David Thomson (film critic)

Transcription

>> Okay, well, thanks everyone, for coming to an authors at Google talk today. I know the weather was kind of iffy. So thank you, Mr. Thomson, for making it all the way from San Francisco. We have a very special treat today. David Thomson is a San Francisco-based film critic and historian and the author of more than twenty books, including the new biographical Dictionary of Film. Regarded as one of the best reference works on the cinema and it's in its fourth edition. He was born in World War II-era London, when movies like Red River, The Third Man, and Susan Cain first ignited his passion for film as a child. Today, he'll talk about his latest series called 'Great Stars' where he examines the back stories of Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Bette Davis, and Gary Cooper and the films that made them legendary. Please give a hand for David Thomson. >> [Applause] David: Thank you very much. Can you hear me fine? People like stories about movie stars. So I will give you some stories. There was a company named Selznick International. Selznick International was a partnership of David O. Selznick, who was born into the movie business, and Jock Whitney, who was at the time one of the wealthiest heirs in America. And one of the first things they did in 1935 when they made their company was, they bought the screenrights to a novel called 'Gone with the Wind'. These are the people who made Gone with the Wind, which -- no matter what people tell you about Avatar -- has taken more real money than any film ever made in this country -- still. And here's the story about what happened in the New York offices of Selznick International. There was a Swedish elevator operator. And every day, he would take Kay Brown up and down to the offices. And Kay Brown was the chief literary talent scout at Selznick International. She was the person who recommended to David that he buy Gone with the Wind, even though he hadn't read the book. She had a hunch it would do something. One day, in the elevator, the operator says, "Oh, Miss Brown, I hear from home the most fantastic stories about this beautiful, young girl there is in Sweden. Her name is Ingrid Bergman. And really, my relatives have sent me pictures of her. I don't know whether you can possibly get any of her movies, but I really think you should look at them." And Kay Brown never discounted a hunch, even if it came from humble sources. She got an Ingrid Bergman film. She looked at it -- couldn't understand a word of it of course, but she could see that the camera loved Ingrid Bergman. That is not so common a thing. And it is one of the things that people in the picture business to this day still live for -- to find someone like that. So she speaks to David Selznick, and she says, "There's this young woman in Sweden, and I think maybe she's got something." And Selznick says, "Well, go over to Stockholm and see her." She's a poor Swedish girl. She can't possibly come here. Go over to Sweden. See her." Kay Brown makes her way to Sweden on a boat in the winter -- very difficult. She gets there. Ingrid Bergman opens the door carrying a newborn baby -- not a good sign. The actress has a newborn baby; there could be conflict of interests. But she sees straightaway that this woman has got something amazing. And she says to her, "Well, would you perhaps come to Hollywood to see Mr. Selznick, because I think he might be prepared to put you under contract? It could transform your life." Ingrid says, "Well, I have a newborn baby." And Kay Brown actually says to her, "I know, and you know, the world is not looking good." This is 1939. "There's probably going to be a war. If I were you, I'd stick with your baby and stay in Sweden, which looks as if it might be a safer country than other countries if a war comes." And Ingrid Bergman says, "Oh, no. I'll come. I'll come." In any event, she leaves a six-month-old baby with the father. You can always tell the real determination in some stars early on. She leaves the child, and she goes to America -- big journey in those days -- she turns up, carrying her suitcase, at the Selznick house in Beverly hills. And Mrs. Selznick is there. It's a Sunday. And she's listening -- it's a Saturday, I beg your pardon. She's listening to the Kentucky Derby on the radio. And she just signals to Ingrid Bergman, "Wait, wait. Till the race is over. I want to concentrate on the race." And Ingrid Bergman waits, standing in the sun with her suitcase having come 6,000 miles. And at last, she's waved forward into the royal presence, so to speak. And she says, "I'm Ingrid Bergman. I've come from Stockholm." And Mrs. Selznick says, "Oh, yes, of course. The trouble is, my husband is at the studio." They worked at the studios on Saturdays in those days. And they would have done anyway, because he was shooting at the time Gone with the Wind. So Mrs. Selznick says to her, "Never mind. I will look after you. I'm going to a party later on today. You come with me. And Ingrid says, "You sure that's all right? I shouldn't stay here and wait for Mr. Selznick?" And Mrs. Selznick says, "We never know when he will come back. Just stick with me. Sooner or later, we'll bump into him." They go to the party. She's traveled. She's meeting stars and celebrities at the party. She goes back to the Selznick house. David Selznick has still not arrived. She falls asleep, actually. And someone nudges her and says, "Mr. Selznick is here. He's in the kitchen eating. Hasn't eaten all day. He's been working. He's stuffing himself with food in the kitchen." She goes out to meet him -- the man who has brought her all the way from Sweden. And he looks at her, and he says, "Oh, dear. You