Jack Nicholson Interview - Part 7

by Peter Bogdanovich

from Suddeutsche Zeitung Magazin

It’s a better way to do a remake.  
Well, it would be a different way. I’m not going to resist the inevitable - but I like going off on something fresh and new and different. I don’t have to stamp it, “Ooh, this is different.” I feel comfortable when I know this is something I want to do for a specific reason, that I haven’t done.  
 
Do you have a favorite movie that you did?  
Not really. I have stock answers, of course: The ones I did myself, where I was in charge, whatever the tragic result might be.  
 
You mean like Goin’ South. [1978] or The Two Jakes. [1990]?  
Yeah, right.  
 
How was it working with Marlon [Brando on The Missouri Breaks.]?  
First of all, he lived out in the wilds. Marlon is a nature boy. He lived out on a river away from the whole company - he went in the river, swam with horses, he did all the things that he really enjoyed as part of his solitude. And we were a good gang. It was one of my great gangs, Missouri Breaks., Snake and Harry Dean [Stanton] , and Randy [Quaid] - all people that I liked very much. And toughies. If you’re doing a tough character, you gotta be tough, you can’t take anything for granted. I may like you but I may find it absolutely necessary to destroy you and know exactly how to do it and do it that way. Well, these actors, they were all toughies. They were doing their stuff. And good actors. I know Marlon had a good time on Missouri Breaks., which he never admits about the acting situation. He came down, he sang for the actors. At night I went home.  
 
How did you like [director] Arthur Penn?  
He knew my Westerns before Easy Rider.. I had brief talks with him about the Western and, of course, respected his work. He had to find me, I had to find him. He was totally supportive. You cannot doubt the man’s integrity. I liked Arthur’s work before, during and after. Of course, there were certain things that I might have made a different decision. Like all frontier women have to be unnaturally unattractive as a cliché of a certain kind of grainy Western - I don’t always agree with that. Why is this a requirement of the film? I don’t agree with the basic premise.  
 
In fact, I quite disagree with it. Sometimes you just say, “Hey, I want a babe in there.” He was very relaxed. Look at the unorthodoxy of Marlon’s performance. I had discussions with Arthur all the way through. He’s a very open man. I had creative disagreements with him about editing of the movie. I would still possibly disagree with him today if we had this discussion, I don’t know. That’s the art form and that’s the way it is.  
 
Throughout your career, you’ve taken projects that are, on the face of it, not commercial. Whether it’s A Safe Place. [1971] or King of Marvin Gardens . [1972], or the Antonioni picture [The Passenger.]. When you read it you’ve gotta say, “Well, I don’t know if this is going to do any business.” How do you make the decision?  
King of Marvin Gardens. was a part of the dialogue between Bert and I and BBS. I thought I had good intuitions about business and things and talking with Bert as well, here’s the moment I got in the picture. I looked at him and asked, “Well, Bert, are you telling me you expect me to do the movie for nothing?” And he just looked me in the eye and said, “Yes.” The nature of our collaboration was, “Oh, okay, fine.” I don’t know that Bob [Rafelson] wanted me to play that part particularly, really.  
 
Really?  
Well, it was like, [Bruce] Dern’s part, at that moment certainly, would seem more in line. I certainly would be intrigued in trying to play that part in that movie in that cast. And enjoyed it. I still was improvising a lot in those days. Bob liked it when I did. A Safe Place.- the same thing. There I go in, “Will you do something with Henry [Jaglom].” “Yeah, okay.” You know, Henry doesn’t necessarily write out his movies the way other people do. So that literally, I’m in there for this - I believe it was one day’s work - it may have been two. Henry is a friend of mine. [“Do this, Orson’s in the movie.”] Well, right up till I’m there in New York in the morning made up, I’m still trying to find out what is the part? What am I supposed to be doing here.  
 
I wouldn’t do this today, as you know, neither would you. But we had a very loose feeling, it was only minutes before I was to shoot that I had any idea what the part that I was here to play was. Henry told me, as I remember, “Well, here’s the part. The main character, Tuesday Weld, you’re going to relate to is here and in the section you’re in, I’ve got to get her to here. You’re her boyfriend.” I remember going behind a flat, laying down next to the cables, and thinking, “Okay, well, this is fully improvisational. I was tuned up to that at that time. I’ll just do it with the facts that I have.  
 
So it was completely improvised.  
Totally. So that’s a different thing.  
 
You mentioned the Antonioni picture.  
The Antonioni picture is more like what you’re actually talking about. Which is: There are movies that you do where they don’t look, on the face of them certainly, mainline commercial. But that you see and hope there’s something in it that gives us a shot at that - an off-the-wall shot. And I felt there’s an honest opportunity for this to be, in some form or another, a successful venture, other than be a beautiful picture. That’s the first criteria - to be a beautiful picture.

