IGN: Interview with Producer Jan Harlan
Interview with Producer Jan Harlan
by Kenneth Plume
June 28, 2001 -
- © Berliner Studio/BEIIGN FilmForce interviewer Kenneth Plume recently had an
opportunity to talk to producer Jan Harlan.Harlan worked with legendary director
Stanley Kubrick for over 30 years, executive producing Barry Lyndon, The
Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut. His most recent projects are the
formerly-Kubrick-now-Spielberg production A.I. and a documentary on Kubrick that
Harlan directed himself entitled Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures.In his
two-part conversation with Ken Plume, Harlan discusses how A.I. began with
Stanley Kubrick, its transition to Steven Spielberg, how the story of A.I.
compares to other Kubrick films, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, what Kubrick
would have done with A.I. if he was alive today, the state of unproduced
Kubricks works such as Napoleon and The Aryan Papers, and Harlan's future
projects.
IGN FILMFORCE: What was the genesis, with Stanley, of A.I.?JAN HARLAN: We bought
the story in 1983 ' this was the Brian Aldiss short story 'Supertoys Last All
Summer Long'. This was the first seed, and Stanley really fell in love with that
story. But it was a short story and would never make a whole film, so he bought
the rights and he developed it ' on his own and with other people ' into a big,
comprehensive script. He did other things in-between ' he always took a lot of
time ' and in 1995, we were ready to go. We had a contract with Warner Bros. ' a
greenlight ' and everything was go. During that time, he spoke with Steven
Spielberg ' who was his friend anyway, and they spoke on the telephone a lot.
But then he decided that this particular story would actually be better for
Steven' A very unusual situation for a man like Kubrick, who was very, very high
in his standing, professionally ' but he was, at the same time, quite a humble
fellow, and he figured that Steven would have the missing colors for this. He
felt it was more his thing. So Steven came, and he showed him 650 drawings which
he had, and the script and the story ' everything ' and said, 'Look' Why don't
you direct it and I'll produce it.' Steven was almost in shock'
IGNFF: I can imagine'HARLAN: He couldn't believe what he heard. And Stanley
said, 'No, no, no' It's all right' It's all right. I think it will be a great
thing. Can't you imagine? It'll be fabulous ' A Stanley Kubrick Production of a
Steven Spielberg Film. It sounds quite good to me.' And they laughed and horsed
around, and Steven really liked the story, too. But then both men did something
else. Stanley gave up because he wanted to do this boy (in the film) by building
a robot. The UK has very strict labor laws with children, and to make a film
where the child is in every scene ' you couldn't do it. You'd have to go
somewhere else, but he wasn't willing to travel. So we tried to build this robot
' which was a disaster. It just didn't work. He also figured that computer
graphics will be much, much better in a few years time ' it was about to explode
' and he waited and did Eyes Wide Shut.
IGNFF: What aspects of the story most appealed to Stanley?HARLAN: Let me answer
you comprehensively' If you look at all of Stanley's films ' while they are
very, very different in form ' there is a common thread that goes through all of
them, which is human nature, human folly, vanity, and the great ability of our
species to cause self-inflicted wounds. That, by the way, is the reason why he
was so fascinated by Napoleon. Here was this hugely talented politician and
military man who had nobody else to blame for his downfall but himself. Also,
the fact that emotions are what carry us ' not our intellect, our knowledge, and
our education, which are all very useful things for more or less banal,
ineffectual decisions ' but when it really comes to the crunch, it is emotion
that always carry us. It is unfortunately so. And he didn't exclude himself.
Maybe if he ever had any fear, it was that he himself might fall victim to his
own emotions. To answer your question, in Eyes Wide Shut, you have a future
civilization that is unchanged in a key essence of our existence ' we wither
like a flower without sun and water if we have no ability to love, or are not
loved. It's an absolutely essential part of our happy existence, and there is no
choice ' we don't have the freedom to walk away from that, or to accept it or
not' We depend on it. No matter how well we intellectually justify it or turn
against it or deny it ' it is true. He hoped very much to capture this in this
film, by using indirect methods ' as he very often did. 2001 being a very
perfect example of a great reverence, a great bow, to an unknown creator in the
universe. He was not a religious man at all, but he was full of respect for the
creation of the universe' the endlessness of the universe' for the complete
clarity that there has to be more than he himself is.
