TCM documentary on independent filmmakers - Welles, Kubrick, Cassavetes on July 8

[RayKelly]

Turner Classic Movies Turns the Lens Toward the
Fringe of Cinema in EDGE OF OUTSIDE, July 5

New Documentary Features Interviews with Martin Scorsese, Peter Falk, Spike Lee and Others

In a year that saw independent movies taking center stage at the Oscarsâ, Turner Classic Movies (TCM) explores the uncompromising vision, creative spirit and maverick determination of independent filmmakers, both classic and current, in its first fully in-house produced original documentary, EDGE OF OUTSIDE, premiering Wednesday, July 5, at 8 p.m. ET. EDGE OF OUTSIDE kicks off a month-long movie festival dedicated to filmmakers who have worked on the edges of Hollywood. A complete movie schedule is attached.

A tribute to the fight for artistic freedom in American independent cinema, EDGE OF OUTSIDE features original interviews with Martin Scorsese, Peter Falk, Ed Burns, Spike Lee, Henry Jaglom, Arthur Penn, Gena Rowlands and John Sayles as well as friends and crew members who worked with classic filmmakers, including Nicholas Ray, John Cassavetes and Sam Peckinpah. Offering an intimate look at the various issues, creative and personal, financial and emotional, this documentary illustrates the struggles endured by many classic filmmakers to create a personal vision, a vision mirrored by many contemporary directors today. EDGE OF OUTSIDE dispels the notion that an independent film is simply a low-budget film, instead defining the genre by the maverick filmmaker’s ability to infuse his or her films with creative spirit and determination.

The documentary also illustrates the work of several maverick filmmakers including Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, Nicholas Ray, Samuel Fuller, Sam Peckinpah and John Cassavetes. Each of these directors took a different approach to producing films, whether part of the Hollywood studio system or not. Some have been able to survive within the system, others felt it necessary to be on their own and others were banished because of their fierce independence. However, their adamant drive to create a personal vision, despite many obstacles, exemplifies the significant influence they have had on the independent film movement of today.

“Classic films aren’t represented only by box-office blockbusters and Oscar® nominees,” said Tom Karsch, executive vice president and general manager of Turner Classic Movies. “Turner Classic Movies takes pride in recognizing all cinematic accomplishments, no matter how small or large the director or studio, and bringing those triumphs to viewers’ attention.”

EDGE OF OUTSIDE is directed and produced by Shannon Davis, senior vice president of original production for TCM and executive-produced by Chris Merrifield, vice president and creative director of TCM on-air creative.

[Cyberstrike]

Sounds intresting.

[RayKelly]

I received a TCM screener today. I scanned it very quickly to check out the Welles section, which lasted for less than 10 minutes. It contains comments from camerman Gary Graver, director Henry Jaglom and actor Austin Pendleton ("Catch 22"). Very nice, but nothing revelatory for Welles fans.
There is a brief Welles interview clip from the mid 1950s and an even briefer bit from the 1982 BBC interview.
There are flashes of scenes from Lady From Shanghai, Touch of Evil, Citizen Kane and a single close up from Othello.

[ToddBaesen]

Ray:

If you write a fuller review for Edge of Outside for your newspaper can you post the link here?

From the post on the newspage, it sounds like it may be quite a nice documentary...

[Tashman]

Notice too that TCM has picked up a handful of the old Dick Cavett shows. Hopefully this number will expand, because the Welles interview is not among the announced group. Also, Dick Cavett will be on TCM this month in the guest programmer slot. THE THIRD MAN is one of his picks, so he may talk about his encounter(s) with Orson in that setting.

[Ste]

Another Dick Cavett set -- Hollywood Greats -- hits the shelves September 12th; this one does feature Orson.

[Glenn Anders]

Thank you, ste, the new Cavett interviews release looks very interesting.

Another entry in this general area, one that others have probably taken up here, is HOLLYWOOD MAVERICKS (1990), which draws its name, I understand, from Orson Welles' acceptance speech at the AFI Awards ceremony. Similar to the new TCM documentary, EDGE OF OUTSIDE, it features interviews with Martin Scorsese, King Vidor, Peter Bogdanovich, Samuel Fuller, David Lynch, Paul Schrader, among others. They talk of the maverick concept and the influence it has had upon Hollywood. Many mavericks of the past are discussed, from Von Stroheim to Ford. Welles has a prominent position in the conversation.

I have it on Laserdisc, but I don't know if it was ever transferred to DVD.

