TCM Classic Film Festival - Press Conference with Ben Mankiewicz

This is the second of my transcripts for the Press Conference that happened on Wednesday April 24th, 2013 at the TCM Classic Film Festival. I tried to be as thorough as possible but there is some paraphrasing along with some quoting. It's not word-for-word but as close as I can get to it. Note that various people asked questions at the press conference. Enjoy!

Question: TCM has worked with a lot of diversity this past year will there be more of that?

Mankiewicz:  After some fumbling, Mankiewicz proudly announces he's wearing his first pocket square ever. Ha! Mankiewicz has had the opportunity working for TCM for the past ten years to meet a lot of people. He notes that he's learned more from Lawrence Carter-Long, who participated in the Projected Image: A History of Disability on Film special, than anyone else he's ever met. Mankiewicz expects that we will see more diversity and that Carter-Long is a resource that TCM has depended on since that special aired and he's glad that the special made the impact that it did.

Question: How was the theme Cinematic Journeys chosen for the festival this year and what are your favorite films that fall into that category?

Mankiewicz: This is more of a question for Charles Tabesh. Mankiewicz thinks it's a logical choice and the travel theme opens so many movies to us. He mentions Guilt Trip (2012) with Barbra Streisand, a contemporary movie Mankiewicz thoroughly enjoyed. Which isn't at the festival but he points it out anyways. Mankiewicz was looking forward to The Great Escape (1963) and Airplane! (1980) (Mankiewicz jokes that the film looks to be filmed with a budget of $4.95). He thinks the fashion theme of last year and the journey theme for this year made for really great programming.

Question: Film Noir Foundation asks if Mankiewicz has any Film Noir favorites and any Film Noirs he'd like to see programmed in the future.

Mankiewicz:  Mankiewicz mentioned that there are a lot of noirs he'd like to see programmed at the festival. He points out that Eddie Muller has been a great resource for TCM and will be a Friday night guest programmer on the channel. That special has already been filmed and will be coming up soon with about 20-24 films featured. Mankiewicz mentions three John Dahl contemporary noirs that he'd like to see programmed. Now that he's thought of it, Mankiewicz is going to make that suggestion.

Question: TCM is moving more into the 1970s. How much are we going to see of more contemporary films that are influenced by the past?

Mankiewicz: TCM is very open-minded about what makes a classic movie and doesn't distinguish them by years removed. It's not as if in 2027 we can start showing stuff from 1999. The movies have to have some emotional connection to the audience. TCM has a lot of viewers under the age of 49 and they realized that most of them had not seen a lot of the films TCM is showing when they were released or any time close to when they were released. So how did these classic films become important to contemporary viewers? Usually through some connection with a more contemporary movie or from being shown the film by a parent, grandparent, etc. As we get better perspective on films, and that does come with time, then those titles become more available to TCM for programming ideas. You'll see newer movies on TCM but nothing will stop them from showing those classics that people have some to love. Mankiewicz uses an example that if a 30 something loves Preston Sturges now, what's to say another 30-something twenty years from now can't love Preston Sturges too? Mankiewicz says there are better films and filmmakers in the 1970s than the 1980s.

Question: Who determines who hosts which screening? Does Mankiewicz ever get a say and is he ever disappointed?

Mankiewicz: He jokes that he arm wrestles with Robert Osborne and Osborne always wins. Charles Tabesh and Genevieve McGillicuddy know Mankiewicz well and usually place him where he wants to be. (At one point Mankiewicz says he's regretted some and I'm sure now after the festival the Mitzi Gaynor interview might be one of them). There are disappointments and the biggest one for Mankiewicz at the festival is missing out on interviewing Max von Sydow for Three Days of the Condor (1975) because it's one of Mankiewicz's favorite films that he can quote almost line-by-line. Sometimes it's the way the schedule works. While it's a disappointment, he still gets to talk to Max von Sydow about The Seventh Seal (1957) and possibly learn something in the process.

Question: Twitter and Tumblr are all abuzz with Classic Film. #TCMParty on Twitter is mentioned. Has Mankiewicz noticed this kind of internet attention and buzz for TCM?

