INT: This is DIGGSTOWN right?
MR: This is DIGGSTOWN We have a shooting script revised and look at all that, this is just from the blue revise to this white revise. [INT: Wow.] And this isn't, I would swear that there were probably four drafts before we started the first one. [INT: Now, did you stay with Stephen McKay, the screenwriter?] Stephen McKay was there all the way through. [INT: And issues there, since we've got it up? We're going to come back to TEXAS [THE POSITIVELY TRUE ADVENTURES OF THE ALLEGED TEXAS CHEERLEADER-MURDERING MOM], but I am just curious, issues on DIGGSTOWN in terms of you as Director dealing with the writing?] Well, there was a huge problem, because the original screenplay was so heavy with melodrama and lacking in humor. It did have the gambit, it did have the basic plot, the con-game, the sting. But it lacked all the character relationships. It lacked all the warmth; it lacked the fun. So my job really was to bring the humor and the reality to it. Part of it was in taking Bruce Dern's character and making that a semi-lovable rascal. I mean he's an out and out shit, so when I say lovable, that's, you know, it's only in the context of all these scam artists. But his character was just an out and out beast in the original draft and therefore, all the stuff to warm him up and give him a kind of charming vulnerability, in terms of his relationship with his son, in terms of how he likes to shoot from his Mercedes convertible, and in terms of how he hates being one-upped by Jimmy Woods [James Woods]. This was all introduced as we went along. [INT: Now were these things that you would see, again, your sensitivity as an artist, reading this material you can say, "Ah, this character has this potential," or is it evolutionary?] Well, I think you start off, whenever you have good guys and bad guys, you have to be able to make a case for the bad guy. If you can't, then you have to go back to square one and start over again. Bad guy has to have a case made. [INT: And a case made in the sense that he's not just bad, but this is a human being who has desires and wants.] Yes, exactly. He's three-dimensional. And I think that's extremely important because frequently for the reasons of plot necessity we are presented with two-dimensional villains. So as with Roy, the coach played by Vic Morrow in THE BAD NEWS BEARS we've tried to find those defining human moments. And in fact, isn't it now that I think about it interesting that in DIGGSTOWN there's a similar moment of humiliation. Holy cow, I never realized this before. I swear to god, we never made references to THE BAD NEWS BEARS when we did that, but the humiliation that occurs to Bruce Dern is very similar to the one with Vic Morrow, and it's about his son humiliating him. And it's equivalent to the two, wow, that's a shocker. [INT: Now, of course, if we were playing psychologist I would say it now, did you have this experience?] That's right. [LAUGH] I did not, but how about the fact that I made these two films and one is directly derivative from the other, and I never thought it. [INT: Well, but the theme then, of shame, somehow.] Well the themes are there, absolutely, but the fact is that you think about the two character's son relationships.

INT: Now this is an interesting question, this is a bizarre one to ask, because of the nature of your own pictures, but to some degree, I… When we look at some film artists, you know, from Chaplin [Charlie Chaplin] to Welles [Orson Welles], you see some of these artists reflecting who they are. That even though they're maybe telling other stories, this is really somewhat their lives. And I hadn't intended to ask this, but just because of that reference there, do you think that that's somewhat true in terms of your, as you look at your own work and say--because I can't tell if that's true. I know it's true with me and individual films, there’re individual films that absolutely no question, these reflect who I am, where I came from, what I believe in, what I care about. Absolutely true. And then there are others...
MR: Well, I think that the satirical films reflect this kid who always saw the brighter side of serious events. Born of a father who was a muckraking socialist troublemaker, who also saw the humorous side of the public events. [INT: So in that sense, it is a reflection.] Yeah. Yeah, so…

