Interview by Jon Stevens
Photo by Naomi Kaltman
Jodie Foster's brilliant acting career began at the age of three, appearing as the "Coppertone Girl" in the television commercial. After becoming a regular on a number of television searies, she made her feature film debut in Napoleon and Samantha when she was eight years old. By the time she was 12, she had already acted in a dozen movies including Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, and was nominated for an Academy Award for her powerful performance as a street-wise teenager in Taxi Driver, both for director Martin Scorsese.
In total, she has appeared in 32 films; won two Best Actress Oscars for her work as a rape survivor in The Accused, and her protrayal of an FBI special agent in Silence of the Lambs, for which she also won awards from the Golden Globes, BAFTA and the New York and Chicago Film Critics. The film Nell, the first feature produced by Foster's production company Egg Pictures, also earned her an Academy Award nomination.
It seemed only a natural progression for Jodie Foster to evolve in to a first-rate director - as indicated by the work in her extraordinary debut feature film Little Man Tate, and her current feature, Home for the Holidays. The DGA Magazine recently spoke with this multi-talented actress-turned-director shortly before Holidays opened.
When did you know you wanted to direct?
Ultimately, if you are someone who loves the process of making decisions and being the leader of a set, it's probably the most enticing job you could do. I knew I wanted to be a director, probably when I was six years old. I was appearing on a TV series called The Courtship of Eddie's Father, and Bill Bixby did a couple of episodes where he acted and directed me in a scene. I thought that was the most amazing thing because I never realized that actors were allowed to direct, and so I said, "Someday, that's what I want to do."
You've worked with some pretty awesome directors like Martin Scorsese, Jonathan Demme, Jonathan Kaplan and Michael Apted. What did you learn from the directors you worked with?
The most valuable lessons I've learned was about being yourself, listening to your own voice as a filmmaker. One of the things that I love about Jonathan Demme, for example, is that he has the vision of the whole movie in his head, nad he's absolutely prepared from A to Z, knowing exactly where the film is heading at all times. And like a parent, he encourages the actors to take risks. I felt comfortable talking about ideas I had. I never liked the original opening to the movie, so when I was training at the FBI Academy in Quantico, I was running a kind of a Marine training obstacle course, and it's beautiful in the woods with the fall leaves. I called Jonathan up all sweaty from a pay phone and I told him I had this great idea for the beginning: Clarice running in a forest, not really knowing if she's pursuing or being pursued, and not knowing if she's personally being a victim, which I thought was true to the movie. The FBI training part was true to the myth itself, the way the heroine in that film makes her journey, discovering who she is, a past she's ashamed of, her fragility and that she could've been a victim. Jonathan used my idea to open the film. I felt secure in doing what he wanted, because I knew that he had a clear vision of the whole picture in his head. He let me in the cutting room because that was really the only part of the process I had never been a part of, and I found it was a process of learning your film in the same way that rewriting is a process of learning the film. The only difference is that when you are rewriting you don't have anything in front of you, and you have to imagine and make it up. But other than that, they virtually are the same process. It gave me a better understanding of narrative and storytelling on film.
How did you pursue your goal of directing?
When I was about 14 years old, I did a short subject film which was all set to music, with no dialogue or anything, just visuals. It was a great experience and for many years I kept looking for a story I could commit three, if not ten years of my life to; but for a long time I didn't feel I was mature enough, that there was nothing in the world that I loved enough or knew intimately enough to be able to make that kind of commitment. But the minute I read Little Man Tate, I knew that I could spend my whole life making this movie. It had a lot to say about questions I had about myself. Like that character, I was definitely a different child, and I too experienced the world in some ways as a freak, because I had made nine movies by the time I was 12, and had been nominated for an Academy Award. And based on that kind of excellence, I was pretty much an outsider.
Both your films, Little Man Tate and Home for the Holidays, are character-driven; is that something that you look for consciously?
What moves me and gets me excited will always have a basis in character. My films will always be about somebody desperately trying to make sense of this world.
How deeply involved were you in their development?
Oh, completely. Both scripts went through many rewrites - but always with the same writer. I feel very strongly about that. I work very closely with the writers because I need to make the script mine, so there isn't a color, a prop, a piece of dialogue that I can't talk about and relate to personally. Otherwise, I don't know how to make decisions.
