INT: We did not talk much about SORCERER, so let’s talk a little bit about it. And I wanna first talk about the truck, which has as much personality as every one of the Actors. How did you dis--[WF: There are two trucks, of course.] Well yeah, but the, it’s the, sort of the, well okay. I’m looking at the one that has the amazing grille. [WF: They all have amazing, they both have amazing grilles.] Talk about them. How did these, how did you decide on the personalities of these vehicles?

WF: I went to a number of Latin American countries, and in particular Ecuador, to look for a location to film SORCERER. And I saw these trucks, heavy load cargo trucks down there, that were all made of different parts, and all were personalized, with either a painting, or they were all colored in vibrant colors, with the names of the driver’s wife, or girlfriend, or son, or whatever. And they were all found object built. And all personalized. And as I say they had names. And so my Art Director was one of the greatest who ever lived. The Production Designer was John Box, who worked with, among others, David Lean on DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, and a number of Lean films. And he was a wonderful designer, he went with me on this trip and we said that’s, these are the trucks. So we copied them. They were old World War II trucks, made of found object parts in the Dominican Republic. I wanted to film in Ecuador, which is the most naturally beautiful country I’ve ever seen. And when I came back and said that to Lou Wasserman, he banged his desk and said, “Are you out of your fucking mind? I can’t get you insurance to go to Ecuador.” And I said, “Well, you know, Lou I heard the same thing from Warner Bros., from Ted Ashley when I told him I was going to Iraq. And I went to Iraq without the permission of Warner Bros., and I went to the Iraqi mission to the United Nations, told the Iraqi ambassador, who we did not have diplomatic relations with at that time. Not even, we didn’t even have a desk in another embassy. At that time, Iraq was at war, on all of its borders, with Iran, Syria, Kuwait, and within the country, with the Kurds. I went, he--I nevertheless got permission from the Iraqi ambassador, who represented the Ba’athist party; it was a one party government. And he had only a couple of conditions that are very strange. They were at the time and they are on reflection. He wanted me to hire Iraqis on the crew, train them, fine. But he wanted me to teach them how to make movie blood. Which I didn’t understand, but we did. I had Dick Smith over there, and Rick Baker, who was Dick Smith’s assistant, who did Max von Sydow’s liver spots. And that’s about it. And we taught them how to make movie blood. And then he wanted, for the high officers of the Ba’athist party, they wanted a print of THE FRENCH CONNECTION, in 35. So I got them that. And that’s all. And then they were my hosts over there. And I went there with no, I went to Jack Valenti who was head of the Motion Picture Association of America then, formerly Linden Johnson’s aide, and Jack said, “You know, I can’t get you any state department help. If you get screwed over there, you’re on your own.” I had to take a British crew with rare exception; I needed Dick Smith and Rick Baker, and I took my AD and Production Manager [UPM].

INT: That statue that’s there [THE EXORCIST], what was the evolution, the origin of the statue?

WF: That is a, that is a actual statue of the demon Pazuzu, which is an Abyssinian statue that stood somewhere on that actual location, but was later found and taken to the British Museum. [INT: And did you see it in the British Museum and that’s how…] Yeah. And we copied the, well Bill Malley who was the designer [Production Designer], took a photograph of the one, which recently, in miniature, visited the Met. I think it’s still not, when this interview will be shown, but it’s, at this moment, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in an exhibition from Abyssinia to Assyria [Assyria to Iberia at the Dawn of the Classical Age]. And it’s part of Abyssinian art. It is a demon that was the demon that brought the winds that destroyed anything, everything in its path. [INT: Got it.] And it’s an actual depiction of the demon Pazuzu. [INT: In the idea--] About 3000 years old.

INT: In the idea of “movie gods”, that every now and then you’ve said, “If it weren’t for the movie gods, this might not have happened.” I don’t know if you pray for “I sure hope this day is gonna work well,” or you have even superstitions, “I never change my shoes during the…” Any of that stuff for you? [WF: Not really.] Because people do have that. I’ll tell you just quickly. Peter Jackson, for whatever reasons, was wearing a pair of sneakers while he was making the first LORD OF THE RINGS, and wore that through two years, to the point of where, he even showed up at the DGA with those, still wrapped because he was so superstitious about “I can’t change these shoes otherwise things won’t happen the way I want.”