IGNFF: Was Stanley ever befuddled by some critics' beliefs that he was a very
dispassionate director ' in the subject matter he would tackle, or in the way he
would tackle the subject matter?HARLAN: He knew what he was and he knew what he
felt, and he always gave people the freedom to interpret his films however they
wanted, and he accepted it. Befuddled is going too far. Sometimes there were
articles ' particularly about 2001 ' and Stanley would say, 'Oh, this is very
clever! This would never have occurred to me.' In the British press, he was very
often chastised and criticized ' but only in the last 20 years ' not at the time
of 2001. They just hated it. Many grown-up people didn't like it ' it was the
young generation that made 2001 a success. I made a documentary about Stanley
Kubrick'
IGNFF: A very fascinating one'HARLAN: Have you seen it?
IGNFF: Yes.HARLAN: Well, there you see this wonderful story that Jack Nicholson
tells about how Stanley had 242 walk-outs, and you can be sure he counted them!
I thought it was very beautiful ' I had to have that in there ' and it is true.
Arthur C. Clarke tells the story about a key player at MGM who said [about
2001], 'Well, this is the end of Stanley Kubrick.' I tell you what ' it would
have been, had it not been for the audience. That is the wonderful part of this
industry that you cannot predict. You just can't. It's just impossible. The
audience decides. It's the audience that just walks away with it. 2001 was
instantly, immediately, successful ' it was all done by young people. Young
people were just crazy about it ' they were hungry for the authority ' it was
almost like having somebody put them in touch with a notion that there is a
creator' Which isn't being described. There are no rules. In fact, if there is a
creator, the person who made the film hadn't a clue who this creator might be.
IGNFF: It's almost as if they were reacting to the idea of an unknowable,
absolute certainty in a decade fraught with uncertainty'HARLAN: Absolutely. Very
well put. It is the great respect for the unknowable that is expressed in 2001.
It's quite interesting that he received, at the time, the prize from the
Catholic Church for 2001 ' and he was very surprised, because he had had nothing
but rows with them over Lolita. In fact, I was again surprised when, a month
ago, we were invited by Rome ' by the Vatican ' to screen 2001 in the Vatican. I
was invited, as was his widow, Christiane Kubrick, and some cardinal gave a long
speech about the significance of this agnostic film which embraces a notion that
is so commendable. I was really taken-aback. It's fantastic.
IGNFF: It's the ultimate irony'HARLAN: It is, but there you are. These guys can
be very flexible sometimes. I'm not a Catholic, and I'm not a particular friend
of the Vatican, but I respected the fact that they opened up ' and opened
themselves up for criticism amongst their own ranks ' because, clearly, 2001 is
not a Christian film.
IGNFF: It opens with the 'Dawn of Man''HARLAN: Yeah! It's a completely
all-embracing, respectful film for the unknown. Anyway' You wanted to know about
A.I. What I was going to say was that this goes through all his films, this
notion.
IGNFF: Kubrick always struck me as a director where you couldn't analyze one
film without analyzing all the rest'HARLAN: Right'
IGNFF: So I can see why you're touching on the other films'HARLAN: Good. I'm
glad. Not everybody understands that.
IGNFF: If Stanley had lived, what was his intention for his level of involvement
in the production process of A.I.?HARLAN: Had he lived and directed it, is one
thing. Had he lived and given the direction to Steven Spielberg, he would have
left Steven Spielberg completely alone. He was a man who would never tolerate
anybody interfering with him, and he certainly wouldn't have interfered with a
man like Steven Spielberg ' it wouldn't have been possible. That decision was
made, and that's why Steven is the only living director who had the authority to
take this and make it his own, because he was authorized by Stanley himself.
