William Friedkin's latest film is among his most audacious works, a startling and often hilarious Southern Gothic crime thriller based on an acclaimed play by Tracy Letts, who also wrote the film's screenplay. With its sudden shifts from hillbilly black comedy to savage violence Killer Joe is a wickedly cutting film whose jagged satiric edge and kinetic stylization reveal the octogenarian Friedkin to be one of those rarest of directors whose talent and vision remain undiminished, if not intensified, across the course of a long and storied career.
Audio transcription
For more interviews and talks, visit the Harvard Film Archive Visiting Artists Collection page.
Killer Joe introduction and post-screening discussion with Haden Guest and William Friedkin. Saturday September 27, 2014.
John Quackenbush 0:00
September 27 2014, the Harvard Film Archive screened Killer Joe. This is the audio recording of the introduction and the Q&A that followed. Participating is Harvard Film Archive programmer David Pendleton and filmmaker William Friedkin.
David Pendleton 0:18
…Pendleton. Besides being the programmer here at the Archive, I'm also a native of Dallas, Texas, born and raised. And I worked briefly once at a K-Fried-C. So those are two qualifications that I have to host this evening, which you'll understand once you've seen the film, if you don't already. No, but we're especially pleased to welcome, for the second night in a row—and he's been very generous with his time and with his energy—one of the living legends of American cinema, Mr. William Friedkin. The occasion for this visit is the deposit of the original manuscript of his celebrated memoir, The Friedkin Connection, here at Harvard's Houghton Library, which is the main special collections library at the university. We are also one of the other special collections, as part of the library system.
For this tribute, once Mr. Friedkin agreed to give us two evenings, it was pretty easy to decide what to show, since there was a brand new DCP of Sorcerer, which we showed last night. A film whose stature continues to grow and has grown continually since its release in 1978. And then for the second night, the film that Friedkin has released since our last major Friedkin retrospective. And that's his most recent feature, the film we're seeing tonight, Killer Joe. For me, it harkens back to some of the most arresting of Mr. Friedkin's early fiction work, after his beginnings in documentary, which we discussed a little bit last night. And I also want to second the recommendation for The People vs. Paul Crump, which is a remarkable film, and now available on DVD if you haven't seen it. After the documentary work, after his feature debut with Sonny and Cher no less, with Good Times in 1967, Friedkin made two films adapted from the theater. From plays. Two films that take place mostly on one set, without any action or car chases, but with an incredible intensity. And I think those two films were really crucial to establishing what we think of as a Friedkin film, which is this critical sense of character and of intense emotion, as well as always the possibility, somewhere, of violence. Either psychological violence or physical violence, or maybe it's latent. In any case, the two films that I was speaking of are The Birthday Party, from the play by Harold Pinter, which Friedkin released in 1968, and The Boys in the Band from 1970. Those films are character studies. And Killer Joe harkens back to those, but it's primarily a film noir, which we know because it's got a protagonist who's saddled with debts, who comes up with a murder for hire scheme, with the attempt to cash in on an insurance policy. We also know it's a noir because things go badly awry, and the film spirals towards some very intense and visceral violence. The film is an adaptation of the first play by Tracy Letts, who's now best known for August Osage County, his most recent play and the one that won the Pulitzer. Killer Joe was his first play, from back in the 1990s. And it was actually Friedkin, I think, who played a major part in bringing Tracy Letts to national attention when he adapted the Letts play from in between those other two, Bug, his film in 2006. And it was with that film, and now especially with Killer Joe, that there was this layer of physical violence added on top of character study. And one of the things I think that's so remarkable about Killer Joe, which I think is a very welcome addition to Friedkin’s ouvre, is the way it is the tone of the film. It’s sort of a miracle, I think, of tone because it's at times cartoonish, and even grotesque, and also very violent. But never, I think, cynical. The violence never seems gratuitous. For one thing, it's linked not only to the black humor of the film, but it's also given this context that makes it larger than life, but also relatable. The narrative, with these dysfunctional family relationships, has a real relationship, I think, to myth, or even a degree, tragedy. With themes of matricide; hints of possible incestuous desires. The virgin daughter who’s sort of held as hostage, or ransom, or reward. And then there are those touches of the uncanny, that we associate with so much of Friedkin's work. Or if you prefer, magic realism. The sense of something beyond, possibly supernatural or possibly not, that are just little touches that we get here and there. So we're very grateful to be showing what I consider a masterpiece of tone. And I think that's all I'll say about the film because, as you know, if you were here last night, we have somebody who's a remarkable storyteller and talker. And believe me, you do want to stick around for the Q&A afterwards. But I wonder if we could convince Mr. Friedkin to come say a few words of introduction. William Friedkin.
[APPLAUSE]
William Friedkin 5:47
Thank you very much and hello. Or hello again, if you were here last night. Thanks for being here. I have to say, to paraphrase– Are you recording this?
David Pendleton 6:02
Yes.
William Friedkin 6:03
Okay, give me a hand.
[LAUGHTER]
David Pendleton 6:05
Yeah. We can erase some.
William Friedkin 6:06
Okay, I have just– Thanks, David. You guys don't have to see the film now. He's told you the whole thing.
[LAUGHTER]
And also, what it's about. Because I didn't know– I don't know what the hell it's about. I never know what my films are about. I just get attracted to them. I have to say, to paraphrase my idol, Richard Nixon, that I am not a misogynist. Keep that in mind when you watch this film. I am not. I'm happily married for 23 years to the same beautiful woman. I love women. I’m not that crazy about men. But you know, they're tolerable. But Killer Joe attracts me because Tracy Letts, the writer, and I are on the same page. We just have the same worldview. And this has always, to us, been a comedy. A very black comedy, as David points out, but a comedy nevertheless. When I first sent the script– First of all, I was going to cast either Tommy Lee Jones, who I'd worked with twice before, or Billy Bob Thornton. You know, one of these grizzled old dudes, you know, who look like they come right out of Southern Gothic. And I was shaving one day, and I was watching the television set while shaving, thus scratching my entire face. But I saw an interview that grabbed my attention, with Matthew McConaughey, who I had only– I'd never seen any of those romantic comedies. My wife had made– Oh, hi you guys. Nice to see you again tonight.
