INT: It's Tuesday, November 20, 2001, continuing from yesterday.
DM: I am Delbert Mann, long-time member of the Guild. [INT: Let's go back to some of the acting elements which are so dear to you. Mention another one, if you're having some kind of difficulty, tell us an instance or two of how you attack that.] Well that's a hard one to answer. It is a matter of instinct and going with the moment. Trying desperately to stay away from giving a line reading to an actor, never ever do that. Trying to suggest imagery to hold in his mind as he reads the line. One instance where I gave a direction to HENRY FONDA, he was playing a very old man and we were shooting the last scene. An argument scene which ended the film, with his son, played by MICHAEL MCGUIRE. After we finished the rehearsals and the cameraman was adjusting the lights and cameras, HENRY and I were sitting aside and I suddenly had an idea. I told him, instead of attacking MICHAEL through the speech, can you soften it a little, almost pleading with him? HANK stood there and he stared me right through the eyes, out the back of the head. I thought to myself this is the worst stage direction I've ever given to an actor. I suddenly saw his lips ever so slightly moving. He was running the line for himself and he did it several times, and then he suddenly said, oh yes, I hear it. When the camera rolled he added that little flavor I asked him for. I thought, I could kiss him right here, that is one of the best actors I have seen.

INT: Another question. What you gave him was a result, speaking in acting terms. Is that troublesome? Can a director do that deeper in a relationship without damage?
DM: It's almost impossible to answer that question. Every circumstance is different and I find it very hard to analyze and give a label to what it is that I'm seeking and doing. It's again an instinct, should I say this or let it go? What is it that he will accept or be stimulated by? Somehow the words I found with FONDA connected. [INT: What do you do if an actor resists you?] Well sometimes I don't. Sometimes when an actor really resists, and I'll give you an illustration. CLIFF ROBERTSON was very difficult to work with on the film THE MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY. It was a story that was written in the last days of the Civil War, to stir up feelings of patriotism. The story of a man who is sentenced to live on military war ships for the rest of his life. It was during the hot and heavy days of Vietnam when so many young people were protesting and fleeing to Canada to avoid service. We were all aware that this could potentially be a difficult picture, and I know CLIFF was worried about that, he thought the young people would reject the patriotism aspects. In the trial scene, CLIFF for some reason modified the tone of his speech and he read it damn the United States, emphasizing the word united. And he kept doing it and I asked him to read it straight. We went for about 20 takes, he never changed it, but he modified it on the last take, which we used in the picture. He still wouldn't change it in post-production dubbing. It was a matter of taking the best take we had and going with it. [INT: What was the purpose of that?] I don't really know. The end result was fascinating. The older audience took to the picture and the critics were marvelous. People saying, look at the unfeeling government, crushing this man. The young people got what they wanted and others saw it as love of country. We had it both ways.

INT: Jump to mechanics, not acting but storytelling as far as blue screen. How do you deal with that?
DM: I have used blue screen so seldom, most on GATHERING OF EAGLES, and that was for aerial work, the B52s in the air. It really never intruded on the acting. It was as real for the actors and me as in any other circumstance. It didn't create problems for me on that picture but I can see how it can be a major stumbling block.

INT: What's your approach to stunts? Melding the actor and the stunt person with the physical act. Any trickery there?
DM: No. It just seems to be a sort of standard procedure. You have a stuntman cast to physically represent the actor, letting the actor do as much of the work as he possibly can. We did that on THE OUTSIDER with TONY CURTIS and JAMES FRANCISCUS. Big fight scene and we had stunt doubles for both of them. But TONY and JIM would do most of the fighting themselves and it worked very well.

INT: Relationships with producers and companies? What about that relationship, any particular difficulties?
DM: I have had problems, and it depends on the producer and company. NORMAN ROSEMONT was one who had a reputation that directors would work with him only one time. I worked with Norman 3 times, MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY was the first one. Fortunately he was seldom close to the production so it worked beautifully. Same thing was true on ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, we were in Czechoslovakia and Norman was elsewhere. When we did IRONCLADS, Norman was right there, his office was next to the warehouse where we had built our set. And Norman and I got into fierce arguments that practically disrupted the production and I think reflected on the screen. It was not a happy production at all. I was not totally happy with the cast, we could not get the people who I really wanted. We finally wound up with a compromise cast. It was not for me a totally successful picture.

INT: What about executives? How does that work for you?
DM: Well again I have had a couple of problems with studio executives, those who ran Universal when we were doing THE OUTSIDER with TONY CURTIS and particularly on A GATHERING OF EAGLES with ROCK HUDSON, ROD TAYLOR, MARY PEACH. About 3/4 of the way through the shooting, I think the studio heads realized their prize property, ROCK HUDSON, was being made cuckold, that his wife was having an affair with an executive officer and they wanted that changed, in the middle of shooting. We got into terrible arguments about it. They insisted that we change some storylines, so that instead of ROCK and his wife having problems which she resolved by reaching for another man, that it was a more conventional job gets away of marriage, because the job of a Strategic Air Command officer is demanding. We shot at the Beale Air Force Base because it was accessible to us and they particularly wanted us to see the wing commander and his wife who sort of hosted us. I had ROCK sort of watch and mimic him at times. I had a letter from that officer about a month ago, out of the blue. The letter said that he and his wife had divorced, and he's been married to another woman for 25 years, and it was the pressures of the job that split them.