Why did you choose not to play Claudia, instead casting Holly Hunter in Holidays?
I didn't have an interest in directing and acting again simultaneously. Even though I am very proud of Little Man Tate, and feel that the tone was very appropriate and my performance didn't hurt the film, I think there's a plodding quality to the film which has to do with the fact that I was directing and also acting in it which didn't allow me any time for spontaneity, and I feel I didn't get the best performance out of myself; I got exactly what I wanted, but not anything that surprised me.
Tell me about your directorial preparation process. Do you go through the whole script with your key department heads?
Yeah, we go through everything scene by scene. I'm really meticulous about this. It's a part of choices that you make in terms of composition, lighting and staging. What I like to do is talk about the big picture. I write these incredibly long memeos about the full vision of the film. It gives the visual department a step-by-step idea of where the character starts, what's the point of view and how that point of view evolves and what the ocnclusion is in the end. When a prop guy asks, "What kind of drinking glass should I get - one with Miss Piggy on it? Or should I get the Pyrex kind?" he has been let in on the bigger picture of the film so that we can make the choice in a way that is more realistic.
What do you try to achieve in your rehearsals?
I feel the last revisions of the screenplay should happen in rehearsals.
Can an actor-turned-director help the actors make the right choices?
Well, yes and no. There are certain areas that you just shouldn't butt into. And there are others where you need to stop an actor. I like to be very involved in the actors' process, to be in there and have them do the lines for me. And I say, "Well, what if he said that?" and "How did that feel?" Geraldine Chaplin came up with wonderful choices in Holidays. She was the most eccentric character of the bunch, so I allowed her to push a little bit more some of those strange behaviors. But I didn't want to push the other actors into wacky, campy idiosyncratic levels. These are real people; they're complicated, but the are very real.
What technique do you use in your casting?
I really believe in reading. As an actor, I love doing readings. I'll get a group of actors together and read around a table which was very helpful for Holidays, and I think we really realized what was working and what wasn't working.
Did your actors feel more comfortable with you, an actor-turned-director?
I would imagine they did. Home for the Holidays is really an extraordinary example, I think, of how to make an actor's film and get the most out of actors that love what they are doing and love each other. It was a truly magnificent thing to watch them come up with stuff andsurprise me, to watch us work together. Do you try to make a connection between the way a film looks in relation to the story and characters?
Yes, absolutely. Not just the visuals in terms of lighting or production design, but also in terms of operating styles. I think that every department gives you a differrente piece of language; language of sound, language of music, language of the visulal design, languiage of lighting as well as the language of acting. And they all have to be working in unison.
How extensively do you look for that subtext when you're directing the actor?
My working style is very spare in terms of how, and the choices actors make. I like a lot of interior subtext but I don't like a lot of on-the-nose-melodrama. So, I tend to like restrained acting.
What do you tell the actors to do in order to achieve that?
Any language is good language. Anything that gets through to the actor is fine. You know, sometimes with young actors that are under six years old, you go, "Hey, do it like this!"
And with a Charles Durning in Holidays?
God, with Charles, sometimes it will be just one word, just bring it down, bring it inside and don't let me see so much on the outside. Because he is so intelligent and can be so articulate and witty, I wanted his character to be somebody who didn't know how to talk and every time he tries to talk, he kind of stumbles and says the wrong thing. So I have to keep working it, making him less articulate and making his choices less conscious to himself. For Charles, I think probably his challenge was to be a little less intelligent than he is. And with Anne Bancroft - she is somebody that is so meticulously planned with every fork, every knife, every tablecloth, every line of diction, I mean everything. So what I would do with her is play with her. When she'd ask me a question about where the fork was going to be, even if I knew the answer, I'd go, "Oh, I don't know." Just to like make her nervous, shake her up a little bit.
What was your experience working with Holly Hunter?
Holly Hunter's role was the most difficult character in the movie, because it was about a character who is going through an identity crisis and it's really hard to play that without being a shiny victim. I think she performed brilliantly. I think you have a really good sense of Claudia and yet she is somebody who does change with every person she meets. Her tone changes every time somebody new comes into the room; she speaks their language.
