GREEN CINE
November 2004
The Unflappable Henry Jaglom
By Caveh Zahedi
Henry
Jaglom is an absolutely unique voice in contemporary American cinema. In a cinematic landscape in which most
films are interchangeable, and in which few films have a distinctive style or
vision, his films are utterly his own and resemble no one elseÕs. Consequently, he has tended to
divide viewers Š some people love his films and some people hate them. On the occasion of the DVD release of
his film Eating,
we asked autobiographical filmmaker Caveh Zahedi to interview the famously
autobiographical Henry Jaglom.
I would like to warn the reader that this interview
didnÕt start out too well. The
truth is that I had very mixed feelings about Henry JaglomÕs films Š in some
ways I loved them, and in some ways I hated them Š which put me in a somewhat
awkward position. I wanted
to be honest, but I was afraid of offending him if I was too honest, so I
decided to start out with fairly neutral questions and save the harder stuff
for last. It turns out I
miscalculated, and that he was much less offended by my ŅhonestÓ questions than
he was by my ŅneutralÓ ones.
Caveh: I was wondering how many and which of
your films are out on DVD already?
Jaglom: Oh
god. All of them except for the
three from Paramount. Last
Summer in the Hamptons is out, Venice/Venice is out...
I mean, I donÕt want to list all my movies. All of them are out except for Tracks, New YearÕs Day, and Someone To Love.
Caveh: And
why is Eating
coming out just now?
Jaglom: Why
is Eating
coming out just now? Because it
was owned by another company.
Caveh: Oh,
I see.
Jaglom: MGM
and I let the contract run out and they wanted to buy it and release it but I
found this company that I liked better so I made a deal with them.
Caveh: Oh,
I see. And so the company that is
releasing it isÉ
Jaglom: You donÕt know?
Caveh: No.
Jaglom: You
know... Sorry, I donÕt have that
infoÉ
Caveh:
ThatÕs okay, itÕs not important.
Jaglom: No,
it is important! ItÕs the name of the company that is releasing themÉI didnÕt
think you were going to ask me that question. I donÕt remember their name.
Caveh: ItÕs
on the back of the DVD, right?
Jaglom: New
Video. I think itÕs just called
New Video.
Caveh: So,
why not release it through your own company?
Jaglom: We
donÕt release video.
Caveh: But
you release films theatrically, right?
Jaglom: Yeah.
Caveh: Are
you in a bad mood, Henry?
Jaglom: Not
at all. I just donÕt understandÉYou know, IÕm giving you answers. You ask why
donÕt I release videos. Because I
donÕt release videos. I donÕt do
that. I donÕt know that business
at all.
Caveh: But
isnÕt it fairly inexpensive to release videos?
Jaglom:
No. But I release them
through Paramount or through bigger people who have distribution networks so
that theyÕll play in Blockbuster and all of that. I canÕt do that myself.
Caveh:
Okay.
Jaglom: I
have my hands full producing and directing. I release some of my movies theatrically, but some I donÕt
. My last film, Festival in
Cannes, was
released through Paramount Classics.
Caveh: And have you done audio commentaries for all the
DVDs?
Jaglom: Yeah.
All except for Festival in Cannes.
Caveh: And
how do you feel about DVD commentaries in general?
Jaglom: I love them. My friend Peter Bogdanovich recently did a commentary for The Lady Eve and I watched it recently, and
itÕs terrific that you can do that right after you see the movie.
Caveh: Who
are your some of your favorite filmmakers?
Jaglom:
Well, Kubrick was a gigantic pleasure to me. Fellini was my inspiration, I mean 8 and 1/2 was the single
most important film of my life.
Cassavetes both in his filmmaking and then in person became sort of a
mentor to me and was an enormously important influence. The first movie that I was ever invited
to a screening of was Shadows, which was shot on the streets of New York and
improvised. And it blew me
away. I was 18. I was in college, and my friend Seymour
Cassell, who worked with Cassavetes on his films, invited me. And I suddenly sat there at a midnight
screening, looking at a film that really was like our life, not like a
Hollywood movie.
Caveh: So,
you knew Cassavetes from the start?
