Mr. Slick
Q: You've never made a "film"?
A: Well, Saturday Night Fever and Whose Life Is It Anyway? both had texture and depth, I think.
Q: Is the credit "A John Badham Movie" making a statement, then?
A: It's just truth in advertising.
Q: Along those lines, you've said the auteur theory--that the director is the sole "author"--is bull.
A: If you write your own screenplay, then maybe you're the author of the film.
Otherwise, directors have so many people giving them good ideas. You're a fool to ignore the ideas, and a fool not to share credit.
Q: That attitude sets you apart from many directors.
A: Absolutely. God forbid they would allow the thought to enter their heads that anyone did it but themselves. People who think they did it all are seriously deluded.
Q: Let's talk about critics, who can be hard on "popcorn entertainment." I understand you take bad reviews personally.
A: It's hard to read criticism of your work in such immutable form as words on paper. You don't have the opportunity to question the critic. Now, critics who have to produce a certain number of words have to say things---but I sometimes wonder, "Did he mean that literally?"
Q: Have you ever said, "My God-- that's a personal attack"?
A: I haven't looked at their pieces with regards to movies of mine for a while, I just stay away from them.
Q: Lucky for you, I have one here: Terrence Rafterty in The New Yorker reviewing Stakeout in 1987. I wonder if you'd comment.
A: OK.
Q: "... there are no signs of the funkiness of his earliest films-- Bingo Long... and Saturday Night Fever. They were the work of a man who had some belief in what he was doing, who got excited about it. Stakeout is the most entertaining of his recent string of cold, craftsmanlike films, but he was a better director when he knew less about moviemaking..."
A: Hmmm. Well--I don't know how I feel about that. I think Stakeout isn't a good example because it works so well. But it definitely didn't have, in its conception, the depth of feeling of [Bingo Long or Saturday Night Fever]. He's right--it's a better made film. But yes, material that touches the emotions is more valuable than all the slick filmmaking in the world.
Q: But surely you disagree when he says you no longer believe in what you're doing?
A: Well, it's nice that he can be inside my head. I should ask him what I should do next.
Q: What will you do next? You've done several action films in a row now: The Hard Way, Point of No Return, Another Stakeout, Drop Zone, none have done well with critics or audiences. What's the appeal to you?
A: They're fun and seductive to make. Next thing you know, I look and say. "I've done way too many. Why didn't I just shut up and say no?" Well, there was nothing else more interesting at the lime.
Q: You sound frustrated--as though you're stuck in a rut. How will you get out of it?
A: There's a tendency for material to come your way that echoes what you've recently done. My job has to be to resist all that and keep pressing toward things that are different and challenging. Which I really need to do. I went to see Under Siege 2: Dark Territory the other night and all I could think of while watching it was how exhausting it must have been to make. For just a few fleeting seconds of thrill If I'm going to work that hard again. I'd want it to be for something more lasting.
Q: If, at the end of your career, you saw your entry in a film encyclopedia, what would you hope it would say?
A: Gee, I don't know... "He entertained audiences." That's a lot to hope for.
______________________________________________
Joshua Mooney interviewed Rachel Tatalay for the April Movieline.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