IGNFF: Having seen the film, do you believe that Spielberg remained true to his
vision, or tried to supplant his vision in an attempt to stay true to whether he
believed Stanley's would have wanted the film to be?HARLAN: No, it is a
Spielberg film. This is like a Spielberg film based upon a book written by
somebody else. He was respectful to Stanley, but Stanley was also respectful to
Arthur Schnitzler when he did Eyes Wide Shut. You don't buy a book by a great
writer and not be respectful to him ' that's silly. So of course he was
respectful to Kubrick, but he made it his film' It's a Spielberg film. It's not
a Kubrick film. Had Kubrick directed it, it would have been a different story.
It would have been much, much darker. I would be probably be wrestling now with
the MPAA about an R rating'
IGNFF: And start bracing for the critics'HARLAN: Yes' Goodness me, yes. His
Gigolo Joe was ' and forgive the double-entendre ' Stanley went all the way with
this guy. It was an interesting, black figure who was to make a lot of money and
was as greedy as his masters who built him. A very interesting character, but it
would be an R-rated film, and it would be a different story. It would still be
the story about the boy who wants to become real, and the fairy tale ' all of
that was untouched by Steven ' that's all in Stanley's script. It is just
individual characters that were much more pessimistic and much darker. This
Gigolo Joe is just lovely ' he's just wonderful.
IGNFF: That's an amazing statement in-and-of itself.HARLAN: He's very charming
and witty. Stanley, of course, would have shown this differently. Imagine if you
have a beautiful French landscape, and you tell Renoir and Gauguin to paint it '
what you get is two wonderful canvases, you recognize the landscape immediately,
both will be masterpieces, and both will be completely different. Would you
accept that?
IGNFF: I would accept that.HARLAN: Well, that's how it is, if you compare
Spielberg and Kubrick.
Interview with Producer Jan Harlan
by Kenneth Plume
◄ Previous 1 2
[This is the second part of Ken Plume's conversation with Jan Harlan. To access
the first installment, use the above navigation links.]IGNFF: Taking a different
tangent, but somewhat similar ' whereas A.I.'s direction by Spielberg was
sanctioned by Stanley, how did Stanley feel about someone else following up on
one of his films, as with 2010?HARLAN: He wasn't involved in that. Stanley
approved of the project because he was a friend of Arthur C. Clarke, and he
didn't want to put a spanner into the gear. Had Stanley not been a friend of
Arthur's, he would have resisted somebody else doing 2010. But, you know, it
wasn't such a big deal ' and since Arthur makes a living writing screenplays and
stories ' Stanley didn't want to interfere and he gave his blessing, and that
was the end of it.
IGNFF: Was there a disappointment that it was being made?HARLAN: Well, he didn't
like the film particularly, but that's neither here nor there. So what. 2010 is
not a bad film, but 2001 was a masterpiece. Most films are not masterpieces.
Masterpieces are rare. You're a film critic, I take it'
IGNFF: Some might say that'HARLAN: I speak to so many people. I just spent three
days with Roger Ebert, which was a great, great joy because he's so incredibly
knowledgeable. I don't know how people like you do this ' he sees 400 films a
year. That would drive me absolutely up the wall. I admire this profession just
for the pure stamina of seeing all these films'
IGNFF: Or masochism'HARLAN: (laughing) I couldn't deal with it! I'd go crazy.
And then you have to write about it. Would you agree with me that masterpieces
are rare?