INT: That's a major rewrite, to what extent does it upset your plans? How do you regroup and deal with that?
DM: Not well. I fought it as much as I could. I wanted to retain as much of the original intent of the story and the structure as I possibly could. I don't think I satisfied the studio bosses, but I kept as much of my intent and I possibly could. [INT: I'm reminded that ROCK can be easy to take for granted. At the end of the day he's a man whose acting we don't see.] Absolutely, he was wonderful to work with. A great sense of humor, very relaxed in front of the camera, very professional. He gave no problems on the set.

INT: Agents, managers? Have those affected your life?
DM: I can't recall an instance in which there was any problem. So far as I can remember I got along quite well with them. They didn't have much to do with any of the pictures. They stayed away, and that's how I wanted it.

INT: Editing? Any particular process that you apply to this procedure?
DM: Yes, it has always been my intention to let a good editor take the material that I have shot and edited and put it together in his own manner, following the script as best he can and making changes where he feels it works best, without any input from me. But I want to see what an editor, a good creative editor, will show me what I have done with an objective point of view. Half the time I'm really stunned by what he has done and put together. It's better than anything I had in mind when I shot it. The other half of the time I can gently say let's try another take. Again, being as gentle and I think firm, to sort of get my ideas over to the editor, let him have his creativity, as much freedom as he feels he needs, and I've never found that to be any restriction on me. We have wound up seeing eye to eye in every instance. Same is true in involving a producer in the editing process. The DGA in their minimum contract says the director has their own cut. After that the producer can take it and do with it whatever they want. To avoid that, I have always made it a habit to involve the producer at every step of the editing process. After every completed scene, show the producer. So that by the time it's finished it's not just the directors cut, but also modified by the input of the producer and editor. Then we can together bring it to the studio and argue our position. It works infinitely better that way.

INT: Where did this pattern of collaboration come from?
DM: Yes, I think it's my own personality, my own instincts, that I feel that I can work better, do better work, when there's harmony around. When we're not in violent disagreement with anyone about anything. But it's certainly true in terms of producing companies. The longer I can keep my foot in the door and have my say in the editing process, the better the picture is and the happier I am with it. We talked yesterday about SEPARATE TABLES. I have had that experience about 2 other times in my career.

INT: On that collaboration, relative to the composer, how do you direct the composer when we don't know the language as he knows it?
DM: That's a tough one because you are trying to suggest imagery, you are trying to say something on the screen and hoping that he gets it. I have had experience with composers who did things that I just did not like at all. I think the most explosive was THE DARK AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS with MAX STEINER who did the score for GONE WITH THE WIND and other big big pictures. MAX was an old man and JACK WARNER wanted him to score the picture. WARNER and the studio believed in the fact that there was no spot in a picture that needed just silence. So if there's not talking, there's music playing. When I look at the picture today I notice how much music is in it. DOROTHY MCGUIRE and ROBERT PRESTON are in bed together, in one scene, and he wants to make love before he goes out on the road, and DOROTHY, playing the prim wife, rejects him. It's a very specific scene and I felt very important, to establish the relationship of husband and wife and the strain. I talked to MAX before he started to score and we talked about scoring the scene. The orchestra literally played the jazzed up version of Turkey in the Straw. Then he rehearsed a little bit and they really played that song. I told MAX that was not what we talked about, and we got into an argument right in front of the orchestra. I stopped the session and JACK WARNER had to intervene to get MAX to rewrite the score completely. I had a few more instances of this. But it is so difficult. I have found it one of the most difficult things just to talk to a composer when they are talking in a different language, to get him on my wavelength. I worked 3 times with JOHNNY WILLIAMS. He did FITZWILLY with DICK VAN DYKE, a marvelous, modern, witty score. He came and traveled around Yorkeshire, England, absorbing the atmosphere for JANE EYRE. He went back to London and composed I think the best musical score I have ever had.

INT: Sounds like one of your favorite jobs?
DM: Absolutely. And JERRY GOLDSMITH, who I first worked with on PLAYHOUSE 90, is another good one. He did THE PLOT TO KILL STALIN with no orchestra, just used recordings to build the most chilling military score you can image. Always marvelous.

INT: The dubbing / looping stage?
DM: I hate and despise the whole process of looping. An actor standing in front of a screen watching his own performance and now trying to lip-sync the words to get a new soundtrack to clarify the original one. It's a process that I despise, it's the one part of filmmaking that really makes me turn itchy. I really do not like it. I ran into it for the first time on MARTY, my first film. And I had no idea that this was even a part of the process. It was tedious in the extreme. It's so difficult for an actor to really reproduce the nuances of the first performance. It is so mechanical to do the looping, I feel the creativity is taken right out of my hands. It's just a murderous process. Nevertheless you go through it because you have to. I make it my aim to get good usable soundtrack on the set the first time. It takes more time, but the results are infinitely better. It's real. When you get all of that done, then you're in the mixing stage where you're mixing all of the effects sounds, the background sounds, the crowd sounds, the actors playing the scene, with music. It's again a lengthy and difficult process, but very important to follow through every step of the way.

INT: Do you have any processes that you use to try to sort through that difficult mix?
DM: No, each moment as it comes. And face the problems that are there and solve them to the best of your ability.

INT: In terms of titles, are you in on that? Do you try to be in on that?
DM: Yes, it's an important part of trying to put the picture together. Working with the designer, getting sketches from him or her before the titles are shot and laid down, having some suggestions to make or finding a different way to do titles. Creative artists do a tremendous job making creative titles. Unless there's some specific thing I have in mind, I go over that with the artist, but beyond that I let the artist do his or her work and then we'll talk about it together.