INT: My name is Mark Levin, I am conducting one of the oral histories with Sidney Lumet. I think of him as one of New York's greatest directors. I have been a fan ever since FAIL-SAFE, and loved him in the '70s when I came of age and saw SERPICO, DOG DAY AFTERNOON, NETWORK, and PRINCE OF THE CITY. I was moved and always fantasized about having this opportunity. This is not just a DGA mission, it is also a sign of love and respect for SIDNEY LUMET.

INT: What was the first movie you saw that made an impression on you?
SL: You're not gonna believe this. I don't know the name of the movie, but it was GLORIA SWANSON. I don't know what it was, it was a silent movie, a yiddish theater down on lower east side and there was Jewish comedian, vaudevillian on stage who kept commenting on her. It was a terrific act. She'd say something and he'd say "Get out of here, you witch!" It was hilarious. I remember it. [INT: How old do you think you were?] I must've been 5 or 6 at the most. Probably less. But actually, the first movie that really made me think that movies were possible was a wonderful Danish movie by CARL DREYER. It wasn't JOAN OF ARC, that was his great silent movie. It was DAYS OF WRATH. A great, great movie. [INT: Is that the film that made you think, maybe directing is something I'm interested in. Was there a film that made you think that's what I want to do?] No, there's nothing that made me say... I don't know how many of these interviews you've done, but I think you'll find common thread, which is that everybody talks about luck. It was sheer luck that I started directing. It wasn't like today where everybody wants to direct. I was lucky and just fell into it.

INT: How did it happen? How did you become a director?
SL: I got thrown out of the actor's studio for certain disagreements, stylistically. So I went downtown and formed my own workshop with the 12 other people who had been kicked out at that time. As we went on, we were doing scenes and there was no one to direct them so I took over since I started group. Then when we graduated to full-length projects, I started directing those. But the actual profession of directing happened because a dear friend of mine, YUL BRYNNER, was directing at CBS. And YUL and I had been close friends from the time we were both just - he'd bring the spaghetti and I'd bring the sauce department. Both having a tough time. He called me. Also, I was earning, at that time, something like 65 dollars a week. I had created the drama dept at the High School of Performing Arts. So I was in the New York public school system as a high school teacher and I think my salary was something like 65 dollars a week. And that got pretty boring. So I went over to CBS and got hired there, probably, my guess is largely through YUL's influence. There was a wonderful guy there in charge of drama by the name of CHARLIE UNDERHILL. He hired me and JOHHNY FRANKENHEIMER and YUL, who was a wonderful director by the way, and BOB MULLIGAN. CHARLIE had great deal to do with the influx of a lot of young talent there. His premise was quite simple. He thought we could always teach you the technique, there's not much to learn, but what he did want was people with some sort of theatrical background, knew about acting and scripts. In fact, BOB MULLIGAN and I filled out our W4 forms the same day.

INT: Before you started directing what was your image of what a director does, or did you have any idea?
SL: I didn't know what a movie director did but I had experience in theater, I acted in about 14 plays. I worked with MAX REINHART when I was 13. So I knew that scale of it, down to the most intimate little dramas. I knew about directing from that point of view and also, it formed a life-long orientation in the sense that in theater writer is the paramount focal point. Most people don't know it, but in the theater a writer can close a play at any point if he's not happy with the production of it. And I've known writers who have done it. HERBIE GARDNER, a wonderful writer, a friend of mine who died recently - HERBIE wrote a musical, he closed it out of town in Boston, he didn't like what they were doing. But the writer has that right. So that's something that stayed with me.

INT: Who were your mentors or teachers in terms of directing?
SL: Really nobody. There were any number of directors whose work I admired enormously. Before the French onslaught of opinion about American directors, there were a lot of American directors whose work I thought was marvelous. Not many of them honored by the French. The highest level of work picture after picture that I can think of is WILLY WYLER. There's a number of glorious films. I think DODSWORTH is a great movie. He's been acknowledged in America but in Europe he is not considered an auteur, he's considered a fine commercial director. He's a brilliant director. FORD, of course, has been acknowledged. I don't know whether BILLY WILDER is acknowledged to the degree that he should be. I think another great director. Certainly, in my view, of the greatest comedy ever made, SOME LIKE IT HOT. When you add that to the extraordinary dramatic work that he both wrote and directed - I mean is there anything better than DOUBLE INDEMNITY? That's the top drawer it can be and it came from the same man who had this unbelievable sense of comedy. [INT: So there were diverse influences, but you wouldn't point to anyone as a key teacher or mentor?] No. I include the musicals. I think SINGING IN THE RAIN - and again, I'm using the word "great" a lot, but I mean it in the classic sense of the word - SINGING IN THE RAIN is one of the great movies. BUSBY BERKELEY has been acknowledged. [INT: It's interesting you didn't mention any of the - what I guess would be considered the WARNER BROTHERS films - you know, just given some of your work in the 70s. The urban dramas or the gangster dramas.] They're very good movies, but in my view I don't see any of them as great movies. As always, almost anything JIMMY CAGNEY is in starts being near being great only because he's one of the great movie actors. WHITE HEAT, a very interesting story, but is moved way past what it's script was by this amazing performance by CAGNEY. A lot of the WARNER melodramas with CAGNEY I find magnificent movies but I'm not quite sure I'd use the word "great."

