INT: Prefer to have the writer on set?
DM: It really depends upon the individual circumstances. I'm used to having the writer on the set like in the days of live TV. There are plenty of places where I would prefer not to have them, though. Depends on the relationship between the writer and the director. I could envision times when I'd like to have the writer there, and also times when I'd prefer not.

INT: Overall, how have the initial scripts you've read differed from the shooting scripts? How much change is there?
DM: Hard to answer because each circumstance is different. There have been a lot of scripts that wind up a variety of colors, with changes. Makes for a very colorful script. But I think there are a lot of them that have very little significant change. Maybe just the odd line or sentence that needs to be changed on the set. [INT: Are they probably better, the more color they are?] No, not necessarily at all. [INT: What are the elements you bring to a story in translating it from script to screen?] Working with the actors, to interpret the dialogue. To establish and build the relationship between characters. I think that's probably the most important thing I do as a director. There are times when visualization of things by camera, I emphasize something visually that was not emphasized in the writing.

INT: Do you think the writer is more theoretical, less realistic, in terms of execution?
DM: A question I really cannot answer. I do not know. Some writers I would say yes, others definitely no. [INT: Fair, because some of them are with us and some seem not to get it.]

INT: The directorial contribution seems to be vague or misunderstood by most everyone besides those in our immediate trenches. Why?
DM: It's such an ephemeral thing, it's so hard to get a hold of all of the facets of directing. The man who is in charge of the set. He is the person who ostensibly has the answer to every question that is asked. He stages the scenes, watches the actors, and chooses the takes that give him the values of the scene as he sees them. That's hard to put into words that people outside of the business understand. But the director is the person who has to be in charge and everybody takes their questions to him and hopefully he will have some kind of rational answer. Or a selection to be made among various things.

INT: For worse or better, will that change in the future because of technology? Will a single director not be the case?
DM: We have seen in recent years multiple directors for one project. Brothers who co-direct or writers who write together. How that works out I really don't know. It's seems there 's a major problem in splitting the focus of an actor between two directors. But, yes, so much of filmmaking today is determined by physical things, the ability to put a blue screen here and put a picture on at a later time, so it's far less centralized a profession that it used to be. And I think we probably will see more of that as new equipment and new techniques become available.

INT: Preproduction. In making your movies were approvals guaranteed in the DGA agreement ever withheld from you?
DM: I don't recall that that has ever really happened to me, that things were withheld that I should have had access to. No I don't think that has been the case.

INT: Since I mentioned the DGA, let me segue with you as the first VP of the DGA in 1960 and President in 1966. Tell us about some of what happened while you were VP?
DM: Yes, I was VP at the time of the merger with the RADIO AND TELEVISION DIRECTORS GUILD and the NEW YORK FILM DIRECTORS GUILD. The principle thing that happened while I was in that office was the fact that GEORGE SIDNEY, President, was shooting film in London and was gone. And a good many of the burdens fell on my shoulders. This was our first confrontation with the WRITERS GUILD and their fight with possessory credit. So it culminated with a meeting of all the major directors of Hollywood in the board room. There were people who I had never seen at the GUILD before like HITCHCOCK, and others that I had seen many times, JOHN FORD and GEORGE STEVENS and FRED ZIMMERMAN. Everybody was gathered together to establish some fighting rules to battle the writers and their contract which they had obtained without our knowledge of fighting possessory credit. It really came down to a point where a cable from DAVID LEAN was read and he cabled extensively his determination as to why a film was his, not a writers. Detailing the number of things he did, including hiring the writer, casting, costumes, sets, props, etc, and saying if a director can say that, all of those things about a film, the film is truly his, no matter what is on the written page. But it became a basis of an add that was put in the trade papers the next day, and became the fighting basis of the guild position for the next 2 years until we got the production companies to agree that when the writer's agreement expired they would take the objectionable material out. It did come out and we have not had any problems until fairly recently.

INT: Part of it was the shunning of the responsibility by the production companies?
DM: I don't think they were thinking clearly when they gave the writers that section of the contract. I think they were quite stunned when the directors rose in angered protest. The producers could not legally take it back, so we were stuck with it for the 2 years of the writer's contract.

