Showing posts with label filmmaking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label filmmaking. Show all posts

20 June 2026

Steven Spielberg, "Hollywood Director"

 

[According to writer Wesley Morris, prolific filmmaker Steven Spielberg (58 movies as director, 184 as producer over 67 years) is “most people’s dictionary definition of ‘Hollywood director.’”  In the article below, the writer and culture critic makes his case for the accolade.  There’s no doubt that Spielberg has made some of most popular movies of our time, many of them truly iconic.  Read what Morris has to say are Spielberg’s superpowers, the magic he wields to make his movies touch us so indelibly.’ 

THE BELIEVER
by Wesley Morris 

[This profile of master film director Steven Spielberg ran in the New York Times Magazine of 7 June 2026.  On the same date, it was posted as “What Steven Spielberg Taught Me About Fear, Catharsis, and Being Human” on the paper’s website.]

Hollywood is struggling, but Steven Spielberg insists that the big screen is still the best place to work out our collective dreams, fears, joys and sorrows.

On Jan. 1, something amazing happened. Steven Spielberg [b. 1946], a longtime Angeleno and most people’s dictionary definition of “Hollywood director,” became a New York City resident. On the one hand, this is a significant event. What classic Spielberg location requires a 212 or 718 or 646 to phone home? On the other hand, he has made five of his last six movies in New York State [see IMDb], including his exuberant, ominous reconsideration of “West Side Story” [2021]. Plus, for decades, Spielberg has kept a place on the Upper West Side. Five of his seven children live here, and all six of his grandchildren. So yeah: no big whoop. It was simply time. But to a New Yorker, this is a meaningful move: as if Magic Johnson had spent the rest of his career playing at the Garden.

[Earvin “Magic” Johnson, Jr. (b. 1959), is a businessman and former professional basketball player, widely regarded as one of the greatest in history. He spent his entire career with the Los Angeles Lakers.]

And Spielberg is still playing. He turns 80 in December. The signs of wear and tear of a half-century of moviemaking are discreet. He uses a barely-there hearing aid, and his gait is a tad slower than maybe he’d like. He has become an insole guy. (“I’m on my feet as a director my whole life. My feet have gotten as flat as a pancake.”) The mellower pace of Los Angeles suits his temperament. He’s voluble, yet reserved. In a five-way conversation, he’ll do as much listening as speaking. He wants to hear what’s going on with everybody around him.

But here, in Spielberg’s New York era, his zest for everything has kicked up a notch. Invite him out, he’ll show up — for dinners and openings, for one of the farewell episodes [19 May 2026] of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.” Until Colbert [he also appeared on 2 and 9 March 2023], he hadn’t done late-night television since the end of the 1970s. At one point, he brought the house down. “I made a couple of jokes,” he marveled the next day, smiling with the sort of bashfulness that obscures most of his teeth. He has more true friends now than he used to. He would even schlep his Lakers-loving self to a Knicks game, but only “if Spike Lee [b. 1957; filmmaker and actor] takes me.”

“Suggestible” might be too mild for where Spielberg is right now. “Open,” “ready” — those seem closer. “Adaptable.” Willing to adjust a plan in order to experience someone else’s preference. One evening at dinner, he was all set to order the salmon when I told him I was having a calf’s liver. His eyes widened behind his glasses. “Fuck the salmon!” He enjoys some funk when he eats. “I kind of like food that reminds me of what I just ate,” he said, with not a little bit of delight. “I want food that reminds me, five minutes later, before I contaminate the taste with something else.” He then ventriloquized the food: “I hope you enjoyed me, because I’m going to linger!”

Later that night, he and I were sitting at the Lyceum Theater, waiting for Maya Rudolph [b. 1972; actress and comedian] to make her Broadway debut in “Oh, Mary!” [Lyceum Theatre, 11 July 2024-present; Rudolph: 28 April-5 July 2026] when he turned to me and said: “I really want to do theater. I really do.” He said this the way a kid might announce how bad he needs to pee. “I want to direct something. I don’t know what it is yet, but I’ve had this yearning.” Afterward, at a cozy, wholehearted welcome party for Rudolph, Spielberg grew wistful over the outpouring of support, the hooting and the adulation. “This never happens in film — only in theater,” he said above all the cheering. He didn’t mean for him (rooms ovate Spielberg all the time). He was moved by the utter earnestness of theater-community camaraderie, of people eagerly gathered to celebrate what they’d just made. His eyes were wide again. “This is infectious,” he kept saying.

Lest anybody worry, Spielberg’s appetite for filmmaking remains hardy. His 35th movie, an aliens-are-among-us action-thriller called “Disclosure Day,” opens June 12. And that thirst for connection runs beneath the movie. He has made a propulsive, lean-mean conspiracy machine that’s funny, intriguing and suspenseful — but it also concerns our alienation from something Spielberg is certain we desperately need more than ever: collective catharsis, the sort you come by at the movies.

Lately, the idea of a Steven Spielberg has felt endangered. For more than 50 years, his imagery has epitomized American movies, maybe even epitomized America [his debut film was The Last Gun1959]. He has been at the center of an industry that, if it’s not dying, is certainly diminished. The sort of original movies that made Spielberg Spielberg are virtually nonexistent, even though the two major flavors that now define the industry — global box-office smash and best picture nominee — are, with Spielberg, indistinguishable (start with “Jaws” [1975], “Raiders of the Lost Ark” [1981], “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” [1982]). More than once, he inhabited both modes within one calendar year: “Jurassic Park” in the summer of 1993 [grossed $47 million domestically in its opening weekend, then the biggest opening weekend gross in history], for instance, then “Schindler’s List” at the end of Hanukkah [without adjusting for inflation, this is the highest-grossing black-and-white film of all time (taking in $96 million domestically and $321 million worldwide)], perhaps the most triumphant single-year change-up any Hollywood director has had. (He’s still the most commercially successful director ever, and he’s tied, at 13, with William Wyler [1902-81; German-born American film director and producer] for directing the most best picture Oscar nominees.)

[Spielberg has received 14 Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, setting the all-time record for the most nominations in that category. He won the Best Picture award once, for 1993’s Schindler’s List. Of his 14 Best Picture nominations, he directed 11 of the films and just produced 3 of them. (That would still be the record for Best Picture nominations; in any case, according to Academy rules, the Best Picture Oscar is awarded to the producers of the film, not the director.)

[Spielberg also directed Jaws (1975) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), which were nominated for Best Picture, but because of the Academy rules at the time regarding who received the credit, he wasn’t personally named a nominee for those two films. (In the 1970s and ’80s, the Academy nominated the film itself for Best Picture rather than naming specific individuals on the ballot. If the movie won, the studio designated which producers accepted the statuette. Because Spielberg didn’t hold a producer credit on either movie, he was never an official Best Picture nominee.)]

Popular art has always bonded us to one another, no matter what might have been cleaving us apart, no matter how different our lives or how our responses to that art diverged. And Spielberg’s films have been a premium adhesive. Not only the ones he directed but the dozens of swooshing, indelibly kooky hits unleashed by Amblin Entertainment, his production company [eight of Amblin’s films were nominated for Best Picture Oscars, including the winning Schindler’s List.]: “Poltergeist” [1982], “Gremlins” [1984], “The Goonies” [1985], the “Back to the Future” trilogy [1985, 1989, 1990], “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” [1988], “Arachnophobia” [1990].

