age is important there, that couldn't have been a younger person doing that, it had to be someone older, just like the old anarchist. Age is weird, that's why I think I really wanted to do this teenage movie, because I was really interested in who I was at ages 14 through 17, and what I was thinking. There's a real continuity between that and who I am now. It's those same rebellious feelings, and knowing that everything is screwed up, you just kinda hate everything.

JL: When you're a teenager, you have the sense that everything's screwed up, but then one of two things happens, either it gets buried, or you learn more.

RL: Yeah, you either start lying to yourself, and believing the lies, or you go with it, and try to transform that somehow in your own way. It's dangerous territory, but that's what you have to head into, if you're really going to get anywhere. In certain people I see ones who are going to challenge and create something new, and others who are just going to go along, kind of stay with the pack, with all the rewards of being part of a group.

JL: Do you ever have the sense, in talking to groups of people that have seen SLACKER, that it's made some fundamental change in their perception?

RL: I like to think in a good way, though there's certain people who say it kind of justifies a time period in someone's life. Some say hey, that's great, because it validates a real thing that no one seems to acknowledge, that it's something you do go through. It's almost like they can show their parents, and they can go, hey, this is how I live, and this is what we do. It's not shiftless and unproductive, it's something else. I think before it was tangibly in some form some thing that was out there that people complain about. I guess parents' relations with their kids who are in college or just out of college, and haven't really got that manager's job at the local burger stand or whatever, and they're busting the 23 year old's balls, saying, "Hey, what're you gonna do...." "Hey, man, I'm just figuring things out, I'm gonna hang on for a while." I would feel great if that became not such a bad thing again, to just kind of drift and find yourself.

JL: It's probably gonna have to be, because there's not going to be any jobs to plug the guy into.

RL: I know, that's the bottom line to all of it. I remember I did a talk show on tv, it was me and Doug Coupland. And this girl called in and said, "I don't know what these guys are talking about; I'm at the University of Michigan, and there's 40,000 of us busting our butts studying," and I was thinking, "Great, and there'll be a telemarketing job when you get through busting your butt studying." You'll have a telemarketing job waiting for you, if you want that...there's nothing else out there, so hey, have at it. You don't know that until you get out of school, if you buy the whole line. You don't really know that, until you go, hey, there really isn't room for us in this, it's not set up that I prosper.

JL: There's a lot of people out of work, who don't have any money at all.

RL: Yeah, at all. And it's worse now, only getting worse. We're gonna go through some tough times, but I'm kinda optimistic about the 90s. All that, the poverty, and the people who are totally out of it, is gonna necessitate some kind of change, on some level.

JL: For a while I thought that apathy was too great, but apathy seems to be waning.

RL: I don't know if people are any more apathetic. The people at the bottom of the economic spectrum aren't really opposed to each other like the controlling divide-and-conquerors would like to think. Once so many people realize that they're really all on the same side and fighting for the same thing...

JL: That's kind of an empowering thing...

RL: ...then you have a large group that can effect some change.

JL: We sound like political organizers.

RL: Yeah, yeah. That I'm not, never. I don't have much faith in that, either. It doesn't need to get too organized, it just needs to get ... I have a great trust that if those feelings are out there, the will of the people can ultimately come through.

JL: : It's kind of an anarchic thing, it seemed to me, and I was looking at this about ten or fifteen years ago, that there were forces that would develop in the general population, where things would reach a certain critical mass, and it didn't matter what the government did, it didn't matter what the politicians did, something would happen and it would happen because people had a feeling that it needed to happen.

RL: Right

JL: And as people begin to understand that they have that power, you can override apathy with some sense of empowerment.

RL: If you have enough people feeling a certain way, I always thing that will happen.

JL: And if you've worked for the government, as I have, you begin to realize that government is not much of a solution for anything.

JL: Are you happy with the business end of filmmaking now? With SLACKER, obviously you were having to worry about funding.

RL: Yeah, that was a total pain, because I didn't have any money. But with that lack of cash was a certain freedom, that you feel even as a poor person or a rich person, you have a certain freedom, but in between it's hell. Usually a felt kind of in between, like I had enough money to make it, but not really enough.

JL: Do have major studio backing for "Dazed and Confused"?

RL: Yeah, we're doing it for Universal, but it's there lowest-budget movie in four years, so it's not enough to do it right, it's just enough to, like, here, go make your stupid little weird movie, and it's like, okay [laughs].... And then they just squeeze it out of you from there.

JL: You turned a profit, you can do it again!

RL: Right! Here, here's how much you have and it's not enough, and have at it, good luck!

JL: Are you going to get the rights to Led Zeppelin's "Dazed and Confused"? I wondered if you lifted that form the Led Zeppelin song...

RL: Yeah, you can use titles. At first it was just kind of a joke. I didn't have another title, I had others, but nothing that captured something...

JL: It sounds pretty apt to me [laughter].

RL: Yeah, SLACKER, that name kind of came up in production, and I remember committing to it...

JL: I finally looked it up in the dictionary yesterday, I think it fits.

RL: Oh, yeah, it definitely does.

JL: Do you think you want to continue working with big studios?

RL: It depends on the film. I always knew that for this film, there was no other way, but I have a lot of SLACKER-type films I still want to do, low budget. I'll have absolutely no one working above me, where I can do whatever I want. Once you take money from somebody, that kind of ends...but if you do a certain few things, you can still get that kind of creative freedom, which I felt I had on this film, I was kind of smart about it. Being so low budget helped. I didn't have executives looking over my shoulder the whole time. I got away with everything I wanted to get away with. [Laughs] Certain films, yeah, you need it, but for certain films, it'd be the death of it, to have a studio behind it.

JL: I asked you about the actors a while ago, did you select the actors the same way you did for SLACKER?

RL: In a certain way, yeah...there's professionals, but I'd still say they're selected in the same way. We went through thousands of actors, and I met the ones that seemed like cool, authentic people that just happened to be actors, too. Then we ended up with a lot of kids who had never acted before, too.

JL: From around Austin?

RL: Four or five from here, the major ones, Two of the biggest ones were from here. They're young kids, eighth graders going into high school, but they're both just real natural. I met a lot of interesting young actors. They were excited, because they're not used to being treated like an artist. You're an actor, and the director says hey, say this line, and do it like this, and don't ask questions. But I would say, So what do you think? What would you be thinking here? Really involving them in the whole process, making it real....

JL: But you were trained as an actor yourself?

RL: Yeah, yeah, I trained as an actor, so I know how I like to work.

JL: That reminds me, I'm supposed to ask you whether you memorized that monolog that you spoke in the film...?

RL: Sure! I wrote it, then rehearsed it alone, filmed it alone...the camera was mounted on the hood, I turned it on, the clapper board went down. I only did two takes, and used the second one.

JL: I didn't see the cab driver in the book.

RL: Oh, Rudy? Yeah, we couldn't find him for a long time. But we've recently found him.

JL: Yeah, he was pretty good. He didn't bat an eye.

RL: I wish we could have found him. But he quit working for Roy's, and we lost track of him.

JL: SLACKERS do tend to drift.

RL: Yeah, a hundred people over a couple of years means major address changes and drifting.

Continue to Part Two

advertise here
email for info

 

 

   

 

home | about us | feedback