Film Culture (Winter 1963-64)

mated films and some old Krazy Kat stuff that was wonderful. As long as films are pure and honest. I like films that deal with small, human problems best; I detest films that deal with vast, universal problems. One of my pet peeves (Jaugh) is the Atomic Bomb theme. There are so many films, dealing with the potential horrors of the A-Bomb that I almost wish it would fall. I get angry at these film makers who instead of doing films should print up leaflets saying “war is hell,” fly over in planes and drop the leaflets. These people should write articles in newspapers or talk in public squares. Many people like stories that are subtly woven around messages. Any pre-determined message and which attempts to make its point through a story isn’t for me. James Thurber did an anti-war book, but to me he’s a true poet and I love him. In the UPA film from his short story, The Unicorn in the Garden, he might have predetermined the message but I hate to think so. I like poets. Steinberg to me expresses certain universal messages but he does it on a humorous level. J like to deal in mun‘dane things: I don’t want to deal with the U.N. directly because I’m not in the U.N. As to whether I'd like to work for UNESCO, not yet! (Laugh). Usually film makers begin to express these “universal themes” when they get older, for some bloody reason, but I don’t feel that old yet. Film makers are great when they’re young; they’re so personal and selfish. As soon as they become successful and great, they start dealing with messages and big things about mankind and the universe, -and they start thinking big — and then their work gets bad. Politics interests me, because here men deal directly, not through the symbols of art. GW: Or some other direct communication that requires talking? EP: Yes, talking or writing, but on a direct lev-el, not using anything abstract. I like non-objective art, but not for its own sake; I like all art, all periods. I was a “purist” painter. Photographic art never interested me; but I’m interested in looking at photography. To me it’s a medium of selection and editing. In film you can both construct and -edit. As for music, I don’t think there’s a rule saying it is important in a film. The jazz musician in The Interview was not written by me. The Interview was a tongue-in-cheek improvisation by two very hip guys who were around jazz musicians and were interviewers themselves. I was only in“terested in the surface and didn’t analyze anything else, but many people said it was (laugh) “the artist’s inability to communicate with man”! I just saw it as some swinging dialogue that was fun, the situations, the little things in it, were fas-. cinating to me. However, it’s true that the artist’s inability to communicate is a significant aspect of that film. GW: People call your films whimsical. Do you like that term? EP: Well. ... I don’t mind. As long as they like them. I like people to like my films. GW: Do you like the public to leave the theatre after seeing one of them feeling very warm towards each other? EP: I usually know I have a more commercial film when it ends warmly. I can sense it, and a film like The Shoes, which didn’t resolve happily in that sense, isn’t the most popular, but sometimes you have to make such films. GW: Do you feel you can express just as much in a flower as others do in bombs? EP: I don’t think a bomb is more powerful than a relationship between a man and a flower. There can be great power between two people in a simple situation. It can have great meaning for people. In fact, we’re really concerned more with those things than we are with the big things. I don’t know how many people really worry about bombs. They worry about an argument or about their job or something that happened on the train. Those things fascinate me. I find great humor in them. A bomb is so big. In the early Hollywood they tried to win with every film and, like Louis B. Mayer, would edit just to make people come in and pay to see the bloody thing. I think commercial film considerations helped the film medium very much because of that will to win over the public by communicating clearly. A great number of good things came out of the attempt to reach the greatest number of people. If it hadn’t been for Hollywood grinding out those Andy Hardy films, and such, I don’t know what shape the film medium would be in. Film is a tremendously sophisticated art form with a very short history. There are so many people who are damn good film makers, it’s really amazing because it’s a very complex medium. I think we should be thankful to early Hollywood. It helped. GW: Do you think Chaplin with his little tramp has influenced you? EP: People have asked me that before but, for some reason, Chaplin doesn’t move me. I don’t know why. (Laugh) I honestly don’t dig Chaplin. He just isn’t funny to me. I like Buster Keaton and FILM CULTURE 57