[LAUGHTER]
My wife, when she was head of Paramount Pictures, had made several of those romantic comedies. Failure to Launch was one. I never saw any of them. How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. He was the go-to guy for romantic comedy. He was almost as good looking as I am. But thanks, Mom.
[LAUGHTER]
Yeah. Good to see you, Mom. I watched an interview with him. I think it was Charlie Rose or one of those dudes who do interviews. And I thought... first of all, I heard his voice, which had a very pure East Texas accent. This film is set in East Texas. And he was very well spoken. And so I left the bathroom and walked in the living room where the thing was playing. And obviously a great looking guy. And I thought, “Well, why not do this with a great looking guy?” Instead of one of those grizzled old bears that I was first considering. And I thought, “Hey, McConaughey looks good. And he's got the sound.” And he talked about his background, which clearly put him right in the center of lower middle class Dallas culture. Fascinating. So I sent him the script, which he immediately threw across the room into a trash bin. He read it and hated it. He thought it was terrible. And then his agent and his lawyer knew about this work, and about Tracy Letts’ work, and the other film I'd made with Tracy called Bug. And the lawyer and his business manager said “Hey, you better read this again. This is really funny.” He said, “No, it's not funny. It's disgusting. It's absolutely– My wife will divorce me if I make this picture. And I just got married.” And they said, “No, read it again. You will recognize these characters.” And especially if you read it with an idea that it is a black comedy and not something that you take all that seriously. Although it deals with some pretty serious things. But Letts is a unique, wonderful writer. He's a great American voice today. McConaughey read it again, and he called me and I met with him at his house. And we had one meeting, and he agreed to do it. And we were absolutely on the same page. And I don't think I ever gave him another direction after that first meeting that we had where we talked about who this character was and what this story was. He knew it. He had lived it. He had been there. So a lot of people thought I was taking a huge chance in using him. He was not known as an actor. He was known as a very good looking guy who made mostly what they call rom-coms. Nothing to do with Rahm Emanuel, the godfather of Chicago, or any other Rahm. But he was the go-to guy for romantic comedy, not what you're going to see tonight. But he grew up with, lived with, knew and understood these characters. And I then cast Thomas Haden Church, also from the same area, grew up in the same part of Texas, who is a terrific actor. A great guy. And I put together one of the best casts I've ever worked with. Making this film, which we did in about 21 days, was a sheer joy. I would never go past take one, unless the camera operator told me that the film was out of focus, or the shot was out of focus. And everybody came in knowing their roles. And we all made the film coming from the same place, which doesn't always happen. In fact, it almost never happens. I mean, I had many disputes with Gene Hackman about his character in The French Connection. But this one, we all understood where we were going with this and where we intended to end up. I hope that you guys will be able to tolerate this. It's going to be a rough ride, if you haven't seen it. How many have seen it? [AUDIENCE MEMBERS RAISE HANDS] Okay. Well, that's less than a third. The rest of you are going to be shocked.
[LAUGHTER]
And I ask you only to remember that your president is not a crook, and I am not a misogynist. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
See ya later.
David Pendleton 13:33
Also a quick reminder to turn off your devices, thank you.
John Quakenbush 13:37
And now the Q&A with Dallas native David Pendleton and filmmaker William Friedkin.
David Pendleton 13:43
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. William Friedkin.
[APPLAUSE]
William Friedkin 14:01
A nice family type picture. That's what we like. Good, clean, family fun. That's what we're all about, isn't it? What is she reading over here? Let’s see. Ah, Heinrich Böll. The Irish Journal. Very good. It’s lovely.
[LAUGHTER]
David Pendleton 14:25
Maybe I'll just start with a question or two, and we'll open it up to the audience. I wanted to talk about the scene around the dinner table, at the end there. But even you know... but actually, before the violence starts. Partially, I'm curious as to how you work with the actors, in terms of blocking that scene and working with them about their performances. Because it's so incredibly realistic, on the one hand, and yet there's this whole incredible other level, which is the violence that's just happened, and the violence that's about to happen.
William Friedkin 14:57
I make some suggestions. And I've cast it right. That's all. I've cast it really well. We've all talked it out, before we go out and do it. And then they go and do it. I tell them, “It's one take and out.” And we only do another take if a shot was out of focus, or if a light falls into the shot, or whatever. But I tell them very little. I want them to be relaxed. I don't want them to feel—and actors often do feel—that they're being tested by the director. And I don't want them to feel it's a test; I just want them to relax and get into character and bring to it what I cast them for. I tell them very little. It's surprising. I mean, I could give you a lot of jive and stuff, but surprisingly, by the time everyone gets to the set, they know what I want. They know who they are, and they just do it.
That's very interesting. That could be a projection booth over there.
David Pendleton 16:06
Yes. Well, you know, this–
William Friedkin 16:08
And you could project on that wall.
David Pendleton 16:09
Exactly.
William Friedkin 16:10
And now that you could have two films going, if they didn't like this one, they could watch that one.
David Pendleton 16:15
Well, you know, the building was originally designed by Le Corbusier to be used in many different ways. And so originally, the floor was flat here. There were no permanent seats. And those—yes, the ports—they've all been sealed up now, but they were open ports so that, yes, you could have, for instance, a happening, an event. This is you know, like, the mid to late 60s...