Spielberg’s stardom arose from the collision of capitalism, audacity and creative vision. His movies emerged alongside the arrival of cable television and proliferating advances in personal computing and home entertainment. I watched “E.T.” at the movies, devoured it on cable, played it on my Atari and let Michael Jackson [1958-2009; pop singer, songwriter, dancer, and philanthropist] sing me a lullaby the movie inspired him to write [“Someone in the Dark” (1982)]. (Spielberg: so titanic that the other king of pop worshiped his thrillers. [Thriller is a 1982 Michael Jackson album and “Thriller” is a 1983 single from the album.])

But a kind of cultural malnourishment has set in. While you once needed a pair of hands to count the major studios, we’re on the verge of barely needing one. And the best, most lucrative ideas entail microwaved nostalgia that we all know by its legal nickname: I.P. [Intellectual Property]. The takeovers and reheating, the obscure metrics that ensure we never quite know exactly how popular anything is, it’s dispiriting: Pac-Man eating ghosts, algorithms keeping secrets.

When movies play in only a handful of theaters to qualify for awards, and increasingly millions of us watch them on our phones, “that is not my definition of a motion-picture experience,” Spielberg told me. For that, he said, you need “an audience to be the accelerant of that experience, to be the contagion of making the experience even more profound for the individual in that crowded theater — or what we hope is a crowded theater.” Obviously, streaming changes that experience, denying us the companionship of hundreds of strangers either confirming or causing us to question our humor, our tastes, our responses.

This is to say that what Steven Spielberg symbolizes, what he built in Hollywood and in our hearts, could be reaching its twilight. He is touched by our appreciation for all that he has come to mean to us. At that “Oh, Mary!” cast party, a stocky, ebullient woman approached and asked if she could show Spielberg the “Jaws” tattoo beautifying her calf. Of course she could. And even though Spielberg estimates that he has seen 30 of these since “Jaws” came out in 1975 (plus dozens of other tattoos inspired by his movies), he listened and marveled as though hers was his very first. Earlier, on the corner of 45th Street and Eighth Avenue, a young, fit guy with a blond ponytail sitting on a construction barrier looked up and said, with biblical concision, “Thank you.”

It was a “thank you” that contained so much. As I interpreted it, thank you for your vision, your imagination, your ingenuity, acuity, spirit and nerve. Thank you for “All my life I had to fight” [Sofia in The Color Purple (1985; Oprah Winfrey [b. 1954])] and “You’re gonna need a bigger boat” [Jaws; Police Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider [1932-2008])], for every single caftan you let wear Meryl Streep [b. 1949] in “The Post” [2017]. Thank you for more than 50 years of unflagging energy and unshakable belief that we human beings are worth the trouble. But the gratitude was tinged with sorrow. “Thank you” for daring and caring and trying to show us the light, to keep the lights on, as the artistic system you worshiped and symbolized and helped redefine renounces itself.

But he’s not thinking of his career or his meaning that way. He’s going to keep on keeping on. As you read this, he’s getting ready to make his first western.

Spielberg has always known how to reach us, how to reach into us. The first time he reached inside me, I was 6.

My mother took my sister and me to see “E.T.,” and I was besotted. This space alien that had been taken in and cared for by Elliott, Gertie and Mike, whose capacity for love glowed like lava in his chest, who just wants to return home. I got it all. When E.T. goes missing and Mike goes looking for him on his bike and discovers the poor thing passed out in a ravine, I understood, for the first time, the porous border between the screen and the rest of the world. I wasn’t in a movie theater anymore. I was at a funeral. I went, in escalating stages, from sobbing to weeping to bawling. The theater was packed. The bawling was probably a real disturbance. My mother leaned over and asked if I wanted to go home, and I have a clear memory of saying, with a sharpness that she later described as “appalled”: No.

I was having my first art attack. And Steven Spielberg induced it.

I’ve done my share of blubbering at other people’s movies. But crying at my first Spielberg was primal. By the end, as Elliott and E.T. are aloft on a bike, framed by the moon, soaring as much on John Williams’s [b. 1932] score as on air, the waterworks had revved up anew. But now I was crying tears of joy. I was experiencing what I can only describe as the Spielberg rinse: a full-cycle emotional power wash.

A rinse can occur when you least expect it. Take “West Side Story.” The minute Ariana DeBose [b. 1991] begins her assault on the asphalt of 68th and Broadway in the “America” number, I lost it. I was sure this was the most exhilarating musical sequence I’d ever seen. For the whole number, DeBose is a firework that whirs and whirs and never seems to extinguish: limbs and shoulders and hips, but also the yolk-yellow of her skirt and its scarlet underskirt. So how did Spielberg rinse me here? Let’s start with the controlled rush of imagery. The camera and editing are savoring every shot, but they’re also doing their own dance. The movie came out when we were still pandemic-skittish. I hadn’t been out dancing with strangers in a long time. And all that vigorously precise motion, presented from head to toe, summoned the desperation I’d been feeling for dancing I could not do.

I cried because here was incontrovertible proof that Spielberg, who was in his mid-70s when the movie came out, still had gusto to go for, gusto to burn. And then there was this: I was horny. One turns to Spielberg for many things, but the erogenous hadn’t been one of them. And yet he’d managed to serve us a number that, visually, is nothing but sex.

A Spielberg works in other modes, too. Take wonder. He has a shot for that. Often our heroine or hero gets a load of something — no, no, they witness it, they behold it. And what they’re seeing they can’t believe. The camera will often swing around to capture this moment of awe. Richard Dreyfuss [b. 1947] awaiting rapture at the end of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” [1977]. Whoopi Goldberg’s [b. 1955] Celie agog as her long-lost family returns to her in “The Color Purple.” Laura Dern [b. 1967], dumbfounded at the sight of a dinosaur in “Jurassic Park,” rising from her Jeep so automatically that she’s all but levitating. These are just a few of the protagonists; agape bit players could stock their own hourlong montage.

Crucially, this is a career spent harnessing that wonder to peer into childhood’s recesses. Light happens to be a major Spielberg motif — flashlights and spotlights and searchlights and floodlights and headlights; the sun, the moon. Projector stand-ins, perhaps. But also evidence that something is being detected, ferreted out, sometimes found. His movies understand that anything could happen to a kid, so almost everything does — divorce, dinosaurs, dinosaurs during a divorce, assault, abandonment, adulthood. I’ve always thought about that moment in “Close Encounters” when a son sits at the dinner table and weeps as he watches his father tearfully play with his food; the upside-downness of what he’s witnessing embarrasses him, but it’s also breaking his heart. Spielberg has always known that his movies are attempts to understand his boyhood and his parents, to try to heal them through fiction and illuminate parts of himself.

“For years, I was working out my mom and dad’s divorce through my stories,” he told me. The split happened when Spielberg was about 15, but the marriage had begun to fade years before. The family dissolved, too. He went off to live with his father, Arnold, a computer engineer, in Los Angeles, while his three sisters remained in Phoenix with their mother, Leah, a classical pianist who used to operate a kosher deli. But it seems that living under the same roof didn’t significantly change how remote Arnold could feel to his son.