are too tall." She was very tall. She was taller than David Selznick. And they talked for a few minutes. And he looks at her in a sort of very professional way. And he says, "Your teeth need a lot of work, and your chin is a real problem. I can see them straight away. And I'm not a cameraman. And you know, 'Bergman' sounds too Germanic a name. We're going to have to change your name if there's any chance of you having a career." And this is the decisive moment. She says, "Mr. Selznick, I think you're being very rude. I've come all this way to see you. It's a long journey. I've left my daughter behind. Sometimes that upsets me. And now, you make personal comments about my appearance, about my name, about my height, all of which you had an information before I came here. All of which were in photographs. You could have saved yourself a lot of money, a lot of time and trouble. I needn't have come here. I could have stayed in Stockholm. I could be nursing my daughter." And David says, "[snapping fingers] I got it. You are the tall, natural, honest, Swedish type who will talk back to the boss. I see a whole career." And she says, "What do you mean? What do you mean?" And he says, "I see who you will be for us. We will do nothing in the way of making you up. It will be a big part of your publicity campaign that Ingrid Bergman wears no make-up. And she says, "Well, I do wear a little make-up, you know, I mean, most women wear a little make-up." He says, "You will wear no make-up at all." [laughter] "We will emphasize how tall you are. You are a nordic queen, a princess. We will concentrate on the name Ingrid Bergman, and you will always be as you were with me just now. You will be candid. You will be direct. You will tell the truth. You will not be like American stars -- kissing up to the press, kissing up to anyone. And I think you can have a career. Well, in two or three years time, she had made Casa Blanca -- not for Selznick. He loaned her out. In other words, what he did was, he paid her a holding salary, and then, loaned her out at a much larger salary to Warner Brothers. So he made a huge profit on it. He did that with her a lot of the time. And, Ingrid built a publicity image around this true, simple, Swedish, peasant girl without make-up, without lies. Alas, it bore very little resemblance to the real Ingrid Bergman. Anyone who noticed her realized that one reason was she had left her husband and her child in Sweden. They came over eventually, but one reason why she had left them there in Sweden was that she liked flirting with any man she met. On almost every film she made, she had one or two romances. This was not unknown in Hollywood at that time. And you have to realize that this was a time when, in Hollywood, the private lives of stars could be controlled by the studios. The press were extremely kind and generous to this kind of thing. With this result, that Ingrid Bergman became, by 1946-7, No. 1 box office figure in the world. She had won the Oscar in Gaslight, she played a nun in the Bells of St. Mary's with Bing Crosby -- quite atrocious film, but a huge box office success. Nearly everything she made was box office money. And because the screen role she played was so appealing and so charming, and because they dovetailed so well with the publicity that was applied to her by the studio -- in everything from still-photo sessions to stories that were put out for fan magazines, written by the studios, but as if written by her -- the whole thing fitted together. And the public believed and would have voted if they had been given a chance, that Ingrid Bergman was the truest, the most natural, the most honest of all the movie stars. She became bored with Hollywood. She -- you would have to read the little book I've written about her to get all the affairs, but they were more than the public dreamed of. They were habitual. She became bored, though, with American films. And one day, she walked into a theater in Los Angeles, and she saw a film called 'Rome, Open City,' directed by Roberto Rossellini, one of the first, Italian, near-realist films -- a film actually made while the Germans were in Italy. A film made with great difficulty and a raw, naturalistic, realistic film. And she loved it. The young Anna Magnani had a lead part in the film, and she wanted to be like that Anna Magnani. And she wrote a letter to Roberto Rossellini saying, "If you could use a Swedish actress who can only say 'I love you' in Italian -- it's the only words of Italian I know, I am at your disposal." Well, Roberto Rossellini -- a scoundrel, great director, and a scoundrel -- was living to come to Hollywood. He gets this letter. He thinks, "My chance! Ingrid Bergman, the biggest star in the world. If I make friends with her, I find the right script for her. I go to Hollywood. I become world-famous director." Ingrid Bergman was dying to go to Europe. "Ah, I could make a real, true, political, radical, tough film. Not this sentimental crap that I'm making in Hollywood, pretending I'm a nun with Bing Crosby singing to the children." Appalling stuff. She ends up having to make the journey. She goes to Italy. She starts to make a film with him called Stromboli, about a refugee who goes to live on the volcanic island of Stromboli in the Mediterranean. And not surprisingly, they've developed an affair. This affair -- because it's in Europe, outside studio control -- hits the press. The world goes mad as if it were the O.J. Simpson case. You have to read the documents of the time to understand the outrage. Ingrid was condemned on the floor of the Senate. She was condemned from pulpits all across America. People sent in their signed photographs of her, torn to pieces, in