Jaglom: I
didnÕt know him. I saw the
film. Then Seymour introduced me
to Cassavetes and I became slowly friends and he encouraged me to make films my
own way. But his filmmaking
encouraged me. I mean he was the
first true independent filmmaker in America. So that was an enormous thing. But Fellini and the Europeans - Godard and Truffaut, and to
some extent some of the English filmmakers of the sixties, and certainly Ingmar
Berman, all had a huge influence, and were the people that I was excited
about. Bogdonovich and I used to
fight all the time because he loved all the old Hollywood movies and I loved
all the new European movies, the New Wave movies and so on. They influenced me more thanÉand I
personally loved the old Hollywood movies, I mean especially the romantic
movies and all of that. ThatÕs
what Hollywood Dreams is very much about, the obsession with the past and so on. But as a filmmaker, I was much more
influenced by Olmi, and by Schlesinger, and by the filmmakers in Europe who
were doing exciting new work. In America, I mean as far as Americans, Kubrick
was the person who just every two years or three years, when a Kubrick film
would come out, that would be a great event for me.
Caveh: How do you feel that your films have changed or
evolved since youÕve started making them?
Jaglom:
ThatÕs an interesting question.
I donÕt know that I know the answer to it but itÕs a terrific
question. I edit my films myself
and I am just much clearer. ItÕs
less hit or miss for me. I know
about casting a little better, and about editing a lot better. I think IÕve just become more
skilled. But basically I think
that I am always trying to find the same emotional content and achieve the
freedom that I felt at first when I knew nothing about film. I mean I do think my freest film - the
film that I think is the least audience-affected and therefore really the most
totally honest film IÕve ever made - was my very first one. Because knowing
nothing about an audience then, I made a film that was totally impossible for
an audience to hook into. A
very small percentage of the audience was willing to go there, and I suspect
that, without me consciously or deliberately doing it, with each film IÕve
become a little more aware of what works for an audience. And that certainly affects me to some
extent in how I pull the film together.
Caveh: And
do you think that is a good thing, a bad thing, or both?
Jaglom:
ItÕs both. I think it is
good because I make the films more accessible, and I get bigger audiences. And I think itÕs bad because I think
whenever you give up any kind of freedom of intention, of creative intention,
with the thought of an audience, youÕre compromising in some way. So, itÕs a hard balancing act to not be
influenced at all by the audience, by knowledge about the audience, and yet to
have more and more knowledge about that.
Caveh: But
isnÕt there something also good in being in the interpersonal realm as opposed
to just the personal realm?
Jaglom: I
donÕt think so. I donÕt know what
you mean by that because I think that if you are in the personal realm and
youÕre telling the truth, the film will touch those people who are available to
you emotionally. And thatÕs the
audience that you should want.
Unfortunately, as I have gotten bigger and bigger audiences, I, like
everybody else, have sort of desired that. And there is a danger in that. Fortunately, I think I still hold back to a large
degree. I am still aiming at about
ten percent of the audience that I think will be interested in my kind of
work. I donÕt try to appeal to the
other ninety percent but I am more conscious of that ten percent now than I
ever was before, and of not losing them.
Caveh:
Yeah, what I meant, I guess, is that if youÕre in a relationship with a
person, you have to sort of speak to them in a language that they can
understand.
Jaglom:
Yeah, I donÕt feel that about film or any art form. And I donÕt think your job is to speak
to people in the way that they understand but to do your work as honestly and
fully and truthfully as you can, and then hope that you are not so isolated that
there will be people who will get what youÕre saying and respond to it. But not to try to do anything in order
to communicate it. I really
believe that. Yet I betray it,
which is my point, I betray it increasingly as IÕve learned what works for audiences.
If I can feel that I am doing that without compromising the integrity of what I
am doing then I do it. But IÕm
still not completely comfortable with my knowledge or with my awareness that I
am saying, ŅOh, they need that.
Put that in.Ó
Caveh: I understand
what youÕre saying but I guess I disagree with you.
Jaglom:
Okay.
Caveh: You
canÕt just be yourself.
Jaglom: I
know, youÕve said that you feel that.
I donÕt agree. IÕm telling
youÉ
Caveh: IÕm
asking you to just elaborate on why you think that art is not about
communicationÉ
Jaglom: I
didnÕt say art wasnÕt about communication. I said that itÕs not about trying to communicate. ItÕs trying to express yourself and
then hoping that you communicate.
I donÕt think somebody should do a painting in order to make it
accessible to an audience. They
should do what they want and what they feel and then hope that the audience
will find them. And I donÕt think
that a film should be any different from that. ThatÕs fundamentally the difference between the people who
think that film is art and those who think of it as just popular
entertainment. Now I always hope
my films are entertaining. IÕve
got one foot in each camp. And I
happen to like comedy and I do that a lot, which is entertaining and which is
easier for audiences. But at the
same time, in form and structure, I frequently violate an audienceÕs
expectations because I just feel it is more exciting to find my own expression. I donÕt think my job is to just
communicate. ThatÕs not what an
artist is.
Caveh: Do
you mind if I continue in this vein?
Jaglom: No,
if youÕd like to.