Mankiewicz: Mankiewicz has participated in #TCMParty on Twitter and thinks it's an incredibly rewarding thing. It's a clue into what makes the festival such a success. The shared experience of classic movies online is amplified when people get together at the festival and share that enthusiasm with each other face-to-face. And on top of that they get to see stars like Max von Sydow and Ann Blyth talk. This is all a reminder that TCM has the ability to touch people in a very special way. This is something that no other television channel can claim. Mankiewicz uses the example of ESPN. He's a big sports fan and watches ESPN but he doesn't care about the channel. People genuinely care about TCM. The folks at the channel feel an obligation towards their fans that they take very seriously and there is a special bond that exists between TCM and their viewers that is virtually unheard of. It doesn't exist anywhere else and it never will.

Comment: Someone noted that Ben Mankiewicz shaved off his goatee and now dresses a bit differently.  What's with the makeover?

Mankiewicz: Item #1 on Mankiewicz's contract with TCM, before money or anything else, stated "Artist must keep and maintain goatee. Failure to keep and maintain goatee will be considered breach of contract". (This is hilarious!) Years later, he eventually asked about it and they didn't believe that it was in the contract at all. In the beginning of his days at TCM, he had conversations about whether he could wear a prosthetic goatee. As far as his clothes and set design go, there was a change of management hence the makeover. Osborne and Mankiewicz are very particular about the way they dress and always want to look good on screen. Mankiewicz says his brother is a news correspondent and always makes the top 10 best dressed people on TV lists.

Question: Why are Pre-Code films so popular these days? Especially in the past few years.

Mankiewicz: At TCM, there has always been an interest in Pre-Code films. He didn't realize there was a recent boom. Mankiewicz says one of the reasons may be availability now that so many of these Pre-Code films are available on DVD. They are so shocking. Even though the Hays Code existed at that point, it was more of an enforcement issue until the Fatty Arbuckle trial (for which he was acquitted but in the end that didn't really matter). It's a matter of watching these films and seeing things you didn't expect to see. Everything is the same as it appears Post-Code (or Post-Enforcement of the Code) but they are so much more honest. This should tell us a little bit how films could have been without the code. He notes that some people romanticize the elements used to mean other things (like a horse rearing meaning people are having sex). While you wouldn't want to change anything about Hollywood history but it would have been interesting if things were different. It would have been interesting to go forward in the 1940s and 1950s with movies without any restrictions. Mankiewicz thinks it would have been better. (Interjection: if you read my transcript of Osborne's portion of the press conference you'll see that he disagrees with Mankiewicz on this point).

Question: Question about why Coming Home (1978) is not as available as Harold & Maude (1971)?

Mankiewicz: Mankiewicz is not sure but it might be a rights issue more so than a stigma. He notes that Jane Fonda and Jon Voigt are both at the festival and they were the stars of Coming Home.

Question: What does Mankiewicz think about movie fans staying home more, watching TCM and Netflix, participating in #TCMParty, etc. instead of going out to see more films in the theatres?

Mankiewicz: He thinks it's always better to watch movies in a theater with a lot of people.There are reasonable arguments to have that watching films at home, on your iPad, on a small screen, is not the way the director intended the film to be seen. Ultimately, it's best to watch them at the theater. To see how many people have developed friendships on #TCMParty, that's not to be dismissed. Mankiewicz jokes that the #TCMParty folks are shut-ins. He's had some emotional moments with #TCMParty even if he doesn't participate very much. Mankiewicz doesn't think people realized the power of those online connections. Progress is not a straight line, sometimes it jumps around but it's still progress. We are losing that theater experience but he doesn't foresee that everyone will be watching films exclusively on their phones. Fight for which size is important to you. Mankiewicz says he's seen a lot of great movies on his iPad mini. Not ideal, but he's had a chance to watch films he might not have otherwise and he's grateful for that. We don't quite realize how important those Twitter connections and those connections are not empty ones.

(Interjection: I don't attend #TCMParty myself but I think it's wonderful for the people who do participate. I do however connect with a lot of fans on Twitter so I'm happy to see Ben Mankiewicz acknowledge that online classic film community.)

Ben Mankiewicz interviews Walter Mirisch at the screening of The Great Escape (1963)

A 50th anniversary restoration of The Great Escape (1963) was premiered at the Grauman's Chinese Theatre (TCL Chinese) on Friday April 26th, 2013. Before the screening even started, I headed to the bathroom and saw a bunch of TCM staffers surrounding this older gentleman and heard one of them refer to him as "Walter". It was cool that I got to see Walter Mirisch before the event even started.

I'll do my best to transcribe the interview. It's not all word-for-word and I use a lot of paraphrasing.