Glenn

[ToddBaesen]

Glenn:

Since Tony and I are slicing and dicing David Thompson about his theory that KANE was a Welles autobigraphy, let me also point out one of the many factual errors he makes in the otherwise excellent TCM documentary, EDGE OF OUTSIDE. He of course comments inncorrectly about Welles, but thankfully, not in any great detail, but makes the really astounding claim that Stanley Kubrick's movies never really made any money for the studio, but Kubrick was just sort of allowed to make whatever he wanted.

Really, that kind of ludicrous statement is why I find it hard to take anything Thompson comes up with seriously. Kubrick's 2001 was a major hit for MGM making $28 million in 1968 (on a cost of $10 million). And at WB, both Clockwork Orange and The Shining were major hits for that Studio. Only Barry Lyndon, was a B.O. dud, but still did well enough to keep the studio out of Stanley's editing room.

By contrast, Welles never had any film make nearly the kind of money that either 2001, Clockwork, or The Shining made. And the result, as we all know, is that Welles was never allowed control over a studio movie again (after CITIZEN KANE).

[Glenn Anders]

Evil "Man Mountain" Baeson, I have been sent over here after being thrashed by your tag team partner, "Antonio the Magnifico."

Ouch!

I'm afraid, as usual, you have me at a disadvantage because I have not seen EDGE OF OUTSIDE, and so, I cannot really comment. Not knowing what fulminating lies "Evil Dave" rained upon Orson Welles leaves me defenseless.

[Whimper . . .]

I can't imagine what made him say such a foul thing, that Stanley Kubrick's films never made money for Warner Brothers. I don't have his words, and I don't know the context. BUT WHAT MORE TERRIBLE WORDS COULD A MAN UTTER ABOUT SUCH A SACRED SUBJECT!!! MAY THE WROTH OF OUR PRESIDENT'S GOD BE BROUGHT DOWN UPON HIM!!!!

[He deserves to be lying over there, in the corner of the ring, moaning.]

The only thing I can think of is that Evil Dave is very close to Diane Johnson, who lives in San Francisco, and who wrote a screen play on which THE SHINING was based.

I remember, in a long evening presentation of the film by the two a couple of years ago at the SF Castro Theater, she told him (and us in the audience) of the amazingly high-handed and extravagant luxury in which she was kept in England by Kubrick at Warner's expense. He liked her. And if he liked you, there was no wrong you could do. (Should he not like you, and there were many, starting with Studio Heads and lawyers, but going down to players, he replaced or cut you without a moment's notice).

If I recall correctly, she was on the job for better than a year, and she was entirely a novice at screenwriting. He hired her because he liked her first novel, which came out in the late 1970's, The Shadow Knows.

At first, Kubrick proceeded to make her a consultant, mainly a sounding board for late night transatlantic calls on the work of Henry James. Then, he flew her to London, wined her and dined her, while she told him what a lousy writer she thought Stephen King was, what a lousy novel (if a page turner) The Shining was. He agreed with her, and then asked her to write the screen play for the novel. She protested that she had never written a screen play. He said, it didn't matter.

After leasing a house for her, he would send a car for her every morning to make a long drive, in English terms, to his compound, where he taught her, over months and months, all expenses paid, on salary, how to write a screen play at Warner's expense.

[I wonder if that is the job Larry French was up for?]

Ms. Johnson has been telling "Evil Dave" stuff like this for twenty years. (Her screen play for THE SHINING is the only one she has ever sold.)

Knowing nothing about the subject, nor Dave's remarks, my guess is that Diane Johnson estimated for Evil Dave that, from Warner Brothers' standpoint, kachinging the deadly "overhead" for nearly three decades to maintain a complete self-contained unit for himself, his family, and his relatives, and hangers-on, Kubrick lost them money. No matter if most of his films, a few of them undoubted masterpieces, made money, at this yearly overhead expense, a total of five products in thirty years, only two of them real money makers, does not cause a Studio's heart sing.

[THE SHINING, for instance, has made an estimated gross of about $60,000,000 over 25 years. $30,000,000 of that was in rentals. It had an estimated budget of $22,000,000, when it was shot in 1978-79 (an 11 month shoot). Kubrick's production company made five films for Warner Brothers over 30 years. CLOCKWORK ORANGE and THE SHINING made money; the other three, from a Studio's point of view, lost money. EYES WIDE SHUT had an estimated budget of $65,000,0000. It grossed $22,000,000 in its initial weekend, and fell off sharply from there. All the films had substantial costs in expensive alternate versions for altenate markets. I've already related how he completely re-shot the ending of THE SHINING for the American Market after it had run a week in London. You do the pro rata, writing down the overhead. Was Kubrick's contract a good financial deal for Warner's, as their accountants would look at it? You can see that "Evil Dave" may just have a case.]