Caveh: I
actually think that your films have gotten better and betterÉ
Jaglom: I
donÕt. I think that they just get
more and more communicative. I
think they get more and more accessible.
And I hope theyÕre not getting worse. But I donÕt think that theyÕre getting better. I just think that IÕm not making them
quite as difficult. I think that
there was some psychological reason for me in the beginning--insisting on
making them as difficult as I did.
I donÕt know, did you see A Safe Place, my first film?
Caveh: I
did.
Jaglom: I
think itÕs as good a film as I am ever going to make, but it touches a specific
audience very immediately and it does a lot of arm pushing away to a large
majority of the audience.
Caveh:
Right.
Jaglom: It
is a totally truthful rendering of an internal landscape for me of this young
woman. And for me I am sort of
happy I didnÕt know more about audiences when I made it. It made my life hard. It made it five years before I could
get financing for my second film.
But nonetheless I feel more proud of that film in some way than any film
I am ever going to make because I think itÕs as pure as I can possibly be.
Caveh: You
talk about this dichotomy between making art and making entertainment. But isnÕt it possible to look at art as
having its own two-pronged dichotomy which is both self-expression and
communication? Communication
doesnÕt need to be entertainment.
Jaglom: There
are people who think that. But no,
communication can be just the basis of somebody receiving your work. Trying to get them to receive your work
means that you are trying to manipulate them in some way. It is something other than art then and
is more in the area of entertainment.
Caveh: Oh,
I see. So you feel it is
manipulative if you are trying to communicate something?
Jaglom:
Yes. Say I wanted to get a
bigger audience now, say I wanted to get people who really like action and
adventure films. Then I would be
like Spielberg or somebody who does that very well. I just donÕt want to be that. I donÕt want to do that. I have never had an interest in that. So, it is like liking a certain kind of
painter that maybe only five or ten percent of the people like. Or I might like a certain piece of
music that isnÕt for everybody.
Caveh: Uh
huh. NowÉ
Jaglom: Eating is a perfect example because
people suggested a lot of things I could do to make that film appealing to
men. And I said thatÕs not my
job. I think those men who are
artists or certain kind of men will understand and respond to it. But I know that itÕs going to alienate
most men and women. And men walked out of theatres all over
the country. They got in fights
with their girlfriends or wives.
IÕve heard reports from theaters all over the country that the women
insist on staying, and then they came back with their girlfriends, or they came
back with their mothers. Men just
really rejected the film. So, you
can say, well, I should have tried to do such and such or so and so to get more
men in. IÕve got a film coming out
this Spring called Going Shopping, which is a kind of sister film to Eating, and itÕs about women and
shopping. And because IÕve learned
what IÕve learned IÕve got men in thereÉIÕm not sure that IÕve been as honest
as I was in Eating,
I hope I have been, but IÕve been more entertaining and IÕve made it more
male-friendly. And IÕm a little
concerned about having done that, even though I donÕt think IÕve really done anything
very dishonest. But still I have
that issue going on with me all the time.
.
Caveh: Is
that issue of wanting a bigger audience just a financial consideration?
Jaglom: No,
because a person wants to communicate.
They want their film to be seen. ThatÕs the split.
You want to do the work as well as you can and at the same time you want
to find as big an audience as will accept your film.
Caveh: What
about people who make films that are so self-referential that there is nothing
that is coming across to anybody else?
Jaglom:
Then theyÕre not successful artists. I think you do have to communicate but I donÕt think you
have to think about communicating, you just have to think about expressing
yourself. And I think good artists are artists whose work communicates to some
extent. But to who? Do I want to communicate to the person
who wants to see an explosion? Or
whoÉwhat kind of a mentality do I want to communicate to?
Caveh:
Well, obviously, to your ideal viewer.
Jaglom: My
ideal viewer, for instance for a film like Eating, was female. I thought whatever
men are willing to go along is just fine.
But, you know, you learn how to get different segments of the audience
interested. And youÕre affected by
it, whether you want to be or not.
Caveh:
Yeah, I understand. I mean,
I love Eating. And I think youÕre absolutely
right. You donÕt want to make that
film for men anyway.
Jaglom: But
most men donÕt love it.
Caveh: Yes,
I understand that too.
Jaglom: And
women really do. Almost every woman
who sees that film really loves it.
Caveh: But
youÕre communicating to the women.
Jaglom: Yeah, but these male segments who really respond
to it, who are more open to it, are a minority.
Caveh:
Yeah, of course.
Jaglom: So
if I had to appeal to the majority then I would have to take away something
from the film that makes it authentic for the women. And IÕm not prepared to do that.