Over dinner one night, Spielberg told me about working on “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” [1989] with George Lucas [b. 1944; filmmaker and philanthropist]. The movie reunites Harrison Ford’s [b. 1942] Indiana with his father, a Holy Grail expert played by Sean Connery [1930-2020]. “My contribution was: ‘OK, but I want to meet Indy’s dad, and I want them to have had years of estrangement and father neglecting son because the father was a workaholic. And this story will bring them back together again.’” When Spielberg said this, he still sounded wishful and a touch sad. Watched through the lens of his childhood, his movies can seem newly forlorn, someone blowing on a birthday cake gated with stubborn candles.

For centuries, we’ve lived with a myth that genius — male genius — expresses itself as wild eccentricity or madness, that the personality warrants a cult or a harem. Spielberg disorients in that regard. I, at least, needed a moment to absorb how familiar he felt, how familial. The man who made “E.T.” was eerily reminiscent of the woman who took me to see “E.T.” Both of them have in common a special intuition to anticipate needs we don’t know we have. My mother did it for a household. For more than half a century, Spielberg has been doing the same for a planet.

Yet as a man, he maintains a small scale. He’s as modestly sized [he’s 5′ 7¾″] as his movies tend to be gargantuan. Maybe the movies wouldn’t work without this modesty. If he were any other way, you’d lose sight of the people. Their lives often start simply enough, in houses with, say, shag carpets and cluttered bedrooms. But then they are ripped from home and spend the movies on a quest to find it again, or to fight to keep it, recreate it, ensure it stays intact.

Spielberg hasn’t been to see a therapist since he was in college. Instead, the movies are the arena in which he has worked on some of the mysteries he couldn’t solve on his own. What we experience as sorcery is, for him, a process of exorcism. “I can’t express enough how therapeutic and healthy it is for me to keep doing this job over and over and over again,” he said deliberatively, almost as if he was feeling this out. “I work so much out through this process. So much out. I get to bleed off some of the darkness instead of letting it fester inside me. You get to let it fester inside you.”

It seems that his marriage has been therapeutic too — a chance, perhaps, to better grasp his father by being a husband. He has been with Kate Capshaw [b. 1953; m. Spielberg 1991] since they met making “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” [1984] more than 40 years ago; she played Indy’s chanteuse sidekick, Willie Scott. Capshaw told me that when she went in to read for the part, Spielberg sat across from her with a pair of aviators on, and she summoned the gumption to ask him to take them off.

“Oh, that’s so much better,” she remembered saying. “Now I can see you.” He was in his mid-30s. He’d already made “Jaws” and “Close Encounters,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “E.T.,” and maybe he had been enjoying the performance of “Hollywood movie director,” the costume of it. Capshaw, who was in her late 20s, wanted to peel away the defenses. “All the jobs that are required in order to make a movie, he could do all of them, and he could do all of them almost better than anyone else,” she said. But when she came into his life, “It was like: Yes, you’re a director, but that’s what you do. I’m interested in who you are. Like, who’s the man?”

Spielberg tried to resist how he felt. “I like to be very professional on a movie,” he says. He was still involved with the actress Amy Irving [b. 1953], whom he eventually married [​m. 1985; div. 1989]. But Capshaw disarmed him. She asked to get a look at him, a professional look, and gradually, he made himself vulnerable to his feelings — for her. “Changed my whole life,” he said.

Capshaw, who is now in her 70s and seems part solar and part floral, talked about her husband with ardor. They raised seven kids together, often on location, with him on film sets and her directing at home. Yet somehow her love sounds as if she pulled it out of the dirt yesterday. Her appeals to her husband to remove the sunglasses, so to speak, continue. “Kate always sees where I don’t want to go,” Spielberg told me when we walked through Times Square. “And she doesn’t let. It. Go.” He wasn’t registering a complaint. It seemed like a source of healing, a conjugal deep-tissue massage. “The second I get quiet, she knows she hit a nerve. And I’m like: How do I get out of this? Somebody pull the fire alarm!”

But he’s open to being pushed. He’s the rare director who prefers his screenwriter present during shoots — a custom that David Koepp [b. 1963; screenwriter and director], who wrote the screenplay for “Disclosure Day” and whom Spielberg has been working with, off and on, since “Jurassic Park,” typically deems “painful.” The actors “sometimes think you’re there to be a word cop,” Koepp told me. It’s different with Spielberg. “Steven is eager to actively involve the writer in problem-solving, which makes the day much more interesting and makes one feel useful, rather than just an observer,” Koepp said.

Tony Kushner [b. 1956; author, playwright, and screenwriter] is another trusted collaborator and one of Spielberg’s beloved sounding boards, even though, as Kushner himself explained, he’s pushy and possibly more than that. “I’m a kvetch [Yiddish: whiner or complainer] and a worrier and unbelievably unpleasant,” he told me, and Spielberg “puts up with it.”

The Kushner collaboration is another of Spielberg’s committed marriages and maybe his toughest to fathom. Kushner is a vertiginously erudite, nervous, opinionated, gay, dyed-in-the-wool socialist. Spielberg frequently carries an unlit cigar with him and sits in a director’s chair printed with the word “Dad.” But the fruit of their partnership is cherries all the way across: “Munich” [2005] and “Lincoln” [2012], plus “West Side Story” and “The Fablemans” [2022]. Their partnership works because maybe it shouldn’t: the author of “Angels in America” and the man who brought us “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” a masterful avant-garde polemicist and perhaps our greatest Hollywood director. Somehow, their respective geniuses dovetail. But they have their moments.

[Kushner’s Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes is a 1991 two-part play. The two parts of the play, Millennium Approaches and Perestroika, are occasionally presented separately. The work won numerous awards, including the Pulitzer Prize for Drama (1993), the Tony Award for Best Play (1993/94), and the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Play (1993/94). Part one of the play premiered in 1991, followed by part two in 1992. The full play premiered in 1992 at Center Theatre Group in Los Angeles. Later that same year it had its U.K. premiere at the National Theatre in London, while its Broadway opening was in 1993. In 2003, HBO adapted the play into a six-episode miniseries.]

“West Side Story” was a particularly grueling shoot, Kushner says. At some point, he was so upset about how much Spielberg’s idea for an ending was diverging from what was in the script that Kushner says he left the set. When he returned the next day, Spielberg was eager to share what he filmed in his absence: a mournful long shot in which the Jets carry Tony’s body away as a bereft Maria trails behind them and the police arrive to arrest Tony’s killer, Chino. The camera tracks upward, observing the entire event through the bars of the fire escape. “I was blown away by it,” Kushner said.

“The thing that really just floored me is that he scans up through the fire escape, which is the icon of ‘West Side Story’ romanticism. It’s the balcony scene. And he turns it into the bars of a prison.” Kushner was chagrined that he hadn’t thought of that. “I don’t think he even knew necessarily consciously what he was doing, but that’s the thrill of him. He’s guided by something really deep.”

