INT: Let's go on to post-production and for example in the editing process of A MAN CALLED HORSE, what was, do you remember much about that?

ES: Oh, sure. I remember that there were a couple of Editors on it actually because there again it's telling the story that you start out with that you have to oversee, and it isn't just a matter of slapping together close-ups, and over-the-shoulders, and wide shots, and things but to try to stay focused on the original thought that you had. And the pressures of post-production, and distribution release schedules all compile, all combine to influence that. There was an incident on that that did relate to, later to some of the creative rights things I negotiated. The Producer went off and shot some stuff, some animals, which he was, I suppose, entitled to do. But then he included Actors and breeched clause, which he was not entitled to do. And I had to see that that film was burned, which it was, lousy filmed anyhow, but it was, it was not right to do it. And what was happening there was a breakdown of the trust that I was talking about earlier, between the various leaders and cast and crew of a show. It broke down there. He didn't trust me, I didn't trust him. And so, we were kind of at war over that issue. By the way it's also trust with the audience, is where I've often thought here's a business where people buy before they've even seen. And so that we're all, we all kind of have an obligation to do the best we can for them.

INT: And you were, there was something you said that happened with Richard Harris in regard to the post-production [for A MAN CALLED HORSE]?

ES: Oh, yeah. Well, it has to do with again with, I flew over to London to loop some lines with him and he was off, decided to go off to Ireland to do something or other, and I sat for a week or more in London, which is a nice city, but I wanted to get back home. And we had quite a to-do about that. And it's funny, because he and I now look back on--I visited with him recently in London--we look back on all that stuff and we laugh about it now, because it was all a product of his fear and my determination, and his determination and my fear. It was a collision of as I said earlier, who's gonna be the horse and who's gonna be the rider. But we look back on that now as follies of youth.

INT: What is your editing process like? Are you in the editing room all the time, or do you give the Editor notes and then see the result of the cut?

ES: What I did was talk to the Editor regularly through the shoot, stay the hell away film until he assembled it all, answer any questions on the phone that he's got. And then see that assembly, which is probably everyone of us feel is a low point in the experience, when nothing's worked, and everything is too slow, and it'll never work and throw the whole thing out, and where can I hide? And then begin to work, in the editing room, shot-by-shot, and here are some sequences, do this and do this and then you come back when that's done, take a look at it again. But I'm very active, I wanted to be active in the editing process. It's very, very important to me personally. [INT: You said, when you said stay away from the film during the shooting, do you look at dailies?] Oh, yeah, no I said, the Editor. [INT: Oh, stay away from the Editor?] I stay away from the Editor as he's making the assembly. [INT: Right, right.] I don't look at, I don't like to look at the assembled sequences, unless there's a problem. [INT: Right.] Unless some Editor calls me and says, "You got have a..." "Why?" "Come and see, and I'll show you." You know, then it's... but I want to stay as far away from that as I can. [INT: Why is it that you, it's a little clearer why one would want a different Cinematographer for a different project, but why is that you also change Editors?] I don't think I've ever thought of an Editor as a part of the production team. I probably should have. I think I did want to work with Gene Fowler more than once. I think I did work with, that's way back now, way back, with another guy called Phil Anderson more than once, but that didn't, that didn’t, there was no follow-up. It just didn't happen.

INT: So, it's almost… do you think you have a style that runs through your films or is it, is the very nature of your way of making films where they're all different from one another?

ES: Well, I don't know, I have to leave that to other people to decide, but generally I like to find humor wherever I possibly can, and I like a moving camera, although I'm not sure that I'm in favor of the latest mode, which is, "Hey, look at me I'm behind the camera and I can move it even when somebody has a long speech, just move it around 360 degrees, I mean, I'm not sure that I like that, it tends to be distracting to me. But if I can motivate a camera move, I like to do it. [INT: Do you use video assist?] Yeah, occasionally I do, yes. If it's a tough shot, I prefer being next to the camera and watching the Actors actually act. Then I might check it on the video assist. [INT: So, you use playback as well on the video assist?] Yeah, yeah. I might do that.