This is a very present issue for me right now because I
just finished, as I said, this new film, Going Shopping. And I am checking myself. I am finishing the editing within the next ten days. ItÕs got to go to the negative cutter
and there are a couple of things that IÕve put in there that I am just fighting
with myself about Š should I leave them in or should I take them out? I know
that they are very entertaining and IÕve seen how people respondÉSo itÕs just
an issue that IÕm dealing with.
Sorry if IÕve been going on about itÉ
Caveh: No,
no, no Š IÕve been going on about it too.
Caveh: When I look at your films, I see them in three
phases. In the first phase,
the films are more experimental.
Then there is this autobiographical section in the middle where youÕre
often in them and youÕre the center of them, and those are very personal and
autobiographical. And then more
recently, theyÕve been kind of spreading out again towards other people.
Jaglom:
Yeah. ThatÕs accurate, I
think except for probably Sitting Ducks, because I was so fed up with the fact that my
first two films were so difficult for people that I decided, okay, what do they
want? Beginning, middle and
end. Fine. So I made a little comedy, and I had
this big success with the film, and much to my amazement, itÕs the only film of
mine that I am not happy with.
ItÕs the film of mine that made more money than all my films probably.
Caveh:
Really?
Jaglom: No,
thatÕs not true. Always did pretty well and so did Eating. But anyway, the general trajectory of what youÕre saying is
true. I started with going from
more poetic and difficult films to more personal films and then to larger
subjects. One of my favorite films
is in what you would call that personal area, and thatÕs Venice/Venice, and I had the hardest time
finding an audience for that film.
For me, it renders the most accurately of anything IÕve ever done what
my perception of life is. So for
me it is one of the most successful films I think I could ever possibly
make. And yet, I think probably
along with A Safe Place, it was the hardest film to find an audience for. ItÕs an interesting struggle.
Caveh: So
thereÕs no reason why you moved away from the more autobiographical style?
Jaglom:
Because I already did it! I
satisfied myself with expressing my own angst and various aspects of my
struggle in relationships. I donÕt
think those films were just autobiographical because a lot of people identified
with a lot of aspects of them. But
they fulfilled a need that I no longer have which is to be the center of the
film myself.
Caveh: I
went to film school in L.A., and the word on the street about Henry Jaglom was
that heÕs independently wealthy, he finances all of his films with his own
money, and thatÕs how is able to do what he does.
Jaglom:
Oh. I didnÕt know
that. I am independently wealthy,
which is a very nice thing because IÕve never had to take a waiterÕs job. But IÕve never financed a film on my
own, not even onceŃand IÕm fortunate because my films do very well in
Europe. John Goldstone has been
producing my films now for the past six films, through his company in London,
which produced all the Monty Python films, which I distribute domestically in
America.
Caveh:
Through your own company?
Jaglom:
Through Rainbow Releasing, yeah.
HeÕs financed those films and prior to that Zack Norman has raised money
for four of my films. As I told
you, after A Safe Place I couldnÕt get anything made.
A Safe Place was paid for by Columbia.
My second, third and fourth films were financed by Zack Norman, who
raised the money from dozens of doctors and dentists through tax shelter scams
and so on. And then my films began
to be successful enough that Europeans gave me so much for Germany, so much for
FranceÉ I do do it myself though,
I put it together myself. But I
wouldnÕt use my own money in the film business, youÕve got to be crazy.
Caveh:
Because it would disappear very fast?
Jaglom: I
donÕt know, I just wouldnÕt do it.
IÕm too much a product of my upbringing. My father was a very intelligent and extraordinary business
person so I would never think of doing that. But I didnÕt know that people said that, thatÕs
interesting. In a way itÕs the
opposite - because I came from a wealthy family my ego was about proving that
it wasnÕt about money. So people
who come from poor families can more logically want to become a Spielberg or a
Lucas and want to make big, huge things and spend tens of millions of dollars
and all of that. For me itÕs very
important to make a film for a million dollars or less, or two million at the
most, and show that it can be done and that itÕs not about the money, probably
because of some chip on my shoulder as a result of being wealthy. Louis Malle said he had the same issue.
coming from a wealthy family. We
didnÕt want people to think it was easier for us. I donÕt care about that now, but IÕm talking about twenty years
ago. I didnÕt want anybody to
think that, so my point was I wouldnÕt take these offers for big budget
movies. I would make a small
budget movie when I could put the financing together and show them that it was
not about money.
Caveh:
Okay, so basically all your films pay for themselves?
Jaglom: Oh
Yeah. TheyÕre all in profit
actually. Oh well, no, thatÕs not
true. A Safe
Place, Venice,
Venice and Tracks are my three films that did not
make money.
