Interview with Paul Schrader

4th August, 1979 by Jean-Marie Bernard

Can we be both an artist and a businessman?

• If you want to become a filmmaker in commercial cinema, you

have no choice: you have to be an artist, of course, but also a
businessman. You must love to do business. It’s a game that
should make you happy. For my part, I always like that aspect. It
is more difficult and more long to become an artist. Becoming a
businessman is infinitely easier.

You mean you started out as a businessman, and only then did
you become an artist?

• In high school, then at university, I was very interested in business. My moral behaviour was very
influenced by capitalism. I then moved away from it, and I got interested in the aesthetics, and the film
critic. Later, these two poles merged, and I became a screenwriter then a director. But I had a
businessman mentality before I had an artistic temperament. In the middle of where I come from, in the
Calvinist Church to which I used to belong, art was not held in high regard. But on the other hand, we
spoke highly of the business world.

Was business part of the moral order?

• You know, it was a Dutch Calvinist sect, for which work ethic is a fundamental fact of life. Aesthetics,
on the other hand ... They were only interested in hymns, and in religious art. Art in itself did not interest
them at all. The strange thing is that I could come to consider myself an aesthete. I am more and more so,
as you may have noticed in the staging of American Gigolo. I move away more and more from
sociological and realistic films, and I am especially interested now in graphics, in everything that is
visual.

But your background doesn't explain how you became a businessman in Hollywood. You still haven't
learned it at university, at UCLA.

• What I mean is that I've been in the business world since I was a child. I'm American, I raised this
sensibility in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This is a mentality that I acquired very early. That said, it helped
me a lot to come and study at UCLA for two years, because it was a kind of learning: I could see the
business world up close without actually being there. And thanks to that, I didn't consider myself a
spleen because I didn't succeed in business. It is not at all the same thing to be a student in the higher
education, and of a scriptwriter without work. And so for two, almost three years, I lugged around
declaring that I was a film and critic student, without being overwhelmed by the fact that I did not earn
money, and that I was not financially independent. But I didn’t waste my time completely: because for
these short years, I have watched, listened, thought about, and sought to understand how this city
functions as a business center. I wanted to know why people make decisions, how they behave during
their work meetings, how to tell a story, what decides people to invest money in a film, the keywords
that trigger the process …

What are the keywords?

• Finally, I mean the kind of ideas and things that ...

You mean the trade these people think of?

1
• Yes.

So how do they think?

• In terms of today, in terms of pre-sales, you have to constantly study the market, that is to say the world
of people who invest in films on an international scale. You must know the territories, television, cable
communication, know if a certain amount of money is blocked in a certain country, South America,
Japan, the money can not go out, or the money must be spent … some tax benefits that you can have in
some countries ... who are the stars who have the decision-making power ... You must constantly study
what makes it possible to put together a viable package.

But, at the time, you weren't in the business world. How did you get to study it?

• In fact, nobody is in it! It’s completely freelance. Barely fifty to one hundred people are in business in
Hollywood. Everyone else comes in and out constantly.

You mean there are only 50 or 100 people making decisions today in Hollywood?

• Oh my God, barely, maybe less! There are really only about fifty people who decide which films are
going to be made. And, among these fifty people, you have to count the stars: Clint Eastwood decides
that a film will be, simply because he will have chosen to play in it ... All the stars on whose name we
can raise money. All the others work freelance.

Which is your case.

• Yes

And yet, you have an office at Paramount Studios.

• Only while I'm making this film. When I was doing “Hardcore”, I had an office at Columbia. And
before, at Universal. These are the people who finance your film, who provide you with an office.

So, you studied the mechanics of business and then decided to get started. How did it go?

• Let's say that I entered in cinema backwards. When I got to Los Angeles, it was for being a movie critic.
I entered UCLA, in the cinema department, thanks to Pauline Kale, who was sort of my “sponsor”. I got
my "Master of Arts". Then I decided to try to be a writer. And, even later, to become a director. I didn't
come up with the idea at the start of being a director. All of this was done step by step.

But you didn’t experience road success straight away, as a screenwriter. Have you had difficult years,
I believe?

• Not really. Maybe two years. The third scenario that I wrote sold very well ... It was the first scenario
that I sold ...

It was “Yakuza” …

• Yes. And the second script was “Taxi Driver”. I sold it after “Yakuza”. Everything happened pretty
quickly. I’ve been here for eleven years now, but even taking into account my years of study, it has been
fairly quick. Ten years ago, I could never have imagined that I was going to direct three films, and write
ten. It was not at all what I was planning to do. At the time, I was wondering how I was going to get a
job as a critic.

When you decided to become a screenwriter, did you give up all your other activities?

• Yes
2
You took a big risk ...
• Not really. Anyway, I hardly made any money. I earned a little bit, but not enough to be financially
independent. I was making about $ 3,000-4,000 a year, doing freelance writing for newspapers. What
happened was that I was at Pauline Kael’s place, in New York, at Christmas. It's been a long time ... A
newspaper, in Seattle I think. was looking for a movie critic. Pauline wanted to recommend me to them.
It was exactly what I had been waiting for for a long time: the opportunity to earn a living, to write
papers regularly, to have an impact on the public, and to do a work that was held. And yet the idea of
leaving Los Angeles, where I lived at the time, bothered me a little. Besides, I thought to myself that I
should still try to write a screenplay. I told Pauline that I would like to try to write one before leaving ...

What did she say?

• She said no, that it was out of the question, that I should choose. I asked her if I had a little time to make
up my mind. Again, she said no, that she needed an answer right away. So I said, "Well, if you need an
answer right away, the answer is no." In a way, she obliquely made up my mind. That evening, I survive
going home, and I sat down. And I said to myself: « That’s it! I made a decision. It is time to get to
work! “

2 questions are missing here.

What kinds of jobs have you had?

• Typical young man jobs. Factory work, merchant of the four seasons, you see ... When I went to UCLA,
I worked in a "Chicken Delight". There too, I got fired ...

Why?
• Oh, I got mad at the boss. So I knew if I wanted to make a living, I was going to have to find a way to be
my own boss. Because if I continued to be employed by others, it didn’t seem to work. So being a film
critic was pretty good. In front of your machine, you look like your own boss. I ran a little newspaper in
Michigan, a magazine here …

“Cinema Magazine”…
• Yes… That, I felt capable of doing it. I knew that it was necessary at all cost that I find a way to earn my
living… And my ambition comes mainly from the fact that I flowed to create a world in which I would
be my own boss ... and where I could express myself. My ambition comes more from within than from
my relationship with others. I don't really have the ambition to be famous. But on the other hand, I am
absolutely resolved not to have to depend on others, to be able to do what I want to do, and to live as I
see fit. That’s my real ambition.

Did you do it? Do you have total freedom as a filmmaker opposite to the studios?

• Well, I have the final cut ...