INT: And do you have any special ideas about hiring composers or is that…?

ES: Yes, very important, very important. Every film I've done has had a different musical personality, and usually because I've been very specific about the kind of music that I wanted. The, way back in, there's a film that I did called THE HAPPENING, in which I said I want the music to be like the Tijuana Brass, which were a group of musicians at the time. And in the case of A MAN CALLED HORSE, I told Lenny Rose--and it was Frank De Vol who did that. And in the case of Lenny Rosenman I said, "You can use any instrument you want, but I want all them to relate directly to instruments that Indians would've used, that is flutes, wind..." [INT: Who was that now?] Leonard Rosenman. [INT: Yeah.] “Percussion, winds, no violins, no brass, and chorus,” I mean, the instrument, the things that were available to Indians. You try to find some musical personality that fits the material, and try, I guess I have an aversion to sweeping violins. I don't know why that is, but it probably reminds me of a similarity of a lot of the romantic movies of the '30s [1930s] and the '40s [1940s] with wallpaper scores, without real musical personality.

INT: Well, as long as you mentioned that, what are, who are some of the Directors and some of the films that you admired over the years, who you think have influenced your thinking?

ES: Fred Zinnemann, ethics, conflict of rights. George Stevens. Billy Wilder certainly. Richard Brooks, in terms of a strong structure. [INT: How do you feel about what's happened to storytelling in films more over the years in terms of where it is now?] What's happened? [INT: Storytelling?] What's happened to it? What do you mean? [INT: Do you think, there are some people who feel that the classic nature of storytelling is being lost, that the people go to the films now more for theme park experiences rather than storytelling.] Oh, you mean, digital flashes, the digital technology. Yeah, I think there's probably an inverse relationship with the amount of digital excitement in a film to character and plot. But that's natural, it's a new toy. When that toy has been used enough, people will again demand stories. I think people have always demanded stories, whether they're bedtime stories, or distraction stories, or story stories, or characters and conflict and an issue and a resolution. And I think digital effects movies just expand the opportunities for telling those stories, but now like everything else has swung a little far, we have a toy, look what we can do. It's terrific and kids love it because they have the MTV experience, but that will swing back, everything swings from left to--from ethos to pathos, back and forward.

INT: I just want to plumb a little bit deeper on your creative process. I mean, you mentioned that the Tijuana Brass, which was THE HAPPENING, you used that music in? [ES: Yes.] Okay.

ES: And the song that came out of it, THE HAPPENING, with the Supremes. [INT: Right, right. That came out of that movie. Okay. Do you remember what it was that sparked that idea, where that came from? I mean, where do you get your creative ideas from, the things that are so basic like that? Do you have any idea?] I have no idea where they come from. I remember that movie there was a certain kind of vaudevillian structure to it, a kind of a mocking, bouncing version of THE RANSOM OF RED CHIEF only told in terms of an adult who was kidnapped by a bunch of kids who were bored and looking for a thrill, and he finds out nobody wants him. So, it was a kind of a... it was a kind of a drama told with tongue in cheek. And so this was the Tijuana Brass, you know, kind of bouncy and brash--INT: But do you listen to pieces of music and that inspires to say, "Well, this is what I'm looking for,”? I mean, or--] Yeah, I've done that. Part of the score for that same movie came out of a certain musical effects that I want De Vol [Frank De Vol] to use, and in the case of CAT BALLOU I loved… well, we had two musicians as I told…. facing the camera being the narrative drive, and it was a guitar and a banjo. So, a lot of that was in the foreground, sound, the feeling, and that also had a kind of a vaudeville staging in much of it, so it was up front. I like you to score to be up front, not simply be wallpaper.