Caveh:
YouÕve said that you donÕt want to be constrained by entertaining and
all that, but wouldnÕt you be freer if you just financed them yourself?
Jaglom:
No. First of all people can
imagine anything they can about people who have money, but you donÕt just spend
millions of dollars financing stuff yourself, you know. andÉ
Caveh: I
certainly would if I had the money.
Jaglom:
Maybe I donÕt have enough money to do that, or maybe my money is
invested and needs to stay where it is, but it just never would occur to
me. And I am lucky enough not to
need toÉ I can always put together the million dollars that I need because my
films make money.
Caveh:
OkayÉ
Jaglom: The
advantage of making films for comparatively low budgets and aiming at a
specific audience is that you know for sure that itÕll always make a few
million dollars, and thatÕs profit.
Caveh:
HereÕs kind of a more abstract question.
Henry: Any
questionÕs okay.
Caveh:
Okay. I want to talk about
ego.
Henry:
(laughs) I like the introduction.
YeahÉ
Caveh: Some people donÕt like your films because they
feel like thereÕs a lot of ego in themÉ
Jaglom:
Yeah, especially the autobiographical onesÉ
Caveh: Yes,
exactly. That period especiallyÉ
Jaglom:
Yeah, especially Venice/Venice.
Rocky Mountain News had a headline: ŅJaglom on Jaglom Again. Who Cares?Ó
Caveh:
(laughs) Well, IÕm
interested in this question because I get this all the time with my films. And
yet, I have the same reaction to your films. Some thing about them really bothers me. But, at the same time, what I like
about your films is theyÕre so messy in terms of the human component, and
theyÕre so embarrassing. But there
is a lot of ego in themÉ
Jaglom:
Sure.
Caveh: So I
just wondered if you feel like thatÕs a problem with them or if you feel that
ego is just part of the human condition and should therefore be included in the
film?
Jaglom: No, I think it should be included in the
film. IÕm very vain about my
films. I keep editing a film, like
I am doing tonight, until I am satisfied.
I keep going. So, the final
result is alwaysŃlike it or hate itŃitÕs my film, frame for frame, what I want
to do. So, no, I am very pleased
with what I do. So if the films
are messy, theyÕre that way because I want them to be. If theyÕre egocentric, itÕs because I
want them to be. But I think IÕve
also kind of put that away along with the autobiographical focus. ItÕs no longer about me, so I donÕt
feel like thatÕs true anymoreÉ I am trying to deal with the issue of the film. Eating is certainly not an egocentric
filmÉ
Caveh: No,
not at all.
Jaglom: The
issue of the film isnÕt my issue.
ItÕs the issue of the women around me in my life. The same is true with Going Shopping.
Caveh: But
with Eating,
I feel like even though itÕs not about your ego, one could argue that itÕs very
much about the womenÕs egos.
Jaglom:
Well, all my films. Yes,
that is a stupid criticism that a lot of people have put out, which is that
everybody is narcissistic in my films.
And they donÕt like everyone being egocentric or narcissistic. But the truth is that everybody is
thinking about themselves and when people are dealing with issues from their
own point of view, if theyÕre honest, theyÕre reflecting that. And people are not used to that being
as boldly or openly expressed. And
if my characters are self-involved, which is the basic criticism, itÕs because
weÕre all self involved, and people just arenÕt comfortable admitting
that. When you go behind closed
doors everybody is thinking about whether theyÕre happy or not, and whether
their life is what it should be, and whether theyÕve got issues or problems
worth solving. People are
self-involved. My goal in my films
all the way through is to make people feel less crazy about what theyÕre going
through. To give them permission
as much as possible to feel like it is okay to be self-involved, to know that
whatever your problems are, youÕre not alone, thereÕs other people who have
them, and itÕs part of the human condition.
Caveh: I
agree with what youÕre saying completely, IÕm just wondering - do you feel that
the ego is a problem that one should try to transcend or is it something you
embrace?
Jaglom: I
embrace it completely. I donÕt
think thereÕs anything problematic about acknowledging ego. No, I think if you look at a little
child - I have two little children - there is nobody more egocentric than
children. And they learn slowly to
hide it and cover it up. And it
doesnÕt mean that you donÕt develop empathy or caring about other people. ThatÕs one of the things I like most
about Venice, Venice, I go into this, what I call Ņgood narcissismÓ as opposed to Ņbad
narcissism.Ó Narcissism that
allows you to start with yourself and then embrace others, rather than
pretending youÕre not involved in yourself and that youÕre only empathetic to
others. I donÕt think that there
is anyone on the planet that thatÕs true of, including Mother Theresa.