IGNFF: Extremely rare' And sometimes not even recognized as such until much
later'
HARLAN: I'm glad you say that. I'm most respectful to this mystery of 'talent''
To the mystery of the 'artist'. What makes a Beethoven' a Michaelangelo' How
come these people are so talented? How come Steven Spielberg and Kubrick are
real artists of our generation? There may be 100 living, globally, at this time
' not more. It's something that escapes me completely, because I obviously don't
have a talent like that. I'm talking about a great artistic talent that can
create these things that will live forever ' that are an imprint on our
civilization' And it has always been like this. What made a great civilization '
other than political things and conquerors and a bit of military here and there
' were the artists. They made it really last forever. The architects, the
painters, the sculptors, and ' in our time ' it's the filmmakers. No question
about it. As long as there is a civilization, there will be the great
masterpieces. Of filmmaking, there will be the great Charlie Chaplin films,
Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, Bergman ' whether we like it or not. You may hate
some of his paintings, but Picasso will be there forever.
IGNFF: The fascinating thing about a mass media like film ' that has so many
viewers ' is what dictates that something is a masterpiece? Is it the critic or
is it the audience? Or is it a combination of the two?HARLAN: It rests in
itself, and we have to figure it out for ourselves ' and we can. Let me try to
illustrate this' It's all very subjective, what I'm saying, but I have only my
own subjectivity to go on. I have nothing else, I'm afraid. Everyone likes
Mozart, or not. It's actually very irrelevant ' there is an objectivity that
clearly shows us that this man was one of the greatest composers who ever lived,
and this is completely independent of my or your liking what he did or not.
There is a degree of objectivity where it no longer needs to be acknowledged by
anybody. You may say, 'Oh, Michaelangelo bores me to tears!' It doesn't make any
difference.
IGNFF: So you analyze it by the mechanical, or technical, aspects of the
construction'HARLAN: Yeah.
IGNFF: Now that we have seen the development and production of A.I., is there
any possibility in the future of seeing the realization of Napoleon or The Aryan
Papers?HARLAN: The Aryan Papers is totally in the hands of Warner Bros. They
spent a lot of money on it, because we did 1-' years of pre-production. I really
worked on this hard, very hard, in Eastern Europe.
IGNFF: Would that have been the next film after Eyes Wide Shut?HARLAN: No, I
think it would have been A.I., because it was still too close. It would have
been A.I., with or without Spielberg, had Stanley lived. Warner Bros. is in
total charge of Aryan Papers. Napoleon ' that's ours. That's his widow's
property. It's around, if anybody is interested ' and brings $35 million, at
least' at least' if not much, much more.
IGNFF: People are definitely fascinated, even if it's reading the screenplay.
Has there ever been any thought of publishing Stanley's screenplays?HARLAN: Yes.
I probably will do that next year. Together with literally thousands of pictures
I have of Napoleonic research which he did. He was thorough. Stanley was a real
expert on Napoleon. He was fascinated by Napoleon, and he was fascinated by the
Second World War. He was a great expert.
IGNFF: I must say that your documentary has definitely stoked the fire as far as
people seeing all this work that was done on this project'HARLAN: Well, I'm
glad, because he really is one of the great artists of his generation. More than
just one of the great American filmmakers, he is globally recognized as one of
the greats' One of the hundred.
IGNFF: I've been speaking with people about your documentary, and even people
who profess not to like Stanley's films ' either all of them or some of them '
did say they walked away with a greater understanding of both the man and his
work after seeing the film. HARLAN: I'm delighted to hear that.
IGNFF: How much footage didn't make it into the documentary that possibly might
be seen later?HARLAN: That's really not my thing to say. I offered to Warner
Bros. to add another half-hour of very interesting material that I had ' art
department materials from 2001 which nobody has ever seen and other stuff ' but
they figured that it was enough.
IGNFF: Will this stuff eventually make it into book form, possibly?HARLAN:
Possibly. I don't know yet. I've been so busy that I haven't had time to think
clear. I did this documentary, I worked on A.I., and now I'm doing this again '
I'm only 64, so I have a few more miles to go.
IGNFF: This is a question that people have been wondering about for years' With
all of the interest in Stanley and his work, as well as film enthusiasts' desire
to see 'missing footage', what are the odds of the public ever seeing the
hospital scene from The Shining or the infamous 'Pie Fight' from Dr.