INT: Do you feel that your creativity comes from, and I'm talking about things like that, comes from a more cognitive place or a more intuitive? In other words, I mean, are you the kind of Director who wakes up in the middle of the night, with an idea and you didn't know where it came from, it's just something intuitive, or it happens on the set, or are you more methodical about how you get to your final choice?

ES: The only time I wake up in the middle of the night is when I had a good idea and it was shot down by somebody else, and then I wake up in the middle of the night and I pound my pillow a lot. But in direct answer to your question, it's more of an intuitive feeling. I have some musical background, I have some dance background and that feeds into how I view the material, and how I'd like to see it done with a certain rhythm and a certain style. [INT: But it's something that virtually surfaces from within you, it's not like you're doing a lot of research?] No. I don't do a lot of research. There was another movie I did called THE CAR, which is a story of an evil driverless, if you ask Universal [Universal Studios] what they wanted, they wanted a shark on land, and as difficult as that was to realize. And I remember the Dies Irae [HUMS HYMN], a very dark kind of Gregorian chant. So, I asked Lenny Rosenman to make that a part of the theme of THE CAR, which he did.

INT: Who taught you to believe in your intuition? [ES: To do what?] To believe in your intuition. There are a lot of people--

ES: What else have I got? What else does anybody got? [INT: Well, there are a lot of people who go through life not trusting their intuitive feelings, and they're always checking with other people and measuring it, and...] Well, I don't trust it totally. I do, do ask other experts, "What do you think of this? What do you think of that? I'd like to try this, I'd like to try that.” But I usually, generally kind of know where I want to go, because that's where I want to go. I ask a lot of questions of myself as to why I want to go there. It's a feeling, I used to call it a gesture, a feeling of the movie as a whole, a movie's personality as a whole, and then try to let everything feed into that. [INT: Do you think the time that you went into, you had the command performance at Yale [Yale University], when you had that kind of confrontation at Yale about getting admitted and the success of that, do you think that…. that was the key experience that shaped all of the other courageous positions you took over the years, or was there something even before that?] I don't know that they were courageous, but they are, they’re survival techniques, and I realized early on, on the streets of Dorchester [Dorchester, MA], that I had to stand up and fight if I wanted to live, because I was gonna die. I mean, you get a group of five angry guys telling you that you killed their religious icon, they're gonna beat the hell out of you, you got to learn to survive somehow. And because I was smaller I had to learn by guile, and argument, and humor, and if necessary, speed. And so, when I confront, find myself confronting bullies, stronger force, I try to do the same thing. One of the real delights though that I had, and one of these I stayed with the Creative Rights Program [Creative Rights Committee] for 27 years, was matching wits with the most brilliants guys in the business sitting across the table and trying to put them on the horns of an ethical or moral dilemma, that was a delight. And probably if I were to remember anything about my years in association with the Directors Guild it was that pleasure of taking all that power and saying, "Thou shalt not," when nobody ever said, "Thou shalt not," to those guys.

INT: Well, let's start with that. I mean, how... let's talk about how your Creative Right experience began and how it impacted this agreement that we now have. The first example you gave earlier in this story of your life was about what happened on TWILIGHT ZONE [THE TWILIGHT ZONE], like that was...[ES: Right.] So, that was the very...