I had caught Kushner in the grip of a Charles Dickens [1812-70; English writer and journalist; regarded by many as the greatest novelist of the Victorian era] phase. In Dickens’s day, Kushner offered, there were reading clubs devoted to his writing in which literate people read to illiterate ones. Dickens was a hit with the working class; his novels are complex aesthetic achievements that nonetheless were accessible. “There’s no condescension,” Kushner says. “There’s no dumbing down.” Such is the case with Spielberg, too. “There’s a profound sense of human community in his work, and of profound belief that the world, although it’s not perfectible, is infinitely improvable if human beings recognize their interconnection with one another, and their shared apprehensions, and misapprehensions, and work on them collectively.”

As we were getting ready to head over to “Oh, Mary!” Spielberg told me a story about the time his mother’s brother, Bernard, took him and his cousin, Paul, to visit the Lincoln Memorial. It was 1952 or ’53. He would’ve been 6. The three of them climbed the steps. “Suddenly I was standing at the foot of a scary giant,” he recalled. “I remember glancing up and being so terrified I could only look at the hands.” He fixated on how they “were overhanging the armrests” and felt the urge to flee. But something held him back. “When I turned around, I looked up at his face. At this statue. Of Lincoln. A calm washed over me. An instant connection washed over me.” His fear ceased. What arrived in its place was unabated curiosity. He began to read all about Lincoln and started making silhouette cutouts of him, an obsession you can see re-enacted in the opening scene of “Minority Report” [2002], when a child makes a paper mask of Lincoln.

By all means, allow this memory to serve as an origin story for Spielberg’s movie, “Lincoln,” about the 16th president’s stewardship of the passage of the 13th Amendment officially abolishing slavery. But what if it’s the origin of everything else, too? Spielberg experiences fear — over a sort of monster at first, then a giant, then someone majestic — and wills it to become awe.

[The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by the Senate on 8 April 1864, by the House of Representatives on 31 January 1865, and ratified by the required 27 of the then 36 states on 6 December 1865, and proclaimed on 18 December 1865. (Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C., on 14 April 1865. He died just after 7 a.m. on the 15th. He’d seen the passage of the amendment by Congress, but not its final ratification or its proclamation.)]

Kushner’s husband, the critic and author Mark Harris [b. 1963], who has had a front-row seat to Kushner and Spielberg’s partnership since it began, said to me about Spielberg: “I believe he is a searcher. He won’t make a movie unless he knows why he wants to make it. And I think he also won’t make a movie unless he knows what scares him about that particular movie. I do think he likes being scared a little bit.”

Capshaw agrees. “Almost every movie, we wake up in the morning — we get up at the same time, whether it’s 5 a.m. or whatever,” she said, “and it’s like, OK, we’re off to work. And I’ll say, ‘How you feeling?’ And he’ll go, ‘Terrified.’ I go: ‘Excellent. A great day.’ Or he’ll say, ‘I don’t know what the hell I’m doing.’ I say, ’You couldn’t be in a better spot.’”

The search — all those flashed lights — is a wish to sublimate that creative fear into astonishment.

Would Spielberg’s awe explain the correspondent wonder that has been such a major visual signpost in his work for more than 50 years? When Jaws finally rises up from the ocean, is that mouth a rictus of astonishment? Look what I can do! Is that why we’ve given ourselves so many tattoos of that one shot, of the movie’s iconic poster — fear not being conquered, per se, but awe being eternalized? Anytime one of Spielberg’s many awe-struck characters takes their wonder to the skies, what should we have called that glance? I once called it heavenward, but what if, maybe, it’s truly just Lincolnville up there, an infinite expanse of liberation, rationality and eloquence? I considered the possibility that I’d gone overboard here, until I remembered who I’d been talking to.

When I said to Spielberg that Lincoln had become bigger than life to little Steven, his response almost leaped out of his chest. “Childhood is bigger than life!”

That feels as true as ever in “Disclosure Day.” Its two protagonists, a TV weathergirl (Emily Blunt [b. 1983]) and a cybersecurity expert who works for a government subcontractor (Josh O’Connor [b. 1990]), strangers to each other, experienced something profound as children that neither wants to face. Whatever it was that happened has put them on the same path, barreling toward the event of the movie’s title. Blunt discovers, suddenly, that she can quite literally speak other people’s languages — Chinese, Russian — and experience what they’re feeling, like, what’s in their hearts. He, meanwhile, has his own special power, an uncanny knack for numbers.

The two strangers might be Leah and Arnold Spielberg, the artistic feeler and the digital pioneer. But they’re also two parts of their son, the empathizer and the gadget nut. They’re both running from a Defense Department outfit called Wardex and toward a mysterious figure named Hugo (Colman Domingo [b. 1969]). Hugo knows about their childhoods, their gifts, and that they’re destined to play a major role in the fate of the universe. We see him call the shots from a kind of soundstage where a crew is, mysteriously, constructing some kind of elaborate set, where all will be revealed. He’s the visionary, the director.

Hugo’s vision entails the planet coming to a halt for the movie’s climax, an event that blows coverage of an impending nuclear war off the nation’s screens to show us heartbreaking footage of the aliens — essentially, a Spielberg movie. The whole world watches it at the same time. The film is a cry for a monoculture that’s pure Spielberg.

We still have reasons to look up in Hollywood. For more than a year, studios have been serving us original movies that we’ve turned into hits. As I write this, a handful of the top 10 movies at the box office are based on original screenplays — “Obsession” [2025], “Passenger” [2026], “I Love Boosters” [2026], Throw in a pop biography like “Michael” [2026] and a purposeful sequel like “The Devil Wears Prada 2” [2026], and it all feels like a healthy complement to the umpteenth “Star Wars” product squatting at No. 1 [Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu (2026)]. The moment seems ripe for Spielberg to entreat us to show up for “Disclosure Day” and lead us back to ourselves.

For most of the film, Blunt’s character has no idea why or how she can reach into people and so profoundly relate to them. She’s a regular person but itinerant, avoidant. Now she has been called by a power she doesn’t even want to understand, a power to communicate with strangers to manipulate them for goodness’ sake, because they need to hear her short-order therapy. This gift is beyond her control, and she accepts this, that she’s an instrument for a higher purpose, to bring us together with a message of hope. She has a job to do. And despite the repressive forces trying to stop her, she does it.

[Wesley Morris is critic-at-large at the New York Times who writes about art and popular culture.  In addition to movies and television and maybe certain corners of the internet, that culture also includes sports and style and all kinds of performance (on stage, on screens, on court, in court). He’s also the host of the New York Times podcast Cannonball.

[Previously, Morris wrote for the Boston Globe, then Grantland.  He won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for Criticism for his work with the Globe and the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Criticism for his New York Times coverage of race relations in the United States.   In 1997, he graduated from Yale University, where he’d been a film critic at the Yale Daily News for four years.]


22 May 2023

Tom Hanks, Novelist

 

[On 9 May 2023, publisher Alfred A. Knopf released The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece, a novel by actor Tom Hanks.  On 12 May 2023, Jeffrey Brown, the arts correspondent for PBS NewsHour, interviewed Hanks about his book and making movies.   

[Below is a transcript of Brown’s conversation with the actor and author, followed by a review of the novel from the Washington Post.] 