INT: Now, let's go to when we were talking about TEXAS [THE POSITIVELY TRUE ADVENTURES OF THE ALLEGED TEXAS CHEERLEADER-MURDERING MOM] piece, which you said in that, the Writer originally had--
MR: We should get the title right here. [INT: Right. The longest title that I think, it is the longest title you've ever shot, is that not correct?] Yes. Keep in mind that when I, we were back talking about Jane Anderson's script, and what I said was, when I went in, the original title was THE TEXAS CHEERLEADER... No. The original title was THE CHEERLEADER MURDERING MOM. That was the original title. And I said, I came into this business doing something called OH DAD, POOR DAD, MAMA'S HUNG YOU IN THE CLOSET AND I'M FEELING SO SAD and I'm here to tell you if you use a longer title, which I'm about to give you, you will absolutely get more space in TV Guide, because every time they print it they've got to take up at least three inches. And everybody at HBO laughed, and they said, “What's the title?” And I said, "Well, it's THE POSITIVELY TRUE ADVENTURES..." and there's an irony in that "...OF THE ALLEGED--“ Excuse me, originally we didn't have “alleged.” THE POSITIVELY TRUE ADVENTURES OF THE TEXAS CHEERLEADER-MURDERING MOM. And they said, "That's great.” And we went to work with that and the legal department said, "Well, you can't say that it's positively true, because she's only alleged to be guilty." And I said, "But she's confessed and she's had a trial," and they said, "Yeah, but our legal department says that you can't say that." And I said, "What if we called her the ALLEGED TEXAS CHEERLEADER?" They said, "Then you could do it." And I said, "Bless you, you've given me an even longer title." So there you have THE POSITIVELY TRUE ADVENTURES OF THE ALLEGED TEXAS CHEERLEADER-MURDERING MOM.

INT: Now, you said the Writer originally had a Greek chorus of commenting Texas mothers, I guess.
MR: Right. And I didn't say this is bad. I said, “Let's sit down, bring in all your research materials, bring in all your interviews with Wanda Holloway, the real life woman. And she did, and I went home and read them and took a, you know, good… I listened to audiotapes and really spent a good long time listening. Thinking. Underlining. And I said, “This is all great material. Surely there's no reason legal would object to us using it, she gave it to you in an interview.” And Jane [Jane Anderson] said "No," and I said, "We can use most of it verbatim," and what's true, is that the stuff that Wanda Holloway says, in the interview material that frames the movie, is largely the voice of Wanda Holloway speaking, from these interviews. It's been structured and edited by Jane and myself to make sense in the context of telling the story of this movie, but it is the coatrack that we hang all our hats on. [INT: Now what made you make that concept? Again, why did you suddenly say, "Okay, not the group of women. Let's go to the character that is our--"] Well, because the group of women was a fictional device, theater device. Jane Anderson had come from the theater, done a play called THE BABY DANCE, and it basically had no substantial screen credits, and I wanted this to be much more of a movie. And the idea that Wanda Holloway should tell her own story again, again, point of view, whose point of view is this movie? Clearly, it's Wanda Holloway. Clearly it's her being the best testimonial in her own defense. No matter how wacky that might be. It would also help us get over huge legal difficulties, because if we kept saying this is her version of the story, this is not Verna Heath's, the neighbor. This is not the daughter's version; this is Wanda's version. Having a point of view when you're dealing with a real life character is immensely helpful with the legal people, because they will then say, "Okay, we get it. You know, this is her point of view."