ES: Yes, THE OBSOLETE MAN [THE TWILIGHT ZONE: THE OBSOLETE MAN]. [INT: Right.] And once I went to Joe Youngerman and found out that all Directors had by contract at that point was the right to view the first rough cut, and to communicate with the Associate Producer any improvements. And I looked at that, and I said, "What does view mean? What is a first rough cut? What is a first cut? And what is an Associate Producer? And why do you only get a chance to make improvements? Aren't you supposed to be creating something?" And Joe said, "Yeah, you're right, you're right." God bless his soul, he was a supporter par excellence. And certainly the Creative Rights Program would not have existed unless Joe gave his initial support. So, I said, "Well, what do we do?" He said, "Well, you have to negotiate with the companies." "How do we do that?" "Well, you have to know what you want to negotiate with and have a committee." I said, "Well, let's get a committee." I said, "Who's on the committee?" He says, "Well," so I got a lot of Directors, 15, 20 of them. [INT: Do you remember the year that this was?] That was…maybe '60 [1960] or something like that. A lot of the guys had come from New York in a day, a time when it took nine hours to come from New York to L.A. by plane. And we were all from the theater or from live television, and used to dealing with sponsors and networks and so forth, but once you're in the booth and in control you are calling the shots. And so, I knew a lot of these guys around the table, and I said, "You have this problem..." I told him the story, I told you, ah, the stories of blood that poured out onto that that table in the old building of the Directors Guild [Directors Guild of America], where I mean you could drown in it. So, I said, "Well why don't we do something?" "What we gonna do?" "Let's have a Bill of Rights," "Okay." I said, "All right." So over the course of probably six months, we met on Sunday mornings, and we made out a--[INT: And 15 of you?] Yeah. [INT: And do you remember any of the other names? I mean, just... [INAUDIBLE] but any of them?] Yeah, some of them are gone now. Hayden [Jeffrey Hayden], Buzz Kulik, I'd have to really think about that. I can't right off of the top of head. [INT: Okay, okay.] I'm sure the records at the DGA will show that. I said that that, "We have to do two things," we made a whole list, the record of which is with the Guild now, none of the problems that we took up then do not currently face the Guild. We hit everything. And the first thing we did was hit a definition of what is a Director. And we worked on that for a long time. And we came up with this definition, which generally involved "a Director puts together a series of images and sounds, and records of performances all calculated to tell a story, and have an effect on an audience," something like that. And later on we're presented this, companies would take it because they said it's all encompassing. We said, "That's right."

ES: But putting that aside for the moment, the second thing we had to do was to define, was to cure this language difficulty. There was first cut, Editor's cut, rough cut, first rough cut, nobody knew what the hell that was. So, I said, "We got to have a Director's cut. We have to have our shot at this." Because I remembered that guy in the editing room on THE TWILIGHT ZONE who told me he didn't want to cut it that way. I wanted a Director's cut; I wanted to see it my way once. As a matter of fact, probably 75 percent I think as I said or I may have said, of what's in Article 7 of the handbook, came from personal traumas that I'd suffered. I used the Guild [Directors Guild of America] as an agent to see that didn't happen again. But that was one big thing. And there's a story attached to that. First of all, we decided there wasn't gonna be an Editor's cut, there wasn't gonna be a first cut, there wasn't gonna be a rough cut, there wasn't gonna be first rough cut, but there was gonna be a Director's cut. And the Director's cut was going to be a cut of the film where the Director wanted to be seen. And that was gonna be presented to the company. But I told this story before, but just so that this particular addition is complete, George Sidney, the recently late George Sidney, bless him, agreed that this was something that should be done. And he asked Frank Capra to chair the first meeting, the first meetings, negotiating meetings, with the Producers Association. And we showed him our Bill of Rights, which was a series of pages, each one with a battle cry on it. And he said, "All right, what do you want first?" I said, "We want the definition and the Director's cut." All right. So, we went in there, and we argued about the definition, first. "Too all-encompassing, what about the Editors, what about the Producers?" "They don't do it. We do it." Well, that argument is still going on, and it's never been solved. And what you'll find like this in the manual now is a typical corporate solution, "The word Director should be that word is as currently understood in the motion picture industry." In other words, everybody knows what a Director is, when you see one, you'll know one, but we can't tell you what it is.