William Friedkin 16:33
Sure.
David Pendleton 16:33
...with multiple loops, or whatever, being projected on that wall. There's also a port back there that could have gone over here.
William Friedkin 16:39
Yeah. You’d never done that, though, huh?
David Pendleton 16:41
Well, actually, yes. Last year was the 50th anniversary of the building, and some of the students got together as a class project. The students of Amy Siegel, who was teaching a class here. An artist who was teaching here. And they actually did set unseal the ports, set up projectors and project things on those walls. That black panel used to be white, and we painted it black, because it was too reflective off of the screen.
William Friedkin 17:05
Yeah. Good move.
[LAUGHTER]
David Pendleton 17:10
These projectors didn't show up that well, but it's been done before.
William Friedkin 17:12
I would like to run Killer Joe and The Song of Bernadette.
[LAUGHTER]
At the same time. And make it an immersive experience for the audience.
Audience 17:26
Do it!
David Pendleton 17:28
Next time. Next time you come we'll do that.
William Friedkin 17:29
Okay, I'm game.
David Pendleton 17:32
I mean, there's a way in which you know the– I mean, the way that the film's relationship to violence and death, it deals with some of the same themes, no, as religious fare, you could say?
William Friedkin 17:43
I never thought of that.
David Pendleton 17:45
Maybe from a different angle.
William Friedkin 17:48
Right. I mean–
David Pendleton 17:50
Well, but in The Exorcist, for instance, also, there's this idea of violence as another version of the sacred. Or the, you know, the flip side.
William Friedkin 17:58
The Exorcist is purely about the mystery of faith and God knows what this is about.
David Pendleton 18:03
Okay.
[LAUGHTER]
William Friedkin 18:07
To me, it's about the average American family.
David Pendleton 18:09
Right.
William Friedkin 18:10
I'm sorry, but that's it. I mean, not everybody lives on the East Coast, you know, in a nice little red brick house or lovely apartment building or is able to go to Harvard. There are a lot of people, you know, who live a different lifestyle. And this film is about those people.
David Pendleton 18:27
Right.
William Friedkin 18:29
Tracy Letts actually read about a case like this in a newspaper. It occurred in Florida somewhere. Where the setup, you know, a family hired a hitman to kill the mother for an insurance policy. And he was drinking a lot at the time that he wrote this. And he was drunk most of the time. And– Yes, it's true. And so he wrote this under “medicinal care,” as you could probably gather. But I still find it tremendously humorous. And again, not, as I said to David at dinner, not misogynistic. Because a film about violence to a woman is no more misogynistic than a film about the Holocaust, and the murder of 6 million Jews, is anti-Semitic. You know, it's just about that. But I love the way Tracy Letts writes. That's what drew me to this. And, as I've told you earlier, he and I have the same worldview. Sick as it may be.
[LAUGHTER]
David Pendleton 19:48
Can you talk a little bit about discovering Tracy Letts as a writer, and working with him now on two films?
William Friedkin 19:55
Yeah.
David Pendleton 19:57
And, particularly, in terms of, adapting material written for the stage to the screen.
William Friedkin 20:01
I saw a Bug in an off-Broadway theater in New York. And I thought it was exceptional. And I called Tracy Letts. He was a struggling writer and actor living in Chicago. No one had ever thought of making a film out of any of his works. And I called him and I brought him out to California. And we worked on a screenplay for Bug. And then one day he called me after Bug had come out and won a prize at Cannes. And shortly after that, he called me and said, “Hey, we want to do Killer Joe?” And I said, “Let me look at it.” And I read it and, “Yeah, this is great. This is really great material. Great roles for actors.” And that was it. Tracy is every bit as good an actor as he is a playwright. I don't know if any of you saw on Broadway, about two years ago, he did Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? And he won the Tony Award as best actor. And he is the best George in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? that I've ever seen. And so he's the only actor or writer who has won both a Tony Award and a Pulitzer Prize for his playwriting and a Tony Award for his acting. There's no one. Tennessee Williams never got that. Or Arthur Miller. But now Tracy is trying to just act and he's off in South Africa, in the– I think it's the third season of Homeland. Do you guys watch Homeland? You ever see that? He's in that. It's set in Pakistan, being shot in Johannesburg, of course.
David Pendleton 21:58
Are there questions from the audience?
William Friedkin 22:00
There can’t be questions. Everything's answered!
[LAUGHTER]
David Pendleton 22:06
We'll start with Jason and then Generoso. And then we'll go in the middle, and then over here.
William Friedkin 22:10
Jason.
David Pendleton 22:11
Grab the mic.
Audience 22:12
Having seen Sorcerer last night, which was great, and being familiar with a lot of your earlier films, this film struck me as edited in a much faster fashion. The shots seemed shorter, and it seemed almost a little more frenetic. And I was just wondering if you could say anything about your, maybe, evolving attitude towards the editing of your films?
William Firedkin 22:33
No, the editing is dictated by the pace that's demanded in the script. Everything comes out of the script. We have a saying you may have heard if you worked in theater or studied theater. We have a phrase where we say, “If it's not on the page, it's not on the stage.” And everything here was on the page. And I just moved the camera around as much as I thought was reasonable. I want to put the audience in that trailer. And at that table. And I'll tell you a little bit about of casting Juno Temple. I was originally going to cast Jennifer Lawrence in this role.
David Pendleton 22:21
Wow.
