Shortly before the closing of Shia Hates Wii, I conducted an explosive interview with the young filmmaker known as Miles Trahan. Intending to preserve his answers for posterity, I asked incisive questions of a man I honestly believe will be the next George Lucas. That is to say, he'll make a couple of awesome movies before turning into a has-been with a throat pouch.
His answers were fascinating, astounding...I even intended to turn the interview into a booklength project, similar to Hitchcock/Truffaut. Unfortunately, Shake had other plans. Shake became convinced that Cheebs and myself were plotting against him, trying to steal the rights to Monsters & Madmen and sell them to Oliver Stone, who would then gut the screenplay and turn it into a movie criticizing the media's obsession with violence. He did not want his vision compromised. So, he destroyed not just the interview but all of Shia Hates Wii.
The interview seemed to have been lost to the sands of time, but no more. Finally, the redacted interview that Miles Trahan DOES NOT WANT YOU TO READ, is available here, unexpurgated, for the first second or third time. Trahan discusses his views on sexuality in the cinema, how to shoot a film, and gives us insight into his craft.
Here, for the first time umpteenth time, is the complete interview with the most reclusive film director since Stanley Kubrick.
Conversations with Filmmakers: The Miles Trahan Interview
Q: Hitchcock once famously joked that actors were cattle. What are your views on actors, and how do you feel about an actor ad-libbing or changing dialogue while on the set?
I’m almost positive Hitchcock’s joke was exactly that -- a joke. While actors may not be the easiest people to deal with on a set, they’re still an integral part of the live action narrative film. In my view they’re many things -- ciphers, muses, vessels and what have you, it just matters how well you utilize them. A good film needs good performances from its actors to anchor everything going on around them, and a good director, in my opinion, must utilize the actor in the best way, the way that will best suit the film -- if an actor gives a bad performance, well, in my opinion, that falls directly on me. Actors need to be molded, in a certain sense, by the director -- if they give a bad performance, then it reflects poorly on me, and means I didn’t do my job. The ideal director/actor relationship, then, depends on the director getting the best performance possible out of the actor, and on the actor to allow themselves to be molded, to give it their all -- to give the performance that, in the director’s eyes, will benefit the film.
I have no problems with actors ad-libbing on set -- in fact, I encourage it. I know there are a few writers/directors out there hold the script up like a bible, who encourage their actors to stick solely to the script, but that’s not me. Doing things that way can limit an actor’s performance, in my opinion -- having them stick to a strict guideline may impede their ability to truly embody a character, to get inside that character’s head, which is exactly what I don’t want to do as a director. I want the actor to explore every possible angle, to push the boundaries, to really give their performance a lived-in feel. You can’t do that when you stick solely to the words on the page, I think.
Q: What are your views on violence in cinema?
I love it. Well, no -- that sounds wrong, doesn’t it? I don’t know...I think people make too much of a fuss over violence. Violence in films doesn’t corrupt, no; and often times violence is simply the best way to relay a certain piece of information, to get a certain atmosphere, a certain feel -- some of my favorite films use violence in a very visceral, jolting, shocking way, and it works. If you can make violence in a film work, then so be it. Limiting a filmmaker’s ability to use violence in such a way is limiting art, I think -- violence, to me, is closely tied to art, because it’s closely tied to expression. It’s just a different way of expressing yourself. Not that I’m promoting violence, at least not in all cases, but...limiting violence, or sex, or whatever, is limiting one’s ability to express themselves, at least in the cinema -- that’s my view, anyway.
Q: You've often spoken of your appreciation for 1970s blaxploitation films. Do you feel that they have influenced your work or your outlook on film in any way?
Blaxploitation films are...well, I mostly just derive a certain enjoyment out of them, you know? They’re entertainment cinema, for me -- but I don’t think they’ve strongly influenced me or my general outlook on cinema, no. I just come at them from a fan’s perspective, more than, I guess, from a student’s.
Q: If you were to emulate any director in terms of career, who would it be, and why?
Any director? Probably Spike Lee, or Steven Soderbergh. These were both guys who came into the industry doing their own thing, making these small, personal, often times incredible films, and got to mix that with the bigger, studio-driven stuff without ever really sacrificing their inner artist, you know? I mean look, they’re still experimenting, this late in their careers -- most filmmakers just don’t get to do that, or they lose interest. But those two are still doing their own thing, and still have a certain independence from the system, and are still making two, three films a year...that’s the kind of career I’d like to have, more than anything. Just to be able to do my own thing without ostracizing myself, in a certain sense, or limiting myself in any way.