From the beginning?

• Not in my contract, but in practice, yes. For “American Gigolo”, I had the final cut by contract. But
anyway, it doesn't mean much, because you need an agreement between you and the studio that
distributes and advertises the film. That being said, so far, overall I've done pretty much what I want. But
it took me a while to make a film that I'm really happy with. I'm really happy with Gigolo. It took me a
while to learn how to make a film. And it’s the first time I’ve really felt comfortable with this huge
machine that’s a film crew.

Let's take a step back: you decide to become a screenwriter. What's going on at this time?

• Well I started writing a screenplay. I’ve talked to people who have written scripts. I ask them for advice.
At the time, I was reading at Columbia. So I had read quite a few scripts, and I had made reading reports.
And I had written a book on the transcendental style. So I decided to write a scenario based on this style.
It was called “Pipeliner”. It wasn’t a very commercial scenario, but I’ve been trying to sell it for six
3
 months, I’ve been in Canada trying to find financing… I’ve been struggling a lot. This scenario, for me,
was a kind of business card. It was a great business card, actually. It was not commercial, but it was well
written. And I learned a lot from trying to sell it. I understood how it all works. And when I started to
write the next one, “Taxi Driver”, I understood a little better what makes a project can be financed.

So what is it, what makes a project can be financed?

• Let's say that I learned the needs of the market in terms of dramatic expression: a problem to solve, a
drama with action, a character for whom we feel a certain sympathy “Pipeliner”, I built it using of
diagrams. Each character followed a curve, for 90 minutes. A rising curve, to create a dramatic
progression. I wrote this scenario almost mathematically. I wanted to use the 90 minutes of film so that
something always happens. So that each event leads to another event. So that interest is constantly
sustained, in short.

But does that sound very commercial?

• It is a commercial structure. But the material of the film itself was not very commercial. What I had not
yet grasped is that a film needs a catchy idea. : the metaphor was not very good. But the structure was
good. Let's say it was a well written film on a boring subject. Not boring, but not terribly interesting!
(laughs) So the next time, when I really felt the need to write, the urgency, for Taxi Driver, I understood
what a good dramatic structure is, and I no longer needed to make diagrams. I’ve never done it since.

This allows you to focus more on the characters …

• That is to say that the construction of a story has become a kind of second nature to me. From that
moment on, you know how to use your natural strength. You don't write scenes that have nothing to do
with the film. You no longer make mistakes in the construction of your characters. You treat your
subject, without deviating from it, and without reducing it to a skeleton. You know how to write a
screenplay, it can be taught. There are tips. I have taught scenario theory at UCLA. And one of my
students wrote a scenario that became a film: Boulevard Nights.

Do you think you taught him something?

• Yes. He also gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times, in which he declared that if he had not been in
this class, he would not have known how to write his screenplay.

Can we say that by writing your first scenario, “Pipeliner”, you became a professional screenwriter?

• Yes. I learned to write by writing it. The same way I learned directing by doing “Blue Collar” and
“Hardcore”. I had never made films before ... except this student film which I had made with you at
UCLA. I said I had made films, but that was not true. I learned on the job.

How did you write Yakuza?

• My brother lived in Japan at the time. He was a missionary. He is not anymore, now he lives here. He
wrote me a letter telling me about the Yakuza movies, which are a kind of modern version of the samurai
movies. I found it interesting. He came back to Los Angeles, and we wrote it together. It just happened
to be just the right movie at the right time, financially speaking - to me, I mean. We were paid very
dearly for this scenario. And, from there, I just had to continue.

How did you sell the screenplay?

• If you have an exciting idea, if you have something that people want to buy when you sell it ... I knew an
agent - he wasn't my agent, he wasn't even a movie agent. I gave him the script to read. He found it good.
He gave it to someone else in the movies business. This guy gave us $ 50,000. We immediately
understood that our story had value. So we brought the script to one of the most important agents in
4
 Hollywood, letting him know that we already had an offer. And this agent organised a campaign, with an
auction.

In Hollywood, agents have considerable power?

• Of course.

Are they among the fifty people who make the decisions?

• No, it’s not them who decide.

But do they have financial power?

• They can put together a package that will finance the film.

Was the agent you sold Yakuza part of?

• At the time, he was a very big agent. Then he became one of the leaders of Paramount. Now he runs
another company. It changes every day, you know ...

Do you mean that if you want to make movies in Hollywood, you have to keep yourself up to date,
know what's going on, who has the decision-making power?

• Absolutely.

It looks like the communist countries, in which there is the "party line". Is there a Party line in
Hollywood? Should we avoid certain people, not say certain things?

• Studios and their managers are drawn to certain types of stories, tend to make the films they like. They
each have their own taste. Since Mike Cantor Higgins left Fox two weeks ago, Fox has become a
completely different studio from what it was three weeks ago. Obviously, because there is now a whole
new team.

Is it likely to change soon again?

• It changes a lot.

Did you mean that the films that Fox is going to produce now will not be the same as those it would
have produced three weeks ago?

• Yes of course. Any manager of a studio, if he is a little bit honest, will tell you that he does not know
what will make money. No one knows what will make money. We try to guess, that's all. Everyone
therefore trusts their flair and their subjective perception of what the market is. As a screenwriter, you
therefore have to know who is looking for what.

Is it by chance that your scenarios are among those that have a chance of being brought to the screen?

• I always wrote "on spec", as we say here. This means that I write a script all by myself, without an order,
and then try to sell it. I'm taking a risk. Most well-known screenwriters write to order. I only wrote one
script on command, for Paramount. It will happen or it won't happen, I don't know. It has been rewritten
by others. But most of the time I wrote my scripts without asking anyone, and then tried to find someone
to sell them to.

Which corresponds to your demand of being your own boss….

• That is to say, I don't like writing on command. Because at that point, you have to go through these
unbearable « story conferences », which are working sessions where we meet to discuss the scenarios,
5
 and you have to listen for hours to people you don't agree with. That's why I prefer to write alone, and
then see if someone is interested.

You agree to take the risk of working for nothing each time you start a new scenario?

• In fact, I just wrote another screenplay to order an original screenplay for Paramount. I wrote it from an
idea of mine. I told them about the idea. They liked it. They paid me $ 250,000. I wrote the script. But
now they have decided not to shoot it. So my script is blocked. 90 percent of screenplays that are funded
by commissioned studios are never shot.

So it seems that you are right: the films you write alone are made while those that are written on
command are not made.