William Friedkin 22:22
She came to me. She called me. She had read the script. And she said, “I'd like to meet with you.” She had only done Winter's Bone, which was great. And she called me and said, “Can I see you? I love Killer Joe.” “Sure.” She came to my home. She sat on the couch and she said to me, “I am the only actress that can play this part.” And at that moment, I believed her. I really thought she'd be great. She was raw and exciting. And I was going to cast her, but I didn't have all the pieces in place yet. All the moving pieces hadn't come together. And so it stretched out a little. And in the meantime, my casting director said, “A video came in here that you got to see. Have you ever heard of a young actress named Juno Temple?” I said, “No.” And she said, “You've got to see this girl. She made an audition tape and sent it to my casting director, who emailed it to me. She made an audition tape with her 12 year old brother playing Joe.”
[LAUGHTER]
And she played Dottie and they did a lot of the scenes. And she was absolutely fantastic. Just wonderful. And so I said to the casting director, “Bring her in. Let me meet her.” She came to my house, about a week after I'd met Jennifer Lawrence. She came to my house, and I opened the door and she’s, “Oh, hello Mr. Friedkin. How are you? It's such a pleasure to meet–” She's an English girl! I didn't know that. She sounded, you know, like a Cockney girl. But she had a perfect Texas accent. And I told McConaughey and Thomas Haden Church, who are both from Texas. I said, “Look if she ever gets one pronunciation really wrong, stop. You can cut. Just let me know. And we'll shoot it again. It never happened once. She never broke out of a Texas accent. And I didn't know she was a British girl. But she did this audition with her brother. So for those aspiring actors out there, that's how it's done.
[LAUGHTER]
Really, don't be afraid. Audition, send it in. Somebody will see it.
David Pendleton 26:00
How was the brother?
William Friedkin 26:01
What?
David Pendleton 26:02
How was the brother?
William Firedkin 26:03
He was pretty good too. Her 12 year old brother. But you know, it wasn't exactly my concept for Joe. But not bad!
[LAUGHTER]
In another version, it might have worked. I don't know.
David Pendleton 26:18
Can I go back before we go on? I want to go back to something that you just said about wanting the audience to be in that space in that trailer.
William Friedkin 26:25
Yeah. Not outside looking in, but there.
David Pendleton 26:27
Right, because a lot of the films that you've adapted from plays take place often, within one set, or largely within... and you mentioned last night, the bedroom in The Exorcist. And I'm wondering if you could say a little bit about, is there something... that seems like a challenge or a restriction on a filmmaker, to have to make something exciting happen in just one set and I'm wondering...
William Friedkin 26:48
More of a challenge. It's claustrophobic. And I think claustrophobia produces a lot of interesting tension and emotions. And claustrophobia is one of the things I'm fascinated by. People who have their backs to the wall and have no escape. They can't get out. And it's usually one room, like the Jean-Paul Sartre play, No Exit. And most of the characters in the films I've made are in a No Exit situation. And so I like that. I'm drawn to works like that. Sorcerer is quite different. But that's a claustrophobic film too. Almost all of it is shot out doors, it's very claustrophobic. Very close to these characters who are on the edge of death at all times.
David Pendleton 27:42
Right. I mean, in that aspect, it's a very Hitchcockian film. We talked about how he liked to create this sense of suspense or being entrapped outdoors. I mean, the most notable example being North by Northwest.
William Friedkin 27:52
Yeah, well, everything he did is, you know, a model for filmmakers. As he was for me. He's just a master. He's a textbook for filmmakers. And I've learned so much just by watching his films. Not just for the suspense or the horror, whatever it may be, but the absolute, finely controlled filmmaking. Now, I've tried, and not always succeeded, in doing a more loose presentation of a story. More like the work of the still photographer Garry Winogrand, or Cartier-Bresson, who seems to have just happened on a moment. The moment isn't set up. And all of their work is like street photography. They shoot stuff that they see in various public places or on the streets or in restaurants. And it's as though they just happened on the precise moment when to press the shutter. And that's how I made The French Connection. I made it like a Garry Winogrand still photograph. But then, works like this don't lend themselves to that. There are a lot of scenes that are just static and have to be just played out.
David Pendleton 29:18
Well, and that seems like it's also a challenge, in terms of setting up where you put the camera and also how you're going to edit it. Like is it going to be all shot-reverse-shot? I guess I'm just wondering if you have any tips on how to approach those kinds of dialogue–
William Friedkin 29:32
The way I approach it, if someone were to analyze my films, shot for shot, frame by frame, you'll see that what I've attempted to do, and not been totally successful at doing it, was I have emulated the films of Antonioni, who never repeated a setup. You know, in most films that you see, there's a wide shot of something, then there's an over-shoulder shot of one of the people, and then a reverse over-shoulder shot, and then maybe a couple of close-ups. And the director will go back and forth. And you as an audience, who have seen everything now because of places like this, and television, whatever, the audience today is more sophisticated than audiences ever were. There's so much material available to you. And you can almost sit there, watch your movie, and you know where the next cut is going to come. I've done this. I've sat there and gone, [FRIEDKIN SNAPS FINGERS] and then they make the cut. [SNAPS FINGERS] Next cut. And you know it's going to be over the shoulder, over the shoulder, single, two shot, single, two shot. I don't do that.
Antonioni would do, oh, a hundred straight shots, or more, without repeating a setup like that. So his films, even though some of them are very slow, they seem to move laterally, as though you're reading a book. The way you scan a book from left to right, unless you're reading Hebrew. And that's how an Antonioni film plays. It sort of scans and moves along laterally, instead of going back and forth, and back and forth. That's how I plan the setups for something like this and Bug. I would try never to repeat a shot. I wasn't always successful, because you always have to go with the performance. Even if that means repeating a shot, because the performance is so good and something, that you are forced into a repetition. But otherwise, I try—and the more films that I'll make, by the grace of God, I will try even more, to never repeat a setup, so that the film will move like you scan the pages of a book.
David Pendlton 32:19
Okay, I’ll call on some people. Yeah, you’re next. You’re next, Generoso. And then you’re two down, okay.