TOM HANKS ON HIS DEBUT NOVEL, ‘THE MAKING OF ANOTHER MAJOR MOTION PICTURE MASTERPIECE’
by Jeffrey Brown and Anne Azzi Davenport 

You could be forgiven for not knowing about the blockbuster film, “Knightshade: The Lathe of Firefall.” That’s because it’s a fictional film at the center of a new novel, "The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece," written by Tom Hanks. Jeffrey Brown sat down with Hanks in New York to talk about his book and his love of making movies. It’s for our arts and culture series, CANVAS.

Geoff Bennett, “PBS NewsHour” Co-Anchor: You could be forgiven for not knowing about the new blockbuster film "Knightshade." That’s because it’s a fictional film at the center of a new novel starring, or make that written by, Tom Hanks.

This is Hanks’ first novel. And, earlier this week, he talked with Jeffrey Brown in New York about it and his own love of making movies for our arts and culture series, Canvas.

Tom Hanks, Actor and Writer [in a scene from “Saving Private Ryan”]: ‘I’m a schoolteacher.’

Jeffrey Brown: Take a blockbuster film, one starring, say, Tom Hanks.

Tom Hanks [“Saving Private Ryan”]: ‘Sometimes, I wonder, if I have changed so much, my wife is even going to recognize me whenever it is I get back to her.’

Jeffrey Brown: We know Hanks and perhaps the famous director, but what of all those names in the credits? One day, Tom Hanks the author realized he had a story to tell about them.

Tom Hanks: My editor said: "You should write a novel next."

And I said: "You are right. I should. What should it be about?"

(LAUGHTER)

Tom Hanks: And he said: "You live in a pretty rarefied world that would be an interesting thing to read about. Everybody just assumes they like movies and they know how movies are made." He said: "Well, and isn’t that something to write about?"

And I said: "You are exactly right." And right at that moment, the book landed in my head.

Jeffrey Brown: The result? The making of another major motion picture masterpiece, part send-up, all love letter to an industry.

Where does your ambition come to write a novel like that?

Tom Hanks: Well, I can’t help it. I wake up with stories in my head and I wake up with questions that I want to ask of people.

I know this is new to everybody.

Jeffrey Brown: Hanks draws on what he knows from his storied career.

Tom Hanks [“Philadelphia”]: ‘An excellent lawyer.’

Jeffrey Brown: Two-time Oscar winner for "Philadelphia" in 1993 and "Forrest Gump" 1993 a year later, some 100 films, from the youthful "Big" [1988], through "Saving Private Ryan" [1998], to, more recently, "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" [2019].

Tom Hanks [“A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”]: ‘. . . my neighbor.’

Jeffrey Brown: Which brought us together in 2019.

Hanks is a world-famous star, but one who loves the process and the stories of people behind it.

Tom Hanks: I do this thing. Like, when I’m watching particularly an old movie, right, a movie made before 1959, and there’s a crowd scene, and it takes place at night, and they shot it on the back lot at Paramount, OK?

Jeffrey Brown: A place you are familiar with.

Tom Hanks: I am familiar with. I shot "Bosom Buddies" [ABC, 1980-82] on the back lot of Paramount.

Tom Hanks [“Bosom Buddies”]: ‘See, it’s all perfectly normal.’

Tom Hanks: If there is a taxi and a bus and pedestrians, every single one of those people showed up from their apartments, their houses.

Jeffrey Brown: They had to get there.

(CROSSTALK)

Tom Hanks: Had to get there. They had to be put in wardrobe. They had to be told what to do. They had to stand around and wait. They had to drive on the thing. They had to do all this stuff.

And at the beginning of every shot, there is a moment of controlled chaos. Quiet, quiet, quiet. We’re rolling, we’re rolling, we’re rolling. Background, and action. That has gone into every single shot in motion picture history.

The mechanics of that, to me, is as fascinating as those kind of like documentaries of how it is made. How is it made? Well, it’s made very — over a long haul with very particular tasks that have to be solved.

Jeffrey Brown: The novel follows the making of the making of a film in 2020 filled with rich characters, including director Bill Johnson, chapter headings direct from the film process itself, even pages from the fictional screenplay.

But Hanks goes further to give us a big story that begins in 1947 and a made-up comic book which would lead to the made-up film decades later.

Tom Hanks: Comic books were the original versions of storyboards for motion pictures, so that now, when you read storyboards for movies . . . 

Jeffrey Brown: Oh, you see it that way, of course, right.

Tom Hanks: Yes. Yes, exactly, and particularly the comic book at the end.

This would literally be like these storyboards that you would see closeups of eyes, something like that, somebody floating up like that. The script gives you a description of what you’re going to see, but the storyboards are actually what you are going to see.

Jeffrey Brown: And a novel is a form of telling us how that works.

Tom Hanks: Exactly. Yes.

Jeffrey Brown: In 2017, Hanks published a book of short stories titled "Uncommon Type" [Alfred A. Knopf, 2017].

We spoke then about the move to fiction, and now, with the more ambitious storytelling of a novel, about how it differs from his work in film.

As novelist, you are the storyteller.

Tom Hanks: A novelist, I get to do the whole shebang, and I get to get into the heads of the people and the motivations of the people and the weaknesses of the people, as well as the strengths.

A lot of time, actors are given way too much credit for the end result of the movie that they are in. But, in fact, we shot that one day. I mean, we twisted ourselves in a knot in order to give unto the camera something that was ephemeral only and logical only unto ourselves.

And then a director and a screenwriter and an editor and a whole phalanx of people ends up taking that and sometimes twisting it around just enough, moving it around, so it becomes something a little different than what you brought to it. And I could walk you through any of the movies that I have been in, in which, on the day that I shot it, I was just trying to carry an idea from one room into the next.

But in the final moment of the film, with the rest of the story, with the other performances, with the cut, with the score, it has become a much, much, much more important building block in the movie than I ever anticipated.

Jeffrey Brown: The making of a movie, as we see in your novel, looks like a series of plans and then accidents, right . . .

(LAUGHTER)

Tom Hanks: Yes.

Jeffrey Brown: . . . piled on top of each other.

When you look at the arc of a career, how much planned, how much accident, how much serendipity do you see?

Tom Hanks: Well, I’m going to say that, in the younger days, I actually thought there was a ton of stuff that you could control or you could make happen, that you could force, manifest into it, like, I’m going to wear it like this, I’m going to say it like this, and I’m going to make this decision, and this movie will impact that movie.

The fact is, you begin at square one every time. Nothing you have done up to that point warrants anything that you can assume is going to be in the palm of your hand going into it. You can only show up on time. You can only know the text to the — and I don’t mean just your own dialogue. I mean know the material that you’re making.

Jeffrey Brown: You still — you really feel that? I mean, after the success, Tom Hanks walks into — and that says something?

Tom Hanks: I will tell you this. Sometimes, there’s a number of people that can walk in and allow the thing to be made in the first chance.

I’m going to — I’m going to drop my own name like I’m a big shot.

Jeffrey Brown: OK.

Tom Hanks: OK. They get in and say, we got Hanks.

Jeffrey Brown: Right.

