AN INTERVIEW WITH HAL HARTLEY
By Peter Sobczynski
Over the years, Long Island auteur Hal Hartley has made a name for himself in the world of American independent film with a string of oddball, formally intriguing gems. While he hasn't yet achieved the fame/notoriety of brethren like Steven Soderbergh or Quentin Tarantino, his films (The Unbelievable Truth, Trust, Simple Men, Amateur, Flirt, Henry Fool, and a slew of shorts, many done for European TV) are just as distinctive, thoughtful and flat-out entertaining as any put out during the indie boom of the last 15 years.
On the surface, his latest film No Such Thing looks like a radical departure. Not only is he working on a larger scale (including location shooting in Iceland) and budget (the film was made for MGM/UA, his first studio effort), it includes genuine names both in front of the camera (Sarah Polley, Helen Mirren and Julie Christie) and behind it (it was executive-produced by Francis Coppola and American Zoetrope.) Most intriguingly, No Such Thing finds Hartley working in an identifiable genre, namely the monster movie, to tell his story of a foul, violent, immortal monster (Hartley regular Robert John Burke) in constant pain from the overload of information spewing forth from the modern world and the innocent young woman (Polley) who meets and befriends him, bringing him back to civilization with disastrous consequences.
Surprisingly, even though Hartley is working within strict genre parameters (the story echoes Cocteaus Beauty and the Beast and King Kong, he uses them to make . . . well, a Hal Hartley movie. Fans of his quirky dialogue, unconventional character relationships, distinctive musical scores (which he composes and plays) and lovely, deceptively simple-looking visual strategies should find No Such Thing a logical continuation of his work to date. In terms of scale, Hartley may have bought up but it is clear that he hasnt sold out.
Peter Sobczysnki: Was there a particular turning point—a specific film or director—that turned you on to filmmaking or did your interest gradually evolve?
Hal Hartley: I went to art school in the late 1970s and was studying graphic design. I took a course in filmmaking as an elective-Super 8, fairly experimental filmmaking-and I grew very excited by it. It seemed a natural extension of the interests I had in both graphic art and music.
Turning to No Such Thing, what was the initial inspiration that led to the film?
I had an aspiration to make a monster movie for many years but I hadn't really given it any serious thought. I had a clear idea in my head of what the monster would be like but not what the story would be. Then my friend in Iceland Fridrik Fridriksson, who is a producer, suggested I come to Iceland and make a movie. I spent some time there and let myself be impressed by the landscape and the folklore/mythology. Their myths have a lot of monsters in them so this Iceland movie seemed to be a shoo-in for the monster idea that I had.
What was it about the monster-movie genre that attracted you? Was it a genuine fascination with the genre or was it the idea of doing something new in that context?
I think it was the second. I like monster movies and, to a certain extent, they tend to be what you have to do if you want to talk about our normal humanity in a direct way. It's funny but you have to be more fantastic to talk about reality, like Godzilla.
While No Such Thing is superficially a very different film from your previous works in terms of genre, it definitely explores themes and ideas similar to you earlier films-the relationship between the mysterious, possibly violent stranger and the misunderstood innocent has been a touchstone in most of your films, especially The Unbelievable Truth and Henry Fool. Was this a conscious decision or did it evolve as the story took shape?
I'm always pretty conscious of that. It never felt to me like it was not part of a piece of the rest of my body of work. It was a different genre and I was excited about pouring my preoccupations into a genre as specific as the monster movie. I wanted to do what monster movies do but also treat the subject matter that I always try to treat.
Can you talk about your conception of The Monster and how he evolved, not just his look but in terms of character and behavior?
The idea started with the notion of somebody being immortal-they couldn't die even if they wanted to. I found that very thought-provoking; its a sad thing. Then if you factor in that he cannot die but that he can absorb all the pain that you can give him made it even sadder and more dramatic. That was pretty much where it came from and then I had to dream up what it is that causes the pain. Since I wanted the film to ultimately be about us and the world we live in, I just came across that term that everyone uses to describe our life and culture-the information age. So I decided that it was information that hurt him and it took off from there.
At what point did Francis Coppola and American Zoetrope become involved with the film?
I had actually called Francis' company to get recommendations for special-effects-makeup people. We had spoken a couple years before on the phone a few times though we had never met and he had said that if I ever needed information on anything, I should give him a call. I liked the makeup that they used on Gary Oldman in Dracula and called Francis' company. He got on the phone eventually and said, "By the way, I have to make all these films for MGM and the films that you make should be included. What are you doing?" I told him I was making a monster movie in Iceland and it went from there.
This is the first time you have worked with a major studio and a big behind-the-scenes person like Coppola. Coming from the world of truly independent filmmaking, what are the advantages and disadvantages, besides the obvious, of such an arrangement?
Well, I guess the advantages were that the film would have the promise of a larger release right from the start. There was a little bit more money, not much. The disadvantages for me is that it was a big operation. There is more money but more lawyers and more people to explain things to so the process is much slower. You never know exactly how much money you have on any given day, which is something I am not used to. There is a lot of mystery.