• Yes, but it is for a very simple reason: if your scenario belongs to you, if you have not been paid for it,
you can have it read, and try to set up the case. But, in the case which I have just spoken to you, the
script that I wrote belongs to Paramount for the sum of 250,000 dollars plus overheads, etc ... if I want to
buy it back from them, it will cost about 300,000 dollars . Well. You are a producer. I come find you,
and I explain to you that I wrote a screenplay that Paramount has, that they don't want to do, and that I
like to know if you are interested. You read the script, and you say: okay, I'm interested. But now, I'm
telling you you're going to have to buy it from Paramount for 300,000 dollars ... It's too expensive, it
weighs too heavy, as we say. You can't set up the deal. On the other hand, if the script belongs to me,
you say to me: "I'm interested. I'm giving you $ 5,000 for a six-month option, and I'm trying to make it
happen. ” Now you have a chance to produce it! And bring together the elements that will attract
funding: the package.

Do you still have some of your scenarios?

• One. The name is Québécois.

You have not managed to sell it or to have it produced despite your recent successes?

• It does not change the problem. A scenario is only scenario! You understand, the reason why you break
through, as a screenwriter, is that a screenwriter brings what we call a "service rendered", as opposed to
the "promised". All other members of a team must do promises the director, the actors are obliged to say
"Believe in me, I will give the best of myself », scriptwriter is never obliged to say that. The scriptwriter,
he says "You don't even need to talk to me. Here's the scenario "

"... Read it. If you like it, buy it. ”

• Exactly. Whatever the color of your skin, whether you are a nice guy or a pain in the ass, it's the same:
the service is rendered. If someone wants to buy your screenplay, they just have to pay. This is what you
can break into as a screenwriter. But beware: the other side of the coin is that even if you are a very well-
known screenwriter, it is not because you wrote an scenario that it will necessarily be sold! I find it quite
normal, by the way.

Which means you have to give your best every time …

• That being said, there is one thing that happens if you have become a famous screenwriter: your
mediocrity is more acceptable than the mediocrity of a beginner. Which brings me to explain how a
beginner can break through. You are a beginner, you absolutely want to prove yourself. You are going to
see a movie. You say to yourself "Damn, I can write that. I can write as well as that. » You are probably
right. You can write as well as that. But the film is probably crap. And it's true, you would be able to
write it. But what I mean is this: in the name of what are they going to come looking for you, you, Jean
Dupont, a total stranger, to write this scenario, when they know there is over a hundred guys waiting, and
they know they can deliver on time, for the right price, exactly what they want! In the name of what
would they have fun paying a stranger to write Avalanche Express, Le pont de Cassandra? It's so much
easier to pay them a little more, at least you are sure they will do the job. So, if you want to break
6
 through, never say to yourself: "I can write as well as they can." They will never hire you for this reason.
What you have to say to yourself is, "What can I do that no one else can do?" What can I write that they
will buy it from me and from no one else?” That's why you'd better not write a film - disaster, or a
thriller ... You should try to write a film that is nothing like what your potential buyer sees happen every
day on his office. Or in any case, a new combination of elements. A combination he has never seen
before. In this case, you have a chance to sell your scenario.

Should we deviate a little: Did Scorsese direct “Taxi Driver” exactly as you wrote?

• With very little changes, yes. He is currently filming another of my screenplays in New York.

The Jake La Motta story?

• Yes.

Are you going to attend the shooting?

• They toured here for three to four weeks, and I've been on set two or three times.

That's all?

• Yes, to say hello, what else?

Are you not interested in knowing what he will do with your script?

• The role of the screenwriter ends when shooting begins.

Wouldn't it be better if he was on set to rewrite certain scenes, if necessary?

• If so, it’s worrying for the movie.

It's happened sometime…

• If Marty has problems, he may give me a call. But normally once filming begins, the actor and director
know the story and the character as well as the screenwriter. They are more in the situation. They are
probably better able to solve the problem than the author. Because the author is outside.

Don't you find it frustrating to be outside of a movie you've written?

• It’s true. And that’s why I don’t want to just be a screenwriter anymore.

Does the job of writer frustrating?

• An auteur is a kind of co-pilot. To be a screenwriter is not to be a writer. His words are not the end point.
He confines himself to describing characters, situations etc ... which will be played by others. A scenario,
at best, is just a sketch. To be a screenwriter, you don't have to be a good writer. The truth is that most
scriptwriter are very bad writers.

Wouldn't they be able to write a novel?

• Of course! But on the other hand, what they have is a fairly developed sense of intrigue, of the scene to
do, of action, of the characters, a sense of rhythm ... That, they understand. But writing a screenplay does
not require any literary talent. You limit yourself to describing actions. What is the difference between:
"He gets up and opens the door" and two extraordinarily lyrical sentences to describe the same thing?
For the director, it's the same thing.
7
The first solution is probably more effective…

• Exactly. That’s why now I don’t want to be only a director or a writer.

Writer in the full sense of the term: novelist for example…

• Yes, novelist, journalist, critic ... A profession where words have definitive value.

What do you think of the turning point in Elia Kazan's career: after being a great director, he only
writes novels.

• I find it very clever on his part. As a filmmaker, his career was dying. He was finding it increasingly
difficult to find funding for his films, which had become old-fashioned. The world of cinema has
evolved, you know. Now most of the movies are made for kids. The public is them!

Do you keep that in mind when you write a screenplay?

• That’s why it’s hard to make movies! The greatest success story in Paramount history is “Grease”. Not
an adult went to see Grease. The average age of the Grease viewer is between 16, 17-year-old… Films
that make money are made for kids. Star Wars, Yaws, E.T. The market is there!

You can't say that your films are made for kids…

• That's why I have a hard time doing it! And the older you get, the harder it is! The more generations
there are between you and the those who go to the movies… What does Kazan understand about
“Grease”? There are many generations between them ... Me, I can understand “Grease” a little bit, but in
ten years, I will not understand anything at the next Grease. The adult audience is now watching
television.

Is that why, from what I've heard, the people who have the power in Hollywood today are very young?

• I only know one leader under the age of thirty, and he doesn't have much power. But on the other hand,
there are quite a few people my age.

How old are you?

• 33 Years.

How did such young people manage to hold such positions?

• Some come from television, some are former agents, others have done their law, it's a fluid situation; you
know, you see new faces appear and disappear ...

In other words, you can talk to a guy today who is nobody, and who may well be someone tomorrow ...

• Yes, it's rare to have some stability at the highest level. In the sense that the people you sold your
screenplay should be the same people who distribute your film. It never happened to me yet. I know very
few people who have had this chance.

Can it change during the production of the film?

• It takes two or three years to make a film. You are likely to see leaders being replaced during this time.

8
You don't find it completely crazy?

• Yes, it's crazy! (laughs)

How can you make films under these conditions?

• I do not know. Bertolucci came here with the La Luna screenplay, he gave it to Alan Ladd at Fox. Then
one day he came to see Ladd in the studio and Ladd had been kicked out of his office a quarter of an
hour earlier!

He had been fired?