INT: Now there's a style in this piece [THE POSITIVELY TRUE ADVENTURES OF THE ALLEGED TEXAS CHEERLEADER-MURDERING MOM] that has the satire that you talk about, I think. But one of the qualities of this, and this may be very specific, is nobody is commenting on what they're doing. Everybody is in fact telling their truth.] That's right. [INT: Or his truth, or her truth.]
MR: And it's more complicated than that, because everybody is telling the truth as Wanda [Wanda Holloway] thinks their version of the truth is. I mean this is very baroque, but it is, in fact, the structure of the piece. [INT: Now, was this, again, in terms of your work as a Director, working with the Writer, was this part of the dialogue between the two of you?] Yes. And it was also part of the dialogue with HBO's wonderful legal department, because clearly we had a terribly intricate web that we had to spin, because we were calling it, not the THE CHEERLEADER MURDERING MOM but THE POSITIVELY TRUE. And I said, "I want everything to be as true as we can possibly make it." We're borrowing license plates and wardrobe and everything you can imagine. We're shooting in facsimiles of the people's houses, we have exteriors where the vehicles really were, we're using some of the real vehicles. This is the positively true adventures, because so many TV movies had faked this part of it. And I thought, "My god, if we can do, if we can show that truth is indeed stranger than fiction, than we will have done a great service to the TV docudrama, and we will be, more importantly, allowed to throw brick bats at it." Because if we're going to make fun of the form, as we do finally, it becomes very much turned in on itself; if we're going to say, “Most docudramas that you see are just hogwash, but we're the real thing,” then we have to be as real as we possibly can. So I fought like crazy to have everything real. And we did. I mean the final film is as close to being authentic, as anything I've ever been involved with, that is a true story. [INT: Now didn't you suffer from the possibilities of, yeah this is the truth but it dramatically be better if, you know, he made a pass at her, or if he, you know, if he…] You've got to leave that position when you start to do something like this. If you're going to make fun of something, and if you're going to have fun with the form, you have to be willing to let the truth speak for itself. This is why the documentarians, and again, we now go back to my beginnings with the Cinema Verité guys, with Leacock/Pennebaker [Richard Leacock and D.A. Pennebaker], because they believed that even having slates was false, the Maysles brothers [Albert and David Maysles] did anyway, you couldn't, it would be an untrue thing. I'd say, "You've got to have slates, guys, it's not compromising the truth." "All right, we'll put slates on. But we aren't going to do any narration." I said, "You're right, there won't be any narration of this section that you're doing here, but elsewhere there will be narration.” “Well narration is false.” “Well, it won't be here, but, you know, I see your point." [INT: It's interesting how the documentary, except for the sort of Verité documentary, which using cameras like this, has returned to its old fashioned voice over commentary.] Well it has to, because it's trading in falsehoods, because whether you're talking about SURVIVOR, the recent CBS spectacular summer success--I say, it was not spectacular, but its success was spectacular. Or that horrible one that they did with the house, what was it called? [INT: BIG BROTHER] BIG BROTHER. These things ultimately have huge contrivance to them, are fake. And it's because somebody said, "We'll we've got to have this, or inject that or it won't work unless there's a such and such." The very thing, question you were raising. So, somewhere along the line there is going to be somebody that's going to say that and the Director, the good Director if he's in charge, and here again we come to whose got the money and what do they want. But if a good Director is in charge, then you may be able to win this fight. I won it with HBO. It was an ongoing fight, right through the final edits. Because the concern that letting Wanda Holloway speak for herself was going to be confusing to the mass audience. Or that her accent, extremely authentic, would be confusing to the mass audience. And do we need subtitles, someone raised the question, when she really gets into that down home Texas talk? No we don't. Well, let's try it with a focus group. No, let's not go to a focus group. Let's just assume that even if there are some things that people don't understand that they'll play ball with us long enough.

INT: Let me ask another question here. It’s again about script and I want to shift, because I would like to talk about casting. But in this question about script, there's this concept that gets spoken of over the last number of years, that scripts have "The Three Act Structure;" does this mean something to you?
MR: No. I think that I will occasionally refer to acts, when I'm dealing with Writers, because it's a helpful tool. Certainly you want to feel that by the end of some point in the script, it shouldn't be more than 30 or 40 pages, that all of the forces are in motion. And certainly those forces have to be fully developed by the next 60 pages, so that there can be a confrontation, a showdown, a something, by the last 30. But, I mean, this is a perfect example of something that doesn't, in any way, appropriately deal with a three-act structure. It has its own unique structure, which is the way the story evolved in life.