That is the first criteria for you?  
Yes - it’s going to be a beautiful picture. And that you can’t know, but you trust. Later on, for instance, when I had a conversation about Ironweed [1987]: Jazz will never gross as much as rock and roll. Nobody’s going to change that. Ironweed. is extremely literate. “ Look, I’d love to play the part,” I told the people. “At this moment, I do not desire to change my deal, my pay-scale. In all honesty - I don’t know that this picture will support my involvement or if that would be a good decision on your behalf.” Once they said, “No, we feel it’s a proper investment,” once they’ve said that, then yeah, I’m backed, of course I want to play the part.  
 
I’ve already told you - I don’t know, no one could know - how commercial it is. At any time, if you went to a money situation and said, “I want to make a movie about the expiation of sin,” somebody’s not going to say, “What a great idea!” You have to know what you know. Sometimes, like in that case, I had to be perfectly open-handed, because I feel obligated in every way. It’s not chickenfeed to make a movie. And it is one of my favorite movies. And frankly, I never heard any complaints about it. I think it did okay. Same was true with About Schmidt. [2002] - same kind of situation. A businessman really had to make his decision clearly not knowing to make that picture or not. I always felt that it had potential - and it did - it made some money.  
 
It got wonderful notices too.  
Yeah. Most of those kind of pictures - jazz or rock and roll - you feel better about the notices. You know, people just for a valiant effort, will support a picture.  
 
Then you do something more commercial like Batman.  
Yeah, which I considered an artistic commitment. I wanted to see this movie in a certain way. I hadn’t worked in what actors call “en masque - “ You’re wearing a mask. Acting in a mask feels very liberating. You’re not quite as exposed. You know what I mean? It’s liberating in that way. That was one of the books Jeff Corey recommended to us: “Masks or Faces.” Deals with this.  
 
In the Greek theater, they all wore masks.  
It’s one of the reasons I like Robert Wilson’s work in the theater. I went down and saw his and Tom Waites’ production - it was downtown here a while ago. Very stylized in that sense. This was more like an actor’s decision. I don’t know as a movie maker if an actor’s always making the right decisions. Is it right? The man wants to work “en masque.” And I had very high commercial expectations - that was no small part of it. It was a picture that couldn’t get made for seven years.  
 
But you had a feeling it would do very well.  
Very big. Yes. It’s one of those cases where, “Okay, I sense how you feel - I feel differently - I’ll take that position. I’ll accept the rewards for what I consider a very smart gamble.”  
 
You mean you took less money and a bigger piece?  
I emphasized being rewarded for what I believe was a safely predictable success.  
 
You were certainly right about that.  
So were they. And I could have been wrong, too. It wouldn’t have destroyed me. I could have been shit in a mask. I might have suffocated everybody in the room. It happened to be my favorite comic book character. I loved comic books as a kid. I told Tim [Burton] when we first met, “Don’t do this thing too bright. I’m a fan of Batman - it takes place at night.” He agreed completely. It was a meeting of the minds.  
 
I stepped out of my job category in some conversations I had with Michael Keaton, which gave him a few good things, I believe. I said, “Look, they don’t always talk about method reality in this kind of acting, but here’s something real that I think would service and give you a color in your character. Batman is working all night, you’re tired in the daytime. Just take that into account.” You’re not Superman, remember, you’re Batman. This is a disguise, but reality says you’re going to be sleep-deprived.” I think it was a good momentary out-of-my-department piece of direction. If you’re an actor, you’re not supposed to be directing the other actors. This is a big error.  
 
But you did sometimes.  
Not much. My theory on that is, when I’m doing a scene I assume everything else is perfect. I assume this person is that character, presenting it exactly right. And wherever that beginning is jarred, I use it within the reality of the character.  
 
So you’re not distracted by it.  
No. You include. Hey, I might go like this [grimaces] off-camera in order to stimulate another actor while he’s working, but also you don’t want to intrude. So it’s a simple assumption to start with: their performance is perfect. It’s more open.  
 
Tell me about The Departed..  
The Departed. is a picture about information and deception. Both Matt [Samon] and Leo DeCaprio] are playing double roles. I know in their work habits they were attuned to staying in that character. They’d tend to be more hidden during downtime. I can’t say whether they were doing it with total purpose or just as an ongoing inflection that was part of their work, how they wanted to build and perform their characters. It’s an interesting thing to play around with.  
 
The fact that everybody acts - we know that - we’ve heard that a million times, but this character is defined by the fact that he’s acting so it feeds you a different insight of how to handle that or be nourished by that reality. You worry about clarity because when everybody’s intentionally misdirecting, you wonder, “Well, shit, what about the poor audience, how do I give them the signpost? You don’t want them to say, “Fuck it, I don’t want to follow this, it’s too much for me.” No one understood the picture last year that George Clooney did.