Frank X. Cross

When I work late, You work late

“There are Three Ways

to Learn Psychology --

Read Greek Myths,

Read Carl Jung, or 

WATCH — 

Watching is Best.”

The Ghost :

And You spent the next 15 Years,

sittin’ on yer ass, 

watching  Television.

Frank X. Cross : 

Check The Records, chump — 

I did some stuff  :

I was a baseball player — 

One Year, 

I hit The Home Run that 

won The Big Game.

The Ghost : 

-- That was The Kid on 

The Courtship of Eddie’s Father.

[ Frank winces in pain. ]

Joss Whedon interviewed by Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo

"We were talking about Work Ethic --

Because Everyone in comparison 

to your output, Joss, and your Work Ethic, 

would appear to be slack and lazy --

Because, y'know, people work very hard, in Life, and they get their pay --

But you seem to be working, like, 

a hundred times harder than anybody else --

J.W. :

"Well, part of that is Smoke and Mirrors, I think, 

but part of it is that I do Love The Work,

and also, I DO Have A Problem,

A Serious Mental Problem :

It's Workaholism, and it's not fun, 

I Don't Do Anything Else --

Other People Have Lives,

and, They're Nice to Their Friends,

and They do all sorts of things that I forget to do in The Morning

(and that also includes Basic Hygiene, but let's not talk about that....) "

I mean, none of my schoolteachers could've told you, that this was going to happen 

(except perhaps my Film Professor) --

It wasn't until I began studying and making Film, and Television, that I discovered that 

That was Why I am Here,

and that was really 

The Only Reason --

So, The Story is -- correct me if I am wrong --

That you had finished the filming for Avengers, 

and you were supposed to have some time off --

like, Time-Off, go away with Your Wife, that kind of thing --

Time Off --

But instead of doing that, in the 2 weeks you actually had, between film and editing, Post-Production and whatever, you actually

made another movie --

Which is 'Much Ado About Nothing'.

Is that actually True...?

Yes -- 

It was, in fact, 

My Wife's idea....

 

Failure of communication is a theme which runs through a number of my films.

  

Venkman : 

•transfixed, fumbling for his walkie-talkie• 

…..Hello, RAY  — come in, RAY —

Dr. Ray Stantz, The Heart 

of The Ghostbusters :

Venkman…!! — Venkman..!! 

I SAW it, I SAW it, I SAW it…!!!!!

Venkman : 

….it’s right HERE — It’s 

LOOKING at Me…

Dr. Ray Stantz, The Heart 

of The Ghostbusters :

He’s an ugly lil’Spud, isn’t he?

Venkman (loses patience) : 

....I Think He can Hear You, Ray --

    Kubrick on The Shining

    An interview with Michel Ciment

    Michel Ciment: In several of your previous films you seem to have had a prior interest in the facts and problems which surround the story -- the nuclear threat, space travel, the relationship between violence and the state -- which led you to Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange. In the case of The Shining, were you attracted first by the subject of ESP, or just by Stephen King's novel?

    Stanley Kubrick: I've always been interested in ESP and the paranormal. In addition to the scientific experiments which have been conducted suggesting that we are just short of conclusive proof of its existence, I'm sure we've all had the experience of opening a book at the exact page we're looking for, or thinking of a friend a moment before they ring on the telephone. But The Shining didn't originate from any particular desire to do a film about this. The manuscript of the novel was sent to me by John Calley, of Warner Bros. I thought it was one of the most ingenious and exciting stories of the genre I had read. It seemed to strike an extraordinary balance between the psychological and the supernatural in such a way as to lead you to think that the supernatural would eventually be explained by the psychological: "Jack must be imagining these things because he's crazy". This allowed you to suspend your doubt of the supernatural until you were so thoroughly into the story that you could accept it almost without noticing.

    Do you think this was an important factor in the success of the novel?

    Yes, I do. It's what I found so particularly clever about the way the novel was written. As the supernatural events occurred you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that the strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady, the ghost of the former caretaker who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the larder door, allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the supernatural. The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really matters.

    Don't you think that today it is in this sort of popular literature that you find strong archetypes, symbolic images which have vanished somehow from the more highbrow literary works?

    Yes, I do, and I think that it's part of their often phenomenal success. There is no doubt that a good story has always mattered, and the great novelists have generally built their work around strong plots. But I've never been able to decide whether the plot is just a way of keeping people's attention while you do everything else, or whether the plot is really more important than anything else, perhaps communicating with us on an unconscious level which affects us in the way that myths once did. I think, in some ways, the conventions of realistic fiction and drama may impose serious limitations on a story. For one thing, if you play by the rules and respect the preparation and pace required to establish realism, it takes a lot longer to make a point than it does, say, in fantasy. At the same time, it is possible that this very work that contributes to a story's realism may weaken its grip on the unconscious. Realism is probably the best way to dramatize argument and ideas. Fantasy may deal best with themes which lie primarily in the unconscious. I think the unconscious appeal of a ghost story, for instance, lies in its promise of immortality. If you can be frightened by a ghost story, then you must accept the possibility that supernatural beings exist. If they do, then there is more than just oblivion waiting beyond the grave.

    This kind of implication is present in much of the fantastic literature.

    I believe fantasy stories at their best serve the same function for us that fairy tales and mythology formerly did. The current popularity of fantasy, particularly in films, suggests that popular culture, at least, isn't getting what it wants from realism. The nineteenth century was the golden age of realistic fiction. The twentieth century may be the golden age of fantasy.

    After Barry Lyndon did you begin work straight away on The Shining?

    When I finished Barry Lyndon I spent most of my time reading. Months went by and I hadn't found anything very exciting. It's intimidating, especially at a time like this, to think of how many books you should read and never will. Because of this, I try to avoid any systematic approach to reading, pursuing instead a random method, one which depends as much on luck and accident as on design. I find this is also the only way to deal with the newspapers and magazines which proliferate in great piles around the house -- some of the most interesting articles turn up on the reverse side of pages I've torn out for something else.

    Did you do research on ESP?

    There really wasn't any research that was necessary to do. The story didn't require any and, since I have always been interested in the topic, I think I was as well informed as I needed to be. I hope that ESP and related psychic phenomena will eventually find general scientific proof of their existence. There are certainly a fair number of scientists who are sufficiently impressed with the evidence to spend their time working in the field. If conclusive proof is ever found it won't be quite as exciting as, say, the discovery of alien intelligence in the universe, but it will definitely be a mind expander. In addition to the great variety of unexplainable psychic experiences we can all probably recount, I think I can see behaviour in animals which strongly suggests something like ESP. I have a long-haired cat, named Polly, who regularly gets knots in her coat which I have to comb or scissor out. She hates this, and on dozens of occasions while I have been stroking her and thinking that the knots have got bad enough to do something about them, she has suddenly dived under the bed before I have made the slightest move to get a comb or scissors. I have obviously considered the possibility that she can tell when I plan to use the comb because of some special way I feel the knots when I have decided to comb them, but I'm quite sure that isn't how she does it. She almost always has knots, and I stroke her innumerable times every day, but it's only when I have actually decided to do something about them that she ever runs away and hides. Ever since I have become aware of this possibility, I am particularly careful not to feel the knots any differently whether or not I think they need combing. But most of the time she still seems to know the difference.

