Reel.com
May 3, 2000
Anyone who's seen Being John Malkovich can readily assure you it's one of the most risky and original films to emerge from Hollywood in recent memory. And while most critics extended their kudos to debut director/music video auteur Spike Jonze, the film's original genius, screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, has remained largely undetected by the mainstream radar.
|
In this exclusive interview, the humble, admittedly reclusive Kaufman chatted with Reel.com from his Pasadena abode about conceiving Being John Malkovich's odd premise, dismissing Hollywood norms, the screenwriting process, and his slew of upcoming films.
Q: You've been asked this a million times, but I have to ask about your choice to use John Malkovich, of all people, as the focal point for your story. Did you write the script with him in mind, or was his character essentially interchangeable with any actor?
Charlie Kaufman: It's hard because I've been asked that question a lot, and my answer is very vague. I don't like to talk about why [I chose him] because I feel like the movie should be experienced and if [people] like it, they should like it for their own reasons, not for reasons that I suggest. It seems to work for me, and it always did. I was never able to come up with any suitable alternative because there were times when we didn't know if [Malkovich] was going to do it, and we had to think of other people. It just always seemed to be not as good as who we had.
Q: Would you have proceeded if you couldn't get Malkovich?
CK: I think we would have, but I don't know how we would have proceeded. At some point, we talked about hiring someone to play him, which I don't even know if we could do legally. It complicated things that much more in terms of the reality of it so we weren't sure if that would have been a good thing. But yes, I think we would have gone ahead. We were intending to go ahead but we really wanted him.
Q: In one version of your script, there are some scenes that weren't in the film, like the opening montage where Craig (John Cusack) goes to extreme measures to get work as a puppeteer. Whose decision was it to cut out those scenes?
CK: Oh my gosh, you read the first draft. That scene hasn't been in it since '94. The ending of that is entirely different than the movie that came out. The two main differences between the first draft and the movie that was made are the last 20 pages, and that [opening] scene.
I think because of the way Spike wanted to make the movie, he wanted to establish sort of a low-key truth to the characters before he went into the weirdness. So I think that whole sequence with the rubber woman suit and all that was a little much.
Q: That scene really cracked me up.
CK: I liked it too, and I was sorry when we cut it, but now looking at it, I think for the movie that he was making, it was probably good that it went.
Q: Did you ever feel pressured to do any cutting or rewriting?
CK: No. At the time, I didn't really have anything to compare it with because I hadn't worked with the director before. But I think that it was sort of an ideal situation in that it was very collaborative. I think ultimately he had the final say, but I was, in many cases, able to explain my point and convince him to go a certain direction and he was very respectful of the material. But it was a collaboration. No, I never felt that I was beaten down or anything.
Q: Malkovich being his first directorial feature, do you think Jonze was in a similar situation as yours, in that he was learning as he went along?
CK: Yes. I think he was feeling his way. I think it was good for both of us because we are both kind of new to this. I have been a television writer and he has obviously directed videos and commercials. We have both had experience. Had this movie been taken on by [Martin] Scorsese or some very experienced director, it would have been more a lopsided relationship. I don't know, but I'm imagining that it would be, and so I think this was good. We respected each other and we worked as a team, and I think that was helpful to the movie.
Q: In the same sense, were you consulting with the cast on a continual basis?
 |
Q: Do you agree with that adage about writing which maintains "stories are never finished, they're just abandoned"? Now that your story has been committed to film, do you feel like it's finally complete?
CK: No, I would kind of go with what you said earlier about being abandoned. I'm very happy with [the movie] and it's received some real positive responses. The movie is different from what I wrote because it has to be. You've got a director who has got his ideas. You've got actors who bring their character and personality to what they play and you've got a DP (director of photography) and a production designer and it's a collaboration. It's not a novel or a short story where it's just your vision, and in a way that is good. It's kind of nice. I like seeing what Catherine Keener did with Maxine and what Cameron [Diaz] did and what Cusack did. It's surprising and sort of exciting.
Q: I think that the decision to conceal John Malkovich from the first 30 minutes of the film was such a critical one to avoid a potentially gimmicky feel.
