The next three hours flew by.
His first comment was; 'this is a place to fail, and don't be afraid to fail, you must try things out'
After a look at one of the stronger cycle film we then went on to look at narrative through an analysis of 'Dog Day Afternoon' for which he won his Oscar.
'Dog Day Afternoon' was inspired by a true story. IMDB states:
Based on the real-life story of John Wojtowicz, who attempted to rob a Chase Manhattan bank branch in Flatbush, Brooklyn, New York on 22 August 1972. He and Salvatore Naturile held nine bank employees hostage for over 14 hours. Wojtowicz was trying to get money for his lover, Ernest Aron, to have a sex change operation. Naturale was killed in the standoff and Wojtowicz received 20 years in a federal penitentiary. Wojtowicz was paid $7,500 plus one percent of the net movie profits for the movie rights for his story. He gave $2,500 to Aron to have the operation. Aron had the surgery and changed her name to Liz Eden. She died of AIDS in 1987. Wojtowicz was released from prison after serving seven years.
Frank added that how the story broke was unique at the time. NY was gripped by summer heat. A news station picked up teh story and used for the first time an outside broadcast unit and were even able to speak to the robbers and hostages in the bank. The story strated to grab the nations interest attracting a large crowd. When the 'homosexuality' side of the situation broke it resulted in increased interest and tension.
Well after the incident, Al Pacino's managers realised that John Wojtowicz had a remarkable similarity to Al himself. So they bought up the rights, purchasing a 'life magazine' article and testaments from friends, family and witnesses. Warner Brothers were approached and though not keen on the story agreed to develop it, Al Pacino was coming off the Godfather and was hot at the time.
Frank Pierson was then contacted - why? Unsure - perhaps he was cheap?
The funny thing is John Wojtowicz is now out of prison and claims that teh film is absolutely faithful to what happened. Frank said that this is definitely not the case! He had to mine the story and restructure for dramatic intent.
So Frank researched, interviewed, analysed testaments etc looking for an organizing principle for the story. If interest was the psycho dynamics within the bank. Stockholm syndrome, whereby hostages bond with their captors, was a new concept which he found interesting.
Frank was stuck though, he couldn't get a handle on John Wojtowicz and John refused to meet him. Almost considered uitting the project. Went through the papers one last time and distilled the threads. What came out was twofold:
1 - everyone thought John was a wonderful man - loving and caring
2 - at the same time they were all angry with him
In essence they all felt 'betrayed' - as he seemed to promise one thing and left them unfulfilled.
So here was his character - a man who was always trying to take care of people and always failing. Resluting in anger and rejection.
When finally Frank was asked by Sidney Lumet what the film was about he said:
'Its about a guy who thinks he is a wizard and can fulfill everyone's dreams but fails and end in rejection'
So what else came out of the talk:
Movie making is about problem solving.
People lie/conceal their true emotions. Mostly around our emotions we are very careful with what we say. We don't want to reveal too much and be hurt.
So finally the script was ready. Frank flew to London, met Lumet, Pacino etc. Al finally read the script and said no he didn't want to do it. So they sent it to Dustin Hoffman who agreed, at which point Al said OK again. Interestingly Hoffman wanted Bob Rafelson to direct.
OK so it was all go. Lumet had to finish a film and then they would be up and running. It seemed that nothing need to change, the script was good to go.
The casting started. The role of Sal went to John Cazale, now when Frank wrote the script he envisaged a cherubic innocent to play Sal so that when it gets close to the wire and Sal effectively says 'I'll kill the hostages' Al Pacinos character knows he has hit moral bankruptcy by corrupting an innocent. So they started to look for a suitable character but nobody came up to scratch. The thing is John Cazale brought a different edge to the film which wasn't there - he came across as edgy and unpredictable, dangerous and neurotic which added threat and jeopardy to the story. You win and you loose.
OK so a three week rehearsal started and Frank expeected to pop down and see what was going on half way through. Well on the second they ask him to come to NY. They needed a rewrite, not a few changes or a polish. Al Pacino wanted off the film and it looked as though they would have to offer it to Dustin Hoffman again.
Al sat down with Frank and asked the question: during all the difficult moments in your life, divorces, break ups, leaving someone did the subject of sex ever come up? He had to say no. Up until this point the script was full of innuendo and sexuality - all researched and from sources including John's transexual lover. When Frank reflected he suddenly realised what a major insite Al had come up with and with hindsight it was a stroke of genius and probably makes the film still stand today. It could almost have been a pastiche and possibly offensive.
So Frank took the script apart and looked to rewrite some of the major emotional moments. It improved no end.
One of the key moments was between Al and his transsexual wife. Frank wrote two rants out, one for each of them. They then improved the scene, bouncing back from rant to improv. Frank used the 15 minuts transcriptions and sculpted the dialogue from them.
Th original Warner title for the film was teh 'Boys in the Bank' which had a clearly camp overtone! Franks title was Dog Day Afternoons - which is a time during August when the Dogstar can be seen in New York - nobody liked the title but nobody could come up with anything better!
OK so we went on to look at a number of scenes.
First the opening - which to Frank is pivotal and sets up in the audience the tone and style of what they are going to watch for the next two hours.
When Frank is writing he is looking for scenes which are inevitable and mean that the character cannot go back - everything is set in motion. In the case of Sonny its his decision to let a hostage go to the bathroom which means that the Police have time to get in place - so his kindness gets him into trouble. So you want the characters personality to get himself into trouble - you set up teh barriers to cross.
Also it's important to set up chracters so you don't forget them. So in the case of Sonny's female wife - she is on a rant, it's memorable!
Comedy works well when its invested in pain. Look at the moment when Sonny talks to his female wife after he has spoken to his male wife - it's funny and get painful.
One final thing. Frank mentioned the moral duty of a writer. The film was screened in the prison where John Wojtowicz was serving time. There is a scene in the film when an FBI agent gets into the bank and as he leaves he says to Sonny he will be OK but Sal they will have to watch out for. Sonny doesn't tell Sal. So the guys in the joint thought that John had split on Sal and so twice tried to kill him. He then spent the next 18 months in solitary for his own saftety. When Frank heard this he was shocked as this was a made up scene to add tension and jeopardy. He found out that the prisoners ha started a paper and so contacted trhe editor and asked if he wanted an interview on how writers adapt true stories. He went on to explain the scene and John was subsequently allowed to serve out the remains of his sentence with the prison population. So 'beware what you do. As creators there are consequence to our art.'
No comments:
Post a Comment