You've worked with Robert Burke several times throughout your career. Did you have him in mind to play The Monster right from the start?
I hadn't had anyone in mind. Bob's a friend of mine and I talk to him a lot and after a while it just became obvious. He has a lot of experience working with heavy-duty makeup and has a reputation as a good actor who is willing to do such makeup. A lot of very good actors just can't put up with it. He is very knowledgeable about it and had a lot to do with the design of it. He worked very close with Mark Rappaport in designing to look of the Monster.
No Such Thing also has a higher-profile cast than you normally utilize-people like Sarah Polley and Helen Mirren and one authentic screen legend in Julie Christie.
It turned out to be very straight-ahead and not different from working with other people that I know better. Except that it takes a day or so to get over the realization that you are working with this legend, both Helen and Julie. Once we got down to work, it was very straight-forward.
In previous roles, Sarah Polley has played very determined, straightforward characters. What was it about her that made you see her as the more sweet and innocent Beatrice?
The most obvious things are that she was the right age, she was pretty and she was a good actress. The other thing was that I did, in fact, need some as intelligent and aggressively non-confrontational as she is in order to understand Beatrice and her journey. She is innocent in the right way-she isn't naive, she just doesnt have anything to prove and her heart and mind are in the right place. Sarah was able to see that very clearly in the script stage.
What was shooting in Iceland like? Does working in a radically different location affect the way in which you shoot a film?
This was the first time I ever felt like I was making a landscape film. It's pretty rugged and the weather changes a lot-it is always cold or rainy. I found myself making pictures in a different way; pictures that ran longer-longer takes-and wider. I was trying to figure out the right way of making pictures that showed the people and the environment. I found myself finding a much greater joy in just showing people going from one place to another-putting people on horses and letting them ride. I haven't really made shots like that before in my films.
It seems that your vision of the world has gotten progressively darker over the course of your career. The view of New York is especially bleak with the city under constant terrorist attack and the notion of lower Manhattan being sold to a Hollywood studio.
I dont see it like that. I see my films as very optimistic and positive. It is just that I am a realist. You look at the world and it is what it is. It doesnt have to be that and people dont have to define themselves by the state of the world. I think that is the thought that my films have tried to drum.
Were there any qualms from the studio about the notion of New York under daily siege in the wake of 9/11?
There was a question about it at the studio. There was some concern but I really admire them for not tampering with the film.
Another recurring motif in your work that appears here is your ambiguous approach to endings; it is even commented on explicitly in the film when Beatrice is told flat-out that she will never know what really happened to the Monster.
I think it keeps the movie alive for people who see it when they leave the theater or turn off the TV. It lives with them longer and they are still involved. Asking questions and wondering about them is a way of keeping them involved.
With this film and Henry Fool, your work has gradually been increasing in terms of size and scope. Do you see yourself expanding further in that direction or is this as large as you plan to go?
Well, every film is a different situation. Henry Fool was, in fact, the smallest film I'd made since Trust in terms of budget level and shooting schedule. This film was originally intended to be much smaller until Francis got involved and it got bigger in certain ways. I always try to get as much money as I can with the greatest freedom of moviemaking.
In the break between Henry Fool and No Such Thing, you did several things for European TV (most notably The Book of Life) and you also wrote your first play, "Soon." What was the experience like writing for the stage as opposed to the screen?
It was very different. I guess that the difference is that when I writing for the stage, I dont imagine what is happening on the stage. When I write a film, I am imagining what I am going to see and how I am going to see it. With this piece, I just wrote text-conversations, diatribes, quotations-and I allow myself to invent how it is going to be manifested when we get to the stage itself.
As someone whose films usually require critical support to get the word out on them, what are your views on film criticism today? Do you find it personally valuable—do you read your own reviews?
I'm kind of casual towards it. It is important because I am always in the middle of raising money for another film so a good review helps. I don't really dig into them, good or bad. I listen to what other people say. Sometimes I do, I just sit down with the paper and read them. I remember having a particularly horrible review in the Village Voice when Amateur came out. I was a teacher at the time for a couple of weeks at the school I went to and it was perfectly appropriate and just what the students needed. I just read this horrifying review to them to let them know how tough they were going to have to be to get through this business. You have to learn to let it wash off of you.
In general, in what ways do you think that you have changed and evolved as a filmmaker over the course of your career?
I think I'm moving, and it might not be so obvious in this particular film, further away from dialogue-driven films. I find myself much more interested in conveying a story through physical action instead of dialogue.
To date, only a couple of your films have appeared on DVD (The Unbelievable Truth and The Book of Life) Any word on releases for your other films and, if so, do you have any plans to contribute deleted scenes, commentaries, etc...
I believe that Henry Fool and Amateur are coming out in early spring of 2003. We are investigating the situation for Trust and Simple Men right now, so I don't know about those. I probably won't do commentaries because I can't stand those things, but they will probably contain some sort of interview.
In general, when people go to see your films, what do you hope that they take from them in the end?
I hope they leave thinking and discussing things with themselves. I hope that the movies jog their habits of thinking and feeling, even if it is only for a half-hour or so.