INT: There's another question, which I sometimes say is, you want a script that, in essence, you're constantly asking what's going to happen next. Is there a quality that you also, when you're looking through a script, will say, “I need to not know,” or “I need a suspense to still be here.” Is this an issue for you or…
MR: The most important issue is what's going to happen next. It's something that the audience asks. And you don't have to be doing a thriller, and you don't have to be doing a detective story, but you have to make the audience feel that what's going to happen next is important. Because otherwise, they'll change channels, or leave the theatre or whatever venue they're seeing your movie in, to cause another form of entertainment to take place. [INT: Well what about this issue, not only what's, you're saying care about what's going to happen next. What about not knowing what's going to happen next? I'm looking at SMILE for example.] Well, they can know what's going to happen next, because my goodness many, many successful movies have been made starting at the end, and then showing you the beginning. Why is something going to happen next? Alright. If you know what's going to happen next, why that happens next could be as important as what. I mean, again, I think we're getting terribly pedantic, if we start dividing the pie up too much. That's why I keep talking about it, in terms of truth. What would really happen? What could really happen? What is interesting to happen? There are so many different questions that you can ask.

INT: Were there changes in, looking at, let's say FLETCH as an example, because we haven't really talked about, which is a sort of more out and out comedy, were there changes in terms of the evolution of that? This is the last script I think we'll talk about for now, in terms of the evolution of that script, in terms of your dealing with things like "truth" here or…
MR: Sure. I'd have to… Since FLETCH is about an investigative reporter, there's no doubt that some of my newspaper experience, some of my sense of documentary truth had to come into the equation along the way. The credited author of FLETCH, Andrew Bergman, you just referred to as a comedy Writer. I don't think there’s, that animal exists. I don't think that there is such a thing as a comedy Writer. I think there are Writers who do comedy very well, and do it better than other ones. I think there are funny Writers, Writers who are great with the turn of a phrase and a punch up and all that. But essentially, any good Writer is a comedy Writer, and any good comedy Writer is a good Writer. I mean I don't think that there's a slot that they should be pigeonholed into. As it happened, when Andrew Bergman's screenplay finally got the go, he was busy directing a project that he ultimately got fired from, with Peter Faulk and Alan Arkin; it was a sequel to THE IN-LAWS. The two Writers that came on board to contribute a great deal to FLETCH, actually, were Jerry Belson, my longtime cohort from SMILE, and Phil Robinson, who became a successful Writer/Director and also did some more work for me on WILDCATS. So with two good helping hands, we proceeded until such time as Andrew Bergman got fired from that movie, which was his loss, though, he didn't feel so at the time; his picture was going down the tubes, and he wanted his directing debut to be a little more smashing than that. So, in any case, I was able to bring him back. He was in New York, but I was able to, by telephone and long distance and fax machine or whatever, get him involved again in the process of doing scenes for FLETCH. And again, the FLETCH addicts have asked me time and time again where this scene and that scene comes from, and I can answer almost every scene specifically, because there have been so may FLETCH addicts who have come up to me and said, "Where did this come from?" But you asked where does the lantern of truth come from? And I suspect that, once again, my newspaper experience led me to constantly question Chevy's [Chevy Chase] role as investigative reporter. The basic story, how would it really work with uncovering the chief of police as a drug running go between. How would some of these other disguises and tricks that he pulls off, really be done by a reporter who was dealing with gullible people who might not realize that their leg was being pulled. Because finally you can only have the gullible interviewees be so gullible before you're repeating yourself. Some of them have to be smart but into their own issues, and therefore, apparently not foolable. And some of them have to appear to be fooled and in fact, aren't being fooled. I mean this all has to do with the plot of what does Tim Matheson know and what does Joe Don Baker know, and when do they know it? And this is all, you know, at the kind of core of any good mystery, and it is a mystery. It's written by Gregory McDonald, a mystery writer, and the original novel has a great deal that we were able to borrow, in terms of plot, though, finally, all the comedy, comes from the hands that I've mentioned.