ES: So, all right, the more important thing was the Director's cut. Now these guys we were sitting with around a round table over on the corner of Beverly Drive and 3rd Avenue, above the liquor--pharmacy, which was the headquarters at the time of the Producers Association, were all industrial relations guys. Their job was to say, “No,” until they were choked to death, and then they would grunt, "Yes." And the same at every negotiation is more familiar to the economic negotiations. [INT: Right.] And they said, "No. No, absolutely no. We're not going to give the Director the right to anything after post-production because Directors will malinger, they'll hold up the post-production schedule, they'll use it as a negotiated ploy to get either more money from us, or other things that they want, or three, they may be incompetent, or four, they may be absent or on a vacation, all the, all the or they may, they may, they may, they may. And we argued vociferously and passionately I might say. [INT: Is this the first negotiation?] Yeah, yeah. [INT: Okay.] Passionately. Charles Boren [Charles S. Boren] was was the name of the guy that was the head of the opposite team [Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers]. But these guys didn't know what editing was. They knew it was something to put together the film after the process. They didn't understand the meaning it had for Directors, because they were industrial relations, lawyers. Lawyers don't understand anything that's invisible; they only understand the visible things, things that are there in paper, that they understand. And these were all lawyers. So how could you explain to them that you dream about something, one of the reasons you're in the business, and all you want to do is communicate that dream, some would say, "This is what I dreamt. Now, if you don't want it, fine, but I've had a chance to tell you what it is." I don't have a chance to tell you what it is, you know, if you take it all away from me. When the baby's just out of the, coming out of the birth canal. No.

ES: So we retired after a couple of days of no, in the back room, and then Capra [Frank Capra] came up with a typical Capra brilliant solution. He said, "Boys, do you care about this?" "Yeah." "Then we have to show them how much you care." And he made a proposal, which was mindboggling. We all agreed because it was typical--I loved it particularly because it was a real challenge to the authority. And we went out there and made the proposal. Here was the proposal: that we would jointly create a list of Directors, world-class Directors, starting with, I remember the phrase, "starting with David Lean." And the Directors Guild [Directors Guild of America] would at its sole expense transport these Directors in order of their availability from anywhere in the world to Los Angeles to complete any film, television or anything else that the companies on their part unilaterally felt that the original Director was behaving improperly. Well, there was a silence that lasted 30 minutes, 30 seconds. And I can still remember that silence. They didn't know what to do; they were like 20 statues. They didn't move. They were actually stunned. I mean, in the true sense of the word, stunned. A labor union that says, "We want to give you something, we're gonna give you the best that we have, and we're not gonna charge you anything for it. In fact, we are going to pay for it. [INT: If they're unhappy with them?] If they are unhappy, with their behavior. [INT: During production or in post-production, or...?] In post-production. [INT: Post-production.] The other problem came later; I'll tell you about that later. [INT: Okay.] Well, they were stunned. And they didn't know what to say. These are guys who are used, you know, three percent more for the first year, two percent more the second. They're used to that. They didn't understand this. So, Boren [Charles S. Boren], after 15 minutes, "Would you mind giving us some time?" We stepped out of the room and we talked among ourselves and we were giggling at the reaction it got, because that was worth it, whether they said yes or no. [INT: Right.] Because, and I loved it, because it had toppled the giant. [INT: Right.] It had made the giant nervous. [INT: Right.] And we went back in and they gave us the Director's cut. [INT: Oh my God.] And that's how it happened. And the Director's cut was going to begin after the film was assembled and then, it was, you know, what time will that be, and all that stuff.

INT: What about the issue of the fact that the editing period was going to be free?