Tom Hanks: So, therefore, we’re going to get our — we will get our financing. Why? Because we got Hanks. We’re OK. We got Hanks.

And then I show up and we start . . .

Jeffrey Brown: That’s how I’m feeling right now.

Tom Hanks: OK. I’m glad.

Jeffrey Brown: I got Hanks. Yes. Yes.

Tom Hanks: OK.

But then, once you start doing that, you realize that, well, you got the financing, but that doesn’t guarantee you the output. It doesn’t necessarily warrant the theme of the movie that you make is good enough in order to withstand people’s attention for two and half-hours, better about 110 minutes.

(LAUGHTER)

Tom Hanks: I find the 110-minute movie is an awfully good movie, just under two hours.

Jeffrey Brown: You planning to keep writing?

Tom Hanks: Oh, yeah, yeah. I can — yeah. I don’t know what, but I like to consider myself to be a writer with a day job.

(LAUGHTER)

Tom Hanks: And the day job is pretty glamorous sometimes.

Tom Hanks [“Asteroid City”]: ‘Where are you?’

Actor [“Asteroid City”]: ‘Asteroid City.’

Jeffrey Brown: Tom Hanks returns to his day job in June in the film "Asteroid City" [directed by Wes Anderson; to be released 23 June 2023 by Focus Features].

For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jeffrey Brown in New York.

Amna Nawaz, “PBS NewsHour” Co-Anchor: And there is much more online, where Tom Hanks talks about the writers strike and the changing economics of his industry.

You can see that on our YouTube page [Tom Hanks on the writers strike in Hollywood - YouTube].

[In his more than 30-year career with the PBS NewsHour, Jeffrey Brown has served as co-anchor, studio moderator, and field reporter on a wide range of national and international issues, with work taking him around the country and to many parts of the globe.  As arts correspondent he has profiled many of the world's leading writers, musicians, actors, and other artists.

[Among his signature works at the NewsHour: a multi-year series, “Culture at Risk,” about threatened cultural heritage in the United States and abroad; the creation of the NewsHour’s online “Art Beat”; and hosting the monthly book club, “Now Read This,” a collaboration with the New York Times.

[Anne Azzi Davenport is the Senior Producer of CANVAS at PBS NewsHour.]

*  *  *  *
TOM HANKS’S FIRST NOVEL SHOWS THE HARD WORK BEHIND MOVIE MAGIC”
by Ron Charles 

[Ron Charles’s review of Tom Hanks’s first novel, The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece, was posted on the Washington Post website on 2 May 2023 (Tom Hanks details a 'Major Motion Picture Masterpiece' in first novel - The Washington Post).]

‘The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece’ is an engaging story about a big crew putting together a blockbuster

Against the tanned hordes of Hollywood grifters, cads, creeps, prima donnas, egomaniacs and nepo babies, Tom Hanks stands like a warrior clad in decency and girded in goodness. A two-time Academy Award winner [Best Actor awards for Philadelphia (1994) and Forrest Gump (1995)] whose films have grossed $10 billion, Hanks is the living embodiment of our hopes that nice guys finish first.

For more than 40 years — on stage, TV and big screen — Hanks has worked as an actor and producer. He can remember what it’s like to sweat for attention, and he knows what it’s like to run from the paparazzi. He’s partnered with the industry’s biggest movers and shakers, and he’s been attended to by the army of dressers, caterers and personal assistants who toil away in the shadows to keep the stars shining.

How easily Hanks could have published a memoir detailing those decades of experience: Just imagine the riotous anecdotes about Ron Howard, Sally Field, Meg Ryan, Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts, Steven Spielberg, the Coen brothers and anybody else who is or was anybody in contemporary entertainment. Perhaps someday we’ll get that memoir, but it’s unlikely to be as charming or as spiritually revealing as his debut novel, which has the self-mocking title “The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece.”

As you might expect from such an amiable author, this is not a story set in Harvey Weinstein’s toxic Hollywood. So far as I can tell, Hanks’s book is not a roman à clef or a camouflaged tell-all or a sly act of disguised payback. Instead, it’s a novel shot in pastel tones, as though the movie trade were based in Lake Wobegon. Except for a few nods to entrenched sexism, the industry’s well-documented abuses are elided in favor of concentrating on the better angels of its nature. With any luck, Hanks’s next novel will be about D.C.

“The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece” starts gently, even slowly, in the voice of Joe Shaw, a film professor in Bozeman, Mont. Through a series of unlikely turns — which is the trajectory of almost everything in this story — Shaw has attracted the attention of Bill Johnson, one of the country’s most successful writer-directors. During the coronavirus pandemic, Johnson invites Shaw to observe the filming of his next project to write “a book to explain the making of movies.”

Hanks knows a lot about the behavior of actors, but fortunately he knows very little about the writing of academics, so his novel is mercifully unlike anything a professor of film studies would compose. Shaw delivers the rest of this story as an omniscient narrator, deftly moving from scene to scene and, along the way, helpfully explaining production jargon for a lay audience.

But before we get anywhere near the movie set — or the present day — Shaw presents what is essentially a 70-page novella set in 1947.

We’re introduced to Robby Andersen, a sweet little boy living in the sweet little town of Lone Butte, Calif. Robby idolizes his errant uncle, who was traumatized by serving as a firefighter in World War II. When Robby eventually becomes a successful comic book creator, one of his stories is about his uncle’s horrific experience in the Pacific. Decades later, Robby’s comic book — cleverly excerpted in the pages of this novel — serves as the inspiration for a character in Bill Johnson’s new superhero movie, “Knightshade: The Lathe of Firefall.”

That lengthy opening section, titled “Source Material,” asks for a lot of emotional investment in people we will not see again for a very long time. One wonders if a less famous debut novelist would have been afforded so much runway.

But before we get anywhere near the movie set — or the present day — Shaw presents what is essentially a 70-page novella set in 1947.

We’re introduced to Robby Andersen, a sweet little boy living in the sweet little town of Lone Butte, Calif. Robby idolizes his errant uncle, who was traumatized by serving as a firefighter in World War II. When Robby eventually becomes a successful comic book creator, one of his stories is about his uncle’s horrific experience in the Pacific. Decades later, Robby’s comic book — cleverly excerpted in the pages of this novel — serves as the inspiration for a character in Bill Johnson’s new superhero movie, “Knightshade: The Lathe of Firefall.”

That lengthy opening section, titled “Source Material,” asks for a lot of emotional investment in people we will not see again for a very long time. One wonders if a less famous debut novelist would have been afforded so much runway.

The marquee will blaze with one name, but in these chapters, there is no hierarchy: “At some point, and there’s no telling when that moment is, someone is responsible for the whole movie,” we’re told. “Everyone has the most important job on the movie.” Johnson, Hanks’s star-making director, is well drawn, but he gets less attention here than the staff members who do everything from casting actors to schlepping sandwiches.

Allicia Mac-Teer, an African American producer known in the industry as Al, is the real power and planner behind the throne. But years ago, she was just a front desk manager at a Garden Suite Inn near the Richmond airport. There she impressed Johnson by making sure his favorite frozen yogurt was available late at night. That’s the kind of indispensable initiative that a great director notices. Somehow, Al knew in her bones that Hollywood isn’t about being the most beautiful or even the most talented. “Making movies,” she announces, “is about solving more problems than you cause.” A star is born.