William Friedkin 32:32
You got the mic.
David Pendleton 32:34
I meant Gene. And then your next, after Gene. And then you'll be third.
Audience 32:38
My question, Mr. Friedkin, is, you love Tracy Letts’ work so much, and I'm curious if he was ever actually on set for the potential of a rewrite at any point. Have you ever allowed a screenwriter to be–
William Friedkin 32:49
Oh, he could have come on the set anytime. He did a couple of times. He made, sort of, token visits. But he makes it a point never to interfere. He might suggest something, to me only. And occasionally I've asked him to speak to the cast, you know, and share his knowledge of his characters with the cast. But he doesn't do that often. He doesn't like to do it. I bring him into the cutting room. And he'll make a lot of suggestions, mostly about restoring things that I've cut. And I must say, I might follow, I don’t know, 70, 80% of his suggestions. And they're all constructive and helpful. He's a fine actor as well as a fine writer, so he knows the process. You know, he trusts me and he knows that we're on the same page. I'm not going to miscast a part, and I'm not going to soft soap a scene, you know. So we have a great relationship in that way. He has visited the set just to show interest, but no, he doesn't get involved on the set.
David Pendleton 34:09
Please, go ahead.
Audience 34:12
Well, first off, I have to say this was really, really cool to see, because, you know, I myself am actually taking film production and plan on, you know, being a filmmaker. And I was noticing the intimacy that you use in camera placement. And, you know, you said so yourself, the claustrophobia and the closeness. The closeness that you, of course, you don't get on stage, but you get in film. But how much you used it so well, you know. And before coming to this thing here, I just got done cutting my own first film, to be turned in on Monday. And I guess what I'm trying to get at is: what goes through your mind as you're trying to develop the placement, in order to achieve that level of intimacy in this film and some of your other work as well?
William Friedkin 35:20
I have no idea what goes through my mind.
[LAUGHTER]
None. I have an instinct about something when I read it. I have to see the film in my mind's eye, or I don't want to do it. I see the whole film. I saw this film in my head before I started to direct it. And I knew instinctively where all the shots would be. I don't do storyboards, but I knew instinctively where I wanted to be. Sometimes I would change it. Often there was a suggestion from the camera operator, or the DP, or the actors. Or the prop man. And so I'm very open to suggestions. My philosophy is that the best idea wins. But what goes through my mind? God knows. You know? I just have no idea. What draws me to a film, I guess? I have no idea. You know, I could make The Waltons, you know, if somebody asked me to, but I would have no interest in doing that. Now, I will share with you... my own family was very close. I never had any problems with my mother or father.
[LAUGHTER]
I don't have any of this. To all of my films I'm basically an observer and an interested bystander. You know, I don't know if you ever ride the subways or the elevated trains, but I do often—or a bus—and just listen to conversations that occur around you. And I'm curious in that way. And that leads me to the kind of material that I'm drawn to. Human behavior. The proper study of mankind is man. And that's what all of my films are about. Even though a lot of the characters are hateful, malicious, you know, without any validating circumstances. I'm interested in human behavior. That's what makes me want to be a director. And I'm drawn to films where human behavior is portrayed at its extremes. And this is certainly an extreme of human behavior. I do believe that there is good and evil in every human being who ever lived. Including Mother Teresa and Jesus. And Hitler. I believe that there is good and evil in every single one of us. And that it's a constant struggle for our better angels to thrive over our demons. But I know that there is good and evil with it within me. And I often have evil and negative impulses. And I constantly try to not give into them. Sometimes I'm not successful. But all of that comes out in the films that I make. That's basically the subtext of all the films that I’ve made. The good and evil that's in all of us.
David Pendleton 38:53
I agree. There’s a question right here. And then we'll come to the back.
Audience 38:56
So when you were reading the script, did you get to the last page, close it, and a light bulb go off, and you said, “Clarence Carter”?
[LAUGHTER]
William Friedkin 39:05
I was listening to Clarence Carter for years, and I was always hoping to be able to use “Strokin’” in a film. “Strokin’” is one of the great American songs.
[LAUGHTER]
“I be strokin’.”
[LAUGHTER]
To me, you know, he was the Mozart of Southern music. And you can almost never hear “Strokin’” on the radio. Not in this politically correct world. So I thought I would give the audience– It has nothing to do with the picture.
[LAUGHTER]
You know, there's a disc jockey in all of us. And I just wanted to share “Strokin’” with all of you!
[LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE]
Why not? Where are you gonna go and hear “Strokin’” in this politically correct day and age? Where? Nowhere! Here. That’s it.
David Pendelton 40:10
The Harvard Film Archive. Exactly.
[LAUGHTER]
William Friedkin 40:14
I mean, if I were doing a movie about the life of Beethoven, I would use “Strokin’”.
[LAUGHTER]
Behind the end credits. Or Shakespeare. You know, if I was doing Hamlet. Imagine ending it, after Hamlet's death and the funeral oration by Horatio, or Fortinbras, and then you hear “Strokin’”. It lifts you right out of your– Yes! It's not about a guy who got killed in a duel, you know, and killed his uncle because his father's ghost told him that his uncle was sleeping with his mother, and that he had to kill his uncle. What a stupid plotline that is! Now if you end it with “Strokin’”...
[LAUGHTER]
You have a whole other kettle of fish. The audience goes out boppin’! And strokin’.
David Pendleton 41:19
Was there somebody in the back? Okay. And then you, ma’am.
Audience 41:27
[INAUDIBLE]
William Friedkin 41:32
Those people what?
David Pendleton 41:34
"Are all scum."
William Friedkin 41:34
Yeah?
Audience 41:37
[INAUDIBLE]
William Friedkin 41:39
What?
Audience 41:41
[INAUDIBLE] –all got what they deserve.