Caveh: IÕm
with you here. I am just trying to
understand something for myself really.
There is something in art that can be very elevating. Some art is very elevating. You watch it and you feel attuned to
your higher nature.
Jaglom:
Well, that is not what elevating necessarily isÉtuning into your higher
nature.
Caveh:
WellÉ
Jaglom: If it reflects really clearly the human
condition, like a PicassoÉ You know, itÕs not elevating in the sense thatÉ A
Picasso doesnÕt appeal to your higher nature, it tells you the truth about
human beings. I think art is about
telling the truth about human beings, not appealing to oneÕs higher
nature. ThatÕs religion.
Caveh:
Yeah, I guess it is religion.
Jaglom:
Well, IÕm not a religious person.
Caveh:
Okay, then youÕve answered my question. (They both laugh)
Caveh: You know, I have such mixed feelings about your
films. I find that in most of them
there are things that really bug me, but there are also things that I just
love. Like in EatingÉ
Jaglom:
What bugs you in Eating?
Caveh:
In Eating,
what bugs meÉ
Jaglom: Did
you suggest the self-involvement of the women in there?
Caveh: That
bugs me a little É but I appreciate what youÕre doing. What bugs me is a certain
unattractiveness to the womenÉ
Jaglom:
Yeah, showing that. Well, see, I was attacked by a certain kind of
feministÉ Gloria Steinem warned me about this. Certain feminists would attack me because they think youÕre
not supposed to show all the flaws.
YouÕre not supposed to show, like you say correctly, the unattractivenss
- the neediness, the desperation, the fragility, the fucked-up-ness. The point is, they think youÕre
supposed to show how to get out of it. Well, I donÕt know howÉnobody knows how
to get out of it. I think the
truth is to show people an accurate reflection of themselves and to make them
less isolated, and as I said, letÕs nuts.
So to me itÕs about warts and all.
I think I did that with myself in my own moviesÉ
Caveh:
Yeah, they are very wartyÉ
Jaglom:
(laughs) Very warty. And
Orson [Welles] even warned me on my first one, on AlwaysŃHe said ŅMy God, all this baby
talk with your wife Épeople are going to go crazy, itÕs really going to offend
a lot of people.Ó I said I know
but this is who I am. This
pathetic, needy creature. AndÉwhat
am I going to do, try to show myself to be something else? Or make a joke of it like Woody Allen
and try to be sort of ironic and intellectual about it? It just doesnÕt make sense to me, I
just want to try to tell the truth.
And you know, I swear to God, whatever you think, that is my motivation;
there is no other motivation. And
the truth is messy, and the truth is in many ways unattractive. Many aspects of human behavior, my own
certainly included, are unattractive, and I try not to cover that up for myself
or for the characters in my movies.
And there are women, you know, politically-oriented women, who think
that youÕre not supposed to do that.
And youÕre supposed to just show, like in terms of EatingÉyou saw the documentary about
me, right?
Caveh:
Yeah.
Jaglom:
There was that woman at a football game. They found some women who started screaming ŅHe hates
women.Ó There are women who think because it shows unattractive behaviorÉ but
every woman I know will tell you, privately, or admit it if theyÕre that way
inclined, that that is the way women are when theyÕre alone with each
other. They behave that way, and
IÕm just showing this behavior. I
didnÕt make it up!
Caveh: You
know what it is? ItÕs like, I feel
sometimes embarrassed about being part of the human raceÉ
Jaglom:
Sure. But weÕre fucking
pathetic creaturesÉ
Caveh: I
know but thatÕs the part that is always hard in your films, the part that makes
you feel the mediocrity of existence.
Jaglom: I
totally understand that. And what
is really nice about you is youÕre acknowledging that. A lot of people will instead of
acknowledging just get pissed off.
Because theyÕll try to defend against that part of themselves that
admits that. And theyÕll
pretend that theyÕre not like that, itÕs these people in this movie that are
like that, and thatÕs wrong, thatÕs bullshit because weÕre not like that. Yes, it is unattractive, it is messy,
and it is pathetic. ItÕs also
sweet and human. And as long as
you donÕt hurt other peopleÉ The sweetness for me is that people are just sweet
in their patheticness. And IÕve
always felt the need to try to make people feel that itÕs okay to feel as
pathetic as we really feel, not to try to pose ourselves as some kind of heroic
creatures though we may occasionally be capable of heroic acts. Are you familiar with the Firesign
Theatre?
Caveh:
Yeah.
Jaglom:
They had a record out in the seventies called ŅWe Are All Bozos On This
Bus.Ó For me, thatÕs what making all my films is about. We are all Bozos in this world. WeÕre all just on the same weird
journey.