WF: I don’t have anything like that Jeremy, but I do have certain specific watches that I wear, consciously, at certain times. And then when I find myself recognizing that they’ve become a superstition, I quickly put on another watch, ‘cause I have a lot of watches. I love wristwatches. [INT: Do you refer to the watch while you’re shooting, because, you know, often times, we like to say, “Well the watch is my AD [Assistant Director].”] In some ways, sure. The watch is your enemy, too. And sometimes it becomes your friend. And when it’s been my friend, when I’ve made the day’s work, I wear it again the next day. That has happened to me, but that’s the only thing I can think of, certainly not any other article of clothing.

INT: And when you say “movie gods,” are you talking about just accident, coincident, fate, or do you actually feel like, well, you know, I don’t know, but I’m not saying movie gods--

WF: I don’t know. [INT: Okay.] But you can call it luck, easily, or whatever. But, for example, the entire, almost the entire cast of THE EXORCIST and THE FRENCH CONNECTION was brought to me by the movie god. And KILLER JOE, and BUG. I didn’t seek them out, I didn’t even know about them, before, with the exception in THE EXORCIST of Max von Sydow and Lee J. Cobb. The rest of the cast who are the actual leads, and Ellen Burstyn was not a star. The studio, as you know, wanted three other actresses, all of whom couldn’t do it for whatever reason. And Ellen Burstyn asked for that role, and told-- [INT: That’s happened to you a number of times.] Yeah. [INT: Happened to you on KILLER JOE.] Yeah. Juno Temple. I didn’t know these people, and now here, I discover them, an act of the movie god, and they’re wonderful. They’re just terrific. So yes, I do believe that we’re talking about fate. That fate plays a part in everything, and that’s largely what my films are about: the mystery of fate. THE EXORCIST may be an exception in that it is about the mystery of faith. So primarily, the films in my life are about the mystery of faith or fate.

INT: When you say fate, let’s look at this, are we talking about the coincidence that will happen, or the, you know, for ex--I was thinking about this little, the shoot out at the end of KILLER JOE, whether that might or might not have happened so that, you know, what I’m saying? You don’t really know what is going to happen, something’s gonna happen that is not as totally determined by “character”.

WF: You’re talking about the audience doesn’t know. [INT: Well the audience for sure doesn’t know, but…] Be more specific. [INT: All right. I’m thinking that when you say fate, in terms of like, it’s fated that you were taking a shower, saw McConaughey, boom, that happens.] Yeah, shaving. [INT: That was not you, exactly. It was not you; it was the event.] Yeah, I was drawn. I would never have watched this show if I had known Matthew McConaughey was gonna be interviewed on it, I would not have turned it on. [INT: Got it. So, but…] It was just a channel. [INT: But as you said, your stories that you tell are often times also about “fate”. And in a sense that, and I guess what’s interesting me is the idea of coincidence when we’ve tooken a story, when we say in a story, “Oh, that’s coincidental, I don’t buy it,” versus coincidences that in fact we do buy. Do…] These are more than coincidences. I believe that, as a filmmaker, you have to realize that you are riding an out of control steed that may take you here or there, or anywhere, or nowhere. But that you are, you have embarked on a journey. Every film is a journey. And it’s also, can be, it can be a journey of discovery about yourself.