David Pendleton 41:44
That's part of the comedy of it, I think, a little bit.
William Friedkin 41:51
Perhaps.
[LAUGHTER]
William Friedkin 41:54
Or, as Kevin Spacey’s character in House of Cards says, “You might say so, but I could never agree.” But you might say so. What?
Audience 42:08
[INAUDIBLE]
William Friedkin 42:10
Sure he was, but in House of Cards he says, a reporter asked him a question that's usually a comment. And he says, “you might think that, but I could never comment.” So that's how I feel about what you just said. I don't judge the characters in my films. I really don't. You know? I either find them interesting and worth making a film about, or not. If I were to make this film as though I thought these people were scum– If I really thought that and that they had no redeeming qualities whatsoever, I just wouldn't make the film. So, “You might think so, but I couldn't comment.”
[LAUGHTER]
David Pendleton 42:54
There's a woman who had her hand up.
Audience 42:57
I have a question about the film–
William Friedkin 42:58
Yes, ma'am.
Audience 43:00
–that I missed. I was so involved in the kitchen scene. I never got why Rex, who had a check for $100,000 made out to him, why he flew the coop.
William Friedkin 43:10
Because there's a scene where Joe accosts Rex in his car and frisks him. And the scene is cut off. You don't see the rest of it. But in that moment, it becomes clear later that Joe has frisked Rex and gotten back the check. Joe was flying the coop. I mean, Rex was flying the coop in his yellow Corvette, when he was accosted by Joe, on the way out of town. And presumably, Joe retrieves the check in that moment. And what happens to Rex is an open question. I don't think that Joe would have arrested Rex. Neither do I think he would have let him go far.
[LAUGHTER]
David Pendleton 44:08
There's a hand behind... Yes, you ma'am. And then we'll come up here.
Audience 44:15
I understand you also direct opera.
William Friedkin 44:17
Yes, ma'am.
Audience 44:18
Yeah. And I see a lot of things in Killer Joe that are very operatic. And so I was wondering if you could kind of talk about that. You know, with the musical things, the violence.
William Friedkin 44:28
There's no difference to me in directing an opera or a film. You have the same basic problems, which is staging, lighting, and the set. Everything else in an opera is the province of the conductor, who is interpreting the music for the singers. Who will say, “A little louder, a little softer, a little faster, a little slower.” That's about it. That's what a conductor does. He's basically a human metronome, with emotion. But basically, what he's doing is keeping time. And the director is responsible for the set, the lighting, the costumes. I've directed about 15 operas. They're all very different from Killer Joe. But my approach is the same to all of them. The singers that I've been fortunate to work with in some of the greatest opera houses in the world, they all want to give a performance. They don't want to come out and give a concert, you know, like Pavarotti used to do. Pavarotti would be in an opera playing a character, and they would just plant him at the side of the stage in his sweet spot, and, like a baked potato.
[LAUGHTER]
And he would sing and give a– He never pretended to act a role. But the singers today want to give a performance. They want to act. So they're wonderful to work with. And what I underlined in what I learned from them, was that they come to rehearsal, they know the music and they know the libretto. They've done their homework. And so I tell all the actors that I'm working with, in a film, to do the same. And the singers, you can rehearse, but then when they perform, it's a performance. There's no take two. They can't stop the performance. They’ve got to do it live, and they know it, and they're prepared. And so I've learned to expect that out of the actors that I choose to work with. And I work that way I say, “Guys, there is no take two.” I usually say—it's a little out of date—but I'll say, “I don't own stock in Eastman Kodak,” you know. Now there's no more Eastman Kodak to own stock in, but that's my philosophy and it has come over the last... since 1998, when I started directing opera. And I've done some of the world's greatest operas and I love it. It's a wonderful experience, because you're working with the world's greatest music. I've done so many wonderful and different operas. I've been very fortunate. I'm planning a production, next year, to go into rehearsal in Florence in November, of Rigoletto with Placido Domingo. Which is a far cry, really, from Killer Joe.
[LAUGHTER]
David Pendleton 47:41
Actually, it's not though.
William Friedkin 47:42
Not really, yeah!
David Pendleton 47:43
No, I'm serious!
William Friedkin 47:44
If it’s right. No, it's about murder.
David Pendleton 47:46
And the body in the trunk.
William Friedkin 47:48
I mean, yes, it is.
David Pendleton 47:49
I agree with your point.
William Friedkin 47:50
It's a more pleasurable experience and there aren't any scum in it.
[LAUGHTER]
But it's written by one of the world's greatest composers: Clarence Carter.
[LAUGHTER]
Giuseppe Verdi.
David Pendleton 48:08
Yes, you. If you can just get a mic from Kevin.
Audience 48:13
Hi. You mentioned that you tell your actors very little, in terms of direction, during the scene. And you also mentioned, just now, that they generally come very prepared. That said, was there any sort of discomfort, substantial discomfort, with the chicken leg scene?
William Friedkin 48:30
Was there any discomfort? Yes, it was very–
Audience 48:32
Or extra special direction that you might have had to give during it?
William Friedkin 48:35
No, I asked, “You guys ready?” “Yeah, let's do it.” They did it.
[LAUGHTER]
One take. You know, they knew that if they got it—I shot it with multiple cameras in one take—and they knew if they got it right once, they wouldn't have to do it again.
[LAUGHTER]
Neither one of them enjoy doing it. Nor did I enjoy watching it. I thought it was one of the sickest things I've ever seen, but I didn't tell that to the actors.