INT: Who else was key in this first break? Were there any other people who helped you in your career or were key in getting you started?
SL: I guess two people who gave me my first picture, REGGIE ROSE and HANK FONDA. I had not done the television show of 12 ANGRY MEN, FRANK SCHAFFNER did that on another network. I hadn't even seen it. In this workshop I had downtown, we had about 40 people and about 3 were in the cast of MISTER ROBERTS which FONDA was in. When we did year-end project, HANK came down to see it and was very impressed with the acting level, I had directed it. When REGGIE brought my name up as possible director for 12 ANGRY MEN, he was very enthusiastic about it. I would guess there's a real thanks to be given to ARTHUR KRIM at UNITED ARTISTS because ARTHUR was never afraid to give directors their first movie. I don't know how many directors he gave their first movie to. He was wonderfully courageous in that way. He didn't hesitate for a minute when HANK and REGGIE chose me.

INT: What would you say are the essential qualities for a successful director?
SL: That's so hard to answer because there are so many different ways of directing. There are the people who have to do it over and over because they don't know quite what they want but they know it when they see it. WILLY WYLER was one of those. WYLER would shoot a million and four feet for a movie, that's an insane ratio. OLIVIER once told me that after they did WUTHERING HEIGHTS, he said he never wanted to work with him again because he thought the man didn't know what he was doing. I think WYLER's background was as an editor. I know GEORGE STEVENS, he was an editor and a cameraman, both shot these enormous ratios because I think they did not know what they wanted until they saw it. But, as I say, boy did they know it when they saw it. So I'm sure that if you work on that kind of ratio, you work in a very different way then I do or SAM PECKINGPAH, who know exactly this way. A very different tempo, a very different amount of exposure. In 12 ANGRY MEN, I exposed under 80,000 feet, I'm not even talking about printed. My training, coming from theater and live television, the essential difference was I was in the habit of making a dramatic selection in advance. This is what it's going to be about, this is how I'm going to stage it. There is no right or wrong about any of this. There are the ones in between. There are the ones that love improvisation. There are so many different ways of directing so I don't know that - [INT: So there's no universal - not in technique, but maybe in character? Or the way one just approaches a crew? A talent?] I know for example that there are directors who seem like the coldest and detached people, turn out to do the most tender work. I know directors who are the opposite exact opposite. They're all over you, slobbering like a puppy and their work is ice cold. There are as many kinds of directors as there are people. I've never found a common denominator in directors. [INT: Well if you were going to give the job description, you know, what is the job of the director?] You better know what you want. But even that's not true. I know many directors who don't know what they want and they get up there and somehow kid around and futz around and come out with brilliance. I wish there was one overriding consideration but I haven't found it.

INT: Do you think that the job has changed? You've seen so much of the contemporary history of cinema. Do you think the director's job has changed from what you've seen to what we see now?
SL: I don't think it's changed, no. I think there are differences, technically there are enormous differences. Also, the whole financial aspect of movies has become so insane insane. A picture can now gross a billion dollars. Entertainment, that includes records and books, are the second largest factor in our balance of payments. So from that point of view, it's a much more rigid structure than it was, it's much more closely allied with having to be an industry, than it was at the beginning. Even then, I don't think there was much tolerance on the part of LOUIS B MAYER or any of those guys that somebody's pictures did not make money. Only thing is, they could always rig it as to whether they wanted it to make money or not.