Ben Mankiewicz hosted and noted that James Garner and Steve McQueen were the stars of the film but were not the stars Mirisch wanted. Walter Mirisch won an Oscar for In the Heat of the Night (1967) and Mankiewicz introduced him as one of the best film producers in Hollywood.

Mankiewicz - Holy crap you have produced a lot of great movies. (Ben actually did say that!) . Ben starts with the biggest hit Mirisch had before The Great Escape which was The Magnificent Seven (1960). How did The Magnificent Seven getting The Great Escape done? Did it have a big impact on casting?

Mirisch - John Sturges and Mirisch had met before The Magnificent Seven and became friendly and decided they wanted to work together. Mirisch always had in mind trying to find a property they could do together. The availability of The Seven Samurai seemed to present a good opportunity. Mirisch thought it would be perfect for Sturges. They watched The Seven Samurai in a projection room and spitballed how it would work as a Western.

Mankiewicz - Mankiewicz sarcastically joked that none of us wished we'd been in that room. It sounds like a dull conversation. He then asks when Mirisch thought of Steve McQueen for that movie.

Mirisch - Steve McQueen was a star on the TV show Wanted: Dead or Alive prior to the film The Magnificent Seven. He was well received in that film but hadn't received star status yet even after the film released. After The Magnificent Seven, Mirisch and Sturges looked around for another project they could do together. The idea for The Great Escape came up. The story had been on the screen before possibly by the British. But no one could understand those accents so it didn't matter. There was a little resistance (possibly to it being previously released) but both Mirisch and Sturges eventually got very excited about doing the movie. The book written by Paul Brickhill. Brickill was a flyer in the British Airforce and a prisoner and the book is about his own experience. Unfortunately, the book is a factual one and not a novel. All the personal stories were made up for the movie and this presented a lot of writing difficulties.

Mankiewicz - Who was Mirisch looking at for those two principal characters played by James Garner and Steve McQueen?

Mirisch - A decision was made that they would tailor the film so that there were two principal characters to carry the story. A few years before, Sturges had made Gunfight at the O.K. Corrall (1957) with Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster. So when Sturges and Mirisch were working on developing the script, they had Douglas and Lancaster in mind for the two title roles. It got to the point where they realized that Douglas and Lancaster would cost a lot for the picture. They were having problems getting the budget for the picture approved.

Mankiewicz - Mankiewicz mentioned that he read that the budget was $4 Million

Mirisch - Mirisch says it was somewhat more than that. Anyone who has ever made a movie has heard "you gotta cut the budget if you want to get this made". Back then, Mirisch suggested that two relatively inexpensive younger, up-and-coming actors, James Garner and Steve McQueen, might be possible for those two parts. They saved $2 million with that one decision.

Mankiewicz - Mankiewicz says , "do you realize when you say that that you are a genius?" and notes that it would have been a very different movie with Douglas and Lancaster.

Mirisch - Mirisch had gotten to know McQueen while filming The Magnificent Seven, was very fond of him and thought he had an incredible on-screen personality. He also liked the idea of a younger actor for that part. Prior to The Great Escape, Mirisch had made the film The Children's Hour (1961) with James Garner. Mirisch notes he was more comfortable with the idea of making a film with Garner and McQueen than with Douglas and Lancaster.

Mankiewicz - Mankiewicz mentions that McQueen wasn't a star yet when he made The Great Escape.

Mirisch - Mirisch says it's because he hadn't jumped over that fence with that motorcycle yet!

Mankiewicz - We all cherish McQueen because he had that fierce independence along with an enormous chip on his shoulder but was still filled with self-doubt that so many of us are plagued with. This all made him Steve McQueen the star but also made him a bit of a handful for the folks who worked with him.

Mirisch - McQueen had that quality, je ne sais quoi. I don't know what but he's got it and radiated it on screen.

Mankiewicz - McQueen left the set for sometime after some disagreements and some competition with James Garner. As a producer, how did you deal with a great but difficult star and still manage the picture?

Mirisch - McQueen always felt there were too many words. Mirisch came to trust that because he learned that McQueen was able to convey a great deal by his very expression. Mirisch was open to cutting down McQueen's dialogue and to allow him to convey things with his eyes. Sturges was also well aware of that and they both collaborated on that particular issue. McQueen had a good sense of story and when something bothered him, Mirisch took McQueen's thoughts into consideration as there might be something that was missing that could be worked on. There is a famous incident in which McQueen got upset and left the set for a while but that was overcome by re-writing. Mirisch showed McQueen the rewrites and McQueen said "I'll be back to work tomorrow."

