Page 28 - Studio International - February 1971

producer of films; he's a film studio, MGM, he's Laurence Olivier and he knows how to act, on and on and on, and of course Andy's very
Walt Disney, Paramount, you know, Andy but young people don't bring it off that well. I extravagant, letting the film run and run and
Warhol. He never ever said he was a director, never see any. run; and in the end I think it was very good. You
and Andy's name appeared as director of the HILL: But do you think with a new technology know everybody always says do you mean the
films because I put it there; Andy himself never and a new communication system and with the actors always make a film now, do we believe;
believed in titles on movies or taking any credit ability people will have to shoot their own films and sometimes people watch us and they say,
for direction. But basically his name is almost and films of the neighbours and soon, everybody well I still don't believe it; I see the actors just
generic for a subject matter which has been would in fact be their own Andy Warhol ? keep on acting—they act, they're acting, but
consistent; the same way Walt Disney's subject MORRISSEY: Well yes, except there's no market they're not—they're just acting themselves which
matter's been consistent, in the same way necessarily for that. Basically Andy's always felt they are and it's so hard for anybody to do.
Louis B. Meyer's subject matter was—and his films are an extension of home movies, you I wouldn't want to do it any other way really
Andy just saw this as the role of the artist in this know, a record of friends, either a record of because I realize that this is what Andy's films
century, I think, to become more of a—what your family or a record of friends or record of were leading up to, this type of thing. But I
would you call it ?—a supervisor. Because the your travels. It goes back to the epistolatory don't find anybody else who does it in the world.
old-fashioned notion of the artist is, you know, novel which was the first novel, letters back and You know, there's nobody. And Andy was doing
an island unto himself—it comes from a period forth between friends. Films were made the way it about five or six years ago. Still no-one will let
when there wasn't this mass communication; we make them today in the twenties : they were the performers go in front of the camera and
and I don't think it's very attractive today, made by the people who made them the day improvise. The one who does it a bit I guess is
people who are like that: people like Godard they filmed them usually. And an outline, maybe John Cassavetes. He contradicts the whole thing
—even Fellini with Satyricon has, I think, given that's it. And the stars. And they filmed each because he takes actors and tells them to go and
a very disappointing film because he's got such a day and Keaton and people worked like that. improvise acting in front of a camera, and
great opinion of himself I mean he has no And then they said now that we have a talking somehow I don't think it works. You just tell
people in his film whatsoever; he's got a lot of camera—the talking camera was a great bulky, people to go and stand in front of the camera and
puppets who are flipped on and off screen for a awkward piece of equipment—they couldn't talk. They'll act, naturally, because they know
few seconds, dubbing a few sounds as though waste too much time so they had to have it all there is a camera there, they're acting. But to get
they're lip movements, and there's nobody in the down on paper first. And this provided some trained actors to do it is a sort of contradiction.
film worth watching and even if they're worth really good films. But in this way it left out for HILL: What do you see as the progression now
watching they are hardly on the screen long the talking screen the actual technique of from the point that you've reached ? Is it simply
enough to, you know, get a good look at them. film-making that was evolved in the silent the discovery of new people ?
It's just like a window decorator doing the screen, just because people had to speak. Actors MORRISSEY: Yes, and also we still have an
Christmas display with 10,000 windows in 10 weren't competent to speak unless they were obligation to try to give the people a little
minutes. But mostly I think the better films are told what to say. So at the same time as they built permanence. We used to make more films but
made by directors who don't think of themselves up the actors, they crippled or emasculated then they were never shown. Now we make
as such hot stuff. them a bit by denying them their own dialogue; fewer films but at least they get shown and the
HILL: Do you think that this kind of film-making a human being is supposed to speak himself and people start to get well known. We really would
is anticipating the day when everyone will be so this was unfortunate, and I think Andy went like to entrench ourselves for a few years and
their own film-maker on their own cassette back and corrected that and said if the actor is use a couple of the same people over and over
system ? the most important thing certainly what he has again. Now the other big problem we have is
MORRISSEY: Yes, it's that. I think the type of to say will be worth listening to. And this was a we use people who are not interested too much
film-making that Andy seized upon was great vote of confidence in the performer. in films, or acting, and are very young, they're
transition-type film-making. It's mainly If Andy had never started making films I don't teenagers, almost—nobody ever points out the
influenced by television. And films; but more think I would have thought of having actors go fact that movies are mostly teenagers. I mean it's
by television. And of course the lack of stories
2
is television because you don't have a story on
television; you have people talking to one
another. But you know our subject-matter that
we were putting out on film could never go on to
television so we had to make it fit for theatres
and therefore we needed a certain length. For
the theatre you have to keep it an hour and a
half, make it a story, come around—but the
basic approach is to allow the actors to say
whatever dialogue they want to say, which is
also like television. Somebody goes on television,
they say whatever comes into their head if they
want to. People playing parts is again a dead
art form, I think. I think it doesn't work any
more. Acting. And I don't think it's very good
in films when I see it; there's just nobody who
comes along who acts, really acts, who I think is
worth watching. I mean there's Laurence
Olivier and he's worth watching as an actor but

2 Still from Flesh
58