INT: What are features vs. television directorially?
DM: I think they're the same thing. Directing is really directing. I think the differences are primarily in longer schedules, bigger budgets for features, therefore more pressure to keep up with schedule to keep budget under control. But the approach is generally the same. With TV comes the pressure of time. It has to be a certain number of minutes and seconds. You deal with the commercial breaks. In essence, I think the TV director is under greater pressure of time and less money than normally a theatrical director. But the approach to the work is the same. [INT: Does that pressure make the TV director better?] I find a big problem with excessively long days, which are sometimes forced by the production manager. I try to avoid it, I know everyone is tired. I don't think as well, I don't make creative decisions as quickly and easily as well. The work on the screen suffers because of that. I have turned down several shows that seemed to have that kind of pressure built into them. I really start to emotionally and mentally fold under that pressure.

INT: Has the job evolved, changed?
DM: The changes in directing in the past 30 years are primarily in new techniques of special effects, the wider range, the visuals that are available to a director today. I think probably in addition to that there is more pressure on a director from producers, networks, studios, to get the job done quicker, cheaper. Far more pressure than we used to feel some years ago. Certainly more than when I worked with FRED COE. NBC never had anything to say about a show. The sponsors would go to FRED with a problem. Working with a man like FRED COE or FRED BROGGER, the work is joyous, reasonable in terms of length, budget demands, and the work is far more joyous and better done under those circumstances.

INT: Why have those changes taken place?
DM: I think it's some of all the things you mentioned, it is the increased costs of films today, TV or features, of the necessity to program, to write scripts that will appeal to a mass audience. Less opportunity to do a specialized shows. The pressure on networks and sponsors is greater and that's applied to the director. [INT: Since the screen is getting bigger, this problem will not get better?] Absolutely, I don't see any end in sight. The young storyteller is probably better equipped to handle those pressures than I am. Probably not good news for them.

INT: Did the DGA play a role in changing your perception of directing?
DM: I can't think of individual illustrations of the DGA being of aid to me in those directions, yet without question, it is probably the most important organization in my life. What it has done to enhance the stature of directing and to prevent transgressions is absolutely enormous. I've been a part of it for almost 50 years and the intrusions by the WGA in terms of a director's stature and place and privilege, credits. The WGA's means of trying to enforce their attitudes on the industry are destructive to the industry in every possible way. The fight that the DGA has followed to prevent some of those intrusions is of vast importance.

INT: I'm reminded of the writer issue. You and PADDY CHAYEFSKY?
DM: In the days of live TV, PADDY and I began together and it was absolutely essential for the writer to be present at all rehearsals because it was impossible to precisely time a show from its inception to the end without making changes and cuts. I found long ago that it was no problem to lengthen a show. The problem is a show would tend to spread. And the writer, in rehearsal, seeing that happen, would be the one who could then say what scene had to go. The writers were happy to do it, to participate in the work. They were there to see if an actor was having trouble with a line. PADDY was very good, a very precise writer with his own style of dialogue. He was very quick to see if an actor was not getting the speech the way he had written it. Or if it was more complicated, he would take it home and rewrite it. PADDY was a unique writer. He spoke with the jargon of the east Bronx. He was writing his early shows about himself, his experiences, his pals, his mother, his girlfriend. Most of his early shows were based on himself and his knowledge of the east Bronx. I, coming from Tennessee, not aware of the Bronx at all, would often have to ask PADDY why does he say that, what does that mean? He would be very quick to explain it. I understood the emotional connections and reactions, but not the dialogue completely. He is a wonderful creative writer. We did a lot of shows together and 3 feature films.

INT: You've answers one of the questions that I would've asked. How is it that you know material?
DM: Instinct and experience. It is instinct, you have to look at something and see if it really works. What can you do to make it work. A lot of times there is no set answer for this, you just have to fish your way through it. Trial and error.

INT: What do you look for in a script? What makes a good story?
DM: The thing that I'm looking for in reading a new script, does it work emotionally for me? Does it work in every possible way. Is it a believable story? Are these characters that I know? The situation, the place, is this a story that I believe? If I don't believe it then I don't want to have anything to do with it. But if it is good, close to the mark in those various ways, the scenes flow, have emotional build to them. The story points, the plot points fall into place properly, I'll say yes. It's generally pretty clear that this is something I'd really like to do or it's something that I'm not comfortable with.