INT: So for you as a Director working with this, the stages of--it's interesting particularly because you just went through the idea of punch up. When you’re getting even--this is almost specific, but when you're getting to a scene and you know this scene is working, this scene is telling the right elements of the story, the events in the scene are clear, but you'd like it to, let's say, be more amusing. At that stage, if you would say, "I think there's a possibility that there can be something funny here that doesn't exist yet,” what's happening with you there? Because you did mention earlier you said, you know, "You tell me the truth, I'll make it funny."
MR: Well, yes. And part of that is bringing in the right people at the right time. Jerry Belson has punched up many scripts for me. Phil Robinson I mentioned too. The good punch up artist is an invaluable asset to the good comedy. [INT: How does that work?] Well you have the script finished, and you’re in some kind of read through state, usually with the cast, and you say, “Yeah. We're going to bring in another Writer now, and he's going to listen to you, and maybe give us a few more ideas and lines, and we'll be welcome to use them or not use them.” I mean this has happened to me on at least half a dozen films I can name and probably more. [INT: Now when you say, ‘cause you just, you said at the read through stage. So the punch up Writer would come into the process when in fact you've got some of your cast, so that they can--] The punch up Writer, ideally, doesn't come in until you're really ready to go. Now, in some instances the punch up is being done on the set, for example, I mean on SMILE Jerry Belson on set, in rehearsal, does his own punch up. On THE CANDIDATE, I mean, all the material was coming in and being punched up as we went along, so with every picture it's a different story. Steve McKay was punching up DIGGSTOWN as we went along. Sometimes out of the first rehearsal, but a great deal out of subsequent rehearsals that we had prior to shooting. I'll try to do a rehearsal of a scene that's coming up, a good three or four days ahead of it's actually being shot, in the presence of the Writer and hopefully the Producer, and I will try to, you know, bring in that material, that newer material, which has been informed presumably by what we've done so far.

INT: Let's make a big shift. Let's shift to the issue of casting, and how you go about it. Now obviously there are two sides: there's the casting that gets the picture to actually be a go picture, and there's a casting that goes down to a person, even an extra. Has there been an evolution of a process for you over your films in the casting of the, let's not go with the stars first, although that's going to be fascinating, let's go with the process of casting characters in the piece that really are going to be your responsibility not somebody else's. What's been the way that's worked for you? What have you learned over the years in terms of saying I know…
MR: Oh boy. That's such a complicated question. Almost, with casting you'd have to ask about every given part in every given movie. Each one has it's own background, I mean, I may say… I've worked with perhaps four Casting Directors. Patricia Rose Mock did a lot of my early films. And then THE BAD NEWS BEARS was done by a different Casting Director, because that person had a prior commitment with Stanley Jaffe. [INT: How do you work with, I know you're thinking of the names of the individuals, but how do you work with your casting?] Jane and, you know… [INT: Janet and Jane.] No. I want to say Finnegan, that's not it. Jane… Damn. [Jane Jenkins and Janet Hirshenson]. Prominent casting, L.A. Casting Directors. DOWNHILL RACER was done by Lynn Stalmaster, I think, or Hoyt Bowers, that's right, that's who did it. [INT: Wow. What's the process for you working, obviously, each of these are different individuals, but how do you work with a Casting Director? What's the method?] Well, I sit down with a Casting Director and, just to mention a few people, because so many have worked on so many films. I mean Marion Dougherty did a couple of films for me, and she's certainly a legend; she worked also as Associate Producer or Co-Executive Producer, actually, on SMILE. So she was there all the way along, but really not so involved in the casting. Casting was done by Patricia Rose Mock who did at least half of my films. [INT: What's your way of working, let’s say, with Patricia [Patricia Rose Mock]? How would you work?] Well, I would say, "Here's the script," early on. These are the kinds of people that I've been thinking of. I'm thinking of, you know, George Wyner for this part. I’m thinking--you're talking about the supporting parts--maybe Allen Garfield for this role, whatever. [INT: So you will have already, in your mind, have some ideas before?] Yes, I have for instances. Or I have dream casting. I may say, you know, “This could be played by, in my dreams, De Niro [Robert ]. And this part could be played by, this tiny part, let's say, could be played by,” and then I name some big star that wouldn't possibly do it. [INT: Right.]