WF: In the course of making the films I’ve made, I’ve discovered things about other people, and characters. And characters in this situation. And I discover certain things about human nature that I wasn’t aware of when I started the film. [INT: Can you give a specific?] Well, the Roy Scheider character in SORCERER was originally conceived as a kind of a superhero, not a flawed man. And I offered the role to Steve McQueen, who is the superhero, and one of my favorite film Actors. He was a great film Actor, like Spencer Tracy, in that you could watch him really listening. A lot of the times I see guys in films, and they’re not talking. They’re supposed to be listening to the other person and they’re not. They’re just waiting to talk. And as a Director, you can notice that very often, when the other Actress or Actor is just waiting to talk, and they aren’t really paying attention. They’re doing something else while this other person is talking. And McQueen and Spencer Tracy are great examples of Actors who listened, and that was their greatness. I mean you wouldn’t choose McQueen to do a Shakespearian play. But to be in a contemporary drama as a real human being, he listened. He was in the moment. And originally that’s how I considered the lead in SORCERER. And through a long series of events, McQueen couldn’t do the picture. Stupid things that I did, that I wouldn’t do today, forced him to not accept the part. But the character was much more conc--was not conceived as a flawed man. [INT: The stupid things that you learned not to do…] Well I’ll give you the example. We, Wally Green [Walon Green] and I wrote that script. Wally did all the writing, but I was the Director and supervised the script. Wally had also written THE WILD BUNCH, and he was making documentary films at Wolper [Wolper Pictures] when I went there; it was my first job. And I met Wally, and he spoke eight languages, and he’s fluent in eight languages and a brilliant guy. And he’s the guy I went to to write SORCERER. And originally we wrote it; I spoke to Steve McQueen, who I knew. And he and I had always wanted to do a film together. And I asked Wally to write this role for Steve McQueen. Which would’ve gotten me Marcello Mastroianni in another role, and Lino Ventura in another role. The biggest Italian star at that time, and the biggest French star. So I went to Steve, and I told him the story, he said, “Great, this sounds great. Send me the script when it’s ready.” We sent him the script. He called me, maybe two days later, and he said, “This is the best script I’ve ever read. I’m in.” He said, “I’ll do it.” He said, “I gotta ask you a couple of favors.” And, “Yeah?” He said, “Well, first of all, you know that I just married Ali MacGraw, so what I’d like you to try to do is to create a good role for her.” And I took that in, and I said, “Steve, you just told me it was the best script you ever read. There is not a role for a woman in this script. I would have to change it substantially; I don’t know how to do that. It is what it is.” And he said, “Okay. Why don’t you make her an Associate Producer, so she can be with me while we’re shooting, and I won’t have to be away from her for a long time.” My initial knee-jerk reaction then was, “Associate Producer is a bullshit title. I don’t want any Associate Producers. I don’t believe in them. It’s fuckin’ ridiculous.” And he said, “Okay.” He said, “Film it somewhere in the United States, so I don’t have to leave the fuckin’ country and go to some god forsaken jungle, and you’ll shoot this thing for six months, and I won’t be able to see her. She has her own career, you know, and I can’t just have her there as my wife.” And I said, “Look, I’m not gonna shoot it in this country, except for one sequence. I’m gonna shoot--I’ve found some of the greatest locations in Latin America and I’m gonna shoot there. And I’m not making your wife an Associate Producer.” He said, “Then I can’t do the picture.”

WF: And I actually thought, I was so arrogant I thought, "Fuck Steve McQueen. You know, I don’t need him to make a picture. People will come to see this film [SORCERER] because I made it." And so I then lost, because they would’ve taken second and third billing, Mastroianni [Marcello Mastroianni] and Lino Ventura. The young Moroccan Actor was always my first and only choice, Amidou. And so I lose McQueen, I didn’t give a shit. And I went through, actually met with Robert Blake for that role, and other people who wanted to play it, and I gave the role to Roy Scheider. And I have, I think Roy is great in SORCERER. I think he’s just wonderful. But I didn’t, I was not aware at that time, that a close-up of Steve McQueen’s face was more important to a movie than the most beautiful landscape ever presented to a camera. And today, if the equivalent situation were to occur, I would’ve written in a part for his wife, or made--and made her the Associate Producer or even the Producer, because I have since learned, that a close-up of a great screen presence is more important than any background you can film. I didn’t know that then. [INT: I got it. Although--] You ask me what I’ve learned… [INT: I got that one.] …that’s the main thing I’ve learned. [INT: You know when you say…] And you have to make some compromises sometimes, which I was unwilling to do. I was riding the success of THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST. Which put me, you know, in the top rank of American filmmakers.

INT: Did you know that careers were roller coasters when you started to have yours?