ES: That was a notion that I put forward. It was important that the companies realized this was not a backdoor to gaining more work for more money. It was also important to follow-up on Frank's [Frank Capra] premise that that's how much we cared. It was really not gonna cost them anything. And the theme was--and still is the theme, and by the way is a good answer to many Directors who sometimes will make complaints, it is designed for those who care, for those who care to do their best work, this is a guild, not a union, solely. That is to say, it is, it should provide opportunities and an environment for excellence and for standards, not only of behavior, but of work. And so, it was important for them to realize that this was a gift, and that they were gonna have to accept the gift, and in exchange for accepted the gift, we were gonna give them the best that we have. And so there's no money for that. And they couldn't resist, I mean, there's no way. What basis would they have of saying no? What could they say? So, that was built in. Now, that immediately differentiated the DGA from the Writers Guild [Writers Guild of America] piecework, which I mentioned before, and from SAG [Screen Actors Guild], payment them for looping and, you know, retakes and things like that. And it was appropriate, because we wanted to cast ourselves as the people who made the film. Everything else was stuff on the pallet that we used. But we were making the painting. And so that was the logic applied. And right up to this moment today, the same logic that was applied back at those first meetings, still applies. Although when newer members come into the councils, and they don't understand that, they don't know where all this stuff came from, they just take it for granted, and they want to change it, and they don't understand the origins for the principles on which it's based, it's very disheartening. But there were a number of other things that happened year-after-year-after-year. [INT: Why don't we start going through them? Yeah.]

ES: Refer to this Basic Agreement. And I can go through this and you tell me if it gets too technical. [INT: Yeah, no, at least it proceeds all these that are not abstract, they're very pertinent.] Well, you see here under the preamble, "The Director's professional function is unique, and requires his or her participation," notice his or her, "participation in all creative phases of the filmmaking process, including but not limited to all creative aspects of sound and picture." See how they fit in the initial definition that we gave. And then we had to say, "The Director works directly with all the elements which constitute the variegated texture of a unit of film entertainment or information." You can spot the legal minds behind this, but also it was an answer to our saying, "We are involved in everything.” "The Director's function is to contribute to all of the creative elements of a film." Back then we were, right away we started saying all, in later years, years later, when we took up the issue of vesting Creative Rights in a Director who had worked 85 or 90 percent of a film and had the right to consult all the way through to the end of the film. So, "a Director's function is to contribute to all of the creative elements of a film and to participate in molding and integrating them into one cohesive dramatic and aesthetic whole. And no one may direct, as the term Director is generally known in the motion picture industry, except the Director assigned to the picture." Now, you see in that… the beginning, the seed of everything that came after, particularly all elements of the movie. [INT: Did you, did you dub the committee the "Creative Rights Committee"?] Yes. As a matter of fact the first document that we produced out of that committee was a Bill of Creative Rights, it was called. And then as years went on, we had the problem of honesty and ethics. And that resulted in the next, which I won't go through in great detail, but it's very clear to what it means, "disclosure before assignment," that is we had to know who the Producer had assigned already, what Actors are already committed, maybe you do want to do the picture with that Actor. [INT: And before that?] They could do anything they wanted. [INT: And did.] And did. Oh sure, there were a lot of these reflect the injuries that were suffered by people. "I didn't know you had him playing..." "Well, it doesn't make a difference. That's it." "But I didn't know you were gonna integrate that piece of film into the movie that you already shot." "Well, that's the way that is." So, they have the names of everybody, all creative personnel already employed. [INT: Full disclosure.] "All existing film, contemplated to be used, the rights of any script approval, the cast approval, contractually reserved to any person other than the employer and the individual Producer. The top sheet of the budget,” so you know what you're getting into. And then we have an obligation to try to conform to it. And “the story, which the picture is to be based, and any script, if it exists,” so that suddenly after accepting the assignment and working on one script the Producer suddenly says, "Oh, I'd rather go with this one." Or "I want to use pages 10 to 15 on this one." "I never read that before." "Well, that's the way it is." So, and then this something, one line is important to read, "It's the intention hereof that employer shall make full and complete disclosure to Director of all the existing artistic and creative commitments with respect to the picture for which the Director is to be employed prior to his or her actual employment, or prior to his or her assignment to the picture if previously employed or optioned without such an assignment.” So, in those days it was normal to do things on a handshake before, you know, there was still residuals of the old studio system when honor and word of, on contract was oral. People went to work and then six months later they got the contract to sign. So, it was important to have this kind of understanding upfront.