[LAUGHTER]
You know. And, you know, what a lot of directors ask actors to do is to apply sense memory. You know, the Stanislavski method of acting is based on sense memory. In order to portray an emotion, you have to search your memory and find that moment when you were sad to play sad. Or happy to play happy. Or whatever the emotion might be. I used that a lot with Linda Blair in The Exorcist. When she was much younger—she was 12 when she made the film—but I asked her early on about times that upset her. That would make her cry or be scared. And she would tell me. You know, I get very close to the actors. It's almost like psychology. Not psychiatry, in that I'm not trying to help them or cure them. But I try to learn what produces those emotions. And then I will make certain subtle hints to them before they'll do a performance. It was impossible to do that with a woman sucking on a chicken bone.
[LAUGHTER]
But I did ask Gina Gershon to– It didn't take much, for her to remember times when she felt most humiliated. And those times ran through her mind when she was doing the scene. And they would produce her sense memory of when she felt humiliated. And that way is what went into the scene.
David Pendleton 50:57
Can I ask about the cinematography, and working with Caleb Deschanel, who I think is one of the outstanding cinematographers today. And this has such a beautiful palette, but also such a meaningful palette. Or a palette that fits the story, with all these, like, sort of very glossy, luminous blacks and blues. And I wonder if you could say a little bit about how that palette was worked out. Was that a collaborative thing? Was that some that you gave to Deschanel to do?
William Friedkin 51:26
It's all collaborative. What I usually do with a cinematographer is bring out– We look at some paintings, you know, either in a museum or in a book. And we looked a lot at the paintings of Caravaggio for this, where a lot of his subjects are just etched in black. Etched in darkness. And the lighting is very stark, as provided by the painter. And so Caleb and I would look at that and we would go for that. This film was shot with a digital camera. But it's lit by a master cinematographer, so the lighting is beautiful. Those people who say, “Well, it would‘ve looked better in 35.” No way. If you light a scene like a movie, you know, with really paying attention to where the source of the light is coming from, it's not arbitrary, you'll get a terrific result. Now, the final result of this was achieved in the color timing room. The dailies, the stuff that Caleb would shoot every day, did not look like this. What you're looking at—as opposed to shooting film, where you don't see your rushes, or dailies, until the next day. If you're shooting in 35 or 16 you see rushes at least a day, sometimes more than a day later. With digital, you're seeing on the monitor exactly what the shot looks like. But it isn't quite exact, in the sense that you can still tinker with it in the color timing room. Where you can make the blacks blacker, the whites whiter, the blues bluer, than they were ever photographed. And I use that process and I love it. It's a digital darkroom. Where you can bring out color values. Emphasize them or de-emphasize them. Or make the skin tones look more real than perhaps they looked when it was shot. And I usually have the cinematographer be a party to that. We’ll sit there in a room, where there’s a console, where you can add, subtract, layer in colors. And I'll ask, you know, the cinematographers. He has as much of a voice as I do. He'll say to the color timer, “Let's make this shot a little bluer.” Or “Let's make the sky a little grayer.” And the end result is done as though it was a darkroom. But it's digital. Where you could never do that with processing of film itself. You cannot go in and do the details. You can only make overall corrections. You can make a shot lighter or darker. But you can't really– You can desaturate, but that doesn't look very good. The best desaturation is done in a color timing room. A digital color timing room. The way master print photographers used to produce their still photographs.
David Pendleton 54:54
Yes, James.
Audience 54:58
In earlier, having disagreements with Gene Hackman, I wonder–
William Friedkin 55:02
What’s he got to do with this picture?
[LAUGHTER]
David Pendleton 55:09
You wanted to hear more about that?
Audience 55:09
Yeah. I'm just curious about that and–
William Friedkin 55:12
Why? That's ancient history.
Audience 55:14
Well, you mentioned it in the intro...
William Friedkin 55:17
Well, we had disagreements about the extent to which his character would be portrayed as a kind of a brute force. And Gene really didn't want to go there. You know, I had sent him out with the character that he was playing, Eddie Egan. He thought that Eddie was a racist, and I didn't. I knew that Eddie had to behave that way in the street in order to survive and take control. So we had a lot of disagreements about that. But then finally, we got on the same page. And ultimately, he gave a great performance. When I see The French Connection today, all of those problems we had are behind us. And what remains is a great performance by Gene Hackman. And, but yes, we had a lot of problems getting there.
Audience 56:16
Okay, I can tie it into this, I think.
William Friedkin 56:20
Say what?
David Pendleton 56:22
He can tie it into tonight's film, I think.
William Friedkin 56:24
Okay.
Audience 56:25
Did that experience inform... you mentioned how you pulled this cast together, and right from the get go, everyone was on the same page. Do you feel like past experiences sort of informed your casting process, so that you could arrive and have everyone be on the same page?
William Friedkin 56:43
No, I don't mind actors disagreeing with me. The best idea wins, as I said. And a lot of great stuff in The French Connection Hackman came up with on his own, once he got it into the groove. But, look, if you're not a racist, it's very difficult to portray a racist. You don't like those people. And Gene actually did not like Eddie Egan, and the way he worked in the street. He was a narcotics detective in some very tough neighborhoods. And he acted accordingly. And Gene tried to mollify that a little and tried to portray a few more sides to Egan's character. But I never saw any other sides to Egan's character. That's who he was. He’d get a suspect, throw ‘em up against the wall and say, “Did you ever sit down on the edge of the bed, take off your shoes and socks and put your fingers between your toes?” And the guy says,”Huh? What?” He says, “You ever been to Poughkeepsie, pal?” “Uhh, yeah, no, yeah.” “Have you been to Poughkeepsie?” And the other guy would say, “That nickel bag back there. You sold that nickel bag to that guy, didn't you?” And the guy wouldn't know what to answer. And then Hackman—the Eddie Egan character would keep saying, “You've been to Poughkeepsie, haven't you?” The guy had never heard of Poughkeepsie. He says, “Yeah, yes, yes.” He thought he couldn't get into trouble for having been in Poughkeepsie. So Egan would say, “You sat down on the edge of the bed, didn’t ya? You took off your shoes and socks and put your fingers between your toes, didn't you?” “Uh, yessir.” He says, “Okay, I'm gonna bust you for that nickel bag back there and I’m gonna nail you for picking your feet in Poughkeepsie.” All gibberish. But it's what he would do with a suspect, to throw them off. I remember sitting with him in the old 81st Precinct in Bedford Stuyvesant, a very tough neighborhood. And he’d answer the phone, in the police station, he’d say, “Circumcision Division.”