How do you handle the temperamental actor who disagrees with your concepts and your interpretation of the character?
I think patience is probably the best way to deal with people like that. I don't believe in tempers on a movie. I don't think you get anywhere by yelling and it ends up being very destructive to the whole process of the set. How closely do you stick to the scripted dialogue once you've locked your script? Do you allow your actors to rewrite dialogue on the set?
The cast pretty much stuck to the script once we had honed it down. The only person I let make up whatever he wanted was Robert Downey, Jr. He just has this incredibly fertile mind. He is really one of the most gifted actors I've ever worked with.
What happens when you realize that you got the best performance you are going to get from an actor, but you still need more?
You try the traditional method of talking about the screenplay and telling them what you want. Sometimes you have to come up with another plan, because he just may not get there. You may have to say, "Okay, well maybe he isn't having an enraged moment in this scene because he looks phony or something when he's being enraged, and maybe he's really approaching it in a more subtle way.
How do you deal with an actor that needs more takes and another who doesn't?
Yeah, that's tough. That's a really tough one. You know, spontaneity pretty much always rules. Sometimes what I'll do is a ton of rehearsals, and I'll tell the actor that doesn't need as many takes just to not give anything. And then we'll just rehearse the other person until he's warmed up.
What about when you've got these actors who come from different acting schools?
It's really up to the actors themselves to work it out. I don't care what they do to get there as long as they get there when we start shooting. I don't care if they have to wear a funny red nose or make weird noises, it doesn't really matter.
Do you speak to the actors while the camera is rolling?
It's a really annoying habit. Dick Donner does thhis amazing thing where you're actually talking during a scene, and he's yelling things to do at you. In comedy, it's funny because it makes the comedy chaotic, if you don't mind looping everything. I never talk during the takes unless I say, "keep going" or "walk through the door" or something.
Do you have a specific technique in getting actors to listen and respond?
I find it really annoying when actors don't listen to each other. For example, you're doing a scene with somebody and you haven't even finished your line of dialogue and they are darting their eyes around getting ready to say their line; it makes me want to say the wrong line just to bug them. I tell them to listen, but then I make sure that in the cutting room I'm able to cut in pauses and I'm able to cut in some listening pauses.
While shooting, where is your attention?
I focus on the performances. I never notice what somebody looks like or what they are wearing. Once we are through prep, I'm just hoping that the designer and the make-up person are paying attention, because I just don't see it.
Do you do more rehearsals on emotional scenes or less
Much less. I never, ever, blow an emotion on a rehearsal.
Do you shoot the close-ups first in a very emotional scene?
If I'm directing myself, I'd shoot the emotional close-up first.
How many takes do you average?
Probably five or six, but I almost never print more than two takes, ever. In fact, I'm famous for printing one take on everything, because I don't like getting into a cutting room and having 40 choices and not remembering why I didn't like them. I'd rather be specific and then if we run into a problem in the editing room, I feel like, "Oh God, gee, I wish that line was done differently." Then I can go back to other takes that were printed.
Can you improve a performance in the editing?
You can definitely help performances in the cutting room, but I think that the director has to be aware of what the problems are while you are shooting it, so that you can make sure that you have the footage you need.
From an actor's point of view, who is the ideal director? And from a director's point of view, who do you think are the best actors?
From a director's point of view, I'd probably have to include my entire cast of Home for the Holidays, and I would say that Mel Gibson and Robert Downey, Jr. are very similar. They do something that I can't do as an actor - they completely make something up on the spot. I don't know where they come up with the stuff, they just do it. So I would say that of all the actors that I've worked with, the two of them, who are very similar in style, just continually amaze me. As an actor, my favorite filmmakers are the filmmakers who have a realy auteur hand, where you feel like every movie they make is a part of some personal agenda they are working out through their whole life, like Scorsese. It makes it easier to serve such a director because I know what he's going for and I know how to make it personal for him.
In your opinion, what constitutes an excellent film performance?
An excellent film performance for me, as an audience member, is feeling like I am inside that actor's face. I know that's a silly thing to say, but sometimes I get this experience when I feel like I'm inside their face and I'm experiencing what they are experiencing. When that happens, for me, that's really an amazing performance.