• Yes, well, he « was resigned". It sometimes happens that there is a change of direction before the film
had been done. This is really a problem, because the new leaders are likely not eager to make the film
greenlighted by his predecessor: they want to put their own mark on the studio's production. They don't
want to produce someone else's film. However, if the film is already started, it no longer important ...
Well it matters, nevertheless, but less. Money has already been invested in the film. You can explain to
them that it would be a shame to risk losing it. That said, some films have suffered terribly from this
situation. “Performance”, for example, has never really been distributed in the United States, because
Ted Ashely had just entered Warner Bros. He did not want this film to be the first to be released under
his reign. They preferred to put it in a drawer.

Did they lose a lot of money?

• I don't know, but still he didn't want to release the movie.

Was there a change of direction during production of American Gigolo?

• The leaders are always the same. This is the first script that the current president of the studio bought
when he arrived. He was offered the presidency of CBS. I hope he will not accept it…

Hopefully not before the film is distributed…

• Yes. They offered it to him a few weeks ago. If he accepts it, he won't be there when the film comes out.

What does this mean for the film?

• Not much.

Don't you think the film is not strong, if there is a change of direction?

• I have no fear about it. The film will be released. I think it will work very well. If someone else has to
take over the studio, he will want to distribute it.

Well, let's talk about American Gigolo. What does Taxi Driver have in common?

• They have very comparable structures. In fact, those are the two scenarios I'm most proud of, that I really
like. They are both the story of lonely young people entering and leaving society. One of these young
people is very introverted, the other is extroverted. The taxi driver has no access to speech: his social
inhibitions lead him to accumulate frustrations and anger inside himself. No one has hurt him, and yet he
has an inner need for revenge. He heads for an explosion.

Does it have a self-destructive tendency?

• Yes, well ... No one has done any harm to this young man. The film could be called "The Story of a
Glorious Suicide". He wants to end his suffering, but he is too ignorant and too American to do it by
himself. He is trying to create a situation in which society will fulfil this role for him. The irony is that,
9
 of course, the society doesn't do it for him. So he's headed for an explosion. The gigolo is exactly the
opposite situation: where the taxi driver turns right, the gigolo turns left. It is its opposite, symmetrically.
The gigolo is someone who expresses himself admirably well, who gets along wonderfully with the
people around him. He's a cultivated person who knows how to express himself. But he's headed for an
implosion, not an explosion. The test taxi driver is full inside and empty outside, while the gigolo is full
outside, but empty inside. And, at the end of the film, while the taxi driver exploded his inner world on
the people surrounding him, the world around the gigolo explodes inside him. So he’s a symmetrically
opposed character. Its progress is excavated in contrast to that of the taxi driver. And yet, the two films
are practically identical, from a structural point of view. They both start with a loner, whose daily life we
describe. From this slice of life, a plot begins to develop. A plot that is closely related to the character
lifestyle. The plot is resolved. And then there is a kind of postscript, in which the film finds its moral
resolution. The two films therefore have a very similar structure.

But their style is totally different.

• That's right.

Can it be said that “Taxi Driver” is based on external effects, while “American Gigolo” is an entirely
interior film?

• Gigolo is nevertheless a very visual film. I worked a lot on the visual aspect in the image. The film is
stylised because the character leads a stylised life. (The phone rings) hopes that Michelle will answer.

Michelle, the woman with whom you live? It is the name of the female character of American Gigolo…

• I wrote American Gigolo immediately after meeting Michelle. And since then, we have lived together.
That's right, I gave the character her name.

How about you? Have you put a lot of yourself in Julian Kay, the gigolo?

• I'll tell you how I got the idea for the script. It was when I was teaching at UCLA. We played in the
classroom a kind of game, which lasted two hours, where we tried as a group to build a script from
scratch. This is the kind of game that, if you know how to play it, usually allows you to come up with a
good idea.

A kind of “Brain-storming”?

• If you want, except that in this specific case, I’m the one who leads the game. So I said to one of my
students: “Give me a problem”. He gives me a personal problem, and I say: "No, I don't like this one.
Find me another one. I will choose the one I prefer ”. Once the problem is found, I tell them, “Give me a
metaphor to express this problem. From the metaphor, we will find a character. Then we’ll find the rest,
and we’ll build the story. ” So we are at the point where we seek to give our character a job. And I say to
them, "What the hell this guy is doing? Is he a farmer, postman, gigolo? ” And suddenly, I say to myself:
"Well, an American gigolo, that's an interesting idea". And then I don’t pay attention anymore. I forget
it. But the next day, I go to my psychiatrist. And I told him about the problem of my difficulty in
accepting love, which is the problem of grace: how to accept a good that we did not deserve …

Are you in analysis?

• Yes. I just started over. Before, I was at a doctor's for five years. I just changed. So, going back to the
genesis of American Gigolo, when I left the cabinet of the doctor, I suddenly realised that a problem and
a metaphor had just merged. From this moment, you have your scenario. The intrigue, then, is easy, a
piece of cake. In my opinion, the plot is the easiest…

For you maybe, but for most of us …

10
• But no! For everyone! A plot is difficult to find only if you start with the plot! But if you put the plot, the
story in a proper perspective, that is to say after you have found the main problem and the metaphor that
will express it, the plot will be very easy to find. Because it is only a limited number of events, from
which you choose the ones you prefer. If you have a real problem: for example, that of accepting love,
you need a metaphor to express this problem. And the metaphor is the gigolo: a man who professionally
gives pleasure but does not receive it.

Because professionally, he cannot afford to fall in love …

• Yes, in the structure of my character, it's like it has some mental blockage…

No, I meant professionally, in the strict sense of the term: if he falls in love, he can’t no more be a
gigolo.

• Absolutely! So here you have a character who perfectly expresses the problem. Exactly as for the
problem of loneliness in large cities: the character of the taxi driver is perfect. You have a man who is
constantly surrounded by other people, yet who is completely alone. A man who will drive anyone
anywhere for money ...

A kind of prostitute, too …

• Yes. And a man who lives in a sort of metallic coffin. Which means that each time you show the taxi,
you reinforce the film's theme: urban loneliness, the metaphor, is the taxi itself. And it's the same in
Gigolo: the concept of gigolo is in itself a metaphor. So, once you have these two things and they merge,
when the problem meets its physical equivalent, concrete, its metaphorical equivalent, in such an
obvious way, then you dominate your subject. It’s like an electric shock! And so, when I left my
analyst's office, I remember thinking (P.S snaps his fingers): “That's it! I have the problem, I have the
metaphor! I just have to find the story! " So I sat at my desk and made up a story …

To hear you, it sounds so simple.

• But it's simple! Taxi Driver as example. You have a problem: urban loneliness. You have a metaphor:
the taxi driver. Okay, you're looking for a plot. What are you doing? You invent a girl he wants but he
can't have, and a girl he can have but he doesn't want. Turn it around to strengthen the self-destruct
mechanism. The way he reacts to these two characters will amplify and clarify his problem. Then you
give each of these two women a sort of father figure: a politician, and a mackerel (pimp). And since he
cannot measure himself against these women, he has to measure himself against these two “fathers”.
And voila, you have your story!