    Who is Diane Johnson who wrote the screenplay with you?

    Diane is an American novelist who has published a number of extremely good novels which have received serious and important attention. I was interested in several of her books and in talking to her about them I was surprised to learn that she was giving a course at the University of California at Berkeley on the Gothic novel. When The Shining came up she seemed to be the ideal collaborator, which, indeed, she proved to be. I had already been working on the treatment of the book, prior to her starting, but I hadn't actually begun the screenplay. With "The Shining," the problem was to extract the essential plot and to re-invent the sections of the story that were weak. The characters needed to be developed a bit differently than they were in the novel. It is in the pruning down phase that the undoing of great novels usually occurs because so much of what is good about them has to do with the fineness of the writing, the insight of the author and often the density of the story. But The Shining was a different matter. Its virtues lay almost entirely in the plot, and it didn't prove to be very much of a problem to adapt it into the screenplay form. Diane and I talked a lot about the book and then we made an outline of the scenes we thought should be included in the film. This list of scenes was shuffled and reshuffled until we thought it was right, and then we began to write. We did several drafts of the screenplay, which was subsequently revised at different stages before and during shooting.

    It is strange that you emphasize the supernatural aspect since one could say that in the film you give a lot of weight to an apparently rational explanation of Jack's behaviour: altitude, claustrophobia, solitude, lack of booze.

    Stephen Crane wrote a story called "The Blue Hotel." In it you quickly learn that the central character is a paranoid. He gets involved in a poker game, decides someone is cheating him, makes an accusation, starts a fight and gets killed. You think the point of the story is that his death was inevitable because a paranoid poker player would ultimately get involved in a fatal gunfight. But, in the end, you find out that the man he accused was actually cheating him. I think The Shining uses a similar kind of psychological misdirection to forestall the realization that the supernatural events are actually happening.

    Why did you change the end and dispense with the destruction of the hotel?

    To be honest, the end of the book seemed a bit hackneyed to me and not very interesting. I wanted an ending which the audience could not anticipate. In the film, they think Hallorann is going to save Wendy and Danny. When he is killed they fear the worst. Surely, they fear, there is no way now for Wendy and Danny to escape. The maze ending may have suggested itself from the animal topiary scenes in the novel. I don't actually remember how the idea first came about.

    Why did the room number switch from 217 in the novel to 237 in the film?

    The exterior of the hotel was filmed at the Timberline Lodge, near Mount Hood, in Oregon. It had a room 217 but no room 237, so the hotel management asked me to change the room number because they were afraid their guests might not want to stay in room 217 after seeing the film. There is, however, a genuinely frightening thing about this hotel which nestles high up on the slopes of Mount Hood. Mount Hood, as it happens, is a dormant volcano, but it has quite recently experienced pre-eruption seismic rumbles similar to the ones that a few months earlier preceded the gigantic eruption of Mount St. Helens, less than sixty miles away. If Mount Hood should ever erupt like Mount St. Helens, then the Timberline Hotel may indeed share the fiery fate of the novel's Overlook Hotel.

    How did you conceive the hotel with your art director, Roy Walker?

    The first step was for Roy to go around America photographing hotels which might be suitable for the story. Then we spent weeks going through his photographs making selections for the different rooms. Using the details in the photographs, our draughtsmen did proper working drawings. From these, small models of all the sets were built. We wanted the hotel to look authentic rather than like a traditionally spooky movie hotel. The hotel's labyrinthine layout and huge rooms, I believed, would alone provide an eerie enough atmosphere. This realistic approach was also followed in the lighting, and in every aspect of the decor it seemed to me that the perfect guide for this approach could be found in Kafka's writing style. His stories are fantastic and allegorical, but his writing is simple and straightforward, almost journalistic. On the other hand, all the films that have been made of his work seem to have ignored this completely, making everything look as weird and dreamlike as possible. The final details for the different rooms of the hotel came from a number of different hotels. The red men's room, for example, where Jack meets Grady, the ghost of the former caretaker, was inspired by a Frank Lloyd Wright men's room in an hotel in Arizona. The models of the different sets were lit, photographed, tinkered with and revised. This process continued, altering and adding elements to each room, until we were all happy with what we had.

    There are similar movie cliches about apparitions.

    From the more convincing accounts I have read of people who have reported seeing ghosts, they were invariably described as being as solid and as real as someone actually standing in the room. The movie convention of the see-through ghost, shrouded in white, seems to exist only in the province of art.

    You have not included the scene from the novel which took place in the elevator, but have only used it for the recurring shot of blood coming out of the doors.

    The length of a movie imposes considerable restrictions on how much story you can put into it, especially if the story is told in a conventional way.

    Which conventions are you referring to?

    The convention of telling the story primarily through a series of dialogue scenes. Most films are really little more than stage plays with more atmosphere and action. I think that the scope and flexibility of movie stories would be greatly enhanced by borrowing something from the structure of silent movies where points that didn't require dialog could be presented by a shot and a title card. Something like: Title: Billy's uncle. Picture: Uncle giving Billy ice cream. In a few seconds, you could introduce Billy's uncle and say something about him without being burdened with a scene. This economy of statement gives silent movies a much greater narrative scope and flexibility than we have today. In my view, there are very few sound films, including those regarded as masterpieces, which could not be presented almost as effectively on the stage, assuming a good set, the same cast and quality of performances. You couldn't do that with a great silent movie.

    But surely you could not put 2001: A Space Odyssey on the stage?

    True enough. I know I've tried to move in this direction in all of my films but never to an extent which has satisfied me. By the way, I should include the best TV commercials along with silent films, as another example of how you might better tell a film story. In thirty seconds, characters are introduced, and sometimes a surprisingly involved situation is set up and resolved.

    When you shoot these scenes which you find theatrical, you do it in a way that emphasizes their ordinariness. The scenes with Ullman or the visit of the doctor in The Shining, like the conference with the astronauts in 2001, are characterized by their social conventions, their mechanical aspect.

    Well, as I've said, in fantasy you want things to have the appearance of being as realistic as possible. People should behave in the mundane way they normally do. You have to be especially careful about this in the scenes which deal with the bizarre or fantastic details of the story.

    You also decided to show few visions and make them very short.

    If Danny had perfect ESP, there could be no story. He would anticipate everything, warn everybody and solve every problem. So his perception of the paranormal must be imperfect and fragmentary. This also happens to be consistent with most of the reports of telepathic experiences. The same applies to Hallorann. One of the ironies in the story is that you have people who can see the past and the future and have telepathic contact, but the telephone and the short-wave radio don't work, and the snowbound mountain roads are impassable. Failure of communication is a theme which runs through a number of my films.

    You use technology a lot but seem to be afraid of it.