Strangelove?HARLAN: I don't think so. Not while I'm around. Or his wife. Once we
both are dead, then maybe ' it depends on what the children want to do. I have
the cut 'Pie Scene' in my office, and as far as I'm concerned, that's where it's
going to stay. Many, many people urged me to put this in my documentary ' I
never even considered it, because Stanley didn't like it. Stanley wouldn't like
me to show this or make it available. I've been loyal to him for 30 years '
should I now break my loyalty? Of course not. So forget it. Not available. It's
very simple.
IGNFF: That's a very 'bottom line' answer'HARLAN: Yes!
IGNFF: But I can understand where you're coming from on that'HARLAN: I mean, I
don't care. Somebody would say, 'Oh, you could sell this and it would fetch a
lot of money.' I don't care. Am I starving? No.
IGNFF: As far as the desperation of some film students and film lovers to see
this 'Pie Fight' ' did Stanley understand the desperation of these people to see
these elements?HARLAN: It's just too bad. He would say, 'Well why don't you
shoot your own pie scene? Leave me alone.' He hated it. He thought it wasn't
worth studying ' he thought it was crap. So it's very simple.
IGNFF: I guess we can wrap it up. So now that the A.I. junkets are wearing down
and the documentary is out there, what's next on your agenda?HARLAN: I want to
make a film about classical music. That's one of the few things I know something
about. Strangely enough, that's how I started with Stanley. I'd known him for 10
years before I started working with him 30 years ago. We played table tennis or
we talked about classical music. In fact, I introduced him to Richard Strauss'
'Thus Spake Zarathustra', because he asked me to look for stuff that is very big
and comes to an end. These were my instructions, because he had a lot of stuff
that was very big, but it never stopped!
IGNFF: Some people criticize his films that way'HARLAN: Well' So I remember very
well that I spent a whole weekend going through all my gramophone records, and
then I came to London ' I lived in Zurich, Switzerland, then ' and I came to
London and I had this under my arm, and we needle-dropped a little bit, and we
chose this one very, very quickly ' because it's very big and it comes to an
end. He loved it!
IGNFF: So we have you to thank'HARLAN: Well, if you like it, then you have me to
thank. It was a fluke. I don't consider this a contribution, because I just
walked away from it. That was on a holiday ' I came to visit Stanley and play
with the children. This was a long time ago ' we're talking 1968. Now, however,
I would very much like to make a film about classical music. It would be for
television, obviously. If I'm successful, it would be the people who are not
classical music lovers. In other words, it would have to be very entertaining so
you could get the huge amount of people who don't like classical music, and have
some of them walk away and say, 'Hey, this is really exciting.' Then I'm happy.
I'll tell you where the idea came from' I was in Warsaw a while ago, and I took
a cab from the airport to town. I heard a relatively young taxi driver play
Beethoven in the cassette player of this old, clapped-out diesel car. I know the
music very well, and I said, 'Nice music you're listening to'' A sort of typical
small-talk remark. He looked around with these big, open eyes and said, in bad
English but understandable enough, 'A passenger of mine left this in my car, and
I have listened to this for the last two weeks, from morning to night. It is the
most amazing piece of music you can imagine!' And he pulled the cassette out and
said, 'This is by somebody called (slowly) Lud'wig' Von'Beethoven. Have you ever
heard of him?' I said, 'Oh yes, he's fabulous.' I didn't want to patronize him,
so I said, 'This is wonderful. I'll have to get this. Thank you very much.' What
a wonderful thing if a man of age 30 or whatever can suddenly discover this and
fall in love with it. What a treasure' What an enrichment of life. If I get a
few by making a television film about classical music who fall into this ' I'll
be totally satisfied.
IGNFF: I'd love to see it.HARLAN: I'd love to make it. I started, by the way. I
have about 2-3 hours of rushes.
IGNFF: Well, I enjoyed your documentary, so if it's half as good as that' I wish
you the best of luck on that.HARLAN: Thank you. It was stimulating to talk to
you.
No comments:
Post a Comment