Very simple, indeed …

• (burst of laugh) ... And so, here in Gigolo, you have a character around whom the world closes. What are
you doing? You invent a woman who loves him, but whose love he does not accept.

What do you mean by "around which the world closes”?

• I'm talking about the notion of implosion, as opposed to that of explosion. If you make a film about an
explosion, you give your character targets. If you make your film about an implosion, you surround your
character with things that suffocate him …

Put him under pressure …

• Yes. So what happens in this specific case? You create a situation in which he is accused of murder ...

Wait. Let's go back. Your character cannot accept love. Okay. Where will you go from there?

11
• You create structures that will break its defences. On the one hand, you invent a woman who falls in love
with him: how will he face this problem?

Is this the first time it happened to him?

• Maybe not the first time, but you’re doing it so that by this point, he’s reached a crisis point in his life.
He has become almost too perfect for who he is. It is time for him to change. And so he is vulnerable.
From there, you start to create these mechanisms around him. On the one hand, there is a kind of moral
investigator: the detective who hates him for ethnic reasons. Because the detective is Puerto Rican. There
is a terrible racial tension between the two men. And then also, simply, because of the way they dress,
their physical appearance: on the one hand, the handsome young man, and ... (a pause)

And the guy is old and ugly.

• Yes…

More or less.

• More or less. But their discussions are focused on a moral level. Which creates another level of pressure.
And then, finally, you create a third level of pressure, which is the world to which he belonged before:
this woman, who made him a heterosexual, who once was his mistress.

Was he gay before?

• The film is full of references to a homosexual past. I don't know if he really was gay, but ... his former
mistress says to him: "I taught you to make love with women". She also speaks of "ill-bred fags" ... And
finally, there is the black mackerel. He and his former mistress are two of the characters of his past. They
are the only people in the film who know his past. And they both call him "faggot". When he goes to a
place frequented by homosexuals, the mackerel says to him "So, are we going home?”

Which implies that he has already been there.

• Yes, but not very long. So, you have these two characters who helped to become what he is. And they
are both very cold and very cruel people. So that at the end of the film, the people of his world reject it.
His former mistress refuses to help him ...

The black mackerel refuses to provide him with an alibi…

• Yes. Society in general keeps him in its claws. Society can destroy him. And what's left? Who still cares
about him? A woman who has always been there. Which brings us to the notion of love. Of heterosexual
love. And when he said to her, at the end of the film: "It took me so long to get to you", it means that it
took a long time to accept the notion of heterosexual love. Because, apart from Michelle, the woman
who loves him, everything in the film is incredibly brutal. Sexuality is sold, bought ... The way women
and men talk about it, all this atmosphere ... It's very beautiful, very elegant to watch, but it’s really
sexuality at its lowest level.

It is verbally a very violent film, although violence is little present, apparently. I am thinking in
particular of the scene where we see Julian Kay, the gigolo, at work: he seduces a woman the way we
would coax a dog …

• It's a cold, icy scene ... He speaks in verse ...

In verse? Like a poem?

• Yes, he uses the iambic pentameter, which is the form Shakespeare used to write his plays. It seems to
me like the rhythm of seduction ... You know ... pa da ... pa da ... pa da ...

12
It looks like he has already played this scene millions of times…

• Yes ... This is also how the film begins ...

He is bewitching a woman …

• Yes, with this rhythm of seduction ... he skilfully uses the structure of language …

And at the same time, he appeals to the public, since he speaks directly to the camera.

Exactly. But, therefore, to return to the structure of the script. Once you have your problem and your
metaphor, you try to create a plot which enriches and widens the problem. For example, when I started
writing Taxi Driver, I thought that the film was going to be about urban loneliness, and that the taxi would be
my metaphor. But, once the script was finished, I realised that it was not about urban loneliness, but about
how urban loneliness self-creates, and self-perpetuates ... which is not exactly the same thing. It is a man
who creates his own loneliness and delights in it, rather than a man who is lonely. And I didn't realise that
was the theme of the film until the script was finished. Which means it's by exploring the intrigue that I
learned more about the theme. So the plot was good. If the plot teaches you something about the theme, it
fulfils its role.

It comes from somewhere, whether it's the unconscious or something else…

• That is to say, you learn by writing. Obviously, you choose plot elements because they help you better
understand the film. And so, you better understand the nature of the problem ... Let me tell you a story.
When I taught at UCLA, there were a lot of students who wanted to enrol in my class. I had to find a
way to choose 10 people from the 200 or so guys who wanted to come in. And I didn't want to spend an
incredible amount of time reading their literature. The first day, when they were all together, I asked
them to write on a piece of paper their name, their class, the place where they were born, their race, their
gender, etc ... I explained to them that what I was doing it that I wanted to choose ten people from
different origins. I didn't want to end up with ten white people from Ohio. Then I told them to write to
me, in three sentences, what were their two most serious personal problems of the moment. Six
sentences in all. I read them quickly, and chose ten interesting notes. Ten kids with interesting problems.
And I didn't care if they were able to write. Because I told myself that if I had ten kids with interesting
problems, we would end up with a potential of ten interesting scripts. I can teach writing, but I cannot
teach someone to understand the meaning of their life…

You are not a psychoanalyst…

• No. That said, when students come and ask me to help them, I go directly to the problem. They tell me a
terrifyingly complicated plot, and I just ask them: "And you? Where are you in this story? What
character do you identify with? Why are you writing this? I don't really care either it’s commercial or
not, but you must have a good reason for writing this". If you tell me you only write this to make money,
I don't want to help you, I'm not interested in it. But if you have a personal reason for writing this story,
then let's try to find it. And from the moment you understand what it is, the script will probably be
infinitely better. Because you will understand what you are doing. You will have a benchmark.”

Okay, okay. That said, the ability to understand your problems is one thing, and the ability to
translate them into coherence writing is another thing …

• Exactly. You also have to have a sense of the narrative, of intrigue. To know how to translate into
cinematographic terms what we could call a fantasy. And you have to be able to find a fantasy that works
on the general public. Whenever you dream, you turn your problems into metaphors. Everyone does this
all the time. Each time you have a waking dream, each time you have a sexual fantasy, you create a little
story that allows you to fix a personal problem. This is already the beginning of the work of screenwriter.
This is already knowing how to tell a story. What you need to do is learn to code it, organise it so that it
13
 can become a two hour entertainment that a minimum of three million people want to see, and will pay
for it.

This is where it gets tricky … Some know, others don’t…

• But I still believe that we can teach a technique for writing a screenplay. We can say for example to the
students: here, you have too many scenes. Here, you take eight pages while three would be enough ... We
can teach certain basic rules of cinema. For example, if the characters leave a place and go to the
restaurant, it is not worth showing them on the way. Just cut it from there. One of the tricks of
storytelling is to always let your audience know that something is going to happen, that it is going to be
in a certain place ...

