SL: One of the things I'm saying is there's no more other than the don'ts, there is no active way of working with a writer particularly that I use every time.

INT: How do shooting scripts evolve? The production issues. How do they affect the script when you approach production?
SL: Again, it varies. I'm hip to the commercial end of it, I know that if I have one or two big stars in it, there's going to be more money available. I like to come in on budget because I feel very grateful someone's given me untold millions to do what I would do for nothing. I don’t believe in shitting on management. I'm grateful for the fact that they've given me money to do it. I've always traded my freedom for my responsibility about what the picture's going to cost. When I had a couple of hits in a roll, the first thing I got was final cut, not a bigger salary. I went for final cut. So I'm aware of the dough and how the dough is spent. Also, having come from a poor background, it offends me to waste money, I'm miserly about it in that sense.

INT: Have you ever sacrificed money for locations to get actors?
SL: I've never had to face that choice. When the script has been finalized, what I want to do and the studio has signed off on it, I'm good on budget so I know in advance what I need to do to shoot it is going to be there, financially. I've never had to choose between, "Oh Christ, this actor's two million dollars more than this actor, we have to cut this." I've never run into that.

INT: How about working with multiple writers? Have you done that at all?
SL: I can't remember when I've changed writers. I don't think I ever have. I've come in on scripts that have had two or three drafts, then they've come to me and maybe I've brought in another writer, but that was the last writer to come on. I think, for better or worse, it's part of your responsibility as a director is to pick the right person. And if you blow it, you blow it. Everybody makes serious errors in making movies. We've all got a lot of bad movies. You take your lumps but you're responsible for your decisions. I don't think I've ever changed a cast member or changed a writer that I can remember. Or a cameraman.

INT: You mentioned that you've written yourself. Have you re-written? And this is a DGA question, have you been credited?
SL: I've never rewritten a script on my own which hadn't been set up in advance. If it was a scene or two, I wouldn't even bother. If it was a real collaboration the way PRINCE OF THE CITY was, and in that instance I didn't even propose that I be given screen credit. JAY PRESSON ALLEN, who starred in it, proposed it. She said, "Listen, the work you've done on this was incredible and I think we should split the credit." It was JAY's - I think that was my first writing credit. But I think it's part of the director's function to really pour out a lot of energy and a lot of time and work with the writer as the director. Not for the credit. Not for the residuals. without credit. Part of your job is working with the writer as hard as you do with actor or cameraman.

INT: When you say work the writer, do you mean critiquing or rewriting?
SL: Again, it varies. It can go from as broad a discussion and an investigation of this is what it's about. It is not going toward that for this and this reason. Is this the best way to say it? Sometimes I've caught what I didn't catch on FAMILY BUSINESS. Which is, look you're telling the story in this direction and it becomes another kind of movie. All the way down to one word at a time. Is this the best word for that? Is this consistent with the way this character would behave? Again, it covers a very broad spectrum.

INT: Since you yourself had theater experience as a young man, do you ever act out a character with a writer?
SL: When I worked with a writer who was an actor, I've said to that writer, "let's improvise, you and me." And we do. And sometimes it is revelatory for the writer.

INT: Does the writing process stop when you start shooting?
SL: Yes, unless sometimes it does happen that you're aware you haven't resolved this scene. You still haven't gotten it. That's happened a number of times. Sometimes, on THE VERDICT when that happened, we improvised it. A short scene, but a very important one. Also on THE VERDICT, PAUL came to me, we had finished off the hotel room set, PAUL said "I was thinking last night, I think we're missing a beat here" and he talked about what he needed for his transition in the courtroom. The stuff we were going on to the next day. I said, "PAUL you're absolutely right, I think - " because I was hardly going to improve on DAVID MAMET's language - my mind right away went to, how can we play this without using words? 'Cuz MAMET wasn't there. He was up in Vermont. And I figured out something, I said, "How does that sound to you?" He said, "That'll do it." We did this scene just as we were about to abandon set. My reason for caution about doing it is I don't think one really makes the best decisions with 124 people standing around waiting as you do when two of you are sitting alone in a room talking about it or you're working on the intimacy of a rehearsal process.

INT: That example with PAUL NEWMAN, how many times do you have actors who you're close to, say "This isn't right?" or "There's something missing, Sidney."
SL: That happens quite often. And because I have such respect for actors and the whole process, when I hear that, I usually listen. Sometimes I'll disagree. When I find they're right, we usually try to fix it on the spot. And it's one of the reasons I rehearse so often because most of the time I find almost all those inadequacies during rehearsal.

