When Roger Corman produced his first film, Dwight D. Eisenhower was in his first term as President of the United States, Elvis Presley had just recorded his first single, and Brooklyn still had a Major League Baseball team. A good deal has changed since then (e.g. African Americans can sit anywhere they want on public transportation!), but the public’s need for lurid entertainment is still insatiable. And so Roger Corman keeps churning out the bloody, boob-tastic, and, most importantly, responsibly budgeted goods.
While Corman is largely renowned as a thrifty producer (his autobiography is titled HOW I MADE A HUNDRED MOVIES IN HOLLYWOOD AND NEVER LOST A DIME), this overshadows the fact that, in his prime, he directed a lot of really-good-to-great movies. His series of Edgar Allan Poe films in the early ‘60s are enormously entertaining, with terrific scripts by the great Richard Matheson and memorable performances from the likes of Vincent Price, Ray Milland, and Peter Lorre. And then there are his no-budget sci-fi classics like NOT OF THIS EARTH and X: THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES (featuring another great Milland performance). And let’s not forget the directors and actors who passed through the Corman factory: Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Bogdanovich, Jack Nicholson, Jonathan Demme, Joe Dante, Ron Howard and so many more! This, among other reasons, is why Roger Corman was awarded an honorary Oscar in 2009.
Of course, there’s much more to the story, and that’s why you need to check out Alex Stapleton’s massively entertaining documentary, CORMAN’S WORLD: EXPLOITS OF A HOLLYWOOD REBEL (opening in New York City and Los Angeles this Friday, December 16th). Loaded with amazing anecdotes from most of the above-mentioned filmmakers (including a surprisingly moving bit of candor from Nicholson), Stapleton has assembled an essential overview of one of the most important producers in the history of the medium. If you’re any kind of cinephile, this is a must-see.
Last week, I got to sit down with Corman and discuss his illustrious career. It would take days to cover all of the salient topics, but I only had fifteen minutes, so I was forced to focus on the films I most admire: namely THE ST. VALENTINE’S DAY MASSACRE and MACHINE GUN KELLY. I would’ve brought up THE INTRUDER as well, but it’s prominently featured in Stapleton’s film (as it should be).
Here’s my conversation with a true Hollywood legend…
Beaks: There have been a lot of career summations written or made about you. You’ve written one yourself. But this one feels particularly affectionate. How did you feel after watching it?
Roger Corman: Well, they are interesting. There have been some interviews, a couple of short compilations, and now this more complete documentary. Each one seems to have a slightly different point of view, but I think Alex’s work is really the best. I was very pleased with the documentary.
Beaks: When you first set out to do this, to make films, did you have any idea it’d end up like this? Did you see it heading in the direction it did when you were back making MACHINE GUN KELLY or NOT OF THIS EARTH?
Corman: At the beginning I simply wanted to make films. I started as a writer, and then became a writer-producer, and then became a writer-producer-director, and it sort of grew as I went along. Later on I began to be a little more organized as to the type of films I was making and the way in which I would make them.
Beaks: As you were moving along and you were getting interested in film, who were the filmmakers that really influenced you?
Corman: Surprisingly enough, I would go all the way back to Eisenstein and his picture BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN, particularly the way he shot it and the editing techniques he used. I thought they were wonderful. And the fact that he had done it in the early 1920s was particularly impressive. I used and still use some of the shots I took from him. But then later on, probably some of the American directors like John Ford, Howard Hawkes, Alfred Hitchcock… more specifically I think I learned from them.
Beaks: It’s interesting you mentioned Eisenstein’s editing. When you are making a film quickly, you have to think about which shots you absolutely need.
Corman: Yes, I’ve always done a great deal of preproduction planning - but always knowing that you will never shoot the film exactly the way you planned it. Things come up on the set. Sometimes something you’ve planned doesn’t work and other times you get a better idea, but if you really plan,,, I would say I would shoot eighty percent to ninety percent according to the plan, and then the other ten to twenty percent I would be varying from the plan.
Beaks: It’s addressed in this documentary that a lot of the actors got their start, or a career boost, working for you. Obviously Jack Nicholson owes you a great debt. But I also think of guys like Charles Bronson, who gives what I think is one of his most interesting performances in MACHINE-GUN KELLY. He’s surprisingly vulnerable in that movie. How was he to work with, and why did you cast him?
Corman: Charlie was great to work with. He comes across as this tough guy - which he is as a matter of fact. But he’s also very sensitive. The key to Machine-Gun Kelly’s persona is that, inwardly, he was afraid of what he was doing. He was considered to be the most dangerous man in America, but he had all kinds of inner insecurities, and Charlie was able to bring that out. I’ve always thought it was one of his best performances.