Put them on hold ... give them the desire to discover what will happen next …

• And surprise them! For example, telling the public that there is going to be a fire. But start the fire five
minutes, five pages before it was supposed to happen. Once you've set up a situation like this, dialogue is
very easy.

Is that so? You know that in France, it is the opposite. Dialogue is considered to be the most difficult
part of a screenplay. The proof is that the "dialogist" is the highest paid person on a screenplay.

• But it's completely silly! It comes from the theatre, of course . But it makes no sense! Because ... once
you put the right characters in an interesting situation, what they say becomes interesting. One of the
problems of many films is that the characters say too much, they talk too much, they say too many
important things. It’s heavy… When I was teaching the scenario, there was an example that I used often:
let’s say that we have a film in which a man is separated from his wife. In a parallel plot, he is involved
in something else: for example, his life is in danger. He has to go somewhere, to save his life. The public
is therefore put on hold on this parallel plot. He goes to this place, and suddenly BOUM ! he runs into
his wife. The public knew they were going to see her again. But they didn’t expect that to happen at that
time. So now you have a guy who's under pressure, he's scared, and he's running into the woman he
loves. We cut, and we find them at her home. What's he saying? He says, "I almost forgot the taste of
your coffee." Or: "Your coffee is still as disgusting" Or. "Have you changed your brand of coffee?"
Everything he says has an emotional resonance, because the characters are in an interesting situation, and
they met at the right time. And in this case, the dialogue counts little. If there is the slightest sensitivity in
the lines, the dialogue works. Now, of course, the dialogue counts a lot more if you write a comedy in
which the lines are supposed to make the audience laugh. But if you write a realistic film, in my opinion
the structure is infinitely more important.

That said, there are still traces of clever dialogue in American Gigolo…

• Maybe, but they are perfectly integrated into the situation. The dialogues work because the situation is
right. I let myself go only once in this film to write a thematic dialogue: at the hairdresser, when the
gigolo and the detective talk about being "above the laws ", and all that ... But, for the most part,
dialogues arise from situations. A dialogue should not be “dramatic”

In your opinion, is this one of the faults of French cinema?

• Well, anyway, no American cineaste could have made films like those of Rohmer, in which people sit
and talk…

Which brings us to the influence of Ozu, Bresson and Dreyer on your work …

• I steal a lot in American Gigolo. The end comes from Pickpocket. The dialectical scene at the
hairdresser, which I was talking about earlier, also comes from Pickpocket. Visually, the film owes much
14
 to the Conformist, by Bertolucci. I had the same art director Scarfioti. I also recently stole to Godard, a
little to Antonioni.

Did you say «steal"?

• Yes, well, I assimilate ...

It does not bother you?

• It was the poet T.S. Eliot who said: "Bad poets imitate, good poets steal" ...

I’ve noticed that the two characters you seem closest to Travis Bickle, the taxi driver, and Julian Kay,
the American gigolo, are following rigorous physical training. They take great care of their bodies.
What does it correspond to?

• The discipline. A very strong sense of inner discipline. The idea of: "I can control the world". "My room
is the metaphor of the world". "My room, and my body". They also both have a very strong sense of their
room. The gigolo loves his room, he likes this space, you can see it by the way he treats it. This is his
place. The world does not enter this room. He trains in this room, then can go out. And the room is
organised according to the contours of his mind: all in curves, without partitions, without walls. The taxi
driver's room is in total disorder. It’s the reflection of the confusion that reigns in his head. All his secret
rites, burning the roses, etc. take place in this room. You know, he trains in front of his mirror, and all
that ... The training of the body corresponds to a very strong awareness of the self, as opposed to the
outside world.

Is it a personal fantasy?

• (very low voice) Yes, absolutely.

Do you do physical exercises yourself?

• Well, right before the interview, I was in the gym ...

Do you have self-discipline?

• Not as much as I would like. That said, I still had enough to write and direct my films ... I wrote and
directed three films in three years, I wrote six others. I cannot say that I had time to get bored…

Do you work all the time?

• A little less now, but in the past, yes ...

You don't feel like a stranger here in Hollywood, the paradise of decadence?

• That’s precisely why I think I had some success. Because I don't look like anyone here. The competition
is strong here, you know. And I don't have a very developed sense of competition. I don't care much
about those who feel they are competing with me. Nobody does what I do. I'm not afraid that someone
will beat me on the post on an exciting idea, an idea in the air. My only problem is to manage to find the
money that will allow me to do what I want to do. It’s there, my competition …

You are more competitive with yourself than with others.

• Exactly.

15
Do you think people respect you here?

• Yes. I take care of my own business, not that of others. I believe that one of the reasons why I got some
power, even though I was a new filmmaker, is that I have vision, and discipline. Which makes people
hesitate to step on my toes. If a filmmaker has a vision, if he is resolute, if he has an inner strength, it
will be less easy to fight with him than with a guy who was simply hired to do a job. You have to fight,
constantly ... Like at Paramount, right now ... They play with some films, from time to time. They make
suggestions, on the editing, they force you to change this, that ... But, you know, they don't play with
Gigolo ...

Or with Paul Schrader?

• No, because they know that I have a vision, an absolute certainty. They know that if they want to fight
with me, it will be war. If they are really convinced of something, then they will fight with me. But only
if they are absolutely persuaded that I am wrong. They will not take the risk of fighting with me lightly. I
have already fought ...

What about?

• Oh, questions of script, and budget ...

On American Gigolo?

• Oh yes. Everything costs money. For example, I had to demolish the ceiling of the set for a shot, when
Julian returns home, They did not want to give me the money. And I said to them, "I have to have it."
And I got it. However, I wanted other things that I didn't get. Sometimes they were right, in some cases
they may be wrong ... In any case, if you have a vision, it is not easy to fight with you.

A vision ... and the will to get what you want.

• Absolutely.

I guess you are not the type to frequent Hollywood circles, to go to parties …

• In fact, yes! But receptions here are business. You make a small appearance, just to stay in touch, to
know what is coming ... You look who is there, what they look like, you listen to what they are talking
about …

To try to know the trend?

• Yes, but the great thing about it is that it's completely free-lance here. Anyone can do anything. Power is
completely crumbled. It is so fragmented that there is a certain freedom. From the moment that power is
fragmented, the individual is free.

He is also more exposed to danger …

• Freedom is exactly that! For example, you are more free if your television has 10 channels rather than
three ...

Three is what we have in France…

• Yes, well here in Los Angeles we have about thirty…

16
That allows anyone to do anything?

• No. The great breakthrough has not yet taken place. When we have fifty channels, fantastic things will
happen.

