INT: Has the perception and/or the prestige of the director changed in the past 3 decades?
DM: I think it has. Especially in the television field. The director is not as powerful, not considered to be the man in charge like he once was. Now with this bastard show runner type of abortion, the directors are shunned aside, not given the respect or authority that they were 30 years ago. I know that one of the things that can enter into interfering with the director and his work is the amount of work now done for film as far as special effects. Things are broken up mechanically, so I think that has probably to some extent diminished the respect for directors. Yet I don't think film directors have suffered the same undermining of their jobs as television directors have. Writers-producers have taken over the television field. I find totally shocking that they have taken over the job of talking directly to the actors. I think it is absolutely shocking and not conducive to good work. The actor has to have one person to depend upon, to guide him, and suggest to him what he can do differently or better. I think it is a pattern for chaos and I do think that many of the TV shows that I turn off today show that kind of chaotic approach in the background. They are pedestrian, they are conventional. I think that has happened to a lot of the audience and the shows.

INT: Has the size of the star hurt the theatrical director in any way?
DM: Yes, I'm sure it has. The amount of influence that the increased salaries bring to the stars can be detrimental to the work being done.

INT: How about the change in the GUILD?
DM: Well I think that's the number one factor that I would cite. I think the membership is around 12,000 people all around the country. It was around half of that 30 years ago. That itself has brought enormous change and problems that is reflected in the tremendous increase in staff size, the very elegant quarters. Economically we've done very well with it. But I think that as best I understood what GEORGE STEVENS was saying in that Chicago board meeting, I understand what he was saying. Our aims are much more economic. But in a lot of instances I think the idea of a guild, of creators sitting down and talking and improving their abilities, increasing their contact with each other, has in some manners been lost. But that's countered by other things. Special projects, for example. To restore and bring back that sense of guild probably comes from the work of special projects. New projects that the guild has instituted to broaden our perspective and interests. To increase participation by minorities and women. A genuine effort on the part of a large portion of the guild. That moves us back to the guild idea, versus the union idea.

INT: How is/was the GUILD viewed by its directors? How is that doing?
DM: I really have no comment to make in that area. I just don't know.

INT: Near the finish of your presidency in '71, there was a cultural exchange with the Russian directors. You have a story?
DM: We finally arranged an agreement with the Russian directors, for them to send 3 directors to the states to be wined and dined in New York and Los Angeles, and for us to send 3 to Russia. They sent 3 directors. We provided interpreters. The night they arrived we had a dinner in the boardroom at the guild and at the close of the meal, realizing it would be my job to make the welcoming speech, had worked out a speech in Russian. It was written phonetically so I could attempt to communicate with them in their own language. They were delighted and I was able to get them to understand a good deal of what I was saying. I finally sat down and SERGEI BONDARCHUK stood up and he had a piece of paper in his pocket and he made a speech in equally labored English. And made a very graceful reply. When he sat down I went over to him and said in English, may I see that paper. It was blank, but he had talked in English. I did not go to Russia. RALPH NELSON and GEORGE SCHAEFER and BOB WISE went to Russia and concluded the program.

INT: So you then stepped down and BOB WISE took over. How did that go?
DM: I remember distinctly. I was mentally and physically and emotionally exhausted. I had four years of presiding at meetings and on the daily routine of all that had to be done. When I handed the gavel to BOB WISE I wanted nothing more than to get out and stay away. I remember particularly Saturday morning meetings at the guild when my mind was on Roxbury park where my son was playing little league, wondering what I was doing there. It finally got to me and I felt I had spent as much time and energy as I had on the guild and I just couldn't bear to participate at all. I was gone from the inner workings for about 25 years. I would come to the annual meetings and dinners, but I was out. [INT: But you've crept back in?] Yes, primarily when JAY ROTH and GENE REYNOLDS passed a rule that all ex-presidents were to be invited to participate in all board meetings, to do everything except have a vote. It did lure me back to attendance at the board. And I decided to run for WESTERN DIRECTORS COUNCIL. It did bring me back into knowledge and interest and participation. And I feel better about it. My wife had been ill with Alzheimers and I couldn't bear being off at guild meetings, I just couldn't. It destroyed my ambition. But it was a big transfiguration, going from total involvement to none.

INT: I think I can hear now, however, that you liked the success of your presidency.
DM: Yes, I'm reasonably satisfied with what we got done and my part of it. [INT: Any final comments?] Well I just quit right there, with my own success! To wrap up the whole subject, the GUILD has been amazingly an important part of my life. Now that I've come back to it I find that it has so much to contribute to me and to my liveliness and to my participation in the world again. As I say I was brought back into it when the WRITERS GUILD went on the alert with the possessory credit again. I guess it's going to forever remain. I'm willing to fight those battles once again. [INT: Thank you so very much.] Bob thank you for making it so very easy, it's been a pleasure.