demonstration of how shocked they were. And suddenly, she became box office poison. She did not work in America for six or seven years. She had to live in Europe, in Italy, with Rossellini, having three more children -- one of whom you know, Isabella Rossellini, making a number of very interesting films that never did anything at the box office. And she was only allowed to come back to America to make a film called 'Anastasia', for which she won her second Oscar. But her whole career -- I'm trying to show you -- was premised upon public image. And the whole thing was there from the beginning. Selznick says, "You're pure. You're wonderful. You're true." She says, "Well, I'm not really -- not at all." But they make her that, and it makes her for a few years, and then, it destroys her. One story. We're going to have time for two of these good stories. Humphrey Bogart. Of the four people I've written about, Humphrey Bogart was the only one who was remotely upper class -- came from a good family, a moneyed family. His mother was an illustrator for popular magazines, and she used young Humphrey as her model. And Bogart goes on the stage, and nobody can place him. They try to place him as a young, romantic lead, because he looks quite good. But he doesn't smile very well. And he looks sour, and he has a scowl. So by the time he goes to Hollywood, he's a villain. And Bogey started making films in 1935. And he was a villain for seven or eight years -- not a star. The stars at Warner Brothers -- his studio, in that time -- were Jimmy Cagney, George Raft, Elmer G Robinson, later Errol Flynn. He played supporting parts. He's the gangster whom Cagney kills at the end. And his career was not taking. He became a drunk because of that. He went through three marriages. He was an extremely difficult, unpleasant, needling guy. And he blamed his agents. He said, "You can't get the right kind of part for me." And they would say, "Well, Bogey, what is the right kind of part for you?" And he said, "I don't know. I'm just an actor." And actors never know what the right parts for them are. There may be some exceptions, but on the whole, they never know what the right parts for them are. And Bogart goes on and on. Until one day, he runs across a man -- a young man, screenwriter named John Huston. And Huston is working on a gangster film about an elderly gangster, a veteran, who's let out of jail and goes on the run, is killed in the end, but is a gangster who is sympathetic. And Huston says, "You know, it's sort of a quality Bogart's got. Bogart's nasty, but you sort of know Bogart wants to be liked." And they put him in a film called High Sierra, 1941, and it begins to happen. Bogart relaxes, because he knows that the script likes his character. He treats people badly in the film -- he kills people and so on and so forth, but film is on his side. Straight away, Huston, who wants to direct, takes him up and puts him in a film called The Maltese Falcon, playing a private eye named Sam Spade who behaves like a gangster. And you have this image building -- Bogart's really not aware of it -- of a new kind of guy, tough, hard-boiled, mean, sarcastic, needling other people, goading other people, but instead of the audience disapproving of him, which had happened all through the '30s, they sort of start saying, "Don't you like Bogart when he's like that? When he really puts it to the woman? When he really tells Mary Astor what a shit she is in The Maltese Falcon? Don't you think Bogart's never been better?" And this turns into the Humphrey Bogart that you all know. And it reaches its sort of epitome in films like Casa Blanca, again. One film that figures in the career of both people. To Have and Have Not, and The Big Sleep. And all of a sudden, Bogart is established. And as if you never have the courage to believe in magic, this man who has had a disastrous series of marriages, in one of these films, To Have and Have Not, finds himself playing opposite a girl of nineteen. She acts about 92, but she was 19, who had never made a film before, whose name was Betty Perske. But she would be called Lauren Bacall by the time the film comes out. And he finds he's falling in love with her in front of the camera. And she falls in love with him. And they become the union that is still, I think, probably the most romantic, smoke-enshrouded coupling that Hollywood ever put together. I cannot tell you that either one of them was totally faithful to the other through the short years of their marriage, because Bogart was dead by 1957, but still, it was an extraordinary union and marriage. And it made Bogart a star when his career, in fact, was about two-thirds over. So those are the two stories that I have time to tell you that show you what a very strange business stardom can be. And how, as a rule, the people who are the stars have no control over it. Sometimes there are other people off to one side who have some control over it. You can make a star if you're lucky and you know what you're doing, but the stars themselves, rarely have the authority. But, once you've got a persona that the public will buy, you're hung. It works in the media still, to this day. No one really knows -- I would argue -- who Johnny Carson was, or who David Letterman is. They're both, I think, deeply mysterious people who can survive going on television, so to speak, every night week after week. But they have a charm with the camera. If you ask them to define it, I know they couldn't do it. It's all they can do to go on and, three nights out of five, make it work. Now, a lot of stardom -- and the thing we call 'stardom' -- which still makes the movies function to a great degree -- has to do with this extraordinary