Would you be interested in working for television?

• In any case, it is an interesting means of communication. More people see a show like “Mark and
Mindy” every week than any movie. And if you are interested in communication - and if you are a
filmmaker, it is in your interest to be - television must also interest you. One of the exciting things that
has happened in the United States for a few years is that television is now tackling all the delicate
subjects: homosexuality, autistic children, breast cancer, all these big sociological problems : juvenile
delinquent, foreigners without a work permit ... There are television dramas on all these subjects. In the
cinema, we no longer deal with these problems.

By that you mean that television is bolder than cinema?

• No, because it is not simplistic enough. But television deals with many subjects that cinema no longer
deals with. If a screenwriter wants to write about the problems of society, and if it doesn't matter to him
to be an author, it's more interesting to work for television. Judgment in Nuremberg would be made for
television today.

Twelve angry men, Guess who comes to dinner …

• That's it. All socially conscious films.

Do you think it is because these films no longer have any chance of attracting a paying audience?

• If television stopped doing them, people would go back to the movies to see them.

Do you really believe?

• Of course ! Because there is a need.

About social conscience, one thing strikes me in the chronological order of your films, Taxi Driver and
Blue Collar have proletarian characters. The central character of Hardcore is a bourgeois. And
American Gigolo is happening in the upper echelons.

• It is a progression that parallels my own ascent. I am now able to offer myself and appreciate beautiful
objects. Beauty is now part of my life, which is reflected in my films. I am also less violent. I've been
living here for almost a year now. It is the first house I have ever owned. My films are affected, that's for
sure. Which doesn't mean I'm not going back…

What is the next step?

• Well, there is a film that I absolutely want to make, but I don't think I can make it before several years.
In fact, there are two movies I can make, but I can't. One of them, I hope to be able to do in about two
years. The other, I can't do it.

Why?

• Because it's the story of someone who really existed. It's The Hank Williams Story.

17
Hank Williams is dead …

• Yes, but I cannot have the rights. The other film, I'm going to get the rights. But it will take several years
before I could write the screenplay and put the case together. This is a film that I really want to make, I
violently feel the need for it. It will bring together the intensity and depth of Taxi Driver, and the
aesthetics of Gigolo. This is the life of the Japanese poet Mishima. I want to make the film in Japanese…

In Japanese ! Do you speak Japanese?

• No. That's why it's going to take a long time ...

Are you going to learn Japanese to shoot the film?

• No, but I want to live in Japan before doing it ... I have a terrible need to make this film ... Do you know
Mishima's life?

No. All I know is that he committed suicide.

• Yes. By hara-kiri.

By the way, you said earlier that you were less violent than in the past…

• Finally, let's say ... less violent on the outside.

Have you really been violent in time? Physically, I mean?

• Yes.

You are said to have a lot of guns…

• Oh, well, you know, I was also careful with my advertising by telling all of this. But - I was much more
angry at the time. I calmed down. There is still a lot of tension in me. But there is less anger in these
three films…

Have you ever fought?

• A lot when I was little. But less when I was a teenager. Now, all this violence, all this blood, doesn't
interest me anymore ...

But still ... did you really own guns, or not?

• I had a gun. It doesn't work anymore.

What were you planning to do with it? ... Or is it only because you are American?

• Finally, it's legal, anyway! I bought a gun at a time in my life - six years ago - when my suicidal
fantasies were more ... current. (laughs)

Have you really considered committing suicide?

• Finally, let's say it was part of a kind of dangerous game ... It was a long time ago ...

I have the feeling of being indiscreet …

• That is to say that this kind of thing is a little ridiculous, once on paper …

18
If you don't want us to publish it, we won't do it.

• Yes, because it's one of those things that everyone thinks ...

Do you think each of us, at some point, considered committing suicide?

• Everybody ! Absolutely! Because the decision not to live is the measure of your freedom.

I asked this question because there seems to be strong agreement between you and some of your
characters. Your taxi driver, and your gigolo, for example ... Julian Kay is very suicidal, isn't he?

• He lives at the extreme limit of danger.

Can we say that subconsciously, it behaves in a self-destructive way?

• He is involved, without knowing it, in the destruction of his past. When the film begins, he is at the point
where everything he has done for himself no longer means much to him. One of the things that happens
in the film is that he participates in the destruction of his own world, of the world he took so much to
build. He deliberately set himself aside from his origins. He refuses to play the rule of the game with the
people of his past. And they don't love him anymore. He only waits for an excuse to change. And this
excuse comes ...

Speaking of American Gigolo, have you ever read Stendhal's books? ... This is not an innocent
question. “The Charterhouse of Parma", for example?

• No, I haven't read “The Charterhouse of Parma", but the character's number is a combination of Kafka
and Stendhal Joseph K. and Julien Sorel, which in English gives Julian Kay. That's why I shot in front of
a bar called « Sorel's" in Hollywood. We notice it well, in red neon letters…

So there is a deliberate reference to Stendhal…

• Here, read this ... (Paul Schrader hands me a copy of the original script from American Gigolo. On the
cover page. I read :)
• "The idea of a duty to be fulfilled, and of a ridiculous or rather a feeling of inferiority to be incurred, if
one did not succeed in doing so immediately removed all pleasure from one's heart". (Le Rouge et Noir,
chap. VIII).
• This is the script I sold two years ago. I've rewritten it four or five times since.

Have you completely rewritten it four or five times?

• No, no, different versions. You know, I added scenes, I developed certain aspects of the scenario…

What exactly do you mean when you say: "Julien is unable to accept love”?

• In fact, I'm talking about the problem of grace. In Protestant theology, we believe in three basic
concepts: Sin, Redemption, and Grace. In the past, I have mostly intersected in Sin and Redemption, that
is to say guilt and blood. To be guilty, to be washed by blood. The notion of Grace is the third part of
theology. It is transcendent and necessary. It covers the other two. It’s the notion of undeserved good.
There is universal Grace, which grows trees, for example ... over which we have no power. We did not
deserve this beautiful day. It is offered to us by Grace. Either we accept it, or we don't accept it. This is
the grace that is shared among all men. And then there is a specific Grace that allows some of us to enter
heaven. It’s a Grace that we have to accept. You see, God holds out his hand to us, and tells us: "I want
19
 you". And you have to say, "I accept Your love." This is specific grace. Well, this notion of Grace is
something I have never treated. And it’s very close to the concept of love.

Do you mean human love?

• Yes, of human love.

Including love in the sexual sense of the term?