Mankiewicz - Mankiewicz interjects and tells the audience that those rewrites include the famous motorcycle sequences and the baseball scenes.

Mirisch - McQueen conveys more about the independence of spirit and courage just by throwing that baseball against that wall than some do with long speeches. Mirisch calls McQueen brilliant and says to the audience that you'll see it all again when you watch the film in case you don't remember.

Mankiewicz - Mankiewicz throws out a trivia bit that McQueen plays one of the Nazi officers chasing McQueen during the motorcycle chase while also playing his own character.

Mirisch - Mirisch interjects and says "you know, you are not supposed to tell all the secrets!"). He also notes that the restoration will be available on Blu-Ray on May 7th. This is funny because Mankiewicz had promised to bring it up and forgot. Ha!

The Genius of the System by Thomas Schatz

The Genius of the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the Studio Era
by Thomas Schatz
University of Minnesota Press
Edition: March 2010
Paperback
528 pages

Find the book on
Barnes and Noble
Powell's
IndieBound
Amazon

 Some of us are satisfied with enjoying films for what they are, entertainment and we are perfectly happy to leave it at that. But when we start asking questions, especially the hows and the whys, we need to evolve from being just an observer of movies to become well-versed and knowledgable film buffs.

The Genius of the System was originally published in 1988 and has since been revised with the latest edition released in 2010. Thomas Schatz takes a look at film history with two major constraints. First Schtaz focuses on the business of the studio system as it existed from 1920s through to the beginning of its demise in the early 1950s. Secondly, Schatz narrows his study to some of the major studios including Universal, MGM, Warner Bros. and Selznick's various collaborations with studios plus his own Selznick International Pictures.

The book is organized in chronological order, each section is devoted to one time period and each chapter within each section is devoted to one studio in particular. Schatz delivers an overwhelming amount of information about the studio system, an important time in film history .and I think it's crucial that the book be well-organized, orderly and clearly written. That structure and clarity helps keep the book tidy and makes it a lot easier to follow.

In this book, you'll learn about budgets, business decisions, the roles different people had in the script development, casting, filming, production and distribution. Different studios had different ways of doing things. For example, Warner Bros. was strict about typecasting and were reluctant to loan out their stars which proved stifling for many including Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart.  Other studios and independent contractors depended highly on loan outs from big studios in order to boost their films with big names. Sometimes the movie business worked like a well-oiled machine: efficient and fast. Other times it dragged along and was plagued by excess and poor decisions. Deals, contracts and economic shifts changed how studios utilized their big stars and their small players as well. The Great Depression, World War II, the advent of TV and the HUAC all affected how the studios worked.

I learned a lot of interesting things about the business of filmmaking during the studio era. I learned that Universal focused on making horror pictures because they could be made with low budgets, partial sets, they could hide things with smoke and fog and they didn't need major stars. The focus of these movies were the monsters and in the end these films were cheap to make and proved to be both profitable and popular. That wasn't to say that Universal didn't have any big names. Deanna Durbin provided Universal with one box office hit after another and helped keep them afloat during a difficult time in American history. MGM's early history could be divided into Thalberg and post-Thalberg years. There are a couple chapters in the book devoted to the collaboration between Selznick and Hitchcock and it's very interesting to see how it evolved and how it came to an end.

While Schatz tries to keep the focus on the studio during a particular era, he sometimes stops to focus on a film in particular especially if it's story is a complex or important one and demonstrates the workings of that studio. Films spotlighted include Gone with the Wind (1939), Wizard of Oz (1939), Rebecca (1940), Notorious (1946), Key Largo (1948) and others.There are some plot spoilers but not many because the real focus is on the business side of filmmaking and not about the stories themselves.

It took me quite a long time to read this book because I really wanted to take in and reflect on the information I was acquiring by reading it. I highly suggest not reading this from cover to cover but taking it one section or one chapter at a time.

The Genius of the System  is a wealth of information and an absolute must-have for any film buff who wants to know more about the mechanics of the studio system and how that business influenced how and why certain movies were made. This book can prove to be a challenging read but if you are committed to learning about the history of film then this books is not to be missed.

Thank you to the University of Minnesota Press for sending me a copy of The Genius of the System to review.