Kubrick demanded and got the contract Welles had in 1941, and he held on to it. Everyone who ever knew him said that he was a brilliant businessman, and that he spent money like goldwater if something attracted his artistic or intellectual fancy, or it was something someone he liked needed.

So . . . ar-h-h . . . ar-h-h -- in Greco-Roman rules, that's called "The Gut Wrench Defense," Man Mountain" Baeson!

And here's . . . THE KLINCH!

As I said as I finally struck down "Antonio the Magnifico," if you are going to keep fouling my tag team partner, "Evil Dave," I'm going to have you both disqualified for the WWF Literary Title Competition!

"Evil Dave" demands that you spell his name correctly. Look at him over there, clutching his groin! My tag team partner demands that you spell his name correctly.

It's "Evil Dave THOMSON"! Not "ThomPson." Get it?

I hope so. If not, I'm going to complain to Larry French. I might even take it to the top: WWF Commissioner Jeff Wilson.

How can you two misspell "Evil Dave's" name for months like that?

Whoever gave you guys your World Welles Federation Spelling Licenses?!

Okay, I'm going to rest now.

"Baesen doth murder sleep."

Glenn

:p :angry: :p

[Roger Ryan]

Sorry I don't have any figures to back up my claim, but I would say Kubrick probably cut down on expenses by never shooting on location; everything was always shot in and around London after "Spartacus". I don't think keeping one person on the payroll to develop a script is seen as a budgetary extravagance. "Eyes Wide Shut" was definitely a failure box-office wise, but I would have to think that "Full Metal Jacket" was quite successful along with "Dr. Strangelove", "2001", "A Clockwork Orange" and "The Shining".

[Glenn Anders]

Roger: I hope you understand that we are not being totally serious here, but I used Diane Johnson just as an example, and as an explanatory link to David Thomson. [I still have no idea what he is alleged to have said about Kubrick's expenses, during the documentary, EDGE OF OUTSIDE, which I have not seen.] If my memory of her recounting is correct, and if it is valid, the point is that her experience is an example of a profligacy by Kubrick, often commented upon, which went on for thirty years. He collected hefty salaries as Executive Producer, Writer, and Director on all these projects, as well as having relatives on the payroll in various capacities, and he had projects constantly in development over the whole period. I refer to only the Warner Brothers contract, which did not include DR. STRANGELOVE or 2001.

While stressing that the artistic and cultural significance of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE or THE SHINING (at least before he reshot the ending) cannot be measured in monetary terms, I note that Kubrick produced for Warner Brothers five films in 30 years: CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971), BARRY LYNDON (1975), THE SHINING (1980), FULL METAL JACKET (1987), and EYES WIDE SHUT(1999). In Studio terms, especially as we come into the late 1980's, that cannot have been a satisfactory output for a complete, self-contained facility.

As I understand it, he had complete control, in a time of rising costs, guaranteeing only at least an R product. [In the case of CLOCKWORK ORANGE, THE SHINING, FULL METAL JACKET, and EYES WIDE SHUT, he had to do extensive re-shooting to keep the contractual R pledge, and to satisfy certain World markets.] As you can see the space between pictures became ever longer, partly because he went into considerable development on projects that, for one reason or another, were dropped.

FULL METAL JACKET had an estimated budget of $17,000,000, and it grossed $46,000,000, of which, if I read these things correctly, $22,000,000 was in rentals. The opening weekend gross in May 1987 (becoming an all-important figure) was 2.2 million. It does, I agree, not look too bad for Warners, but in terms the bean counters might use, the Studio, using creative accounting, I'm sure, maintained Kubrick, his family, and entourage, in the style they had become accustomed to, for the next 12 years, ending the contract with Kubrick's death and EYES WIDE SHUT, a blind-siding $65,000,000 project, which had to have much added CGI to fulfill the contract R Rating (posthumously), and grossed $22,000,000 in its initial weekend, not good in studio terms for 1999.

I'm certain, too, creative accounting, agreements with the British Exchequer, and U.S. tax deductions took care of a lot of the above. Warner Brothers is not on the street with a tin cup (though they have merged, etc), but the figures make my point. David Thomson, if he said something close to what Todd Baesen reports, might have been able to make a pretty good case for what he is supposed to have said.

Stanley Kubrick was a magnificent White Elephant, the artistic progeny of whom we shall be able to view forever more. A dollar and cents value can never wipe out those assets.

Glenn

[Tony]

Here are some figures for Kubrick's profits and losses::


Movie Name Budget Box Office

Eyes $65,000,000 $55,691,208

Jacket $17,000,000 $46,357,676

Shining $22,000,000 $44,017,374

Lyndon $11,000,000 $20,000,000

Clockwork $2,200,000 $26,589,355

2001 $10,500,000 $56,700,000

Strangelove $1,800,000 $9,164,370

Lolita $2,000,000 $9,250,000

Spartacus $12,000,000 $30,000,000

Paths $954,000 ?