Q: What are your views on CG as opposed to practical effects?
CG is...CG, to me, is just another tool, you know? Not one I’m all too fond of, but it’s certainly got its merits. I look at a film like Fincher’s Zodiac, and how well he implemented it, and I just think, you know, I can’t hate CG. Hating the tool is ridiculous, anyway. I hate the way most people have used it, and I hate how common it is now, I guess, but I don’t hate or dislike the idea of CG in general. I just tend to shy away from the films that use too much of it, in a glaring way, or substitute actual elbow grease and such in favor of CG. I look at a film like Nolan’s The Dark Knight, and it just works more for me than your average summer blockbuster. The effects, I mean. And why’s that? Because they’re practical. You can tell a lot of people worked really hard to make it look authentic, and it wasn’t just created in some cozy, air-conditioned office or something -- people actually took the time to perfect it, in camera, to get a specific kind of feel. And I appreciate that.
Q: Do you believe in Michael Winterbottom's notion that any sex featured in film should be unsimulated? Why or why not?
I don’t agree with that -- that’s spitting in the face of artifice. The cinema thrives on artifice, I think -- wanting everything to be real or unsimulated or what have you is, again, limiting one’s possibilities. If you want sex in a film, if it’s there to express something, use it. Forcing the actors into a situation like that isn’t right, to me -- you know, sex is a very serious thing to a lot of people, and making two people go through that, on camera, just to satisfy me or my film is...it’s a little much, I think. They both have their merits -- if the actors are okay with it, then it’d be an interesting approach, I think, but...it’s not something I would require, no.
Q: What is your preferred aspect ratio for shooting a film?
Whatever suits the nature of the film. If I want grand, sweeping vistas, or an epic feel or what have you, then its scope. If I want something smaller, more intimate, then it’s flat. Whatever works best for the film.
Q: What are your views on films shot in the documentary style such as The Battle of Algiers or Salvatore Giuliano? Would this be something you'd be interested in doing in the future?
Oh yes, definitely. I think the whole documentary approach, specifically in regards to shooting fictional events in that style, can lend them a certain “realness” or immediacy; again, if it works in the film’s favor, use it. It’s just another tool in the box, you know?
Q: On a related note, do you have any interest in political cinema?
I have interest in it purely as a viewer, you know -- one of my favorite directors is, of course, the master Jean-Luc Godard, who’s always had a strong political bent in his films. I don’t necessarily know if I can approach cinema the same way, though -- you know I’m not all that concerned with politics, unfortunately. I certainly think politics have a place in cinema, sure -- a vital place, definitely. But in regards to my own work, it’s not a huge factor.
Q: What is your favorite Marlon Brando performance? How would you rank him as an actor?
Brando was a nut, but he was also a fantastic performer. Fantastic. He had a certain rawness to him, you know -- it’s a rawness few other actors have been able to bring to their roles, I think. It’s what makes him so interesting to watch, you know? You just get the sense that this is a big personality -- he just demands your attention whenever he’s on screen. I don’t know if I necessarily have a favorite Brando performance, but he pops up time and time again in some of my favorite films -- Apocalypse Now, Last Tango in Paris, On the Waterfront, The Godfathers, etc. etc. He’s gotta be there for a reason, right? It’s not a coincidence.
Q: Who is your favorite screenwriter? What are your opinions on the works of Paddy Chayefsky and Abraham Polonsky?
My favorite screenwriter? Hm...I can throw out a couple names, Chayefsky definitely being one of them, Billy Wilder, Paul Schrader, David Mamet, Woody Allen, Quentin Tarantino -- all guys who have an unmistakable presence on any film they’re involved with, whether behind the camera or just on the page. I don’t have much of an opinion on Polonsky; unfortunately, I haven’t seen many films that he’s written, at least not enough to form a real opinion on him. I’ll have to rectify that.
Q: Would you ever do a period piece? I'm talking about something meticulously detailed like Barry Lyndon or The Duellists.
I don’t know -- maybe. I don’t want to say no, really, but it’s not something I’m seriously considering at the moment. My films or more or less small, personal, modern stories -- I write what I know, essentially. My preoccupations are all present-day, I guess.