    I'm not afraid of technology. I am afraid of aeroplanes. I've been able to avoid flying for some time but, I suppose, if I had to I would. Perhaps it's a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. At one time, I had a pilot's license and 160 hours of solo time on single-engine light aircraft. Unfortunately, all that seemed to do was make me mistrust large airplanes.

    Did you think right away of Jack Nicholson for the role?

    Yes, I did. I believe that Jack is one of the best actors in Hollywood, perhaps on a par with the greatest stars of the past like Spencer Tracy and Jimmy Cagney. I should think that he is on almost everyone's first-choice list for any role which suits him. His work is always interesting, clearly conceived and has the X-factor, magic. Jack is particularly suited for roles which require intelligence. He is an intelligent and literate man, and these are qualities almost impossible to act. In The Shining, you believe he's a writer, failed or otherwise.

    Did the scene where he fights with Shelley Duvall on the stairs require many rehearsals?

    Yes, it did. It was only with the greatest difficulty that Shelley was able to create and sustain for the length of the scene an authentic sense of hysteria. It took her a long time to achieve this and when she did we didn't shoot the scene too many times. I think there were five takes favouring Shelley, and only the last two were really good. When I have to shoot a very large number of takes it's invariably because the actors don't know their lines, or don't know them well enough. An actor can only do one thing at a time, and when he has learned his lines only well enough to say them while he's thinking about them, he will always have trouble as soon as he has to work on the emotions of the scene or find camera marks. In a strong emotional scene, it is always best to be able to shoot in complete takes to allow the actor a continuity of emotion, and it is rare for most actors to reach their peak more than once or twice. There are, occasionally, scenes which benefit from extra takes, but even then, I'm not sure that the early takes aren't just glorified rehearsals with the added adrenalin of film running through the camera. In The Shining, the scene in the ballroom where Jack talks to Lloyd, the sinister apparition of a former bartender, belongs to this category. Jack's performance here is incredibly intricate, with sudden changes of thought and mood -- all grace notes. It's a very difficult scene to do because the emotion flow is so mercurial. It demands knife-edged changes of direction and a tremendous concentration to keep things sharp and economical. In this particular scene Jack produced his best takes near the highest numbers.

    He is just as good when he walks down the corridor making wild movements before meeting the barman.

    I asked Jack to remember the rumpled characters you see lunging down the streets of New York, waving their arms about and hissing to themselves.

    Did you choose Shelley Duvall after seeing her in Three Women?

    I had seen all of her films and greatly admired her work. I think she brought an instantly believable characterization to her part. The novel pictures her as a much more self-reliant and attractive woman, but these qualities make you wonder why she has put up with Jack for so long. Shelley seemed to be exactly the kind of woman that would marry Jack and be stuck with him. The wonderful thing about Shelley is her eccentric quality -- the way she talks, the way she moves, the way her nervous system is put together. I think that most interesting actors have physical eccentricities about them which make their performances more interesting and, if they don't, they work hard to find them.

    How did you find the boy?

    About 5000 boys were interviewed in America over a period of six months. This number eventually narrowed down to five boys who could have played the part. That worked out to about one child in a thousand who could act -- actually not a bad average. The interviews were done in Chicago, Denver and Cincinnati, by my assistant, Leon Vitali, the actor who played the older Lord Bullingdon in Barry Lyndon, and his wife, Kersti. I chose those three cities because I wanted the child to have an accent which would fall somewhere between the way Jack and Shelley speak. The local Warner Bros. office placed newspaper ads inviting parents to make applications with photographs for the part. From the photographs a list was made of the boys who looked right. Leon interviewed everyone in this group, subsequently doing small acting improvisations which he recorded on video tape with those who seemed to have a little something. Further video work was done with the boys who were good. I looked at the tapes.

    Where does Danny Lloyd come from?

    He comes from a small town in Illinois. His father is a railway engineer. Danny was about five-and-a-half when we cast him. We had certain problems shooting with him in England because children are only allowed to work for three hours a day, and may only work a certain number of days in a calendar year. But, fortunately, rehearsal days on which you do not shoot are not counted in this total. So we rehearsed with him one day and shot on the next. I think his performance was wonderful -- everything you could want from the role. He was a terrific boy. He had instinctive taste. He was very smart, very talented and very sensible. His parents, Jim and Ann, were very sensitive to his problems and very supportive, and he had a great time. Danny always knew his lines, and despite the inevitable pampering which occurred on the set, he was always reasonable and well-behaved.

    What did the Steadicam achieve for you in the film?

    The Steadicam allows one man to move the camera any place he can walk -- into small spaces where a dolly won't fit, and up and down staircases. We used an Arriflex BL camera, which is silent and allows you to shoot sound. You can walk or run with the camera, and the Steadicam smooths out any unsteadiness. It's like a magic carpet. The fast, flowing camera movements in the maze would have been impossible to do without the Steadicam. You couldn't lay down dolly tracks without the camera seeing them and, in any case, a dolly couldn't go around the right-angled corners of the maze pathways. Without a Steadicam you could have done your best with the normal hand-held camera but the running movements would have made it extremely unsteady. The only problem with the Steadicam is that it requires training, skill and a certain amount of fitness on the part of the operator. You can't just pick it up and use it. But any good camera operator can do useful work even after a few days' training. He won't be an ace but he'll still be able to do much more than he could without it. I used Garrett Brown as the Steadicam operator. He probably has more experience than anyone with the Steadicam because he also happened to invent it. The camera is mounted on to a spring-loaded arm, which is attached to a frame, which is in turn strapped to the operator's shoulders, chest and hips. This, in effect, makes the camera weightless. The tricky part is that the operator has to control the camera movements in every axis with his wrist. He watches the framing on a very small television monitor which is mounted on his rig. It takes skill while you are walking or running to keep the horizon of the camera frame parallel to the ground, and pan and tilt just using your wrist. A further problem is caused by inertia, which makes it difficult to stop a movement smoothly and exactly where you want it. In order to stop on a predetermined composition you have to anticipate the stop and keep your fingers crossed.

    The Steadicam allowed you to do even more of those long-tracking shots you have done in all your films.

    Most of the hotel set was built as a composite, so that you could go up a flight of stairs, turn down a corridor, travel its length and find your way to still another part of the hotel. It mirrored the kind of camera movements which took place in the maze. In order to fully exploit this layout it was necessary to have moving camera shots without cuts, and of course the Steadicam made that much easier to do.

    In the normal scenes you used dissolves and many camera movements. On the other hand, the paranormal visions are static and the cuts abrupt.

    I don't particularly like dissolves and I try not to use them, but when one scene follows another in the same place, and you want to make it clear that time has passed, a dissolve is often the simplest way to convey this. On the other hand, the paranormal visions are momentary glimpses into the past and the future, and must be short, even abrupt. With respect to the camera movements, I've always liked moving the camera. It's one of the basic elements of film grammar. When you have the means to do it and the set to do it in, it not only adds visual interest but it also permits the actors to work in longer, possibly complete, takes. This makes it easier for them to maintain their concentration and emotional level in the scene.

    Did you always plan to use the helicopter shots of the mountains as the main-title background?