INT: Do you think the public perception has changed in terms of how we look at a director? You yourself said young people maybe in the 50s, the 40s, didn't see it as a career option. Now you see universities full of them. Have you seen differences in the perception of the director?
SL: Enormous. The jokes are endless. The vaudevillian who got a dog act, he brings the dog in to meet the agent, what he really wants to do is direct. That part of it is very, very different and I’m not sure where it came from. I guess we owe part of it to the cinema crowd who at least made it intellectually acceptable to make movies. [INT: What about the DGA? Do you feel they had any role in changing - ] No, not really. It's so much a part of the perceptions we have now. I think probably giving directing an even race is being a rock star or a singer/composer, or a rap artist. That part of it has changed. I don't know if it's for the better or not. I think a lot of schools are making a lot of money. But I'm asked this question all the time. "Where would I go to learn to be a director?" And since you're not gonna get a picture, I guess the schools are critical because you have to get your eye behind the camera sometime. [INT: What about - I mean, just to finish this section as a kid, you remember seeing a silent film with a Jewish comedian as a commentator which is a great image. The image of public culture, at the beginning of the 20th century, and this is something that's been looked down on. The whole idea that the immigrant groups got into this industry, it was seen as not worthy of the - ] Not only as unworthy, there was something unrespectable about it. When I was kid on Broadway, when I was a kid actor, movies - I mean, if you wanted to make money, you went into a movie. But if you were serious about your work, you never made a movie. [INT: In that sense, there's been a huge change in perception. As you say, now it's royalty, the celebrities whereas then it was seen as riff raff.]

INT: What do you look for in a script? What are the elements of a good story?
SL: I've already mentioned earlier, that because of my theater training, the writer is so critical to me and the script is so important. But I don't really know what I'm looking for. It sounds ridiculous considering the amount of movies I've made, but I know afterwards, but I don't know at the time. I have no pre-conceived idea of what kind of movie I want to make. Very often what will happen is I'll look up and I'll say, "Oh, those three pictures are about the same thing. I must have been interested in that at the time." But I'm not aware that I was interested in that at the time. A perfect example is what seemed to be very disparate pictures. DANIEL, followed by - and essentially there may have been other ones in between, but essentially I was working on this one thematic line - followed by RUNNING ON EMPTY, followed by FAMILY BUSINESS. Thematically, all three pictures, to me, were about the consequences on the children of the passions of the parent. DANIEL was a complete failure, critically and financially and in my view was a wonderful movie. I thought that it was really too alien to most people's experiences to create a connection. RUNNING ON EMPTY, which was a beautifully-written script, but I won't say simplistic. I won't say simplistic in the sense of it's juvenile, but in the sense that it's simpler in its character structure and in the characters themselves and in their motivations. The precipitating incident, very easy to understand. They blew up a lad during the Vietnam war as a protest. Somebody was killed. That's a helluva lot easier to understand then joining the communist party. And the consequences, even though deeply affecting, and I found it wonderfully moving but I found it much simpler than the consequences of the children in DANIEL. And that didn't work either, either critically or with an audience. And I gave it another shot with FAMILY AFFAIR which was an out and out comedy and I think not a very good movie because of a basic split in the script. But all three split into a - I think they were spread out over six years but they were each getting to the same thing because I was obviously, for some reason, very intent upon the idea of the consequences of parents' behavior on their children.

INT: But you say you don’t look for specific genre or story style. Can you give specific example of a project where you read a script and it surprised you?
SL: MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS. I read it, I got to the end and thought it was brilliant. It was AGATHA CHRISTIE and there is nothing better. I called the agent right back and said "let's do it." Totally surprising. It's not my genre really, especially since it had to clearly be done gay in its spirit. It could not be heavy and somber in any way. So that's typical - [INT: What about FAIL-SAFE? That was a rather unusual project.] Right but FAIL-SAFE at least had the usual "seriousness" with which I'm connected. It was about something that at that time was a serious and real discussion and will come about again as nuclear proliferation spreads, which is the accidental release of missiles. So that belonged more in my bag.

INT: What role do you play in the development of the story?
SL: Again, it varies. I've initiated screenplays and/or have written some. Some originals, some adaptations. I once received a script from a wonderful writer by the name of HERB SARGENT called BYE BYE BRAVERMAN and the only thing I did was just cut page one. I didn't think it was necessary. I didn't change a word from then on. It varies constantly just like there is no automatic thing for directing, there is no automatic thing for choosing a script.

INT: Does collaboration with a writer also vary, in terms of the way you would do a rewrite?
SL: There are certain consistencies that do happen as they do with actors. As soon as you're into the actual making of the movie, rules come into effect. For example, I'm never there when the writer's actually writing. I think that's an invasion. I never ask for pages. When the writer is finished is when I want to see it. "You're halfway through, I want to see where you are." For me, that's a big mistake. So I don't do that. I think almost everything that I'm talking about would be don'ts. There are no things that I actually do that are consistent every time except to be gentle to the writer.