That lesson is so important to this novel — and presumably to Hanks — that it’s essentially repeated in the success story of Ynez Gonzalez-Cruz. She’s struggling to make ends meet as a taxi driver when she happens to pick up Al for a ride to the location for “Knightshade.” Recognizing Ynez’s attentive, problem-solving spirit, Al hires her as her permanent driver, then as her personal assistant. If you’ve been paying attention, you know where this is going, but that doesn’t make it any less gratifying.

Although this novel is a love letter to the industry, it’s not entirely toothless. Even the most glamorous stars in this universe are subject to the ordinary laws of physics. Indeed, the pompous actor playing Firefall, a young man named O.K. Bailey, gets hilariously skewered. He demands banana pancakes, “not pancakes with bananas”; tells his gorgeous, repulsed co-star that they shouldn’t sleep together until after the shooting; refers reverently to his “process”; and announces to the exasperated cast, “I’ve got no ego.” After decades of enduring such irritating artistes, Hanks seems to have somehow typed this wickedly funny section entirely by eye-rolling.

It’s no spoiler to reveal that “Knightshade: The Lathe of Firefall” will survive O.K. Bailey — and stalkers and jealous spouses and even the untimely death of a cast member. But blockbuster status is not preordained. After all, in the months before Opening Day — or streaming — a movie is just “a billion shards of glass that have to be assembled piece by piece into a mirror.” The longer you watch Hanks create that glittery surface, the harder it is to look away.

[Ron Charles reviews books and writes the Book Club newsletter for the Washington Post.]

07 November 2020

Background Actors


[Background actors, often known popularly (but not professionally) as “extras,” are essential in creating the tone, mood, and atmosphere of feature films and television scenes.  There are background actors in all performance media, including stage plays (though that’s rare and expensive), and they have different names in some other performance forms (such as “supernumeraries” in opera). 

[The most common performing arts where background actors are found are television and film.  Movies, especially war films and historical epics, can employ hundreds of background actors.  Most actors start out in movies with background appearances.  It’s not unheard-of for a background actor to get bumped up to a “silent bit” or even a “day player,” with a contractual increase in pay.

[(Those last two film terms mean pretty much what the names imply.  A silent bit [part] is a role that stands out from the crowd, or background, because the actor has to do something significant to the scene’s plot but has no lines.  A day player is an actor contracted for one day’s shooting, or part thereof, to perform a role that never appears as a significant character in the movie.  The job may be one or more scenes, but they are all shot in one day.)

[In most cases in the United States, background work, like all film performances, is regulated and overseen by SAG-AFTRA, the union that represents screen actors in all media.  (There used to be a union called the Screen Extras Guild, which had a limited geographical jurisdiction.  SEG’s members were ultimately absorbed into the Screen Actors Guild, and SAG then merged with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists to become SAG-AFTRA.) 

[Background actors are defined as performers who appear in non-speaking or non-singing roles, usually in the background of scenes—for example, in an audience or busy street scene.  (Crowd scenes aren’t the only places background actors may appear in films and TV shows; they might be seen at a nearby café table, tending bar behind the featured actors, or walking a dog on a suburban street.  I was once a counterman at a deli (an episode of Nurse) and a cop who arrested Woody Allen (Stardust Memories, 1980); that latter gig got upgraded to a silent bit. 

[Related to the background performer is the stand-in.  In film and television, this is an actor who substitutes for a featured performer before filming, for technical purposes such as lighting and camera setups.  (The featured actor is usually in make-up or wardrobe, taking a break, or rehearsing an upcoming scene during these times.) 

[A stand-in may also work as a background actor when not occupied with his or her stand-in duties; sometimes the stand-in has a small role in the film or TV show.  (In the original Perry Mason television series [1957-66], Raymond Burr’s stand-in for all nine years was Lee Miller.  Miller also played the recurring role of police Sgt. Brice.)

[I know of people who made extra pocket money—retirees, office workers, and even teachers—by doing background work in movies and TV shows even though they weren’t pursuing careers in acting.  One acquaintance, Jack Beers, whose wife, Bertha, was a friend of my mother’s, became famous in his own right when a film of his life (Holes in My Shoes) was aired on PBS in 2009, shortly after his death at 99.]

BACKGROUND ACTORS IN THE SPOTLIGHT

[The following article was published in SAG-AFTRA, the magazine of the union for screen actors in film, TV, and video (vol. 8, iss. 3 [Fall 2019]); it’s also accessible on the union’s website, https://www.sagaftra.org/background-actors-spotlight, posted on 5 November 2019.] 

With the explosion of new production on a variety of platforms, background actors are in demand, and earnings are up.

But, increasingly, some members are concerned about the competition for the number of spots allocated for union background in SAG-AFTRA contracts as well as the lack of contract coverage in emerging production areas such as New Mexico, Louisiana and Georgia.

Recently, they have been on the receiving end of an outpouring of support from high-profile members, including Jeff Bridges, Amy Adams, Mandy Moore, Mark Duplass and Rachel Brosnahan. But many of these performers have only spoken out after witnessing or experiencing firsthand some of the poor treatment their colleagues who work background have received on set. For instance, Adams recalled how she was mistaken for her stand-in while shooting HBO’s Sharp Objects.

“I’ve never experienced this before but, because we looked so much alike, at one point somebody grabbed me really hard and pulled me,” she recently told THR [The Hollywood Reporter]. “I went, ‘What’s going on?’ And they’re like, ‘(Gasp) You’re not Reb!’ I went into producer [mode] and I was like, ‘You will not handle her like that.’”

In April, the multihyphenate Duplass tweeted about how appalled he was to see background performers treated badly. “If you see this happening, please gently bring it to the attention of the offender(s) and ask them to reconsider their approach. It’s an odd blind spot in our industry,” he wrote.

New York Local Board member and Background Advisory Committee Chair Avis Boone agrees.

“In New York, while shooting exterior scenes in January in out-of-season wardrobe without proper breaks and a place to keep warm between shots, sometimes background actors will ask for hand warmers and be told that they only have enough for the crew or the talent [industry jargon for featured performers]. Even though background actors are a key ingredient to make a scene look real, they are often an afterthought when it comes to the things like being given proper breaks, water and safety rides,” she said.

Some performers, including Bridges, Moore and Brosnahan, used their time onstage during the last awards season to single out their stand-ins and background colleagues. While accepting the SAG Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series [The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, 2019], Brosnahan saluted “Our too-often unsung background actors who worked the same hours as us and share the same union as us. I couldn’t be luckier to be a part of this amazing group of artists.” Moore made a similar shout-out during the 25th annual SAG Awards in January [2019], telling This Is Us background performers: “Our show wouldn’t be what it is without you.”

Bridges, too, has talked about how his longtime stand-in, Loyd Catlett, has been essential to his work, acknowledging their 50-year collaboration during his Oscars acceptance speech in 2010 and while receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award [an honorary award for “outstanding contributions to the world of entertainment”] at the 2019 Golden Globes in January.