    Yes I did. But the location, in Glacier National Park, Montana, wasn't chosen until very near the end of principal shooting. It was important to establish an ominous mood during Jack's first drive up to the hotel -- the vast isolation and eerie splendour of high mountains, and the narrow, winding roads which would become impassable after heavy snow. In fact, the roads we filmed for the title sequence are closed throughout the winter and only negotiable by tracked vehicles. I sent a second-unit camera crew to Glacier National Park to shoot the title backgrounds but they reported that the place wasn't interesting. When we saw the test shots they sent back we were staggered. It was plain that the location was perfect but the crew had to be replaced. I hired Greg McGillivray, who is noted for his helicopter work, and he spent several weeks filming some of the most beautiful mountain helicopter shots I've seen.

    Did you have all those extras pose for the last shot?

    No, they were in a photograph taken in 1921 which we found in a picture library. I originally planned to use extras, but it proved impossible to make them look as good as the people in the photograph. So I very carefully photographed Jack, matching the angle and the lighting of the 1921 photograph, and shooting him from different distances too, so that his face would be larger and smaller on the negative. This allowed the choice of an image size which when enlarged would match the grain structure in the original photograph. The photograph of Jack's face was then airbrushed in to the main photograph, and I think the result looked perfect. Every face around Jack is an archetype of the period.

    What type of music did you use?

    The title music was based on the Dies Irae theme which has been used by many composers since the Middle Ages. It was re-orchestrated for synthesizer and voices by Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind, who did most of the synthesizer music for A Clockwork Orange. Bartok's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta was used for several other scenes. One composition by Ligeti was used. But most of the music in the film came from the Polish composer Krystof Penderecki. One work titled Jakob's Dream was used in the scene when Jack wakes up from his nightmare, a strange coincidence. Actually there were a number of other coincidences, particularly with names. The character that Jack Nicholson plays is called Jack in the novel. His son is called Danny in the novel and is played by Danny Lloyd. The ghost bartender in the book is called Lloyd.

    What music did you use at the end?

    It is a popular English dance tune of the twenties, "Midnight, the Stars and You", played by Ray Noble's band with an Al Bowly vocal.

    How do you see the character of Hallorann?

    Hallorann is a simple, rustic type who talks about telepathy in a disarmingly unscientific way. His folksy character and naive attempts to explain telepathy to Danny make what he has to say dramatically more acceptable than a standard pseudo-scientific explanation. He and Danny make a good pair.

    The child creates a double to protect himself, whereas his father conjures up beings from the past who are also anticipations of his death.

    A story of the supernatural cannot be taken apart and analysed too closely. The ultimate test of its rationale is whether it is good enough to raise the hairs on the back of your neck. If you submit it to a completely logical and detailed analysis it will eventually appear absurd. In his essay on The Uncanny, Das Unheimliche, Freud said that the uncanny is the only feeling which is more powerfully experienced in art than in life. If the genre required any justification, I should think this alone would serve as its credentials.

    How do you see Danny's evolution?

    Danny has had a frightening and disturbing childhood. Brutalized by his father and haunted by his paranormal visions, he has had to find some psychological mechanism within himself to manage these powerful and dangerous forces. To do this, he creates his imaginary friend, Tony, through whom Danny can rationalise his visions and survive.

    Some people criticized you a few years ago because you were making films that did not deal with the private problems of characters. With Barry Lyndon and now withThe Shining, you seem to be dealing more with personal relationships.

    If this is true it is certainly not as a result of any deliberate effort on my part. There is no useful way to explain how you decide what film to make. In addition to the initial problem of finding an exciting story which fulfills the elusively intangible requirements for a film, you have the added problem of its being sufficiently different from the films you have already done. Obviously the more films you make, the more this choice is narrowed down. If you read a story which someone else has written you have the irreplacable experience of reading it for the first time. This is something which you obviously cannot have if you write an original story. Reading someone else's story for the first time allows you a more accurate judgement of the narrative and helps you to be more objective than you might otherwise be with an original story. Another important thing is that while you're making a film, and you get deeper and deeper into it, you find that in a certain sense you know less and less about it. You get too close to it. When you reach that point, it's essential to rely on your original feelings about the story. Of course, at the same time, because you know so much more about it, you can also make a great many other judgements far better than you could have after the first reading. But, not to put too fine a point on it, you can never again have that first, virginal experience with the plot.

    It seems that you want to achieve a balance between rationality and irrationality, that for you man should acknowledge the presence of irrational forces in him rather than trying to repress them.

    I think we tend to be a bit hypocritical about ourselves. We find it very easy not to see our own faults, and I don't just mean minor faults. I suspect there have been very few people who have done serious wrong who have not rationalized away what they've done, shifting the blame to those they have injured. We are capable of the greatest good and the greatest evil, and the problem is that we often can't distinguish between them when it suits our purpose.

    Failing to understand this leads to some misunderstanding of A Clockwork Orange.

    I have always found it difficult to understand how anyone could decide that the film presented violence sympathetically. I can only explain this as a view which arises from a prejudiced assessment of the film, ignoring everything else in the story but a few scenes. The distinguished film director Luis Bunuel suggested this in a way when he said in the New York Times: 'A Clockwork Orange is my current favourite. I was very predisposed against the film. After seeing it, I realized it is the only movie about what the modern world really means.' A Clockwork Orange has been widely acclaimed throughout the world as an important work of art. I don't believe that anyone really sympathizes with Alex, and there is absolutely no evidence that anyone does. Alex clashes with some authority figures in the story who seem as bad as he is, if not worse in a different way. But this doesn't excuse him. The story is satirical, and it is in the nature of satire to state the opposite of the truth as if it were the truth. I suppose you could misinterpret the film on this count, if you were determined to do so.

    How do you see the main character of Jack in The Shining?

    Jack comes to the hotel psychologically prepared to do its murderous bidding. He doesn't have very much further to go for his anger and frustration to become completely uncontrollable. He is bitter about his failure as a writer. He is married to a woman for whom he has only contempt. He hates his son. In the hotel, at the mercy of its powerful evil, he is quickly ready to fulfill his dark role.

    So you don't regard the apparitions as merely a projection of his mental state?

    For the purposes of telling the story, my view is that the paranormal is genuine. Jack's mental state serves only to prepare him for the murder, and to temporarily mislead the audience.

    And when the film has finished? What then?

    I hope the audience has had a good fright, has believed the film while they were watching it, and retains some sense of it. The ballroom photograph at the very end suggests the reincarnation of Jack.

    You are a person who uses his rationality, who enjoys understanding things, but in2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining you demonstrate the limits of intellectual knowledge. Is this an acknowledgement of what William James called the unexplained residues of human experience?

    Obviously, science-fiction and the supernatural bring you very quickly to the limits of knowledge and rational explanation. But from a dramatic point of view, you must ask yourself: 'If all of this were unquestionably true, how would it really happen?' You can't go much further than that. I like the regions of fantasy where reason is used primarily to undermine incredulity. Reason can take you to the border of these areas, but from there on you can be guided only by your imagination. I think we strain at the limits of reason and enjoy the temporary sense of freedom which we gain by such exercises of our imagination.