MR: The two most intimate, the three most intimate relationships in the making of film are the Director/Writer relationship, the Director/Casting Director, and the Director/Editor, because in all of them you have to be prepared to kind of let your pants down, and say, “Gee, I'm not really sure what I want.” You can never… And you have to be careful sometimes with a Writer that way, because the Writer could then go and say to the Producer, “He doesn't really know what he wants.” So you have to be sure. With the Editor you can say it, and with the Casting Director you can say it, and only sometimes can you say it with the Writer. Because you have to be careful, there is backstabbing. [INT: In this casting relationship, in some ways, now you've been working with the script, you have certain images of Actors that already exist, to speak to your casting person with.] Yes. [INT: When there isn’t that--] Or they might be real life people. I might say, you know, “This character reminds me of Jeremy Kagan,” you know? Or whatever. [INT: And if that's not a reference, what's next? Let's say you don't have an idea.] I may say real life people too. I will frequently say, "You know this character reminds me of John Lindsay, or this character reminds me of, Dick Cheney," whatever. So, if you don't, then you just say, "I'm not sure how this scene works." Because if you don't have an idea of what you're looking for in casting, it means you don't have a very good idea of how the scene works. Now, it also could be that you don't have a good idea because your lead is in some way not cast, or one of your important supporting roles is not cast. And they'll inform that.

INT: Let's jump to an example where, with the kids, for example, either in SMILE or BAD NEWS [THE BAD NEWS BEARS]. In both cases you're dealing with people that--I think those kind of references may be wrong, where you can't say well, this is like a JFK [John F. Kennedy] kid and this kid's like Nixon [Richard Nixon]. I mean, there you're beginning to get only as is written on the page. Is there a moment before you start to see people that you also may engage in dialogue with your casting person to help them get closer?
MR: Well, I mean a good example in THE BAD NEWS BEARS is where are we going to get a fat kid? One of the problems with fat kids is that they tend to be very self conscious about their weight. And therefore they tend to be not funny, about their weight, and about their size. I said, "Go to Texas." Because in Texas, there's a chutzpah about everything, and an arrogance that I think will allow a kid to be both overweight and cocky about it, which is what's written here. [INT: Now how did you know that Texas is that way?] I had done some casting for some film in Texas, I don't know what it was, Oklahoma or Texas, I can't remember. But I just remember coming away with that conclusion. And I knew that Texas--you also look for the film centers of Chicago, Texas, San Francisco, Los Angeles. I mean we weren't going to go beyond the ones that had kind of professional agent networks, you know, because you can't just go out and put an ad in the newspaper and expect to get anything. [INT: Now that's interesting. This is a very specific thing. So the issue of non-actors, working in pieces for you has not been particularly a preference for you?] No, I've used a lot of non-actors, and we had them in DOWNHILL RACER and I've had them very successfully. But, when you're talking about certain difficult leads, as Engelberg was in THE BAD NEWS BEARS and you've flunked out in L.A. and New York, then you have to start thinking more specifically. But it's only after you've gotten to that point. I mean I'm jumping the gun when I talk about go to Texas. [INT: Got it.] I didn't say that right off the bat. [INT: Now, will you describe… One of the ways that you've said you describing to your casting associate here is, references to other Actors, to real people. If you don't have that, will you do describe a character in any particular way that may be in addition to what's already on the script? I mean will you sort of give it…] Yes. But again, you know, I would have to probably cite real life people, you know. And it might be, you might say. I mean very few… You take the late Mark Rosenberg, head of Warner Bros. He was wonderfully arrogant about his size, and he was enormously fat, as is Bruce Vilanch, for example, another very fat man. So, when you're looking for Engelberg you have to say, “Well, there came a point when these people as kids, decided they were fat kids and to hell with the world. That they weren't going to let any slim down camp or parent figure or whatever get them.” Because I guarantee you that Mark Rosenberg and Bruce Vilanch were fat kids. Just guaranteed. Don't know it for a fact, but I've just seen enough of that kind; and the people who were self conscious about being a fat kid, tended to lose it. They might regain it, but they had a period where they, you know what I mean? I mean you go through--my own son, Steven [Steven Ritchie], the one who sent the flowers. He tends to be on the overweight side now. He was a fat kid; he went through the period of being a skinny teenager. You know? [INT: Got it.] You just get there and you learn it.