relationship some people have -- if the dialogue is right, if the lighting is right -- the relationship they have with the camera. I'm sorry to rush it, but there was a slight misunderstanding over timing. If I'm not back in the city by 3:00, my wife will kill me. So I have to be there, but I'm so glad you came out. I'm delighted to have met you. And we've got 10 minutes, certainly, for some questions or comments if anyone would like to. Q Hello. I can just ask it. I'm curious if you believe that stars such as Bogey and Ingrid Bergman would still be considered -- or would still have the opportunities and the chance -- like, fortune -- that they had back then, if they would still have now? Because I know there's different acting methods and you watch them now -- there's a certain charm to their whole style of acting. I'm curious how that would fit in with movies of today? A I think stardom lasts a very short time now. You know, a lot of the people I've written about in this series, are people who had really long careers -- 30, 40-year careers nearly -- that is extremely hard to see in today's light. And I think the kids who do become famous know it. And they take great advantage of their fame as quickly as they can. They cash in. It's very difficult to sustain a career like that. The other thing is, you must remember, all of these people worked for studios. They worked for the house -- for the publishing house. And there were six writers at Warner Brothers, let's say, employed full-time as screenwriters. And one of their chief tasks would be a Bette Davis picture, or a Bogart picture. And of course, the writers know the types they're working for. They know the kind of film Bette Davis appears in where Bette challenges men as really no one else did on the screen in those days. So they look for parts like that, for roles like that. And then, when they start to make the film, you go on set, and Bogart sees the photographer, Sid Peacock, let's say, who has photographed him six times already. In other words, he knows how you photograph Bogart. So that -- the costume department knows how you dress him, so the backup that went with the stars, the support system, which includes people in the publicity department who knew how to hush up certain stories, was enormously kind to the stars. Because a star career, once you had undertaken it, was a thing a studio cherished. They had you under contract for seven years. Essentially, a lot of stars made most of their films for one or two studios. So, you cultivated them, you built them, and you kept them going a long, long time. The studios don't exist like that anymore. There are no long-term contracts, you know. Every film is made up on a one-off contract. So nobody thinks of the future. Nobody really builds careers. And the young people who've got something -- and there are plenty of young people who have got talent -- they are told, "Cash in as quickly as you can." So you see careers that go up very fast, right away. And maybe then vanish after ten years, or five years, even. So no, I don't think it's the same kind of thing at all. Television is still kinder to stars. It perseveres with them -- keeps them -- but not the movies. Q Thank you. A much shorter question, which I'd love for you to delve more into is, "Which is your favorite film of 2009?" A 2009? Q I would say this year, but there's only been like a month, so last year. A The film I would really look forward to seeing again was the Coen Brothers', "A Serious Man." I thought that was so funny, and I loved it. I'm not sure it's intended to be as funny as I thought it was. [laughter] I loved it. Loved that one very much. Yes, sir. Q Just following up on one of your comments from your previous question. It's true that there are fewer careers nowadays where you can star -- we can point to those people of the last, even 30 years who have built up very strong careers. Two that come to mind are like, Christopher Walken, Michael Caine who have been in the film industry for ages. So I guess my question is, from this perspective that stars last for less time, does that mean that people can't be? A Michael Caine and Christopher Walken, if they were here, and I've talked to both of them -- would tell you, "I'm a character actor. I've lasted because I play supporting parts." Now, occasionally, they have played leading parts -- it's true -- and I don't wish to disparage their ability at all. But they really have survived as long as they have, because they play supporting parts. The supporting actor is a quite different phenomenon. Q Okay. A They earn far less, obviously. And they probably go on forever, all their lives. Yes, yes. And we have a very rich crop of them at the moment. Yeah, yeah. Johnny Depp is a star. Johnny Depp made a film last year, Public Enemies -- hugely promoted when it came out. Not being talked about in the Oscars at all. Johnny Depp is a star who's not -- he's never found that one, big, knockout picture that will make him forever. He may find it; he may not, I don't know. Q The other actor I can think around perhaps is Robert Downey Jr. whose career sort of survived a seven-year hiatus. A Robert Downey Jr. is a very interesting figure, yeah. Q So, I don't know if you can really state any other careers that could possibly be? A I think he's a character actor in the end. But he's a very smart, interesting guy who married very well. He was making a great mess of his life, and I don't know whether you saw him on the Golden Globes, but that woman who is next to him, she has revised his career totally. Q Very good. Thank you. Q I don't want to keep listing actors for the remaining five minutes, but since no one has a question, along the same line, I would