INT: Do you prefer having a writer on set? Or not having a writer on set?
SL: I do prefer it, it depends on the writer. But in most instances, I prefer it. The more talented the writer, the more I like him there. PADDY, I wouldn't have had it any other way. I wanted him right next to me all the time, especially when anything was wildly comedic because he's much better at comedy than I am. I wanted him there to make sure I wasn't blowing the joke. An interesting example of that is the scene where PETER FINCH is wandering down the street in the rain and he's mumbling down the street in his pajamas and he comes into UBS headquarters and he's still mumbling to himself and he's obviously completely off his rocker and he goes to the door and there's a guard there and he opens the door for him, the guard says, "Sure thing, Mr. Beal." And it was just a day player and I said to the guy, "The 'Sure thing, Mr. Beal' is just, we've got a real lunatic on our hands." And PADDY came over and said, "You're wrong. You're wrong. This isn't television. He never even sees that he's nuts." I would have blown the joke. If I'd done it my way, the laugh would have been blown. DOCTOROW was around every minute during DANIEL. Generally, I like it.

INT: Have you ever asked a writer to leave?
SL: Yes I have. But there was a very lovely leading lady and the writer kept hitting on her and so on the sixth day of rehearsal I asked him to go back to Hollywood and jerk off.

INT: What about the idea of having the writer attending casting sessions?
SL: I love it. As I say, I come from theater so those things don't disturb me. Generally, on a casting session, I will trust my instincts more than the writer. Because I'm aware of actors and acting and the acting mechanism, most writers hate actors. So I discount a lot of their feelings if they come in with a chip on their shoulder. Unless you're like this schmuck that wanted to get laid. [INT: But you're not against them seeing the movie get made it?] Listen, it is his or her baby. It doesn't vary in terms of their experience. NAOMI FONER who was not a very experienced writer who did the screenplay for RIVER PHOENIX. RUNNING ON EMPTY. NAOMI, who wrote RUNNING ON EMPTY, was involved in every phase of the production even though she'd maybe had one picture done before as opposed to "famous" writers like PADDY. On the other hand when we did 12 ANGRY MEN, FONDA was a producer, and it's very sweet because he seems like such a stern, self-controlled man, he almost never saw himself in any movie he ever did. Sometimes he saw a movie two years after it was made. Couldn't bear to see it. And in 12 ANGRY MEN he was the producer and came to first day of rushes, saw himself, squeezed my shoulder, said "It's brilliant" and took off and never came to rushes again.

INT: How would you judge the change from the initial script that you read and the shooting script that you end up doing?
SL: Again, it's almost impossible to make a general rule about it. As I told you, there were two scripts in which I literally never changed a word. There was DOG DAY which 60% of the dialog was improvised. There have been other pictures that have gone through severe reconstruction in the cutting room if they could. So again, no rules about it.

INT: This is kind of the bridge; what are the elements that you bring to the story as a director that takes it from the written page to the screen? What is that process?
SL: The first big step is the exploration of those people with the actors. Not many people have read ARTHUR MILLER's first book. I forgot what the title was. A book about anti-Semitism. It was a good book, a good novel. His first play was a play called ALL MY SONS. Quite successful. And on a scale of promised talent, I would say that the novel was as talented a first novel as the play was a talented first play. Both were equally talented. And I asked him one day, "ARTHUR, how come you chose playwrighting which, in a creative sense, is completely out of your control as opposed to something which would be totally in your control? Just your individual voice?" He said, "Sometimes I get a thrill out of the third thing. Sometimes it's more exciting and more thrilling than what I wrote." And that's what I hope happens with the actor. For the writer, for myself. That between that investigation that we make during rehearsals, is the third thing. Something you never knew was there. That's the ultimate. When you see that start to happen on a picture, the best thing you can do is to get out of its way.

INT: You see the role of the director as leading the written word somewhere mysterious?
SL: I know where I want it to wind up. I hope, en route to that, the way is a surprise. So much has been committed - scenic design, lighting design, lens design - that the last surprise left is from the actors. It doesn't always happen but on the best pictures, it happens - as I say, you start sensing it around the second or third week and then fly by the seat of your pants. It's got its own life.

INT: When making your movies, is there any project you ever did where the guarantees of the DGA basic agreement were withheld from you?
SL: No, never happened. There were pictures where the final cut was changed, but that wasn't a DGA right.

INT: How do you choose your actors? We're now getting into production.
SL: Start with obvious, budget. I'm talking about working within the studio system. There are some instances of "independent" movies where you can get away with complete unknowns but that only happened once or twice. [INT: When you made SERPICO, where was PACINO at that point?] AL had been in GODFATHER, on his way to GODFATHER II. AL was up and running. PANIC IN NEEDLE PARK made him a known quantity. He was a comer as we would say. Also, SERPICO was not a very expensive picture.

INT: In approaching casting stars, give us your methodology? Balancing both what you visualize in the character, the needs of the studio? How do you go about making these choices.
SL: There's no great mystery about it. First of all, sometimes scripts come from the stars. I'll get a call, and they'll say "let me send you the script." They're usually attached to the script. That's nice, because if they're right for the part, you know it's a go. Other times, I don't know of anyone besides maybe SPIELBERG who owns his own company who can do a picture without someone else's input.