    Of course there is a danger that some audiences may misunderstand what you say and think that one can dispense altogether with reason, falling into the clouded mysticism which is currently so popular in America.

    People can misinterpret almost anything so that it coincides with views they already hold. They take from art what they already believe, and I wonder how many people have ever had their views about anything important changed by a work of art?

    Did you have a religious upbringing?

    No, not at all.

    You are a chess-player and I wonder if chess-playing and its logic have parallels with what you are saying?

    First of all, even the greatest International Grandmasters, however deeply they analyse a position, can seldom see to the end of the game. So their decision about each move is partly based on intuition. I was a pretty good chess-player but, of course, not in that class. Before I had anything better to do (making movies) I played in chess tournaments at the Marshall and Manhattan Chess Clubs in New York, and for money in parks and elsewhere. Among a great many other things that chess teaches you is to control the initial excitement you feel when you see something that looks good. It trains you to think before grabbing, and to think just as objectively when you're in trouble. When you're making a film you have to make most of your decisions on the run, and there is a tendency to always shoot from the hip. It takes more discipline than you might imagine to think, even for thirty seconds, in the noisy, confusing, high-pressure atmosphere of a film set. But a few seconds' thought can often prevent a serious mistake being made about something that looks good at first glance. With respect to films, chess is more useful preventing you from making mistakes than giving you ideas. Ideas come spontaneously and the discipline required to evaluate and put them to use tends to be the real work.

    Did you play chess on the set of The Shining as you did on Dr. Strangelove (with George C. Scott) and on 2001?

    I played a few games with Tony Burton, one of the actors in the film. He's a very good chess-player. It was very near the end of the picture and things had gotten to a fairly simple stage. I played quite a lot with George C. Scott during the making of Dr. Strangelove. George is a good player, too, but if I recall correctly he didn't win many games from me. This gave me a certain edge with him on everything else. If you fancy yourself as a good chess-player, you have an inordinate respect for people who can beat you.

    You also used to be a very good photographer. How do you think this helped you as a film-maker?

    There is a much quoted aphorism that when a director dies he becomes a photographer. It's a clever remark but it's a bit glib, and usually comes from the kind of critic who will complain that a film has been too beautifully photographed. Anyway, I started out as a photographer. I worked for Look magazine from the age of seventeen to twenty-one. It was a miraculous break for me to get this job after graduation from high-school. I owe a lot to the then picture editor, Helen O'Brian, and the managing editor, Jack Guenther. This experience was invaluable to me, not only because I learned a lot about photography, but also because it gave me a quick education in how things happened in the world. To have been a professional photographer was obviously a great advantage for me, though not everyone I subsequently worked with thought so. When I was directing Spartacus, Russel Metty, the cameraman, found it very amusing that I picked the camera set-ups myself and told him what I wanted in the way of lighting. When he was in particularly high-spirits, he would crouch behind me as I looked through my viewfinder, holding his Zippo cigarette lighter up to his eye, as if it were a viewfinder. He also volunteered that the top directors just pointed in the direction of the shot, said something like, "Russ, a tight 3-shot," and went back to their trailer.

    What kind of photography were you doing at Look?

    The normal kind of photo-journalism. It was tremendous fun for me at that age but eventually it began to wear thin, especially since my ultimate ambition had always been to make movies. The subject matter of my Look assignments was generally pretty dumb. I would do stories like: "Is an Athlete Stronger Than a Baby?", photographing a college football player emulating the 'cute' positions an 18-month-old child would get into. Occasionally, I had a chance to do an interesting personality story. One of these was about Montgomery Clift, who was at the start of his brilliant career. Photography certainly gave me the first step up to movies. To make a film entirely by yourself, which initially I did, you may not have to know very much about anything else, but you must know about photography.

    Do you have a preference for shooting in a studio or in real locations?

    If the real locations exist, and if it's practical getting your crew there, it is a lot easier and cheaper to work on location. But sometimes going away on location is more expensive than building sets. It costs a lot of money today to keep a crew away from home.

    Why did you do The Killing in a studio?

    Because the sets were fairly cheap to build and the script let you spend a good chunk of time in each of them. Also, at that time, it was much more difficult to shoot in location interiors. There were no neck mikes or radio transmitters, and the cameras were big and the film slow. Things have changed a lot since then. But I remember having an argument at the time with a cameraman who refused to shoot a scene with a 25mm lens, insisting that the lens was too wide-angled to pan or move the camera without distorting everything. Today, people think of a 25mm almost as a normal lens, and a wide-angle lens goes down to 9.8mm, which gives you about a 90x horizontal viewing angle. The Shining could not have had the same lighting if it had been filmed on location, and because of the snow effects it would have been extremely impractical to do it that way. We would have been far too much of a nuisance in a real hotel, and in the case of those which were shut in the winter, they were closed because they really were inaccessible.

    What kind of horror films did you like? Did you see Rosemary's Baby?

    It was one of the best of the genre. I liked The Exorcist too.

    And John Boorman's The Heretic?

    I haven't seen it, but I like his work. Deliverance is an extremely good film. One of the things that amazes me about some directors (not Boorman) who have had great financial successes, is that they seem eager to give up directing to become film moguls. If you care about films, I don't see how you could want someone else to direct for you.

    Perhaps they don't like the actual shooting.

    It's true -- shooting isn't always fun. But if you care about the film it doesn't matter. It's a little like changing your baby's diapers. It is true that while you're filming you are almost always in conflict with someone. Woody Allen, talking about directing Interiors, said that no matter how pleasant and relaxed everything seemed on the surface he felt his actors always resented being told anything. There are actors, however, with whom communication and co-operation is so good that the work really becomes exciting and satisfying. I find writing and editing very enjoyable, and almost completely lacking in this kind of tension.

    Today it is more and more difficult for a film to get its money back. The film rental can be three times the cost of the film.

    Much more than that. Take a film that costs $10 million. Today it's not unusual to spend $8 million on USA advertising, and $4 million on international advertising. On a big film, add $2 million for release-prints. Say there is a 20% studio overhead on the budget; that's $2 million more. Interest on the $10 million production cost, currently at 20% a year, would add an additional $2 million a year, say, for two years -- that's another $4 million. So a $10 million film already costs $30 million. Now you have to get it back. Let's say an actor takes 10% of the gross, and the distributor takes a world-wide average of a 35% distribution fee. To roughly calculate the break-even figure, you have to divide the $30 million by 55%, the percentage left after the actor's 10% and the 35% distribution fee. That comes to $54 million of distributor's film rental. So a $10 million film may not break even, as far as the producer's share of the profits is concerned, until 5.4 times its negative cost. Obviously the actual break-even figure for the distributor is lower since he is taking a 35% distribution fee and has charged overheads.

    But you came to realise very early in your career that if you didn't have the control of the production you couldn't have the artistic freedom.

