Cinema Canada (Oct-Nov 1974)

stars his two young daughters playing on the beach. Markson’s daughters, Joanna 6 and Selena 4, sing-song a narration of what was happening as the film was projected for them. The feeling is spontaneous and intimate and worked equally well in the feature. Was there a lot of improvisation in the acting as well? ‘‘No. The film was pretty tightly done. The dances and motions were improvisations — not the script. That’s where Jackie Burroughs really shines! She’s very creative. She really contributes. She’s a very powerful force. She’s got it, no doubt about that.” And what about moving away from the improvisational? ““My previous films had to do with ideas and thoughts, not so much stories. Now, I’d like to move into a story that is a simulation of an event. Purely and totally, and every detail helps create the strength of that event. So I’m looking for a story that’s valuable enough and beautiful enough and fine enough so that it can come to life in as many details as possible. A tight script. I’m looking for something like that, and if I write it myself, I don’t learn as much. Stories are like pretend — right? Stories are all about the art of pretending. The real challenge now is to make a film so powerful, relating directly to the emotions, so the thoughts or ideas you might develop are secondary to the experience. Monkeys does get into some of those experiences. A bit...” Monkeys in the Attic was co-written with John Palmer, but Markson developed the basic theme, ““The idea of four people living in a house, and one commits suicide or appears to, over a short period of time. It went through a lot of transformations. It was originally about a house where people go to die. It was into limbo and fantasy but gradually it became more and more settled into things which could almost be real. Not dealing with the motivations of suicide but with the absurdity of situations people might find themselves in. So we sat down and created five characters we thought might be interesting Victor Garber and proceeded to create a lot of events that might happen in such a house on such a night. John would write out huge sections and I would write out a lot of stuff and we made a lot of changes. We created Frederick and Elaine and Eric. Wanda we didn’t quite create. That character was inspired to some extent by Jackie Burroughs in her more comic moments. I had really wanted to work with her. So the film starts at one point and ends very definitely at another point, and everything that comes in between we wrote. But whatever you may think of what I’m saying — you must see the film in order to know what I’m talking about.” Definitely. Monkeys is almost impossible to describe without going into vagueness about surrealism and sub-conscious fantasies, and all that. One section in the film seems to reflect a lot of what it’s about. One of the characters delivers a chilling monologue in a black void about having gone through LSD and group therapy and Scientology and Liberation and even having asked God the Ultimate Question — but what was the question? That is a key to the film. “Yeah ... That section sums up the passion of someone involved in all kinds of head trips ultimately reduced to the ultimate question and the ultimate answer — which might have been God. And then the question is still not answered. Finally, he forgets about the ultimate question and finds himself nowhere — which is where he began anyhow, in such an absurd way. That, for me, is the focus of that film. I love that part — I just can’t wait until that happens!” How autobiographical is that? ‘““What’s that film got to do with my feelings? I can’t integrate every aspect of that film into what I feel or want for myself. I find it very difficult to talk about motivations and meanings, and you really are on dangerous grounds talking about those things. Sometimes films have a certain quality of mystery and can mean so many different things to different people.” “I’m not interested in spiritual explanations. I’m interested in football games and hockey games, money, movies, women, sex, war, economics, politics . .. Publish all this!” So be it. But there is a definite theme running through Markson’s films. “I like to use camouflage. It’s not so much that I identify with a particular character but I’ve really been interested in fools. People who come on in a way that is absurd but serious. Like in Zero the Fool; and in Breathing Together — even Abbie Hoffman, John Sinclair, Jerry Rubin, in a sense. All those characters. It’s just a continuation of my interest in people living on the edge of reason and absurdity. It’s fascinating for me. I’d like to become a fool myself. I was thinking of studying to be a clown. That would be a lot of fun.” But right now, filmmaking is fun enough. Markson not only co-wrote Monkeys in the Attic, he also produced, directed and edited it. “The thing is, when I’m editing all of my films, I think of all the possible questions people are going to ask and I think of all the possible criticisms. Every one. I could write any type of critique for any of my films, and so far I haven’t been surprised by anyone. But I like surprises. When I was finishing Monkeys in the Attic, I wrote four pages of critiques. I could show them to you — I might publish them.” Could he give a sample? Sure — “‘Who are these people and why do they do such silly things? How can a film be so utterly absurd? How can he expect people to watch this? What does it mean?” Jackie Burroughs Cinema Canada 41