WF: No. No. I knew little of Hollywood history. Little. I became aware of Orson Welles, a completely unfair rollercoaster career, in which the man who made, arguably, one of the greatest films ever made, easily, arguably, and for the most part, is thought of as that by film historians, and critics and many others. And then I remember reading that his career only went downhill from there, no matter how many other good or decent films he made, he never recaptured the momentum that should’ve come when he was 25 years old and made CITIZEN KANE. [INT: So knowing that, and knowing your own… But you didn’t have expectations as your career took off with these two pictures…] I just wanted to have a job. [INT: Got it. But then when it--] I became a Director to, ‘cause I thought it was a good line of work. [INT: Well it can be, if you can keep working at it. And you, when you rose then, did you think that this will only increase? At that time?] Sure. [INT: Got it.] Yeah, I never expected the knock at the door. Sylvester Stallone once verbalized it for me in the most graphic terms. He said, “You know there isn’t a day in my life, since I’ve had all my success, that I didn’t think that one day, there would come a knock at the door, and I would open it and somebody would be there and say, ‘Okay, all the furniture has to go, all the rugs, all the paintings, everything, you’re out of here, you’re on the street, and your career is over.’” And he told me that not long ago, that he lives with that feeling that one day it’s all gonna end. And a lot of what he does, is working against that day. You know, keeping himself before the public. Keeping active, even if they’re not films that he was as passionate about as he was ROCKY and RAMBO. He keeps makin’ ‘em to keep himself out there.

INT: Now for you, recognizing that in fact a career as successful as yours still has the rollercoaster ride, I don’t think you’d change anything. No, there’s certain things, yes you would’ve hired McQueen [Steve McQueen], I get that. But in terms of understanding that that in fact may very well be the nature of anybody’s life. That it isn’t a comet that keeps going. It is a rollercoaster ride.

WF: It can be, though, you know, you have examples. There are certainly examples of some of the greatest filmmakers, all of whose films are not on the same level, like Hitchcock. Hitchcock is probably the most well-known filmmaker who ever lived because of his television series, and other things, and a handful of really great movies. But there’s a lot of them that aren’t that good. But he’s, he managed, to his death, to sustain his career at the highest possible level. Whether the critics liked this film or that, or the audience didn’t go see this or that, he was still Hitchcock. I think that’s true of Spielberg. Spielberg has maintained a career at the highest level, longer than anyone I know. And turned out some really wonderful films. But there’re very few of those. [INT: In fact, you know, to me, I remember meeting Billy Wilder, and seeing, and talking to him and realizing, you know, this is genius, this is incredible.] Smart, and… [INT: Yeah. And just perspective, and… as a Writer, as a creator and all those. And then that career stopped. He didn’t stop being smart, and stop being creative, but because of the nature of money, and Hollywood, and profit, and that stopped.] Here’s what happens often. It’s the nature of the zeitgeist, Jeremy, which is almost constantly in flux. And some of us are aware of it and others are not. I got some of the best reviews of my career on KILLER JOE, because it was in the zeitgeist. You could do a film like that that was very edgy, off the edge, at times. And the film’s still playing, everywhere, and it’s still selling massive numbers of Blu-rays, and it is streaming, and it’s in theaters. Because it caught the zeitgeist years after I passed my prime. Now, that was just, I didn’t think that through. It just happened that I was attracted to KILLER JOE at a time when I could still get it made. Many years earlier, even after the success of THE EXORCIST, I might not have been able to get that film made, ‘cause it’s so far off the charts, as a, as a story. You know, as a, as a filmed document about human nature, it’s way out there. But the time came around and I got it made. It’s not the biggest hit in the world, but it’s had great success and continues to as we speak. But the zeitgeist is a--Billy Wilder, who I knew very well, and called a close personal friend. And I used to have lunch with him three or four days a week. I’d meet him at his office, and he loved this hamburger joint called Johnny Rockets, which was on the corner in Beverly Hills; it’s gone now, but where his office was. We’d go there and have lunch. Or Prego, an Italian restaurant around the corner. And he once said to me, I don’t know if this remark has, if he’s ever said it in public; I’ve never read it in public. But he once said to me, “You’re only as good as your best picture.” Did you ever hear that remark? [INT: As distinguished from “you’re only good as your last picture.”] Right, as distinguished from “you’re only good as your last picture.” Billy said to me, “Just remember, you’re only as good as your best picture.” And I thought that was a very interesting way to look at it, this was a number of years ago. I’ve known him for years. But no, people stopped knocking at Billy’s door, because a whole bunch of younger people, not necessarily filmmakers, but Agents, and lawyers, and others, took over the management of the big movie studios. And they didn’t know who Billy Wilder was or give a shit. There was some other kid who was the flavor of the month, you know. And those, the flavor of the month will always get the job before a legend like Billy Wilder. It’s part of the difference in our cult--between our culture and for example, the Asian culture, in particular Japan, where age is respected. The older a guy is in his profession, whether it’s filmmaking or acupuncture, the older a guy is, the more knowledge he has, is thought to have acquired. Here, as you reach a certain age, you’re thought to be out of it. And they’d rather go with some kid who may… But that’s, I’m not knocking that, that’s the American way.