INT: I see that it also expanded to include the fact that they could not, the word capriciously is in there, but reduce the budget or the shooting schedule once you agree to it. [ES: Once you accept, that's right, without mutual approval.] Yes, and this involved long form television as well. And also that they couldn't lock the budget in without consulting the Director in terms of whether it can be made.

ES: That's right. That's right. If you just look at it, it all had to with controlling a bully. With making sure that he doesn't pull a blackjack out of his back pocket, when you're not looking. You got to be honest with each other. And the same thing goes from the Director to the company. You have to be honest with each other, you're part of their budgetary ambitions. [INT: You're not limited to Roxbury [Roxbury, MA].] Not limited to Roxbury, Dorchester, [Dorchester, MA] that's right. Now, after you get it signed, you have complete consultation that went to the point where Sid Sheinberg, who was the CEO at Universal [Universal Pictures], said, "You mean if we have a consultation, we have a conversation in the men's room that the women have to be admitted?" And I remembered that I said, "Absolutely. You can't have a meeting anywhere about the creative aspects of this unless you ask the Director to join in." "Why is that?" "Res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself." They can have meetings about you and it, and so forth, and you're not there, you don't know what's going on. [INT: Now, we're well beyond the first Creative Rights negotiations now, as we're discussing these things years--] We're discussing these things in the context, in the order in which they appear in the contract. Not necessarily in the order in which they were achieved. But this went through five or six different negotiations, all along, we had directed this movie, this started from the first Bill of Creative Rights, which is find in the Robert Wise Library I'm sure. You see all these things laid out, we didn't get them all the first year, but we continued year after year until we did. And then later, I think it was in the '70s [1970s] someplace, when I had an experience at Universal and it was supported by the experience of most Directors that had, particularly in television, where the Assistant Director was assigned by the production office, and he'd be on the phone with the Production Manager [Unit Production Manager] back in the office, making his comments about you and how you were working and what you were doing and so forth and so on, and there were a lot of complaints that Assistant Directors were being put in a bad position, they were being forced to spy in effect on the Director. And so I talked to Joe [Joseph Youngerman], I think, I said, "Can't we," because Joe had been an Assistant Director once at Paramount, "can't we make the Assistant Director subject to the Director's approval?" And he says, "You can try." So, we went in and we asked for both the Production Manager and the Assistant Director to be signed only with the approval of the Director. And after long arguments, much of which would seem to be obvious to any reasonable person, the other side we agreed that we could have our own Assistant [Assistant Director]. That's something they understood from the corporate world. But they wanted, as Sid said, "Their man" on the set, as the Production Manager.

INT: The First A.D. [First Assistant Director] is probably the only, in context of what we're talking about before, is the only one the Director does have 100 percent approval on?

ES: That's right, provided he hasn't been guilty of any criminal act. Which would, again, with Sid Sheinberg, who was a lawyer, insisted that, they had had some experience with somebody who had stolen something once and they didn't want to use him again. [INT: Right.] And consistent with the budget and so forth. But... [INT: And that's--but that's why you referred to him as "family," because he's the only one that's really handpicked.] That's right. That's right. And that immediately made the Assistant Director look to the protection of the Director, because his next job might, would depend on the reference of the Director. It also allowed the Director to confide in the Assistant Director without the fear that that was gonna go right back to the production office and some red-faced guy was going to come up, screaming and yelling about this or that. [INT: Right.] So, it bound the Director and the Assistant Director at the hip as it were, which was one of the most important things we ever achieved. [INT: And was that a struggle to get that?] Strangely, no. It was not a struggle. There were a lot of arguments about whether we could include the UPM, but they understood, because we made all the passionate arguments about, "How can we...?" Just, the ones I stated here. How can we trust? How can we express doubts and maybe get some help and get some advice? From a... we needed a confidante. And they could understand that, because they need one too in the corporate world, they need an assistant, they can talk to. So they gave us that. [INT: Good.]