INT: Would you ever audition a star? That's always a touchy subject.
SL: There was a picture where the studio wanted major star and the star wanted to play it. The picture needed a real sense of language. It was a comedy and the jokes based on an articulate, tip of the tongue brilliance. I said to writer who wanted the star desperately, because it would make us a go picture, I said I don't think he can play it. And, they looked at me like I was crazy. In fact, it was the last time I worked with that writer. He said "if you don't accept this star, I don't know that the studio won't replace you." What the writer was doing was threatening me. I called the star and said "here is my reservation, I think you're wonderful but I'm worried because I think it needs language and there's point in us getting into it if it's going to be a hassle. I have an idea, why don't you come over and read the script. We'll see if there's any point in going ahead. You know the situation." The star said "Absolutely. That makes such sense" and four days later, came over, I had one other actor there, we read the whole script and we came to the end and the star said "Sidney, you're absolutely right. This isn't the role for me." And he called it quits, I got someone else. The star called me two years later to do another movie, impressed with my honesty.

INT: Describe your audition process.
SL: I'm not that big a believer in screen tests. I don't find that much difference between what the camera sees and what my own eye and sensitivity sees. I like to read with the actor myself. I get a great deal of information about how they work. What fuels them. If it's an important part, I'll read them two or three times because you can have lucky accidents in a reading. So on a major part, I'll read them two, three, four times and I'll let them know why. [INT: Give suggestions?] Sometimes, other times I just want to see where their instinct leads them.

INT: Is there a difference in new talent and experienced talent?
SL: No difference. I find that I like stage actors because they know how to use the rehearsal process so well. For a lot of pure movie actors, they have to learn about rehearsal. I remember JEFF BRIDGES on THE MORNING AFTER, never rehearsed. He called me before rehearsing starting, he said "I'm nervous about it. I'm worried I'm gonna use all my instincts on rehearsing." I said, "JEFF, I want you to try it. And if it really starts interfering with you, let me know and I can do something about it. But I think you'll find that after two weeks of shooting, you'll never have felt so free and so good about your performance." And that's exactly what happened.

INT: Describe your rehearsal process?
SL: I start around the table, then the tape is laid out in a rehearsal studio. We block out everything. All basic props are there. And by the end of rehearsal, like in A LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO THE NIGHT which was rehearsed for three weeks, we do complete run throughs. [INT: In run throughs, do you push actors?] No, it's a theater run through, most of them are off-book completely and it's a complete run-through.

INT: Why do you believe so strongly in the rehearsal process?
SL: I talked before about the lucky accident. It's ten times more liable to happen when you know what you're doing. Knowing where you are, where the character is at that point in the screenplay - what's driving the character - is irreplaceable. The result is, when you know that, you are much more relaxed. One of the biggest things you get out of rehearsal is you're going through the whole thing in sequence so you know exactly where they are. Relaxation opens actors to the moment. Nothing seems to through you once you know what you're doing.

INT: Has the DGA ever helped you in casting and rehearsals?
SL: DGA wasn't necessary, but needed permission from the SCREEN ACTORS GUILD to get different money for rehearsals because of budget concerns. Most actors were willing to do it for nothing but I didn't want them to do that. At one point, I asked for permission to pay the minimum for rehearsal and bumped them up for their salaries.

INT: Moving on to the crew, cinematographer?
SL: The cinematographer is your right hand. KUBRICK lit his own sets. I think STEVEN can and does from time to time. I don't know whether ZEMECKIS can or not. I'm not sure. But if he does, he's third, and maybe two others - I'm talking about only a handful of directors who can actually light their own set. I'm still not able to light it so I can get a visual interpretation of what that scene is about. That is the job of the cinematographer. I choose my own lenses. Cameramen doesn't. In England he's called the lighting camera and that's the perfect expression for him. What that man or woman does with light is what the art is about. It's, to me, a great job. So technical yet it's completely creative. I look for number one, sensitivity. It doesn't have to be articulate sensitivity. Number two, by looking at his work, I can see whether he's capable of transforming feeling into light. I can see it like that. It doesn't take much. When I was going to do PRINCE OF THE CITY, I had a very definite idea of what that movie was going to look like. I remember something I had seen on public television. A 20 minute film of a fictional story that largely took place around a commuter railroad station. I remember the name of it and I remembered in the credits, it said Technicolor New York. I think Otto was still in charge of lab in NY, asked to see the film in projection room. I went down the next day and looked at it and it was brilliant work shot on 16, the cameraman was ANDRZEJ BARTKOWIAK. We met, I found him enchanting. I gave him a script and a week later he gave me a perfect answer. I said, "ANDRZEJ, this is what the movie is going to be about. How are we going to do it?" He said "I don't know yet." Usually there's so much bullshit in those responses. So I knew right away he was the one. Physically, it was a terribly difficult movie. The total number of sets came to over 200. We had a 51 day schedule. When WARNER BROTHERS heard I was going to take on ANDRZEJ, they were besides themselves. But he was dead on.