Killing $320,000 ?

Kiss 40,000 ?

Fear $13,000 ?





Total Grosses (U.S. domestic only): $294,358,892 (Figures don't include rentals)

Average Gross $32,706,544

Average Opening Weekend $8,181,936

Unfortunately, I can't find grosses for the first four pictures.

In 1953 Kubrick raised $13,000 from his relatives to finance his first feature length film "Fear and Desire".

And as for "Killer's Kiss": In 1955 he raised $40,000 from friends and relatives and shot his second feature, Killer's Kiss. Kubrick was able to sell the 64 minute film to United Artists for worldwide distribution. UA even made a profit on it, though it mostly played as a second feature.'

"Paths of Glory" was banned in several European countries which hurt it's foreign box office.

"Spartacus: Budget $12,000,000 (estimated)
Gross: $30,000,000 (USA) $60,000,000 (Worldwide, as of 1st January 1998)

It seems "Eyes" lost money, but I don't have rentals, where I'm sure it turned a profit.

[Glenn Anders]

Thank you, Tony, for those figures.

As I stipulated in the beginning, in reply to Todd Baesen's remarks to me, I could not understand what David Thomson meant in EDGE OF OUTSIDE, if he were accurately quoted, about Kubrick's films losing money (because I hadn't seen the doc). The only thing I could figure is that he might have been talking about his contract with Warner Brothers, which covered the last five films he made in his life.

Judging how a Studio pro rates overhead on a film investment, maintaining an enclave for Kubrick and his entourage, paying certain expenses and upkeep, for 30 years, in return for five films might add up to a loss on Warner Brothers' books.

The figures we're both using are notoriously inaccurate.

These are gross figures, not net figures, and Kubrick was notoriously wasteful, one of my main points.

I don't know how CLOCKWORK ORANGE cost so little, using these figures, nor why EYES WIDE SHUT cost so much.

And where would be figured in the abandoned projects, like the pictrure on the Holocaust, for which scripts were written, actors contracted, and whole sets built. All of that costs money.

I'm sure there were M-1 pencils used on both sides of the ledger, and that's where I believe David Thomson might have gotten his conclusion, if Todd Baesen reported him accurately.

That's why I thought Roger had it about right.

Glenn

[Roger Ryan]

Kubrick had the kind of sweetheart deal with Warner Brothers that we all would have liked Welles to have had. WB, specifically Terry Semel and John Calley, wanted to nuture Kubrick because he was an acknowledged genius and it looked good for the studio and didn't really lose them much money since his pictures did pretty well. Much like Columbia Records retaining Bob Dylan even when his albums weren't selling like before. Had he lived, I think Kubrick would have found himself in Woody Allen's shoes once Semel and Calley left WB (by necessity Allen has had to tiptoe around keeping his budgets extremely low and turning out more commercial work to justify his slightly less commercial work - similar to Kubrick & Welles, Allen now films in Europe to avoid interference).

Kubrick was absolutely extravagant in the length of time it would take him to shoot a film, but was he really "notoriously wasteful"? Apart from "Eyes Wide Shut", his budgets for the rest of his films don't seem particularly outrageous. Also, Warner Brothers would tell him "no" on occasion as well, as they did with his proposed "Napoleon" project. When "Barry Lyndon" performed less spectacularly than needed, WB asked him to do a commercial project which is how "The Shining" came about. By the way, I don't recall Kubrick re-shooting a new ending for "The Shining"; I believe there was originally a hospital scene with Danny Lloyd, Shelly Duvall and Barry Nelson that appeared after the death of Jack Nicholson's character that Kubrick removed after the film's premier (he later edited out even more of Anne Jackson's scenes), but no actual reshooting was needed.

I agree that in today's market Kubrick would have met with great indifference, but during his heyday he had the kind of studio benefactors that Welles deserved to have. But, then again, Kubrick's films made more money than Welles' films!

[Glenn Anders]

Roger: I think we are on the same page.

And the more I think about THE SHINING, I must conclude you are correct. Kubrick did not shoot a new ending. He excised the original ending. On the other hand, when Barry Nelson tells Shelly Duvall in the hospital that searchers have not found Jack "on the mountain," it seems at odds with the ending we have.

I like proper denouements, and so, for that and other reasons, I wish he had left THE SHINING be.

Here is my review of the picture, which is a bit of "investigative journalism":

http://www99.epinions.com/content_107498016388

Thank you for the clarification.

Glenn