INT: Let's look at the girls in SMILE. [MR: Yep. Let me see if I have any pictures of them while you're asking your question.] Great cast. And also I assume, mostly unknown, so--[MR: Well, not so, but we'll call them out here.] But some, some. Again, whether there will be any references to when you would speak to them, to your casting person saying, “This girl should be,” whether a physical description whether an emotional description, whether--other than the idea of comparative description. I’m just curious whether that’s something…
MR: Well, we have a mix in the movie. And part of the thing that I'll take credit for, is that the mix is so seamless. Because when you look at these girls, here we have Annette O'Toole, a working Hollywood actress, working alongside three people from Santa Rosa. Here's another girl from Santa Rosa. These are, by the way, lobby cards. They don't exist anymore. They're from the old days when they used to put out more than a one-sheet in a theater to get you to go inside and see the movie. And as kids you'd come out and say, “Well, I don't remember that scene in the movie. This girl is memorable, however, in the movie, as the one who sings "Delta Dawn." Let's see, here we go again. Okay. Now we have a broader, this is a better example of a mix, because here we have L.A. girl, Annette O'Toole, L.A. girl, Maria O'Brien, L.A. girl, Joan Prather, and two Santa Rosa girls. But you see when you put them all together in the kind of homely outfits that were designed by Patricia Norris, and you put them on that stage and you surround them with everything real that you can, they take on an incredible reality to the point that I have to think twice about whose a local Santa Rosa kid and who did we bring in from Hollywood. We could only afford to bring in so many; I mean it was a question of necessity. [INT: Now in casting, this process, how would you go about… Let’s, you know, I've been pushing sort of to hear the dialogue that you have with your Casting Director.] Well, this was with Patricia Mock, and I said, with Maria O'Brien, that character, which is Maria Gonzales, you know, we have to have somebody who's Latino and is able to make fun of it. And again, there was an age problem, because I wanted everybody to be as young as possible, and most of the girls who would have sufficient experience to play the leads were already over 21. And they were all supposed to--but the Santa Rosa girls are all really 18. And it's real tricky because somebody by the time they get to be 21 or 22, which is the oldest that we have in this movie, in Hollywood tends to get to be fairly mature, and we wanted that naiveté. They were supposed to be high school girls, by god they had to look like high school girls. Our oldest is in fact Maria O'Brien at 21. And I believe Joan Prather was only 18 when we did it. [INT: Now this is a good example, where you said, “By god, they've got to be believable as this age,” and that's one of the assignments now that the casting person has for you.] Right.

INT: Now, how do you begin to see people? How do you interview them? How do you make your decision that I'm going to go with this girl from Santa Rosa, I'm going to go with Annette O'Toole?
MR: Well, you have reading sides, and people come in and they do scenes. And I would have my Writer and good friend Jerry Belson sitting in and giving me his advice on it. And Marion Dougherty would frequently sit in and give me her advice on it as the Executive Producer, representing the other executive producer David Picker. [INT: Now, who would read with your Actors? Do you ever read with the Actors?] I seldom do. I usually have the Casting Director read with the Actors. [INT: Do you ever have an Actor read with an Actor?] Occasionally on callbacks, you'd have an Actor come in and read with another Actor. Holly Hunter wanted to read with almost everybody, down to the tiny bits, and I had to tell her that she couldn't, because she would begin to lose the flavor in her performance. But she got to sit in on the rehearsals--not the rehearsals, on the auditions and comment on them afterwards and her voice was very helpful. [INT: Now, interesting in this issue. you will have them read a scene, more than one scene? One, two scenes? What will you prepare?] Usually one scene and you go on to another scene if the first scene has promise. [INT: And in the process, will you, do you--I'm being really specific, I mean if I were coming in now, to read for this, what would be happening?] There would be five or six other kids outside; you're a kid in my hypothetical. [INT: Got it.] They would all be pouring over the sides and wondering, and you know they're wondering because each one of them is dressed differently, and they've all tried to dress as young as possible, because they've been told by their agent, that the key is looking 18, and he doesn't want anybody older than 18, and they will probably lie about their age. They'll probably say that they're 18 even if they're 21. And if they're a couple of give away credits on their resume, they might even consider fudging their resume, or say something about, “I'm having my resume done up and I can just tell you about a few of my recent roles."