By Ted Elrick
Photos by Brian Hamill

Though director Barry Levinson is known for such diverse films as The Natural, Young Sherlock Holmes, Good Morning Vietnam, Rain Man (for which he earned the DGA Award for Theatrical Direction as well as the Oscar for Best Director), Bugsy, and Wag the Dog, it is his low-budget Baltimore films which seem to strike a special chord in critics and audiences alike.

Liberty Heights is the latest chapter of the director/writer's homage to his hometown, which has thus far included Diner, Tin Men and Avalon. The story centers on the changing 1950s and the issues of race, class and religious distinction as seen through the eyes of Nate and Ada Kurtzman (Joe Mantegna and Bebe Neuwirth) and their sons Van (Adrien Brody) and Ben (Ben Foster).

DGA Magazine spoke with Levinson about his methods, his Baltimore films and his thoughts on film and television.

Not really. It has to do with where your real interest lies. You know, what drives you, what gets under your skin to the point that you want to get that movie made. Periodically there's a desire to do some of these films that we might consider more humanistic work.

But the difference is that came to me. If I had thought of it in my head from scratch it's another situation. In the end you have to make a commitment to all the movies you do in a way that you can have the excitement and intensity to want to fulfill it in the way you see it in your head. That's the constant. The origins that you build from the ground up, with the writing, like this film, comes from a different place in your gut.

Each of these seem like a novel with the way you develop the characters of Baltimore.

Well, thanks. I guess it becomes that way. You have to find ways to not get immersed in movie contrivances because they would stick out more in these type of films. So you have to find a way to take an audience on a journey and not rely on techniques that you would think of as the ‘movie experience' films. In Liberty Heights, and in all of the Baltimore films, you have to find the behavior that seems honest enough to work on its own terms.

No, I have the conversations as I write. I don't have any specific things that I want to throw in there, like, "Oh, I always want to keep this line" or whatever. It flows out of the characters. They just start talking and they say things.

You may not have to get everything to enjoy a movie. When I was a kid you went to the movies every Saturday. And you went to see whatever was playing in the movie theatre. Some of the films might have been more complicated and adult in a way. Somehow you could find enough that you actually enjoyed it. Sometimes not. But you didn't think you didn't understand the whole movie. That would be the difference. I think you can in terms of the enjoyment of it. However, there may be other levels that you might not take in. God knows, I've read reviews about the Baltimore films over the years, forget the fact that you can't argue with a critic on whether the performances were good or bad, but you can actually say, "This particular comment is addressed in the movie, but you didn't get it." They make an issue out of something when, in fact, they misinterpreted the meaning of it. You have to be able to enjoy a movie on first viewing, even if you don't get it all. People will sometimes say, "You know, I watched this again and I never saw…" that's because the discovery is still in there. I think that is what is very rewarding.

[laughs] I hoped it would be a moment that could stand out in its simplicity because so little is said. He finally says, "What do you think would happen if I kissed you right now?" She responds. He says, "Take care, Sylvia." She says, "You too, Ben." Then he leans over and gives her a light kiss. I always felt if the moment worked, out of that simplicity, it would be great, because they didn't say anything more, and I think you wanted them to say more. I think some times that is the place where you want to end up.

I think that becomes part of the choices that you make. You say, "How do we want to establish the differences?" You say, "Well, if [Sylvia's father] is a real well-to-do doctor and he's got some kind of money." Obviously the blacks didn't live in an upscale neighborhood for several generations because they wouldn't have been allowed, that means this is a relatively new event, so, therefore, we put them in a new house. They couldn't have lived in the type of home that Trey's [Justin Chambers] family lived in, you know, old money from several generations. That's how that evolved.

No rehearsals. I don't particularly like to do rehearsals. If you take a movie like this, I tend not to want to do any rehearsals or discussions because the actors are basically young. They're not well trained, and they really couldn't utilize rehearsals in a beneficial way. You're better off to put them in a situation and just start shooting with them so they don't really get nervous about how important some things are. You say, "All right, you're in a bar and I'm going to shoot here," and you just kind of go. You leave it in a very loose way so there seems to create a degree of freedom which to me would eliminate a certain amount of anxiety of, "OK. Here's the scene. Oh, God, I hope I do it." In those cases I'll just put it in motion and try to sneak up on the requirements of the scene with the young actors.

What I will do is find different methods. You do as many takes as you need or as many different angles as you think that will ultimately make the performance beneficial.

I work with two cameras always, unless we have very specifically designed shots. If you take scenes like in the diner, I would always work with two cameras.

I know the basics of it. What I don't want to do is lock it in to such a degree that everybody is going to feel that it's a tight process. I know what I require. I know the specific techniques and style that I want to bring to this given moment. Then within that, I allow a certain amount of freedom to take place. So if for some reason the blocking were to change, then you would ultimately allow for that because it may be beneficial.