Q: Tell me the titles of some films you absolutely despise, and why.
Transformers 2. Should I really fucking explain why?
Q: On the subject of scripts, would you prefer to film your own work, or would you be equally comfortable filming something someone else had written? Would you rewrite someone else's script to better suit your artistic sensibilities?
I wouldn’t have a problem using an “outside” script, so long as it was in line with my own preoccupations as an artist, you know? I’m not gonna jump at filming a Spider-Man 5 or something no matter how good the script is, but if I came across one that suited my own sensibilities, or that really connected with me in some way, then sure. I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But, like any egomaniac, I’m mostly just concerned with my own stuff right now. If the opportunity arises, then...well, let’s just wait and see.
Q: Kubrick and Eastwood have two pretty much antithetical styles to shooting a film - Eastwood likes to do just a few takes because he believes that is when the performance is "fresh", and to keep going will only result in the actor repeating his lines by rote, resulting in something that feels rehearsed and stale (some critics, notably biographer Patrick McGilligan, have accused him of simply being cheap and lazy). Kubrick was the opposite, shooting dozens, at times hundreds of takes with the same actor until he achieved what he was looking for, whatever that was. Which of these views, if either, do you agree with, and why?
I don't know if either way is definitive -- this may be going the easy route, but I just do as many takes as I think necessary, until I'm happy with the scene. I don't want to beat my actors down with take after take, but I also don't want to rush and it risk not being happy with the end result, when it's too late to go back and change it. I just shoot to my heart's content, I guess.
Q: Your opinions on editing- John Sayles and Alfred Hitchcock have both said editing was their favorite part of making a picture. In fact, John Sayles says the only reason he makes movies is so he can edit them. What are your views on editing?
I would agree. I love editing -- I love looking over what you've shot, assembling it, etc. etc. Editing, to go back to the clay analogy, is just another way of "molding" the film -- this time taking all the elements and putting them together the way you originally envisioned them, the way you see the film playing out in your head. It's also like writing one last draft of the script, you know -- change a line or two here or there, or even go so far as to totally restructure a film. Editing is the best part, I think; it's the one I derive the most pleasure from, anyway. It's taking all the parts and churning out an agreeable whole.
Q: Jean-Luc Godard has suggested that all too often film-makers merely film what they've decided in advance rather than exploiting the power of the camera as a quasi-scientific tool - along the lines of a microscope, telescope or stethoscope - to probe the world around them, do you see the camera as a tool in this way as well?
I think that's exactly what the camera is there for. I don't believe the camera's simply a tool to record -- it was intended as a way to probe, to examine, to help us analyze the world around us. This goes back to the whole idea of fact or fiction, though; even the most artificial, superficial films are documenting -- real people in real situations. The people and the situations just might not be who they say they are-- that's where artifice comes into play. But the camera is certainly a tool, a "quasi-scientific" tool, as Godard put it. It just depends on us to use it properly, or not. That's up to the filmmaker to decide. But at the end of the day, whether they like it or not, they are documenting...whether they chose to analyze or not, to ask use to analyze or not, is entirely their call.
Q: How do you feel about storyboarding? I remember watching Project Greenlight's first season and the director/screenwriter would just go on set with no real storyboards and just shoot stuff and then sort of manage to edit it in some way when he got back to the editing suite. Do you feel this is the way to go? I know guys like Hitchcock, Kurosawa and Scott meticulously storyboard EVERYthing, while other folks like Michael Mann, Brett Ratner, and Terrence Malick just shoot tons of coverage and other shit and then decide what to use later on.
I think storyboarding is useful for some people, sure, but I don't really care for it. I tend to visualize even while i write, sometimes ever before I write, so I internalize it and I memorize it so I know what I'm looking for and what I'm trying to achieve on set, without the need for storyboards or detailed notes or what have you. That's just a style that works for me, I don't know about other people. I just shoot what I have in my head, what I envisioned when I was writing it -- if I were to work on someone else's script, I might do things differently, you know -- maybe I wouldn't internalize it or know it like the back of my hand, maybe someone else would know better than me. But in general, no -- I know what I'm looking for already, and I just ask those around me to trust that I'm satisfying that original vision while we're shooting.