think of Harrison Ford or Sean Connery or Denzel Washington. A I think they are all stars -- I would agree. I mean, you know, clearly they -- all except Denzel -- have faded away now. Connery has become a veteran. He's nearly retired. Harrison Ford talks about being retired. Harrison Ford -- there was a period in his life -- ended about 15 years ago, I'd say -- where he probably had made more money -- his films had grossed more money -- than any other actor who's ever been. And he was an authentic star. Connery was a great star too. And James Bond made Connery. There would not have been anything but for that I think. Yeah. Q This is falling out pretty much on part of the answer to your first question about the differences because we don't have the studio system anymore. And one of the things you also said was that stars themselves don't really have much sense of what it is that is their thing that could carry them on. But are those actors more responsible for their own careers these days, or is that not true? A Oh, absolutely. Once upon a time, actors were told what parts to play by the studio. In the Bette Davis story I've told, she went to London to break her contract. And Warner Brothers took her to court in London, and she had to come back. And she had to fulfill her contract. And she was like many stars of that period; she had no option about what she did. She searched for material herself and recommended it to the studio, but there was no guarantee that they would do that. Nowadays, every star has a little entourage of people who read material for them and advise them and suggest what they do. And that entourage has to be paid for out of the star's salary. It's a big reason why stars get as much money as they do. And generally -- I've been in on some of those conversations -- generally, the advice the entourage give is appalling, you know, really appalling. And stars are not, on the whole, very good at choosing. Q So does that mean we should expect there to be fewer, or? A Yes. Q It's more chancy -- more calculated? A There's still thousands of people who want to get into the movies. And they are ready to replace everyone. You know, someone looks as if they've got a great career ahead of them. The only actress in America in modern times who has really gone beyond youthfulness -- and the end line for youthfulness, ladies, I hate to tell you this -- it used to be forty -- the only one who's done it is Meryl Streep. And if you saw Meryl Streep on the Golden Globes, you saw her confession about what a hard life it is being her, you know. Now, Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, once upon a time, many others -- went way beyond that. Very hard to do it today. Q Is it possible that part of the replacing of actors -- stars -- is done by directors becoming stars? A Yes. Q It's a time where directors are really perhaps like taking? A Directors are the stars. And directors love to make stars. So that, for instance, if you're a director -- here's an option -- you've got a part. Little uncertain about how all the women is in the film. Let's suppose the choice comes down to Nicole Kidman, who wants 15 million for it. And you can just about come out 15 million still. Or this kid you saw doing a play at Yale will do it. She'd do it for nothing. It has a huge effect on the economy of pictures. That's why you get so many newcomers coming into the movies. They're more malleable. They'll do as they're told. And they're giving you a gift on the budget straightaway that is enormously important. So yes. Q But they are increasing the risk as well. A I'm not sure they are. I'm not sure, for instance, that the public hasn't seen Nicole Kidman and what she has done to her face enough. And if the young woman they've got is beautiful enough, and she's good enough, and there's a load of talent around, you know. I'm not sure that that's not the best way to go. So I think you're going to see kids, you know, I mean, the young woman who's in on education -- Carey Mulligan, who will certainly be up for the Oscar -- a film worth seeing if you haven't seen it. She probably did that film for, I don't know, 20,000 pounds maybe. Well, if you're trying to set up a movie, that is a huge advantage. So that's always going to count. Can we make this the last question? Q So, your personal opinion -- given this great change in the landscape of the industry -- has that affected the quality of movies? Have they gotten better or worse or are they just different? A It's affected the nature of movies. I'm a critic, and I'm 68. So I can easily fall back on the things which says, "Well, they don't make them the way they used to." They don't, but they don't intend to. They're making a different kind of movie. I don't like Avatar. It doesn't matter that I don't like it; millions of people adore it. That may be mysterious to me. And for me, in my position, it's worth trying to work out why they like it. I think we're going into a future where less and less of the movies being made in America are the kind of movies I'm going to like. On the other hand, a lot of the movies being made in independent America, and being made in Europe, and being made in Africa and Asia, I like more and more. And if you are a filmgoer, this is getting to be a pretty exciting time. But you need to know which writers of film to read to sort of get your recommendations, because there's an awful lot of films coming in. I think the Great Age of American film -- Hollywood, in other words -- is over. American television, at the moment, is amply replacing it. American television is having a Golden Age. Enjoy that while you can, you know. And hunt down some of the rarer films that are out there. >> [Applause]