    There is no doubt that the more legal control you have over things, the less interference you have. This, in itself, doesn't guarantee you're going to get it right, but it gives you your best chance. But the more freedom you have the greater is your responsibility, and this includes the logistical side of film-making. I suppose you could make some kind of military analogy here. Napoleon, about whom I still intend to do a film, personally worked out the laborious arithmetic of the complicated timetables which were necessary for the coordinated arrival on the battlefield of the different elements of his army, which sometimes were scattered all over Europe. His genius on the battlefield might have been of little use if large formations of his army failed to arrive on the day. Of course, I'm not making a serious comparison between the burdens and the genius of L'Empereur and any film director, but the point is that if Napoleon believed it was necessary to go to all that trouble, then a comparative involvement in the logistical side of film-making should be a normal responsibility for any director who wants to ensure he gets what he wants when he wants it. In a more fanciful vein, and perhaps stretching the analogy a bit, I suspect that for Napoleon, his military campaigns provided him with at least all of the excitement and satisfaction of making a film and, equally so, I would imagine everything in between must have seemed pretty dull by comparison. Of course this is not an explanation of the Napoleonic wars, but perhaps it suggests some part of the explanation for Napoleon's apparently irrepressible desire for still one more campaign. What must it be like to realize that you are perhaps the greatest military commander in history, have marshals like Ney, Murat, Davout, the finest army in Europe, and have no place to go and nothing to do? Then, continuing with this by now overstretched analogy, there is the big-budgeted disaster -- the Russian Campaign, in which, from the start, Napoleon ignored the evidence which suggested the campaign would be such a costly disaster. And, finally, before his first exile, after fighting a series of brilliant battles against the Allies' superior numbers, Napoleon still had a final opportunity for compromise, but he over-negotiated, gambled on his military magic, and lost.

    In your screenplay about Napoleon, did you adopt a chronological approach?

    Yes, I did. Napoleon, himself, once remarked what a great novel his life would be. I'm sure he would have said 'movie' if he had known about them. His entire life is the story, and it works perfectly well in the order it happened. It would also be nice to do it as a twenty hour TV series, but there is, as yet, not enough money available in TV to properly budget such a venture. Of course, there is the tremendous problem of the actor to play Napoleon. Al Pacino comes quickly to mind. And there is always the possibility of shooting the twenty episodes in such a way that he would be fifty by the time he got to St. Helena....

    Al, I'm joking! I'm joking! 

Bugger Kafka

David Foster Wallace: Remarks on Kafka

“And it is this, I think, that makes Kafka’s wit inaccessible to children whom our culture has trained to see jokes as entertainment and entertainment as reassurance.

It’s not that students don’t “get” Kafka’s Humour but that we’ve taught them to see humour as something you get — the same way we’ve taught them that a self is something you just have. 

No wonder they cannot appreciate the really central Kafka joke : that the horrific struggle to establish a human self results in a self whose humanity is inseparable from that horrific struggle. That our endless and impossible journey toward Home is in fact our home.

It’s hard to put into words, up at the blackboard, believe me. You can tell them that maybe it’s good they don’t “get” Kafka. You can ask them to imagine his stories as all about a kind of door. To envision us approaching and pounding on this door, increasingly hard, pounding and pounding, not just wanting admission but needing it; we don’t know what it is but we can feel it, this total desperation to enter, pounding and ramming and kicking. That, finally, the door opens … and it opens outward—we’ve been inside what we wanted all along. Das ist komisch.”

1999

"There is nothing up there."

STANTZ :

Hey, where do these stairs go....?

[ Venkman strides purposefully the ruins  of the obliterated corner-penthouse apartment, conducts a visual inspection of the newly-manifested architectural feature and pronounces his finding on the structure. ]

VENKMAN :

They Go Up.

[ And so they do. ]

Sculley's The Skeptic

For Whatever Reason, Ray --

Call it Fate.

Call it Luck. 

Call it Karma --

I Believe that 

Everything Happens for a Reason.

 

I Believe, that We 

Were Destined to get thrown outta 

this dump.

RAY

For what Purpose?

PETER

To go into Business for Ourselves.

Offers RAY a swig from his bottle of 

The Magic Potion That Turns Them into Ghostbusters. 

RAY drinks.

RAY

This ecto-containment system that Spengler and I have in mind is going to require a load of bread to capitalize --

Where are we going to get The Money?

PETER

I don't know.

drinks

I don't know.

Kendrick : 

This girl supposedly has some kinda supernatural powers.

Det. Kate Lockley : 

Really?

Kendrick : 

Come on, Kate. 

Everybody knows you've gone all Scully. 

Any time one of these weird cases crosses anyone's desk, you're always there. 

What's goin' on with you?

Kate Lockley : 

Scully’s The Skeptic.

Kendrick : 

Huh?

Kate Lockley : 

Mulder's The Believer. 

Scully's The Skeptic.

Kendrick : 

Scully's The Chick, right?

Kate Lockley : 

Yes. But she's not 

The One That Wants to Believe.

Kendrick : 

And you wanna believe?

Kate Lockley : 

Oh, I already believe. 

That's The Problem.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Thank merciful God.

The Cavalry's shown up.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I hear you've been worse than usual this morning. 

I didn't think that was possible.

So I've been dispatched as the "Steve Whisperer."

This is a '55 Margaux.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It's 9:00 in the morning.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

This is a '55 Margaux.

Is it my imagination or have you started to dress like me?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It was a bad idea to have Markkula open with quarterly reports.

Instead we should have just dropped water on the audience.

You know, just big 10,000-gallon tanks of cold water, dropped from the ceiling.

Save Mike some money on index cards.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Oh, just relax.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Why?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I don't know --

No one's ever asked me that question.

There you go.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

You're the only one who sees The World the same way I do.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

No one sees The World the same way you do.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I'm like Julius Caesar, John.

I'm surrounded by enemies.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

No, you're not.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

The board...

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Oh, the board. 

The board's behind you.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Only because you see to it they are.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I think it's a good board, 

but if you want me to push them out

one by one, we can talk about that.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I want you to push them out all at once... 

through a window, if it's the nearest exit.

The look on their faces when we showed them the spot --

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I couldn't see their faces, 'cause they were banging their heads on the table.

Yeah, yeah. Yesterday, the day after it airs once, the publisher of Adweek calls it the best commercial of all time.

Of all time! And it is.

And if anyone does one better, it's gonna be Chiat/Day, who the board wanted to replace, and it's gonna be Lee Clow, who the board thought was out of his mind.

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

"1984."

The first glorious anniversary of the information

purification directives.

We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests purveying contradictory thoughts.

Our unification of thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on Earth.

We are one people...

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Did we use skinheads as extras?

A couple of people have told me that.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Yeah.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

We paid skinheads? 

I've got skinheads on my payroll?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

They had a look you wanted.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

The skinheads?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Yeah.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Okay, let's keep that to ourselves.

We shall prevail.

On January 24th, Apple

Computer will introduce Macintosh.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Who else knows?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Who else knows what?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

That we paid terrorists to be in our TV commercial.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

John...

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

They were wrong about the ad, but they're a good board. 

Good People.

Their only problem... 

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Their Problem is that They're People. People. 