SAG-AFTRA leaders have also made the working conditions of background performers a priority. Last spring, President Gabrielle Carteris made a point of visiting Central Casting, the industry’s largest employment facilitator of background performers, to hear directly from members about their on-set experiences.

“Background performers are our fellow actors, our fellow members and so critical to all of our shared success,” she said after the visit. “We perform together and we fight for our protections and fair wages together — as one union.”

Ron Ostrow, chair of the National and Los Angeles Background Actors committees, said the recent attention has been a morale booster. Still, he encouraged other high-profile members to speak up, not just in public forums, but in the moment if they see something happening on set.

“Background actors want it known that they look at this like a profession. This is not something that they just go and hang out and do. They know their obligations. They know how to make a scene look good,” he said.

Ostrow noted that while some of the 56,000 members who do background work each year do so to supplement their careers, others have dedicated themselves to the craft. “There are people who are doing this full time who are raising their families and making their benefits,” he said. “They know how to bring their game to this — not just their wardrobe, props and cars.”

*  *  *  *

5 WAYS TO GET THE MOST OUT OF WORKING BACKGROUND

[The information below was published alongside the article above in the same issue of SAG-AFTRA magazine; it, too, was posted on 5 December 2019 at https://www.sagaftra.org/5-ways-get-most-out-working-background.]

Get a copy of SAG-AFTRA's Background Actors Contracts Digest

Richard Markman, an alternate on the Background Actors Committee, said that he will often pass out copies to new members so they can understand the protections of each contract — and understand any adjustments that they could be due during a production. When he sees new members dog-earing the booklet, he feels a sense of pride. “That to me is such a victory: I have done my job,” he said. “They want to know what their rights are and what they’re entitled to.” Find the Background Actors Contracts Digest and a downloadable PDF at sagaftra.org/background-actors-digest.

Don’t address adjustments with production staff.

Samantha Hartson, a member of the National and Los Angeles Background Actors committees, advised background performers to note any adjustments that they didn’t receive and file with SAG-AFTRA after their work has been completed. “Don’t make a production of it on set. File a claim with the union,” she said.

Treat background work like a job.

“It doesn’t matter how little the job is or how big the job is; it doesn’t matter if you’re just a cross, take pride in it,” said Hartson. [A cross is the movement of a background actor who passes through the view of the camera.] “Don’t be looking to sit down as soon as you can. People are always watching you.” She also advised members not to carry their phones on set and stay close during breaks in shooting. “You never know when they’re going to need you,” she said.

Keep your headshots up to date and target your submissions.

Photos that don’t match your current look will annoy casting directors. Hartson and Markman both stressed that members should keep their photos current with Central Casting and L.A. Casting. “Submit for who and what you are. Be honest about your age range. If you’re 60 years old, don’t submit for 40 unless you actually look that age,” said Markman.

Bring the proper wardrobe.

If you’re required to bring wardrobe, bring wardrobe. Markman suggested going a step further and having multiple looks for the character available, in case the casting director doesn’t like the initial selection. “The production absolutely loves that,” he said. “Personally, I bring wardrobe for whatever my role may be. If you’re cast as a lawyer, don’t bring a pair of shorts.”

*  *  *  *
WORKING BACKGROUND
by Katie Doyle, CSA 

[Katie Doyle is a Hawaii casting director;  her article below was posted on the SAG-AFTRA website on 1 April 2016 at https://www.sagaftra.org/working-background.  The Casting Society of America (CSA) is a professional society of about 700 casting directors for film, television, and theater in Australia, Canada, India, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  The society is not to be confused with an industry union.]

When prepping for principal or background actor casting, we look for folks who have an understanding of the basic technical components of a television or film set, and who can follow production rules and instruction. Of course, everyone needs that first opportunity, and working as a background actor is a good way to get familiar with what actually goes on in the world of film production. 

The technological advances in our industry have impacted every aspect of film/television-making. The pace is faster and the stakes are higher than ever before, which translates into multitudes of schedule changes that affect everyone, including the background actors. This can be very frustrating — especially since the casting department is often the last to receive the information.

It used to be the exception to the rule when large-scale schedule/shooting changes occurred. Now, changes are the accepted norm. The casting department relies on advanced technology and good old-fashioned telephone-calling to keep up with the daily/hourly changes given to us by production. But, if you want to work in this industry and stay sane, it’s best to be adaptable. If you don’t want to do background work, say so. 

If you want to work, here is a quick reminder to use these very basic tools: 

VOICEMAIL: Make sure your voicemail is set up and able to take messages. So many times we get a recording that says, “This user’s voicemail is not set up.” We can’t hire you if we can’t reach you. Please check your voicemail regularly — especially if we are in production. (See above regarding "changes.") 

EMAIL: Have a simple email address that you use for business and check it regularly. You need to check your trash, junk mail/spam folders to see if our correspondence has been sent there — especially in the beginning of a project if your system doesn’t recognize a new email address.

EMAIL REPLY: Reply to emails that require replies with the proper information in the subject line so your email won’t get lost.

READ the email we send and print out your maps and wardrobe instructions so you have them handy — we give background actors a lot of information. It’s frustrating when you call with questions about something that has been clearly explained in the email. 

HOTLINES: Numbers and procedures vary from production to production — as a general rule, it’s good to check in the evening after posting time and then once more in the morning before you leave the house. Most often, these are not set up to receive messages, so please follow the instructions given to you at the time of booking.   

And that’s a wrap.

[There are other jobs in movies and TV that are similar to background acting.  (Make no mistake, by the way, that it is acting.  I once was part of a street crowd for a scene set in the dead of winter in 1981’s Rich and Famous.  The problem was that not only was the scene shot in summer on location in midtown Manhattan, but it was during one of the heat waves we used to have here once or twice a summer when the temps reached three digits.  There we were, wearing winter coats, hats, gloves, and mufflers—I even had on a Russian ushanka (fur hat with ear flaps)—while swallowing salt pills and wearing nearly nothing beneath the heavy coats.  Between shots, we sat on air-conditioned buses, then hopped out to do another take, pretending we were shivering in sub-freezing weather.)

[One similar film gig to background work is “looping,” or dubbing dialogue or other verbal expressions in post-production.  Like some background jobs, actors can be selected for special skills or talents or possession of special clothing or equipment.  (This information is listed on the actor’s qualifications at the union—the actors are admonished to update this list frequently.)  I was called once because I owned a complete army uniform (kept from my service which had ended only a few years earlier) and another time because I had a dog.  (I was a guy walking his dog in Greenwich Village in 1980’s Willie & Phil, written and directed by Paul Mazursky.)

[I got one gig because my résumé indicated that I spoke some Russian; the job was for Real Men, a 1987 Cold War spy comedy starring Jim Belushi and John Ritter.  The producers wanted to dub in some off-screen Russian phrases in the background during chases and fights.  When the small group of actors met at the sound studio, we were also asked to do some Russian-accented English as well.  In the end, we also did some ordinary English background dialogue, mostly in a scene in a crowded bar and one at an L.A. farmer’s market, and we “sweetened” a couple of fight scenes by dubbing some grunts and groans to enhance the slug-fests.]