INT: Were singing the praises of the Guild. Anything to add about the GUILD?
DM: Nothing specific other than the fact that it is a wonderful organization which has done so much for the director, for the status of any director in Hollywood. The man who was almost individually responsible for the guild was JOE YOUNGERMAN. When I came into office in the mid 60s he was really sort of single-handedly running the guild. The staff was a few secretaries and assistants and him, and has expanded so much in the years, with a big building, offices filled, people doing various things, keeping track of residuals that have not been paid and things of that nature. They do a marvelous job of tracking down foreign payments that have somehow slipped through the crack. And building the pension plan and the health and welfare plan to becoming the most important aspects of the guild. As I'm getting to the age of retiring and more costs come up I am more than ever grateful to the guild and the farsightedness of JOE YOUNGERMAN and the people who worked with him at that time, GEORGE SIDNEY, and JOHN RICH and a whole bunch of people.

INT: Is it fair to say that JOE YOUNGERMAN and FRED COE are two of your all time favorites in the business?
DM: Absolutely without any question.

INT: Casting. Any particular methods you use when choosing actors?
DM: Going for names with stars one can only go by things they have done in the past, by screening their past films and making a determination that they are right and then an offer hoping to get them. Having fall back positions, other actors on the list that you would find acceptable. All the big names pretty much work that way, they are not brought in for readings. For medium and small parts we do readings. A reading of a scene by an actor is important for people who you really don't know. It gives you a chance to see them work, see them do something different. Casting is without question one of the most important tasks that a director faces. You can make dreadful mistakes or you can look like a hero when you get the right person in there.

INT: How does this statement sound? It doesn't so much matter how good an actor or actress is, as long as he or she is appropriate for the part. Comments on that statement?
DM: In filmmaking, I think it's probably a fairly true statement. Someone who is not the greatest actor in the world can still bring truthfulness to a role. On the other hand, a great actor is an enormous plus, somebody who will give a heart breaking performance is very important. [INT: Depends on the part?] Absolutely.

INT: I know you rehearsed exhaustively in the golden age of TV. Did you continue to do that?
DM: It's very true, I still fight to get as much rehearsal time as I can for any film that I do. It is difficult because films are constructed loosely and the problem in rehearsal before starting photography is when you bring an actor in for the first day of rehearsal, you're starting him on salary which continues in until the last day of shooting. For a major actor, that is an expense that sometimes a production cannot tolerate. In almost every instance when I have issued an invitation for a reading of a script, people respond to that like crazy. They do come, they do not start being paid at that particular moment. And maybe you can get 2 or 3 days of just sitting around the table reading. Talking about the script, problems in the script, discussing this with the writer. I think it is one of the most important aspects of filmmaking for me. I find that when I cannot get rehearsal, even a one day, one read through of the script, I'm behind for the whole production. And I waste time on the set. If you have done the work prior to the start of actual shooting it is done, just refreshing the actors. The time spent on actors questioning a line or a speech is shortened. Often the writer will have ideas for helping that too.

INT: When you're on location you just do the best you can to get rehearsals?
DM: Yes, it is so important. A cost factor more than anything else. In a scene between DAVID NIVEN and DEBORAH KERR in SEPARATE TABLES I did many years ago in which he has been arrested, the news has appeared in the paper, and DEBORAH's mother, played by GLADYS COOPER, has asked the woman who runs the retirement home, where they all live, to ask him to leave. The scene takes place in the morning, outside on the terrace, in which DEBORAH, terribly upset by the news, questions him about why he did what he did. And almost verbally attacks him. We had rehearsed for 3 weeks, but the day that DAVID and DEBORAH and I were the only ones there I felt that something was wrong with the scene. I couldn't put my finger on what the problem was. When we took a break I said something to DEBORAH about changing a line, softening it a little. As soon as we got back she tried it and it changed the scene totally, DAVID responded totally differently. It was exactly what we needed. I never would have been able to do this if we had started rehearsing this scene the morning we did it. It never would have come together as it did, perfect illustration of rehearsal with responsive actors.

INT: Cinematographers? Casting him or her?
DM: Again, it's a variety of reasons. Yes, personality and simpatico personality that you can get along with, that you can discuss ideas with and get a response. I had one cinematographer many years ago who was really good, but I didn't like him at all, but he never offered any creative help whatsoever, and I never went back to him, even though he was a good cameraman. Others would indeed be willing to give opinions and creative options. I want to encourage that kind of participation from every crew member. To add what they can in terms of anything that happens on the set. Out of that can come vast improvements.