Caveh: You
are very accepting, much more than most people areÉ
Jaglom:
Yeah, I am accepting, and I know it alienates other people. And again, whatÕs interesting is that
it alienates men more than women.
Because women are much more acceptingÉeven though they are self-critical
as hell, theyÕre much more understanding of human fragility. Men are still pretending. TheyÕre taught to pretend Š ŅBe a big
boy,Ó ŅBe strong,Ó ŅDonÕt go there.Ó
Caveh: That
scene with Gwen Wells in the bathroom is an amazing sceneÉ
Jaglom: But
now look, Gwen Wells was one of my closest friends, was a bulimic, did throw
upÉ and was willingÉ you know how brave that is to show that in a film? She wasnÕt playing a bulimic. Nobody in Eating is playingÉ I got half of those
women from Overeaters Anonymous.
Gwen, by the way, was the one who got me a lot of them. And none of them pretend to be anorexic
who arenÕtÉthey are talking about themselves. And they are just so brave, you know. And thatÕs why I love people from
organizations like AA or OA because those people have learned that the truth is
you get up and tell it, you donÕt try to hide it. You expose it.
You donÕt feel ashamed of it.
You have to embrace who you are.
Gwen is a great example. She was my favorite actress for that reasonÉ
Caveh: She
was great in that filmÉ
Jaglom:
SheÕs amazing. She was
amazing when she was sixteen in A Safe Place.
Caveh: But
when she does that thing about ŅIÕm a bitch.Ó ThatÕs not her, right?
Jaglom:
That is her, yes. She was
very much capable of Éa lot of my women friends in real life hated Gwen. She could be an incredible bitch. And she was a sweet, sweet girl too. And she just wasnÕt scared to show
it. And that is what I look for in
my actors. I really look for
people who are brave about themselves, about revealing the unattractive aspects
of themselves as well as whatever is easy to reveal. GwenÉ thatÕs great that you singled her out, because to me
she was exemplary. She exemplified
the kind of work that I try to do.
Chapter 8 Š In which the meaning of life is addressed
Caveh: WhatÕs your ultimate life goal that you still
want to do?
Jaglom: One of the critics, John Richardson, from Premiere, said that I donÕt want
anything more or less than to capture contemporary reality itself. ThatÕs really my goal and each one of
my films is sort of for me a chapter in some big film novel that I am trying to
write, you know. So itÕs just to
make as many chapters as I can before I become too feeble to be able to do
it. Just to keep making the films
as truthfully as I can. And try to
reflect the time we live in, and my culture, you know, as honestly and as
accurately as I possibly can. And
especially for women, since I consider women so misrepresented on film by
Hollywood, and so overlooked, so fantasized about by the sort of
sixteen-year-old adolescent mind in Hollywood that runs the place. My job is to try to tell women the
truth about their own lives in film, and try to represent that truth back to
them so that they see themselves on film.
As corny as this sounds, I want to make people feel less crazy about
themselves, less alone, less like theyÕre nuts. More like itÕs okay.
WeÕre all going through this thing together somehow and itÕs okay. Not to worry about people telling you
that you are too self-involved, or you shouldnÕt have this eating issue because
people are starving in China, you know.
Whatever the subject is it is important to try and let people know that
they are okay, that their lives are okay and that they should not, in addition
to whatever problems that they have, feel guilt about those problems, that itÕs
all part of who we all are. I just
really honestly want to try to communicate that and keep communicating that. ThatÕs my goal.
After our conversation ended, I was inspired to send
Henry Jaglom an e-mail. Here is
what I wrote:
Dear Henry,
Thanks for taking the
time to answer all my questions, but mostly thanks for being open and
honest. I was a bit worried about
offending you during the interview, and didn't realize until the end that I
could be much more honest than I was. So in the name of greater honesty, I would like to say
a couple more things - First of all, I was kind of disappointed by your DVD
commentary for "Eating."
I felt that you often simply reiterated (or worse, simply described) a
lot of the things that had already been shown or said in the film. I would have loved to know more about
the making of the film, scene to scene.
I would therefore like to cast my vote for a more pre-planned and
filmmaking-oriented DVD commentary for your next film. I've done a couple of DVD commentaries
for my own films, and I know it's a really hard thing to do, but I think it's
important. Secondly, I've had a
very ambivalent relationship with your work mostly because it's really
astonishingly similar to my own films, but different enough that it
occasionally rubs me the wrong way - in the way that only something very close
to one's own concerns can do. You
make certain choices which are radically different than the choices I would
make, which often causes a kind of aversion, but the essential similarity in
terms of project and shared assumptions is really rather astonishing. I kind of wish I had talked to you more
about these specific choices, but again, I was worried about being too critical
in an interview meant primarily to promote your DVD release. But the differences are really far less
striking than the uncanny similarities.