Beaks: It is, I agree. I got to see it on the big screen a few years ago, and it really holds up. You know, you’ve moved around so many different genres. You seemed interested in everything. Was there any rhyme or reason to which genre you would take on, or was just about the story?
Corman: There was a reason for each picture, but it was also I wanted to work in many genres. I didn’t want to be confined to one area, however thinking back I came back to science fiction and horror probably more than any other genre.
Beaks: There are critics who’ve said you are our chief cinematic interpreter of Poe. You have a real affinity for him. What was it about Poe? What drew you to him?
Corman: I had first read THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER as an assignment in high school in an English class, and I just loved the story. So I asked my parents for Christmas for the complete works of Edgar Allen Poe. They were delighted to give it to me; I could have asked for a shotgun or something. (Laughs) I read everything he ever wrote, and I think for me it was the fact that I think Poe was working with the unconscious mind in advance of the time other people were aware of it. I have studied Freud a fare amount, and he of course was working with the unconscious mind. But Freud was working with it from more of a scientific standpoint, while Poe was looking at it from an artistic standpoint.
Beaks: Richard Matheson wrote many of these films. How did you two come together?
Corman: When I decided to THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER, I saw the picture THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN and I thought it was a very good film. I had read some of his science fiction stories, and Jim Nicholson, who was the head of production of American International at that time, discussed various writers. But it turned out that we both liked Dick Matheson’s work, so it was an easy choice.
Beaks: Also in the ‘60s you made what I think is your masterpiece: THE ST. VALENTINE’S DAY MASSACRE. One of the most fascinating things about that film is how the narrator constantly informs us of the fate of each of your characters. We know exactly what’s going to happen to them from early in the film. I can’t think of too many movies that do that. Why did you tell the story in that manner?
Corman: I was trying to make a picture as true to the historical facts as I possibly could. The writer [Howard Browne] had been a reporter in Chicago - not at that time, but a little bit later. He was familiar with all of these events, and every scene in the picture pertaining to the massacre either took place or, we can surmise, probably took place. There were a few other fictional elements, but I was trying to make a semi-documentary.
Beaks: Casting Robards as Capone is interesting. He doesn’t seem like a natural Al Capone, but I think he plays the role wonderfully. I also think Robert De Niro might have copied a little bit of that performance for THE UNTOUCHABLES. But why go with Robards?
Corman: Well, it was very strange. He was not my choice for Al Capone. I said to the studio “I’m doing a gangster picture, but I would like to have classical actors,” because it was Al Capone, the leader of the south side, against Bugs Moran, the leader of the north side. So I said, “I want Orson Welles for Al Capone and Jason Robards for Bugs Moran.” And we cast Jason [as Bugs]. Then the studio came to me and they asked me to come in for a meeting. They said, “Look Roger, this is your first picture at a major studio, and we have to tell you nobody can work with Orson Welles. He has interrupted and disrupted every film he’s ever been hired on as an actor. He tries to take over as director. Don’t subject yourself to these things. Let us move Jason from Bugs Moran to Al Capone, and find somebody else for Bugs.” So we found Ralph Meeker, who was very good for Moran, and Jason was very good for Capone. But I still believe if I had had Orson Welles and Jason [as Bugs] it would have been a better film. But I’m still pleased with the film.
Beaks: It works just fine. So do you think you could have handled Welles? Do you think he would have been that disruptive?
Corman: Well, later, through Peter Bogdanovich, I became friends with Orson and I told him the story. He said, “I would have been great as Al Capone!” Of course it was easier to say in retrospect.
Beaks: (Laughs) One of the really great things in this documentary, which is unexpectedly moving, is Jack Nicholson being moved to at the end of his interview. His affection for you and how he breaks down, it’s a very vulnerable moment and it’s really wonderful to see. He says, “I hope he knows how much people love him.” In your time, you have made so many films: some of them truly work, some maybe not as well. But do you have a sense of the critical appreciation of your work? And what does that mean to you?
Corman: It’s important to me that I have recognition, and I feel like critics have been fair. When my films haven’t been so good, they’ve said so. And when my films have been good, they have treated me well. So I have no complaints about the critical treatment.
Beaks: We see in the documentary that you are still very active. You’re producing and, while not directing in title, it seems like you’re still directing in a way. Do you think you could take one more crack as a director?
Corman: Probably not. The thought has occurred to me occasionally. If there were something that I really wanted to do, I would go back to directing. But I don’t have any burning passion for any one particular subject. If something does come up, I would go back to directing. But the years have pretty much caught up with me, so I’ll continue producing.
CORMAN’S WORLD opens this Friday at the Nuart in Los Angeles and the Village East in New York City. See this movie!
Faithfully submitted,