INT: Is it fair to say that you leave the translation of scene to camera to the cinematographer?
DM: I certainly discuss the scene, I try to talk about it as completely as I can with the cinematographer. I leave the actual execution of that to him. I have had occasions where I felt something in the lighting was not right, but knowing that when it was on film, it would be quite different. Nevertheless, I have gone to a cinematographer and tell them I think it's overlit or that I dislike it for some reason. And without exception they understand and try to give me as much as I indicate I want from them.

INT: In terms of the production designer? Tell us about him / her?
DM: Again, matching of personalities is important to me. I like people who have a sense of humor, who are relaxed about their work. And I like to run a very loose set where people can laugh and have fun and makes people easy and comfortable and makes the work get done much faster. When the actors come on for a scene, I insist that all horseplay stops immediately. As I said earlier, I don't want anything that will break an actor's concentration. The essence of what is happening on the set is the actor. Their temperament is so fragile, they can be so easily distracted from concentrating. It's an intense job that they are undertaking and I need to give them as much help and create an atmosphere of fatherliness, of warmth and tenderness. And I enjoy watching them work, and I try to make suggestions in that kind of style, in the image of a loving father guiding the set. And almost without exception the actors that I have worked with in the past respond to that. I have had 3 or 4 in my time that I've said I'll never work with again, who are not professional enough.

INT: Let me digress. The thought of Del Mann screaming at a crew seems so unusual that I'm sure it gets results. You're known as a rational person, so how does that fit with this idealized crazy business we're in? Are you a fish out of water? Do they think you are?
DM: I really can't make that comment. I think I'm comfortable in my personality on the set, I think people like to work for me and with me. It is quite true that one flash of outrageous anger stops whatever is happening and it never happens again.

INT: The production designer?
DM: The PD has enough sketches, pictures, photographs, or films they have done before. I see their style, what they've done successfully. So assuming he is a good designer I can see the craft he's displayed. The other element is a personality mesh with mine. Again it's not as an intense on the set relationship as the cameraman, but still important. I ask them to make blueprints for me. I do find things I can question them about before the set is ever even constructed. [INT: Do you rough out any sets so they can accommodate the character of the actor?] No, I never have done that. I always start with what the PD has designed. I have really never outlined a floor plan, I just want to have them free to do it. But I do modify what they've done.

INT: I thought, does seeing a play of the thing you're going to make a film of help? What about with SEPARATE TABLES?
DM: Well SEPARATE TABLES was a special kettle of fish. Originally on stage it was 2 one act plays, set in the same boarding house, with 2 principle actors who appear in the first play but not in the second play. The same actors play roles in the 2nd act too. No help would be achieved by seeing this in terms of the film because we set to have 4 actors to play for 4 roles and then finding ways for the 2 sets of characters to intermingle. That provided a lot of writing problems. [INT: And you worked with a screenwriter as opposed to a playwright?] There was a playwright, TERENCE RATTIGAN. He lived in London but came over to do the first couple of versions of the script. Then JOHN GAY was hired here to do some work on it. The problem was to bring the characters into each others story and how to do that without violating the characters. When JOHN finished his next to last rewrite we sent that to TERENCE RATTIGAN who patched it up a little bit, and sent it back saying, fellas, this is the best I can do. JOHN GAY then took that last rewrite from TERRY and did the last rewrite. During shooting JOHN was around and I had him changing things and we worked very closely throughout the entire piece.

INT: Is it common in your experience for a writer to reach that point that they can't work on the script anymore?
DM: Oh yes, that can happen. Particularly since he had worked so hard on the original stage version. From the beginning it was very hard for TERENCE RATTIGAN to pull back and see it differently, to see 2 characters and now they mesh. He found it hard to cope with. [INT: From his perspective, he was adding 2 new principle characters to each act.] Yes, that's true.

INT: Wardrobe?
DM: Again, you hope to get a designer who has a track record of doing certain types of things. Film that one can see, proof that he or she can do it. And again where possible, someone with a sense of humor, easy manner, so the work gets done better. [INT: I'm amazing increasingly that story can be told by wardrobe and hair.] Yes, that's true. Makeup and hairdressing is surprisingly in that direction.

INT: The assistant director? Any close feeling?
DM: I for many years had the same one, and we went on many locations together, he was, unfortunately he's dead now, easygoing in manner, very good, very calm, never yelled, but the work got done. And I know some producers, seeing him on the set being cool and calm, got very upset. As long as he lived, I would seek him and since his death I have sought that kind of personality in anybody that I've worked with. I know some of the 2nd assistant, I've allowed the first to pick. But often the person in that role will be a driver, somebody who is urged to move it along. And I think the first is one of the most important jobs on the set.