CK: Yes. There are other things the movie is about. It was nice, especially before people knew anything about the movie, and we would have tests and screenings and they didn't know what the title meant. They didn't know if it was a documentary about Malkovich. They thought it was going to be a metaphor, or there was going to be some short gag about Malkovich, but then all of a sudden you're looking in a mirror and you are Malkovich basically. The notion that [Malkovich] enters so late in the movie, and playing himself, I thought, was kind of a revelation to people at first.
Q: Malkovich is obviously a difficult movie to put into a genre. Considering the film's overtones of desperation, do you feel Malkovich gets pigeonholed too easily as a "quirky comedy"?
CK: Desperation is a word I've used a lot to describe the characters, so I agree with you. They're very desperate, very lonely, and needy. I think that juggling those two elements is the trick. I don't have a lot of interest in comedies that don't do that.
Q: Do you pay attention to what the critics say?
CK: Sure. I like to read that stuff. I don't like to comment on it, but I like to read it. I see people saying very surprising things, and it's great to have differing opinions. If the movie can do that, and people can say different things about it, I feel like it's somewhat successful.
I don't like the idea of dictating what people ought to think. I can't stand movies that are about teaching people things like how to live better or something. First of all, I 'm not qualified to do that, and second of all, it's like, garbage.
Q: Do you find it superficial to think of a film in terms of genre?
CK: Yes, I wouldn't set out to write anything in a genre. I mean, I kind of set out to do the opposite, usually. So I try to not feel like I'm copying something that has been done before. Sometimes, I've heard people say that you can't classify [Malkovich], and I kind of like that, but I mean, it is a comedy and I think it's funny. So I don't think that's something that I don't want to acknowledge, because I was intending to make it funny, and other things as well.
Q: You have a background in sitcom writing, which in one sense seems to be an antithesis of such an original endeavor like Malkovich. How would you describe the writing process for television as opposed to film?
CK: I wrote it after a show I had been working on was canceled and I was waiting for the hiring season. I was waiting and I was unemployed, so I was doing it for fun. I worked in sitcoms for a number of years, but I don't consider it my training. I consider it like it was a job, a job I was very happy to have because before that, I'd never made any money as a writer so it was an exciting thing.
But I was writing before that, and I didn't aspire to master the sitcom form. While I was working on sitcoms, I wrote a bunch of pilots. Then I had a development deal at Disney for a year. I wrote some weird stuff. People liked it the way that they liked Malkovich but somehow it [Malkovich] was easier. This is probably not everybody's experience, but I think it's easier to get a movie made that is odd than it is to get an odd TV show made. In TV, they're always thinking about syndication. You have to get 100 episodes, and if it's a weird idea, will it sustain for three years or four years? So I got attention, but I never came close to getting anything made.
Q: Moving on to your next project, Human Nature. Was Steven Soderbergh attached to your script at one point?
CK: He had optioned it at one point and was going to make it, then it was about the time he got offered Out of Sight, and he wanted to do that. So he did it and I bought back my option. Then this guy Michael Gondry, who I am working on with on another project, read it and he wanted to make it. So we found a production company and we got the money, so we're making it. We're starting to shoot next week.
Q: Do you think Soderbergh is finished doing atypical topics? Since Schizopolis, he's done a string of genre films.
CK: I heard that he's doing Schizopolis 2. That's what someone told me. I don't know if that's true or not. But he initially read Malkovich and wanted to do it, that's how we met. But Spike was already attached to direct it. Then he read Human Nature and decided to do it, at least for a little while. I think he's very interested in quirky stuff. He's been making good movies. Even within the stuff he's doing, he's having fun.
Q: Would you have liked to have seen Soderbergh take on the project, or are you less concerned with directorial choice as being critical to conveying your story?
CK: Yes, I think it's critical. Because the stuff I write tends to be stylized — the dialogue is stylized — it's fragile and you have to figure out how to play it. The actors have to figure it out and for the director, it's a lot of work. I don't know if you know Michael's work at all, but he's really great, a very visual director. This movie is a different story, a different script, and he is a completely different director than Spike, although Spike loves Michael. The reason I know him is because Spike introduced us.
Q: They both did video work.
CK: They both worked at Propaganda and Spike's been an enormous admirer of Michael's for a long time, so he introduced us. But I mean, his style is completely different than Spike's so this is going to be — in addition to it being a different script and a different feeling — a different movie entirely, which I am excited about. I think it's great to have different people interpret your work, and different people that you respect interpret your work.