INT: What works in communicating with the writers?
SL: It's an impossible question to answer because it depends on the writer. [INT: Maybe you could give us a few examples, like you did with HERB? Just of your relationship with different writers. You've worked with some of the - not only screenwriters but novelists, playwrights. So maybe an example or two, whether it's PADDY CHAYEFSKY or DOCTOROW or some of the other people you've worked with.] PADDY was difficult in the sense that he knew as clearly what he wanted as I know what I want. PADDY would know very clearly what he wanted, what he needed. The fortunate thing was that on NETWORK, I was so in love with the script, there weren't any sources where I didn’t want anything other than what he wanted. Knowing PADDY, I wouldn’t have won against him anyway. You couldn't beat him into doing anything he didn't have conviction about. I'm much the same way, although there have been a couple of instances where I've made compromises to satisfy writers. It happened in one scene in DANIEL, a very important scene that eventually we cut. I think we probably made a mistake in cutting it. The first time we did it, the first time we saw it, it was not what it should have been. In performance, in direction, the way I shot it. Went back and did it again. It still wasn't working. And I thought we had corrected what seemed wrong. And then we began to wonder, well maybe it should be re-written. Maybe EDGAR should re-write it. But we ran out of money. Otherwise he would have re-written it and we would have tried it the third way.

INT: What about DOG DAY AFTERNOON? There was an ACADEMY AWARD for that script.
SL: Yeah, and one of the interesting things about that is that it's the glory of FRANK PIERSON as a writer because he has the best ego in the sense that he doesn't want to be right he wants to be open to whatever happens. We came across an interesting problem there. Because of the subject matter, I knew and it's not that I'm arrogant, it's just that I can't work thinking of an audience, and this was the only time I've been afraid of an audience. I was afraid that on a Saturday night in Brooklyn, when AL got to that extraordinary scene with the composing of the will, which was the actual text of the will that John wrote that day, that somebody, you know when you're dealing with death and sex, you never know what people are going to do. And I was terrified that from the balcony... this was a very revolutionary picture for its time. Since the reading of that will was the whole point of the movie, the point of the movie was these extreme people weren't as extreme as you think they are. The protection of that was critical. The protection of that thematic line. I decided very early in the second or third day of rehearsal, I said to the cast, "The only way we're going to forestall anything like that is they've gotta see you up there. You can't hold anything back." To the degree that, there's no one who's going to costume this, "wear your own clothes. We'll pay you the two dollars a day." I needed the scene as close to the actors as possible. We're not using the real character's names. I want to see you. There are no characterizations to be made here. Whereupon one of the actors brilliantly said, "Yeah? Well what about language?" And FRANK was there, FRANK was at rehearsal and I said, "Well, as a rehearsal process, feel free to use your own words." I've never done this. I'm not a believer in improvisation. And what began to happen was so interesting. We kept up the improvisations and on the fifth or sixth day, we brought in my boom man and the sound recordist and started recording the improvisations. And that night FRANK and I, and sometimes MARTY BREGMAN would just go through the improvised stuff and work them into script. Finally, when we started shooting, we had a brand new script, about 60% of which was improvised. FRANK won the ACADEMY AWARD for that screenplay and he deserved it because, first of all, the structure was intact, but he was selfless enough to let the dialogue go. The funniest line in the movie came out of the improvisations and FRANK roared when he saw it in the rushes. "So where do you want to go, Sal?" Long, long, long pause. "Wyoming." That totally improvised moment. A totally improvised response from JOHN CAZALE.

INT: It's interesting, coming out of theater, that you say you don’t believe in improvisation but you have tremendous success. Why, after that, didn't you integrate improvisation more in your directorial process?
SL: Because the premise to it was that the actors needed a closer identification with what they were playing than any other time that they could ever act. As I say, I did not want to see a character up there. I wanted to see MARCIA JEAN KURTZ. I wanted to see SANDRA KAZAN. I wanted to see those people, SULLY BOYAR. I want to see SULLY BOYAR, I don't want to see the manager of that bank. And that closeness could only be - I could only arrive at it in the method that we did. [INT: But you didn't see a reason to use that anywhere else in your work?] No, because one of the important things about that is that if you're thematically doing a piece, the second thing emerges which is how are you going to do this movie? You're going to try to do movies not realistically but naturalistically. You're going to do it as close to real life as you can. There was no artificial light in that movie. The bank was lit by fluorescents. And when I did a close-up we just rolled up another fluorescent for fill light. When the lights went out in the bank, all we had were those safety lights that come on, only we augmented it enough to get an exposure. The front of the bank at night, no artificial light. Deliberately chose a place with the exterior wall white because knowing the way I was going to approach the light, I knew there would be police lights that when it was lit, that would provide enough bounce light across the street so you'd be able to read the people's faces. That, and a 10K all the way down the block where there was an actual stree light. So in that sense, there was really no artificial light at all because the style of the picture was going to be naturalistic.