You've got to be organized enough so that you don't suddenly get bogged down. We had something like 5,000 extras in Liberty Heights. It's a question of knowing what you want to do. Knowing how you want to tackle a scene so that the cinematographer has his lighting package in line and you've talked about all the variables. Then you want to still be free enough to say, "Hey, why don't we grab a shot of this?" or "This is kind of fun, why don't we get a shot of that?" I don't think you should ever get into a situation where you cannot allow for flexibility. If you eliminate flexibility in filmmaking it's a disaster. You've got to be able to take advantage of certain dynamics that are taking place on a given day and you have to be able to take advantage of that and get it on film. The preparation allows for a certain amount of flexibility and, in some cases, experimentation.

You need to find someone that understands the way you like to work. You have planning, but it's planning so that you have freedom. You can say at the last minute, "You know what would be a great idea…" and that person will begin to act on that rather than thinking of that as a problem. I remember someone saying something about John Ford shooting out in a desert. I guess a storm was coming up and, whether this is true or not because, God knows, the Hollywood tales, and he said, "Why don't we get the wagons and …" and so they set up and shot this sequence in a storm. I think that's what you want to be able to do. You have a little Army with you. Sometimes you say, "My God, this is terrific. Let's go." And you have to have that flexibility and enthusiasm to want to try something. That's what I want in the entire staff.

Obviously certain kinds of films you're going to have less flexibility than others. But for instance, Rain Man, there were two major movie stars but we were out on location, and certain ideas came up which we incorporated. There's a sequence in Rain Man when they're on the highway and there's an accident and Raymond [Dustin Hoffman] doesn't want to go on the highway anymore. That was really an idea that was put together during shooting. I thought, "How do I explain getting off these highways? If we shoot on these highways it's going to be boring." So it was a very loosely put together scene of talking to the AD and saying, "How do I get a piece of highway so we can shut it down? We need a car overturned." John Seals was the cinematographer and I discussed it with him. We went out several days later.

No, it just came about to get them off the highway so that the film didn't all look the same. It was a very loosely structured piece that didn't have dialogue to it. I put certain things in. I talked to the State Trooper and I said, "If there's a problem here, you have to take care of it." And I talked to Tom [Cruise], "You're going to try to do this." And I just let it happen. Tom is trying to get out of his car and the State Trooper is saying, "Get back in your car" and Tom is trying to explain to him that his brother is wandering around on the side of the road. The State Trooper is doing what he needs to do, Tom is doing what he needs to do and Dustin is wandering around nervous by the side of the road. It's not a real scripted piece. It just occurred to me that we needed to take advantage of certain elements as we began to learn a bit about these characters. With a very good crew we were able to put it in motion and take advantage of it.

Yes. It's a lot of fun. Out of some of the questions and problems that arise come interesting alternatives. With his character of Raymond in Rain Man he had certain things that he couldn't figure out how to handle. As an example, and I think it added to the character and the enjoyment, I said to him in one of the earlier scenes, "Dustin, the character seems a little too depressed." He said, "Really." And we talked a little bit. I said, "You know, all the autistics we've seen are always busy. They're looking up at stuff and checking things out. They're involved. They're fascinated." He did that and then said, "You know what's happening, I'm getting so involved that now I don't even know where I am in terms of the scene." He had trouble staying connected to Tom because he was so involved with something else, how did he know Tom was there? Ultimately, we solved it so that when Tom is talking, "Ray, do you want to do so and so" and Dustin will be staring at something he's involved in and he'll go "Yea." But he is obviously not paying attention. He's just, "Yea, yea." And that little "Yea" allowed Dustin to stay connected to Tom but at the same time be involved with "What are the shadows doing on the floor?" or "How many holes are there in that little vent?" so that he could keep both things in perspective. It's part of the process. An actor approaches a given scene and there's a problem. You're out there on a day-to-day basis and there are adjustments that have to be made because of the dynamics that are taking place. The location is somewhat different and so therefore it has an effect on the actor, or the actor he's with. The dynamics will change. So you have to find corrections which are not a band aid, but which will ultimately improve the scene. There are pleasant surprises which can occur.

You have to be able to improvise when necessary, and I mean that in all ways, not just in dialogue. But at the same time you can't just do everything. You're working within a box. It's like architecture. If you're going to put up a building, this is what the building is going to look like. That doesn't mean you didn't add a room; that you didn't decide you were going to raise the ceiling. But the building is what you're going for. Will there be modifications when all is said and done? Yes.

Well, I wrote it to direct.

Yes. It didn't have a gimmick. It's always tough to make an inexpensive movie. In fact, it's harder to make an inexpensive movie than an expensive movie. For those first-time directors, an inexpensive movie is always problem. The shorthand answer though is that to become a director is a hard process ‘period.' To most of the people I've spoken to, it doesn't come easy. The opportunity doesn't come like, ‘Oh, yea, sure, they offered me a chance to direct out of the blue.' It doesn't happen.

The question is not was Liberty Heights difficult to make, the question is who is the best to distribute these kinds of films and that's another issue.

Yes. They always make the movie, but there's always a great reluctance to sell the movie. I got Diner made, but the studio didn't care about it and didn't even want to release it initially, but it ultimately survived. Tin Men, I think Disney was less than enthusiastic to get behind the movie. God knows TriStar was not aggressive in how they handled Avalon. So when you make those kinds of movies, you know that you're starting behind the eight ball. You're not going to get the same degree of support that you would with a high concept movie or a big movie star film. You have to know that going in. You can't be naïve about this business. It is a business. You know you have an uphill battle in getting it made, in some cases, and then certainly in the selling of it.