The very Nature of People is something to be overcome.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

When I was running Pepsi, we had a lot of success focusing on 18-to-55-year-olds who weren't members of violent hate groups.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I get it.

JOHN SCULLEY,

(Sculley's The Skeptic) :

You're not surrounded by enemies.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

We're almost there.

I'm back and forth on The Dylan.

I might quote a different verse.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

What are The Choices?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

"For The Loser now will be later to win,"

which is what we have.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Mm-hmm. Or?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

"Come mothers and fathers throughout the land and don't criticize what you can't understand.

Your sons and your daughters"...

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

"..are beyond your command."

I just lost a hundred bucks to Andy Hertzfeld.

He said you'd change it to that verse.

We got 45 seconds. 

I want to use it to ask you a question.

Why do people who are adopted feel like they were rejected instead of selected?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

That came out of nowhere.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

"Your sons and your daughters

are beyond your command.

Your old road is rapidly aging."

So go fuck yourself, because my name is Steve Jobs,

and the times, they are a-changin'.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I don't feel rejected.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You're sure?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Very sure.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

'Cause it's not like the baby is born 

and the parents look and say,

"Nah, we're not interested in this one."

On the other hand, someone did choose you.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It's having no control.

You find out you were out of the loop when the most crucial events in your life were set in motion.

As long as you have control.

I don't understand people who give it up.

What inspired Hertzfeld to make that bet?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

He was warning me that being your father figure could be dangerous.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Keep your 100 bucks. 

I'm sticking with the first verse.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Good.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

What the hell does he mean?

Nothing.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I'm proud of you.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Thank you, boss.

It's my pleasure to introduce my friend and the CEO of Apple,

John Sculley.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

John?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Yeah?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Lisa made a painting on the Mac.

******

Six minutes.

You want to see Sculley?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

No.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You know all those times I told you you needed security?

Here's why.

I don't know how it is I've gotten older and you haven't.

Some deal with the devil I was never offered.

So you know what I've been thinking for the last four years?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

As it turns out, John, 

I've never known what you were thinking.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

No newborn baby has control.

Do you know what I'm talking about?

In '84, before the Mac launch. You said...

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Yeah.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You said that being adopted meant you didn't have control.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

We're starting in a minute, so...

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Why do people think I fired you?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It's fine, John. It's all behind us.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Is it? Hmm?

Don't play stupid. 

You can't pull it off.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

You came here to ask me why people think you fired me?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Why do people think I fired you?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Just confirm something for me, okay?

You liked the ad, right?

The commercial... "1984." You liked it.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

When are you gonna get furniture?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It's not an easy process.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

It is. You buy a couch, take it from there.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I'd be really surprised if you came here to talk about interior decorating.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I liked the ad very much.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

You did?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You know I did.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

You're a lying son of a bitch. 

You tried to kill it.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

It's time to take a hard look at the Mac.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It's past time.

It's overpriced. We need to drop it to 1,995.

We need to double the marketing budget, put more bodies on an internal hard drive and invest in FileServer.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Where the hell did you get the idea I tried to kill...

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Lee Clow.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Lee's wrong.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

He's lying?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

He's... mistaken.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Where would the money come from?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It would come from finally getting rid of the Apple II.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

The Apple II is the only thing making money.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

You agreed with the board.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I understood the board's concerns, but I...

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

The board's concerns that we didn't show the product?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Among other things, but my question was...

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

What other things?

I'm asking because I'm curious.

You said "among other things."

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Among other things :

It was set in a dystopian galaxy.

It took place on a planet where we don't live.

It was dark and the opposite of our brand.

And we didn't show the product.

People talked about the ad but most of them didn't know what we were selling.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

The Mac needs to sell for 1,995.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

There is no market research telling us the Mac is failing because it's overpriced.

It's telling us that people don't like it because 

they think it doesn't do anything.

It's closed, end-to-end.

We didn't know it wasn't what people wanted, but it isn't.

They want slots, they want choices, they want options.

The way we buy stereos... mix and match components.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

John, listen to me. 

Whoever said the customer is always right

was, I promise you, a customer.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

It had skinheads in it.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

She was liberating them.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Liberating the skinheads.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

The ad didn't have anything to do with fucking skinheads.

We used them as fucking extras.

Nobody even knows they were skinheads.

I'm just saying the board had concerns...

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

You invented lifestyle advertising.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

And our brand was my brand.

My job is to make a recommendation to the board.

We showed a lot of happy people drinking Pepsi --

We didn't say The World was going to end 

if you bought a Dr. Pepper!

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Recommend that we drop the price and double the marketing budget.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I can't.

And we showed the product.

We showed it being opened, 

we showed it being poured, being consumed.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

What are you gonna do, recommend that we kill the Mac?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I already have, Steve.

What? When?

You think the secret to your success was not assuming people knew what to do with a can of soda?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I didn't kill the ad, Steve! 

I'm the only reason it made it on the air.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Just now. An hour ago.

I'm coming from Markkula's house.

What did he say?

What did he say?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Invent something new.

I'll give you a team. You can sit in Maui.

The resorts come with couches.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Wait a minute. 

Are you saying you recommended terminating the Mac

or you recommended taking me off the Mac team?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

We bought three spots in the Super Bowl. Two 30's and a 60.

After we screened it, the board wanted that money back

and they asked me to sell off the spots.

Chiat/Day sold off the two 30's but not the 60,

and I let it be known to Lee Clow that if he didn't try very

hard to sell the last spot, I wouldn't be unhappy.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

If we drop the price and double the budget...

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Drop the price or double the budget.

The only way to do that is to take money out of the Apple II.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

The Apple II should embarrass you. It embarrasses me.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

It doesn't embarrass the shareholders.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I don't give a shit about the shareholders.

That's why I hired you, so I don't have to hear about shareholders.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

The shareholders are my problem, and the board represents the shareholders.

That's How it Works.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

You sure it wasn't Lee Clow who dragged his feet selling the 60?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

At my direction, Steve.

You think he would have done that on his own, 

taken it on himself?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Yeah. I think he would've done what it took to save it from you.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I was the only thing protecting it.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

You didn't want the ad because you were trying to kill the

Mac two months before it launched.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You are fucking delusional.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Can I mention something to you?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Sure.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I have no earthly idea why you're here.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

The Story of Why and How You Left Apple,

which is quickly becoming mythologized, isn't True.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I'm gonna take this to the board myself.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Don't do that.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I am doing that.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You can't.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Why?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

They believe you're no longer necessary to this company.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I get hate mail, death threats.

I get death threats.

My kids are getting taunted.

Why do people think I fired you?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Joanna's gonna call my name in a second.

Steve?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

That was unrehearsed.

Yeah, I'll be there in just a second.

I gave you your day in court.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You gave me?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I gave the board a clear choice.

I said, 

"Do you want to invest in the Apple

II or the Mac?" 

They chose the Apple II.

The same people who wanted to dump the Super Bowl spot.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

And then I got on a plane to China.