Q: Shooting action scenes is probably the most technically difficult thing for a director to do. Personally, I have a preference for the Sergio Leone/Peter Yates/John Frankenheimer style of action sequence, where you have a great idea of where everything is spatially and you can understand exactly what's going on from scene to scene. Then there are others who prefer the shakycam style of shooting an action scene, wherei t feels like you are there, in the middle of it, even if you can't always tell exactly what's going on. Do you have a particular preference, or do you feel it depends on the type of picture/situation? If so, in what type of picture would you go for shakycam-style as opposed to a cleaner style of shooting/editing?
If the scene calls for the shakycam, confused, in-your-face style, then sure. But personally I feel that technique is a bit over saturated at the moment, too many people use it for the wrong reasons, and it just starts to feel like a gimmick. That's not even limited to action, though -- tons of indie, small budget, non-action films use the same style, and most just don't do it for the right reasons. I think that's a style to use to convey a sense of urgency, to kind of put the audience right there with the characters and what have you, but it -- it does call attention to itself, and it does need to be used sparingly. As far as action films are concerned, I would agree -- I like to get a real sense of space, of composition, of choreography etc., which you don't really get a feel for with the, uh, "Greengrass" style. It's like CG, to me -- it's useful, but only in certain situations. It shouldn't be something to fall back on, which it's become. It just seems like people use it now to make up for not having decent choreography, or no sense of composition -- or not being able to afford a tripod [laughs].
Q: George Lucas is known best for Star Wars and the re-invigoration of the sci-fi genre, special effects, and so forth that came from that film. Yet, it is often not mentioned that he single handily invented a sub-genre. The teen comedy. American Graffiti was truly a innovation at it's release in 1973, a film that lead to the endless stream of teen comedies that are thrown at us these days. Without American Graffiti there would be no Dazed and Confused, no John Hughes, and no Mallrats amongst many others. Do you feel the impact of his further career with Star Wars through the point where he became perceived as a "hack" who relies on CGI has unfairly dulled what was a revolution this was that still is felt in film today?
I think a lot of American Graffiti is due to the people around Lucas -- not to take anything away from him, but from what I've read a lot of that film came about because of the people who pushed Lucas, and the people who supported him and contributed to the making of the film. I definitely think it's the odd man out in Lucas' oeuvre, and I think the reason is because it's not really Lucas' film -- he didn't anchor it so much as let those around him carry him along, with that film. And while it's certainly had it's effects on cinema in the years since, I don't quite know if I'd call it a revolution -- it, like most Lucas creations, is itself largely a throw back and love letter to the films TV shows and other pop culture nuggets that Lucas digested as a kid. And I think Lucas' eventual undoing is entirely his own fault; he's a grown man with the sensibilities of a small child, who isn't willing to really push himself as an artist -- he's, in his own words, more or less a "toymaker who makes films" now. He's not in it for the right reasons, and he hasn't been for a long time. So should I shed a tear for him? Of course not. I think his career's gone more or less exactly where he wanted it to -- if nothing else, it's always been him manning the ship.
Q: Kevin Smith, a director who has something many directors would die for. A steady fan base. His films will make 30 million without fault, no matter the film. No matter the leads. No matter the quality. Yet he is desperate to reach out to a wider audience. He has tried multiple times, be it with the star-filled Dogma, the sappy rom-com Jersey Girl, or the Apatow-light Zack and Miri. This is now continuing with his 48 Hrs./Beverly Hills Cop styled buddy cop movie with Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan. Why do you feel his attempts so far have failed, and what do you believe he must do to grow beyond his steady but rabid fan base?
Eh, I think he's an artist -- or at least, his films by and large seem to come from an emotional place, it seems. He just constantly undercuts the sincerity and the pathos and whatnot with dick jokes and the like, a lot of which fall flat and make his films look childish and insincere to most people. The reason I like Clerks II so much is that even with all the dick jokes etc. there's a very clear, sad, melancholy undercurrent to it that a lot of people don't pick up on, but that was obvious to me even on the first viewing -- I think it's definitely his most mature and heartfelt film to date. The whole thing was about guys who constantly lie to themselves or are unhappy in the situation they're in, but don't possess the abilities to do much of anything to change things for themselves -- it was basically an extension of the ending to Clerks, but a lot more "real" and heartfelt, in my opinion. And it was funny. That's kind of Smith in a nutshell to me: heartfelt and personal, but never really willing to let the majority of his audience go in favor of pursuing something truly deep or personal -- never sacrificing laughs for the bigger picture.