[LAUGHTER]
You know, he was just an off-the-wall crazy guy, which is what attracted me to him. Which is what I tried to impart to Hackman. And which finally, Hackman grabbed and came up with a totally great performance. I hope that's a full answer to your question. But no, I don't cast people. I mean, I've worked twice with Tommy Lee Jones, and he has—very often—very strong ideas about his character. And if he does, he will voice them. And I love it, because he's a thoughtful, dedicated actor. And that's what you want. And a lot of the times what he brings to the table is better than what I set in front of him.
David Pendleton 59:56
Are there other questions? Yes, the question right here.
Audience 1:00:01
Earlier you said that “What's on the page is on the stage,” but you also–
William Friedkin 1:00:04
No, I said, “If it ain't on the stage, it ain't on the–” “If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage.” Or “not.” I didn't say “ain't” then, but I'm saying it now, just to hammer it home.
Audience 1:00:16
My bad. But you also said that you sometimes take a looser approach to portraying a story. So does that mean, that particularly in this film, was there anything that was off-script or that wasn't planned?
William Friedkin 1:00:29
No, there's nothing that's not in the script. The French Connection is almost totally improvised. The dialogue. Almost nothing was written. Even the Poughkeepsie routine, Hackman made his own. I had to reshoot it. The initial attempt at it didn't work, but I reshot it at the end when he had gotten totally into character. But that was the only thing that was really written the way Eddie Egan and Sonny Grasso, the two real cops, played the Poughkeepsie scene when they were questioning a suspect. In this film, and in The Birthday Party, that I did by Harold Pinter, not a comma was changed. Not a period. Not a word. It was just there. It was on the page. And when you have it, you know, what are you going to expect? The actors to do better, you know, come up with better lines than Harold Pinter? You know, or today, Tracy Letts? No. They are really great writers in the English language and I was privileged to work with both of them. I've worked with writers like Pinter, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Tracy Letts has won the Pulitzer Prize, the Tony Award. You know, Bill Blatty, who wrote The Exorcist for me, won the Academy Award. I've had the good fortune to work with a lot of excellent writers. And it's really a collaboration. But what draws me to the film is the story and the characters. And often, they're created by the writer. Now in the case of Sorcerer, Wally Green and I created those characters together. But he wrote the script, every word of the script is Wally's. Of Sorcerer. But I worked very closely with him on the storyline, the construction, what was going to happen, where we're going to go and all of the events that were going to take place. But it's his screenplay. He’s wonderful. He also wrote The Wild Bunch. I don't know if any of you ever saw that. You did, ma’am? It's a great movie. He's good. For about 12 or more years, he was the story editor on the television show Law and Order. He worked in television for the, oh geez, the last 15 years of his life. But he's a great screenwriter. You guys have anything else?
David Pendleton 1:03:17
It looks like there's one question back there. And then I have one final comment.
William Friedkin 1:03:21
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
David Pendleton 1:03:23
Then we'll be done. Go ahead. James? This gentleman right there on the aisle.
Audience 1:03:28
Oh, I was wondering, since it's adapted from a play.
William Friedkin 1:03:31
What's that?
Audience 1:03:33
The movie we just watched, since it's adapted from a play, I was wondering what liberties you took for the change of setting? Or how you shot it?
William Friedkin 1:03:43
Well, with a play, you can only have one set, or two sets, or whatever. But they'll all be interiors, basically. And I decided to make a movie out of this. And so I set it in appropriate locations, you know. And very often, I mean, Tracy adapted his play and rewrote scenes so that they could take place in various locations. So, you know, if you saw this on the stage, it all takes place in the trailer. Everything. But a lot of the scenes that don't take place in the trailer were added for the film. When a writer adapts his work from the stage to the film, he will definitely make changes, or I'll suggest them. Obviously, that little scene where the motorcycles are chasing Emile Hirsch, that wasn't on the stage. You know, it's something we invented for the film. On the stage, at one point, he just comes in all beat up. A play works very effectively on stage. It's wonderful.
Audience 1:04:58
Also, does she pull the trigger at the end? I wanted to know.
William Friedkin 1:05:02
Does he pull the trigger? I have no idea. Does she pull the trigger?
David Pendleton 1:05:06
That was the question.
William Friedkin 1:05:07
I have no idea. If it's not there, I don't know. You know, to me, the story has no life before or after. Before the curtain goes up or after it comes down. Somebody says, “What is the last gunshot in The French Connection?” I tell them the truth, when I say “I wanted the film to end with a bang,” that's all. Did he shoot somebody? I don't know. I put that sound in during the sound mix. It was like an inspiration. There's a phrase in a Bob Dylan song that pretty much sums up all of the films that I've made, in a way better than I can do it. And that's wherein he says, “While preachers preach of evil fates, teachers teach that knowledge waits. But goodness stands outside the gates. And sometimes even the President of the United States must have to stand naked. And if my thought-dreams could be seen, they’d probably put my head in a guillotine. But it's all right, Ma, I'm only dying.” Good night.
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you guys, very much. [INAUDIBLE] Good night, folks. Thank you.
©Harvard Film Archive
Part of film series
Screenings from this program
Sorcerer
Killer Joe