Mr. Sculley. There's a call for you on Line One.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Or I almost got on a plane, because I got a call in the lounge.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Who made that call?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Doesn't matter.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It matters to me. Who made the call?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

John Sculley.

John? If you get on that plane, 

you'll have lost your

job by the time it lands.

Steve's been calling the  board. 

He wants you out.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I left my bags on the plane.

My shit's still somewhere in Beijing.

I took a car back to Cupertino in the middle of the fucking night.

I know what time it is. I need a quorum here in one hour and I want Steve here too.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

You took me off the Mac, and it was bad business.

The quorum call was a homicide.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Right there! Right there.

That's the part that's bullshit, my friend.

It was a suicide.

Because you knew your cards and I showed you mine.

I showed you mine, and you did it anyway.

What did you think I was gonna do?

I'm okay losing, but I'm not gonna forfeit.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I'm not okay losing.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

We're losing market share, and the Mac is losing money.

Our only hope is the Apple II, which is stagnating because of its soon-to-be-obsolete DOS.

Users are already rigging their machines to run with a CP/M operating system that's been built to run on Intel.

I can't put it more simply than this --

We need to put our resources into updating the Apple II.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

By taking resources from the Mac.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

It's failing. That's a fact.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It's overpriced.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

There's no evidence that it's...

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I'm the evidence!

I'm the world's leading expert on the Mac, John. 

What's your resume?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You're issuing contradictory instructions, you're insubordinate, you make people miserable.

Our top engineers are fleeing to Sun, Dell, HP.

Wall Street doesn't know who's driving the bus.

We've lost hundreds of millions in value.

And I'm the CEO of Apple, Steve. 

That's my resume.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

But before that, you sold carbonated sugar water, right?

I sat in a fucking garage with Wozniak 

and invented the future.

Because artists lead and hacks ask for a show of hands.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

All right.

Well, this guy's out of control.

I'm perfectly willing to hand in my resignation tonight, but if you want me to stay, you can't have Steve.

Settle him out.

He can keep a share of stock so he gets our newsletter.

He'll have to sever his connection to Apple.

I'm dead serious. 

I want the secretary to call for a vote.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I fucking dare you.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You have done an outstanding job over the years of cultivating the press.

And by that, I mean manipulating them.

Because none of them, none of their editors, none of their editors' publishers to this day know that you forced it,

that you forced the board.

Even after I told you exactly what they'd do,

which is exactly what they did.

Unanimously.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I don't have any trouble remembering that, John,

because of it being The Worst Night of My Life.

And I forced the vote because

I believed I was right.

I still believe I'm right. And I'm right.

Now, I bled that night.

And I don't bleed.

But time's done its thing, and I really haven't

thought about it in a while.

Now, I absolutely understand why you're upset.

And I want people to know The Truth too.

It's time.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Got it.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You're gonna end me, aren't you?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

You're being ridiculous.

I'm gonna sit center court and watch you do it yourself.

Then I'm gonna order a nice meal with a '55 Margaux and sign some autographs.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Jesus Christ.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

 You want some advice, Pepsi Generation?

Don't send Woz out to slap me around in the press.

Anybody else... you, Markkula, Arthur Rock.

Anyone but Rain Man.

Don't manipulate him like that.

Whatever you may think, 

I'm always gonna protect him.

Come on, Steve.

That's What Men Do.

We can't start late.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Come on in, honey.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

It's not "honey."

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

John.

Get in. Get in. 

Get out of the hall.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I was taken in a side entrance.

I'll go out the same way. No one will see me.

How are you, Joanna?

I'm good, John.

I'm just surprised to see you.

Everyone here really appreciates the quote you gave to Forbes.

You didn't have to do that.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

My pleasure.

If you want, I can slip you in the back once the house lights go out.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

I'm just here to say "good luck."

Okay.

You just have a couple of minutes.

Would you try to find...

Yeah.

You're a good man, John.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

So I brought you a present.

A Newton.

Don't take it out of the box, you'll be able to sell it, 

which is more than I can say.

Everything all right there?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Uh, no...

Just something Joanna pointed out to me.

I missed something so obvious about...

Doesn't matter.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Look, Wall Street's gonna sit back and wait to see how you do as CEO, so don't let any fluctuation bother you for the first 12 months.

Day traders are gonna respond.

I don't need to school you.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

This your way of telling me 

I shouldn't have killed the Newton?

The most efficient animal on the planet is the condor.

The most inefficient animals

on the planet are humans.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Well, you shouldn't have killed it for spite.

That's bad business. Don't do that.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

But a human with a bicycle

becomes the most efficient animal.

And the right computer...

a friendly, easy computer

that isn't an eyesore

but rather sits on your desk with

the beauty of a Tensor lamp...

The right computer will

be a bicycle for the mind.

Do you like it?

I was giving back.

And what if instead of it

being in the right hands,

it was in everyone's hands?

Everyone in the world.

We'd be talking about the most

tectonic shift in the status quo since...

Ever.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I don't know why you've always been interested in my adoption history, but you said it's not like someone

looked at me and gave me back.

But that is what happened.

And you're telling me you have the right computer.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It's called Macintosh.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

A lawyer couple adopted me first, then gave me back after a month.

They changed their mind.

Then my parents adopted me.

My biological mother had stipulated that whoever took me

had to be college-educated, wealthy and Catholic.

Paul and Clara Jobs were none of those things,

so my biological mother wouldn't sign the adoption papers.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

What happened?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

There was a legal battle that went on for a while --

My mother said she refused to love me for the first year.

You know, in case they had to give me back.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You can't refuse to love someone, Steve.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Yeah, it turns out, you can.

What the hell can a one-month-old do that's so bad his parents give him back?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Nothing. There's nothing a one-month-old can do...

Have you ever thought about trying to find your biological father?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I've met my biological father.

For that matter, so have you.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It's called Macintosh.

Mr. Steve Jobs.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Jandali.

Say hello to John Sculley.

Jandali owns the place,

and John's the CEO of Pepsi,

but I'm trying to get him to move to

Cupertino, put a dent in the universe.

You eat vegan as well?

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You're kidding me.

No, I'll eat anything.

Why don't you start off with the Mediterranean

lettuce salad with purslane, mint...

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

My sister found him.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Does he know?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

No. In fact, he bragged to Mona that Steve Jobs comes in

the restaurant all the time.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

You don't want to...

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

No.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Don't you think you should talk to him?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

He'd probably find a reason to sue me.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Oh, Steve...

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

John, if you're here about your legacy, you need to form a line behind Wozniak.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Wozniak's gonna be fine.

I'm the guy who fired Steve Jobs.

Rich, college-educated and Catholic....

Steve? It's time.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I've gotta go.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

Did I do this? Screw it up?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Let's let it go now.

Has to be time.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

Come be our CEO.

Yeah. Okay.

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

It was the stylus, John.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

What?

STEVEN PAUL JOBS :

I killed the Newton because of the stylus.

If you're holding a stylus, you can't use the other five that are attached to your wrist.

Things we could have done together.

JOHN SCULLEY,

CEO of Apple Computer :

God, the things we could've done.....