INT: The fact that the camera now is the pencil of our time, in the sense that, you know, everybody’s walking around with a video camera. They call it their cell phone, but it’s a video camera. The knowledge that people have, everybody has, to be able to sort of “be a filmmaker,” is much more ubiquitous than ever before. That doesn’t mean they’re any good, it just means that they can do it. [WF: They have access.] And that’s a shift that I’m not even sure how any of us even know what to do with. I mean…

WF: I welcome that. I think it’s great. When I started out and wanted to be a filmmaker, I couldn’t acquire a camera. I could barely afford a 16-millimeter camera, but certainly not a 35. And the editing equipment necessary, and the money to shoot a film and have it processed. I had to have somebody back me. The kids today can go into an electronics shop and buy a video camera, cell phone as you say, or whatever, shoot something, take it home, put it on their computer, download it, edit it on their own computer, and then finish it, add a soundtrack of some kind, and put it out on the Internet, where some people will see it. And there are many cases of these young people having their work seen and discovered, and they get jobs. And I think that’s a great thing. I think it’s better than film school. Film school, you have to go through criticism, often by someone who is unqualified to criticize your work. I remember the story told to me by Ray Manzarek, the keyboard player for The Doors, the great rock band of the ‘60s [1960s] and early ‘70s [1970s]. ‘60s [1960s]. They were all film students at UCLA. And the instructor that they had, they made little films, and they showed them, and the instructor told them they had no talent. Told them they, you know, like a doctor telling you you’re gonna die in two weeks, or three. He doesn’t know. Like Stephen Hawking was told he had two years, and it’s been 50 years later now, and he’s still alive. But this instructor, who shall remain nameless, told The Doors they had no talent. So they used to cut class. And they sat out on the lawn at UCLA, and they would eat their lunch or whatever, and drink a beer. And Jim Morrison started to read his poems to the other members of The Doors. And Ray Manzarek said, “Hey man, those are songs. Those are songs.” And he set out, and set them to music. And they became The Doors. I would love to one day discover, and maybe you can help me. I have contacts at UCLA too. I’d love to see if they have any of the films that The Doors made, that were said by the instructor to be shit. Because nobody has a right to do that. And if you’re gonna go out and make a film as a young person, or whatever, it seems to me, you have to rely on your own judgment, your own instincts, your own beliefs, your own knowledge, your own faith, whatever it is.

INT: What do you do when people criticize your work; what have you done? I mean you’ve gotten out there and certain times it’s happened. What does it do to you? How do you deal with it?

WF: Whenever it seems to have validity, I take it to heart. If it’s just, I mean I’ve gotten a lot of criticism that is just from absolute imbeciles, many of whom work for a daily newspaper. But I’ve also gotten criticism, even on the Internet or others, that is valid to me and I learned from it. That happens less, because anybody who sets out to attack a film as a critic, is usually operating out of self-loathing, jealousy, or anger at the fact that they are not making films, they’re writing about them. And the credit belongs to the man in the arena. On the other hand, it’s the critics and the film historians that make a career. You wouldn’t be interviewing me about my career, if I didn’t have a career. And the only reason I have a career, is because enough critics and historians, at the right times, wrote good things about me. And some of the same critics wrote things that were not complimentary to my films. In many occasions I think they were right. And if I do think they’re right, I look at it and take it to heart. But there’s not a lot you can do about it, because the films that we make come from our hearts. Even if it’s some other guy’s script, it’s a script that you loved, and wanted to do. And it was your choice to do it. And you didn’t go and check with the guy who writes for The New York Times or something to see if he liked the script, or she. You know. You said to yourself, “Self, do I like this script or not? Yes I do,” and you made it, and it turned out great, or not great, or awful, or whatever.