For instance, my first feature film was a re-enactment of a crush I'd
had on an art student in which all of the actual people played themselves. And I've been accused of all of
the same things that you get accused of.
Anyway, it was a pleasure and an
honor to talk with you, and I look forward to continuing the dialogue over the
coming years.
With sincere best wishes,
Caveh
P.S. My question about "trying to
communicate" vs. "self-expression" was really a question about
editing. What do you do when you
think a shot is hilarious, and then you have a test screening and no one else
sees what you think is so funny, but they all think some other moment which you
hate is hilarious? Do you just
ignore them, as I have often done, or do you chalk it up to a loss of
perspective and listen to other people?
I find this a maddening issue, and really am interested in what you have
to say about this. I don't think
I'm always right about what I think is funny, or moving, or effective. But I'm certainly not interested in
making a film by committee either.
Any thoughts?
Henry wrote back:
I screen my movies DOZENS of times in
Rough Cut form and ask everyone invited to tell me every response they have,
especially negative, to make sure they UNDERSTAND my intention, not that they
necessarily like my expression of it...but I AM influence by them in terms of
comedy, I admit, and I HAVE changed things to get the laugh I want
sometimes,,,But on TRACKS there was a scene that I kept in throough 12
screenings because it always got a huge laugh until I finally and painfully
took it out because it was fake and cheap and I couldn't sytand it being there
despite them all LOVING it... Hope that anwers your question...it was fun
talking with you and I NEVER mind criticisma or negative comments, Orson was
always amazed because I carried aroun bad reviews that I loved like People
Magazine saying of one of my films IF THIS MOVIE WERE A HORSE I'D SHOOT IT!
To which I replied:
Dear Henry,
Thanks.
One more question. My
question about ego is really this: isn't art that is more egoless better than
art that has a lot of ego? In the
same way that people with a lot of ego can be annoying and unpleasant to talk
to, and people with less ego are more pleasurable to talk to? I guess I believe that egolessness is
one of the criteria of good art.
Which is why I find your films a bit confounding. Because there's something really
interesting about the ego that is in them, and yet I can't help feeling that
this element diminishes the artistic element. I appreciate the embrace of ego (we're all human, after
all), but I guess I believe in striving to overcome ego, both in life and in
art.
I watched Deja Vu last night and I really
liked it. I really appreciate what
you're saying. But again, I'm
always a bit bothered by the lack of attention to form - you seem to have very
little interest in the language of cinema, which I guess is really the main
thing that keeps me from fully embracing your work. Do you disagree with this, or is form just not something
that interests you? And isn't art
about form?
Sincerely,
Caveh
To which he replied:
SO silly...who had bigger egos than Orson
Welles...or Picasso...or Arthur Miller...or Fellini... or ANy important artist
you can mention...egolessness may be nice for spiritual guides, but those who
accomplish significant things have ALWAYS had the biggest egos imaginable, how
else could they overcome the odds against anyone doing anything and getting it
seen???? This is so commonly
understood that artists are excused all sorts of thiings and behaviour that
others would be taken to task for.....Surely you must know this? Read some
autobiographies, or bigraphies for that matter. of artists you admire and you
won't find a modest or egoless one among them.....
To which I replied:
Dear Henry,
Thanks for responding, but I still feel
like I'm not making myself understood. Maybe I mean something different by the word
"ego" than you do. I
would argue, for instance, that Fellini most definitely did not have a big ego,
in the sense that I'm talking about.
And I don't mean a lack of modesty, or of self-importance. I guess I mean a kind of insensitivity
to the other - a kind of not-seeing.
I think women are generally more egoless than men, in this sense of the
term (well, in both senses, but this is the sense I mean).
As for the form thing, and the
"language" of cinema thing, there are people who write well (to use
an analogy) and people who don't.
And those who write well are more attentive to the form and to the
history of what they're writing than those who don't. Flaubert comes to mind here as a supreme example, or
Joyce. In film, Kubrick, let's say,
pays more attention to form than Ron Howard. His films are better.
And Tarkovsky pays more attention to the language of cinema (which is to
say he thinks about it more deeply) than, say, Richard Donner. And the DVD commentary of
"Eating," is, I'm afraid, not as good as it would have been if you
had put more thought and attention into it. Which is all I'm talking about - the quantity and the quality
of the thought that goes into each artistic decision.
I am interested in spirituality,
it's true, and I honestly believe that spirituality is not unrelated to
art.