Indirectly, I think to a certain degree. But I don't look at it in this respect, you know, point to a Columbine. It's way more complicated than that. We're obviously influenced by what we see because why does everybody wear the same clothes? It's trends and fashions and you see how fast they spread now because of the influence of media. Are we affected by those things we see on television? Certainly. I think the greatest influence of the 20th century is television. Not just the shows, but the commercials and maybe the commercials more so than the shows because we see the commercials more than we see the shows. Commercials have colored our thinking on so many things. They changed the whole dynamic of many, many elements. For instance, the concept of working and saving has changed with, "Hey, if you got plastic you can go here, you can do this," but it doesn't tell you that you actually have to have money to have the plastic. That you have to work and establish credit. It's if you have the card, life is wonderful. We are sold all day long, every day of the week. So we are turned into consumers. That is what television is about. It begins to set up a whole dynamic as to what is and what isn't important. That ultimately is the basis of random acts of violence, etc. It is not just simply that you watch some movie and you suddenly flip out. It's the bombardment of images coming primarily from television because that is the source that has the greatest degree of repetition.

And when you see the commercials for the dramatic shows, they always show the most heightened sequences, out of context. Here is the woman threatened.

That's because we're adrenaline junkies. We live for the thrill. That's why television controls the film industry because if you can't make an exciting 30-second spot, your movie is not going to open big. I've said in the past, "You tell me how much money All About Eve is going to make if you made it today" because you're not going to sell it in 30 seconds and it's not going to go anywhere. It's a bunch of people talking to one another. All of those things are products of television. So if you talk about Columbine, it's too simplistic to say, "That's because there was an image of this in that movie." But we are in a world of media bombardment and we are influenced by images. It's way too simplistic in the way Congressmen look at it. But then they have to make it simplistic because they are basically always pandering to the voters.

Yes. It's a complete vicious circle. I had to make a speech at American University because I went there and I spoke at the commencement exercise. I said, "You know, it's interesting that if Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson were running for office, neither one of them would ever win." Lincoln was not attractive looking and apparently not always in a peppy, congenial mood and Thomas Jefferson apparently couldn't speak in public. So those two would never be President. And the way it's handled today, it really gets down to you might as well have elections be handled in the same way as Miss America. You have a little pageant, they walk around in a nice business suit, dark with a tie that has some color in it so they don't seem too somber, and they could have a little question and answer, and you know, the better looking one is going to win.

That's what appealed to me about Wag the Dog. It's all manipulation on many different levels and with great subtlety that takes place. Someone said, "You know, you can't keep a secret in government anymore." That's true, but you can keep it secret for a couple days and that's all you need. Ultimately, it's all manipulation and how you present it to the public. That's the way we elect our officials, who is the nicest guy coming through our television.

It's ironic to how close we turned out to be to what was, in fact, going on. We were always around the edges of what could be. There's a lot of beneficial aspects that come from a Wag the Dog because you do have to look at several places simultaneously. These are not isolated incidents that take place. If a piece of information is not given to us by the White House, you have to say, "Why? Why is that information not there today, and what else is going on?" In the future there will be another way of being devious, because that's part of the way we function nowadays. Not for the fact that it's all for evil deeds. It's a question of how and when to present information and what is the left and right hand doing on any given occasion.

We shot Liberty Heights, Homicide and Oz in Baltimore and a new series called The Beat in New York. It's unfortunate that a lot of movies where it's supposed to be New York are shot in Canada because it's cheaper. Our government has paid very little attention to this industry in the real sense. The government has made very little effort ever. It would be in the interest of the government to find ways to provide incentives to keep production here in the United States, because in the end, economically, it's much better for the country.

That demonstrates their own sense of ignorance and naiveté. That's one of those pathetic statements that they like to make all the time. Unfortunately, I don't think they think in the broader context. They look at one little specific corner. Yes, you can argue and say all these people in Hollywood are making all kinds of money, when the fact of the matter is that Hollywood brings huge economic benefits to wherever they are filming. When you look at it that way and say, "Look, someone's going to come in here and they're going to be employing these people in everything from transportation, to carpenters and other suppliers." When we were doing Homicide in Baltimore, we were pumping $20 million a year into the economy of Maryland. That's just one show. Instead of looking at how much an actor is making, they should look at the hundreds of millions that they're losing to Canada by not doing anything to keep production here. It's a different story when you have to go to France because your film is set in France. We're talking about people trying to film New York in Toronto. Or shoot some other American location in Vancouver. You're going somewhere else because the place you want to film it in doesn't allow you the economic breaks, that's another situation.

When our nation was developed, they established this entire government in something like 30 days. Nowadays our Congress is so bogged down they can't figure out how to move along the slightest bill in 30 days. We should be able to figure out a way to keep production here to benefit our towns where the productions are filmed. It's that simple.

Table of Contents     Top of Page