INT: You make a picture--when you make a picture--that satisfies your creative needs and processes. In that editing room when you finally say, “This is the lock picture,” in the mix when you’re finishing saying, “We’re done,” and the color timing, “This is what I want,” there’s some times when you know, this is really good, and the audience may or may not agree with you. The distribution process may not be the gods favoring you, because of whatever it is. And there’s some times you’re too close, and don’t know. Have you gone through, as you’re finishing, "I’ve made the film I wanted to make," or do you go through, "I’ve made the film as best I can make it, and I don’t know what’s gonna happen with it"?

WF: I always go through that. I never have any idea whether the public will agree with it or not. And that includes, you know, THE EXORCIST, which has made about 800 million dollars so far, over the last 40 years, and has had success everywhere. When I finished that film I had no idea that it would have the force that it had. I can say with modesty, that it has been one of the most powerful films ever to have been made in terms of the emotional impact that it had on audiences. Sometimes not always positive, but nevertheless powerful. Sometimes negative force. But I had no idea that it would do any better or any worse than BUG. I thought when I finished BUG, it was a great film. It had a very small audience. Small, but loyal. It’s not the kind of pictures that studios are looking to do. But, no I never have any idea. And I don’t know whether to--they are usually the best that I could do, which doesn’t mean that they’re that good. But it does mean that it was the best that I could do, and that’s all. And I try, when and if they fail, with the public and/or the critics, I try to find the reason why, and often I can’t. And now you take a film like SORCERER, which only now is finding its audience some 38 years later, after it was made. It was initially made, it was a total flop, with the critics and the public. And now it opened the Venice Film Festival. It’s played, I’ve gotten life achievement awards from many other film festivals where they chose to run SORCERER. It’s, it became the number one best-selling DVD, or Blu-ray when it came out, with very little publicity. It was at number one in the best-selling drama Blu-rays with little promotion or, and no advertising. It’s being re-released now in theaters all over the world. It’s opening in July in France, in 25 cinemas. Then-- [INT: Does it make sense to you?] No. But people discovered it later. It’s opening elsewhere, all over Europe. And it continues to play here, while it really came back as a result of a Warner Bros. Blu-ray. And it was dead. The picture was dead. And buried. And like Lazarus, it has risen again. I don’t know; it’s the same picture. I didn’t change anything. I just put it out digitally, and with a remixed soundtrack.

INT: Have you gone through the experience when you’re doing those, putting out digitally, and going back, which you’ve done a number of times, that because the digital allows you to do things that you couldn’t have done, have you then made--I don’t know. Obviously, these are visual changes. They’re not editorial changes. You could do editorial too, but I’m talking about, you know, “I always wanted that sky to be blue, but we couldn’t do anything, ‘cause it was…”

WF: You’re absolutely right. Every time I go back and make a digital print of one of my films, I treat the color palette as though it’s a fresh canvas. And as you said, I want the sky a little bluer or less blue. And you can go into a frame, in the digital process, and change the sky, the ground, the color of an Actor’s skin, the color of his wristwa-whatever. And you can now achieve the picture that you wanted, visually, but could never achieve in the print process, because the print process is so flawed. It’s the process that lasted the longest of other processes, you know, which was 35 millimeter printed in a lab. And, but I always, I saw all my prints through the lab. And the problem, it was always a compromise because the composition of the water, in the developer, is changing second by second, because of the amoeba in the water. So, and the electricity to the printer, is constantly fluctuating, even imperceptibly. But that changes the nature of each roll, each reel that comes off. So that one reel will, of a film will come out a little bluer, and the other a little greener, and another very vivid in color, another with less, and I went through dozens upon dozens of prints of each reel of my films, to get out a reel that I could compromise, and say, “Well, that’s as good as it can be.” But that doesn’t happen with digital anymore. You can correct all those little details.

INT: Hi there, I’m Jeremy Kagan. We are at the Directors Guild of America. This is December 9th, 2014. We have been conducting an interview with William Friedkin, and, here at the Guild.