INT: Let me insert an experience where you restructured with Mrs. Mann a script that wasn't at all right. The two of you reworked an entire story and became writers, short of laying down the dialogue. How did that feel?
DM: Yes, it was a unique experience. It was a script for ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT which another writer had done a version of, but I didn't like. SIDNEY CAROLL was brought in to do a new script. I urged the writer to use the book as the template. He said, yes. We were in Czechoslovakia, locked behind the iron curtain, in 1979, and had negotiated with the Czechs over and over as to the physical requirements of each day, each scene. And we went over and over again until I was going mad. The rewritten script had not yet arrived and we were about 2 weeks away from shooting. NORMAN ROSEMONT got the script when it arrived, and it never came to my room so I knew there was a problem. He laid the script in my lap the next day in the car. I said, "NORMAN, this is the worst piece of shit I've ever seen in my entire life." I said "I think we've got to get a writer to come to Prague and write a new script to my directions. I will use the book as the guide. I want him to be willing to do that without arguing or discussing." He said, "Do you have anyone in mind? DAVID SHAW might be willing, I thought. He wanted to give SIDNEY a chance. We called him and explained and he said he would do it but he needed a week. ANN and I did go to work and went through the book and made very specific notes. When SINDEY arrived I had a stack of pages outlining each scene. He did exactly what he said he would do. It was the most extraordinary, selfless episode that I've ever seen a writer do. He was happy doing it and pleased with how it came out. I was more involved in the structuring of that script than any other. His name didn't appear on the credits at all, though, because of an adjudication by the WGA.

INT: That sounds like a positive experience in the end though?
DM: It was, a very exhilarating experience. I have always felt that was the best film I had ever done. [INT: How did you know to use the book? Instinct?] It was written by the author based on his own experiences and it's an extraordinary piece of writing. He wrote specifically of all the ugliness, the brutality in a manner that I cannot determine how. In a sort of poetic first person manner. I wanted to try to capture that on the screen. [INT: You brought the film structure knowledge to the script?] True, but it was mostly a job of eliminating things in the book we didn't have time for. We eliminated a section about Russian prisoners. So it was selecting out of the book what I wanted to see on the screen.

INT: What role do you play in developing a story?
DM: Only once or twice have I really been involved with a project in the earliest stage of screenwriting. Normally a script is pretty well developed by the time I come into the project. I like it that way, then I can look at it objectively. That objectivity I find of great value. The couple of times I've been involved with the development of a screenplay and fighting the battles, I have found that I quickly lose my perspective, the objectivity of the piece. I prefer if possible to work that way. [INT: Even in the case of a failure, even having failing pages in your hand seems better.] Yes, probably.

INT: In dealing with writers, how do you direct them?
DM: Well, I try to be gentle with them as much as possible. I find that most writers respond to that very well indeed. Some of the more stubborn ones are willing to go along with you if you're reasonable. I've had a few that I don't get along with. [INT: Do they lose vantage as they work along?] Probably, yes. I think that's a fair statement. But I've been so lucky with PADDY CHAYEFSKY, and TAD MOSEL and J.P. MILLER and ARTHUR HILLER and DAVID SHAW and DAVID SWIFT. The stable of writers that were developed for PHILCO PLAYHOUSE.

INT: A grist between you and ROBERT ALAN AURTHUR?
DM: I found Bob probably the least approachable of any of the PHILCO GOODYEAR writers. I think the first time I ever lost my temper at a rehearsal was at Bob because he would not rewrite a scene that I needed done. We somehow came to a compromise. But just in the matter of personality I didn't feel comfortable with him as I did with the other writers.

INT: Conversely, what doesn't work with writers?
DM: You have to be careful of not overwhelming a writer with problems that you see in a script and not shoveling it all on him at one time. Anything that would violate that gentleness of approach.

INT: Your shooting scripts don't really evolve. They come to you. And you probably see misplaced expense in those scripts. How do you funnel the money into the best storytelling areas?
DM: You can see things you feel could go. Something that's not essential to the story, something that's time consuming or difficult. A simplified storyline would give you the money saving and the time saving you feel you need. I never express that to a writer, but try to explain it in terms of the story necessity. It's a matter of trying to not overwhelm the writer with despair at how much has to be done and try to take it a step at a time.

INT: To swerve for a moment. How does this differ from your approach with actors?
DM: I think it's the same. I try my best never to criticize openly an actor unless it's something specific I can get a hold of. I was specific with ROD STEIGER in the TV version of MARTY. A big emotional outburst. In rehearsal, ROD would weep during that scene. I would get on him and say don't cry. And he would try but it would get away from him. One of FRED COE's notes was to get ROD to stop crying. The last note I gave him was not to cry before we went live. ROD played it wonderfully on the air. He was fighting to keep from crying, which is perfect. It was a wallop, a really great moment. That was specific and it finally worked.

INT: Do you have a rule about rewrites and who should do them?
DM: Normally I don't like to go to another writer unless there's a reason for it like on ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. I normally don't like to go to an outside writer for rewrites unless something is just so impossible. I have on location at times sat down and written some dialogue and scene changes myself. I don't consider myself a writer but I've done it when necessity was there. LORING MANDEL, wonderful writer. He seldom writers what the actor is really thinking, he writes an oblique line.