• Yes. But what interests me the most is this notion of undeserved good, of good that you have not won,
which is the same thing as love. My character Julian is loved. This love was granted to him. Everything
else, all that he has acquired, is thanks to his work. And this woman offers him her love. He must decide
whether he accepts it or not. That’s the Grace’s dilemma. Take “A Man Escaped”, from Bresson, which
in my opinion is the most perfect metaphor for Grace ever expressed in a film. A man, Fontaine, is in
prison. Throughout the film, he prepares his escape. The night before his escape, a young man is thrown
into his cell. His name is Jost (like my female character from American Gigolo: Michelle Jost). And
Fontaine must make an immediate decision: kill the boy, or take him with him. He decides to take him.
And it was only during the escape itself that he realised that they need to be two to be able to pass the
third wall that he couldn’t see from his cell. And so if he hadn’t taken Jost with him, he wouldn’t have
been able to escape. There, you have a perfect illustration of the dilemma of Grace: a person is thrown
into my life. Should I accept it, or reject it? I accept it, and it allows my destiny to come true! Because
Fontaine was predestined, from the title of the film, to escape. And yet, if he hadn't accepted Jost, he
wouldn't have escaped. This is the dilemma of Predestination and Grace. And, in a similar way, my
character, Julian, sees a Jost thrown into his life. And thanks to this Jost, he can escape. Except that in
my film, instead of the end of A Man Escaped, we have that of Pickpocket. But the mechanism is the
same: get out of prison, enter prison …

Julian Kay agrees to be put in prison.

• He accepts a world bigger than him, and against which he has fought all his life. Julian is a sort of
Horatio Alger of sexuality. Horatio Alger is the American myth of success by yourself, of the self-made
man. Julian is a very American gigolo, as opposed to the European conception of the gigolo, that played
for example by Warren Beatty in The roman spring of Mrs Stone, after Tennessee Williams, or Alain
Delon in “Plein soleil" by René Clément. The European gigolo is essentially a lazy character, who
cynically accepts the favours of the ladies. He is someone who has no personal integrity. While this
character, Julian, is honest in his own way: he has made himself, he studies, he constantly seeks to
improve.

He's a professional. He does bodybuilding, he studies foreign languages…

• Above all, he teaches himself. This is why he is an American gigolo.

Is the love Michelle offers him a metaphor for Grace?

• In one of the first versions of the screenplay, she was called Michelle Hasard, because of « Au hasard
Balthazar » (Robert Bresson). But I decided to change to Michelle Jost, because, phonetically speaking,
it made a curious sound.

Was she supposed to be French?

• In the original scenario, yes. That too, I changed it.

Why did you decide to use a Johnny Hallyday song for the credits? ("The one who made you cry”)

• I love the rhythm. But it will not be in the final version.

20
Are you sure?

• The music for the film is not yet made. What you heard during the screening is what we call "temp
music", temporary music. First of all because it's sinister to watch the film without music. And then
because it's the easiest way to tell the composer what kind of things I want. I like the song by Johnny
Hallyday, because it seems to say: « Be careful, we are coming, beat it! » And then, if I had used an
American song, people would have listened to the lyrics. At least here, nobody understands anything.
What is this song about, by the way?

... He's a guy who tells his girlfriend's ex-lover that he shouldn't touch it anymore …

• Yes ... I like the beginning with the guitar, it's a sound that has a certain energy ...

Let us return to more serious things anyway. At one point, Julian said to Michelle, "Take your
pleasure whenever you want." And she answers him: "And you, Julian? Your pleasure. where do you
find it? " He answers nothing. You mean he has no fun?

You mean an orgasm? Oh, I'm sure he has orgasms …

No, that's not what I meant. I was talking about fun in general.

• He enjoys being able to do what he does. He finds great satisfaction in his ability to give pleasure, to be
someone exceptional, to achieve what nobody else can do, to take care of what he does, to be the best he
can be. ... He always wants to be better.

Can we say that the older the woman, the more proud he is?

• Absolutely. Because he overcame the difficulty. He did something.

However, Lauren Hutton, who plays the role of Michelle, is not very old…

• How old are you giving it?

In life?

• Yes, or in the film?

At most thirty-five years.

• She's thirty-six. She is therefore ten years older than him.

Do you think that for him she is an elderly woman?

• She still looks older than him in the film.

Can you tell us what happened with John Travolta?

• Well, it's quite complicated. I did six months of pre-production with John, we spent a lot of time
together. Then a set of things happened. First of all, I want to say that John wanted to make a film that
made him progress. And that therefore, it is to John that the film must exist. What has happened, as far as
I know, is three things. First of all, his failure in Moment By Moment, in a serious role, where he did not
dance, strongly shaken him, made him doubt himself. At the same time, his mother died, and he was
very attached to her. And then he wondered if he would be able to play the role of Julian. He was
completely paralysed by anxiety, by depression. He was paralysed to the point that he kept delaying the
start of filming. He was not working, he refused to rehearse. Three times he refused to start shooting.
21
 Which forced me to say, "I want to start filming on February 13. Will you be there? " He replied: "No, I
want to shoot in June". So I told Paramount that I didn't want to wait.

"Either I'm shooting now, or…»

• Yes. I told them it was too dangerous. I forced their hand. John withdrew. And we shot with Richard
Gere.

Do you think he would have been able to back off indefinitely?

• Who knows? Anyway, when a project is paralysed in this way, it becomes terribly vulnerable. It gets
colder. It's very dangerous.

No one wants to make the film anymore …

• Yes, because you have to fire everyone. At that time, the team was complete. We were ready to shoot!
All the sets were built! We had to start on January 1st, and on February 3rd, we were all still waiting for
John!

Do you think that the fact that Moment by Moment is, like American Gigolo, a love story between a
young man and a less young woman could have scared him?

• If Moment by Moment had been successful, it wouldn't have mattered. I think the problem is that the
critics attacked him in a really vicious way. This, added to the fact that the film was a dreadful failure, all
this led him to have terrible doubts about himself.

Are you still friends?

• Frankly, I don't know if we have ever been!

You prepared the film together for six months, it creates links…

• Yes, but still, it's still the world of cinema, you know ...

Which means what? It’s only business?

• Actors and directors are rarely friends, you know. They are different kinds. It is very rare, friendship
between a director and an actor.

You have no friends among the actors with whom you have worked?

• I hardly know anyone who is the friend of an actor. The actors are so narcissistic, they demand such
attention that most people get tired of them. I like the people I have worked with, but their insecurity
makes it impossible for me to be friends with them. I expect something else from a friend. I can't spend
my life holding their hands, constantly flattering them, solving identity problems they face every day!
Which explains why the actors end up having friends for people who agree to tolerate this kind of things.

That is to say other actors, agents, or …

• Or quite simply parasites ...

But on the other hand, on the set, I guess you have to be very close to them.

22
• Yes but there it is not the same thing. When you work, you have a common goal. That said, I really like
Richard Gere. I can go have diner with Richard without talking about cinema ... or about him. The
others, they live constantly on edge. It's a terrifying job, you know.

Bergman says that precisely because of the insecurity of the actors, the director has a moral duty to
always support his actors.

• Of course! But once the job is done, it doesn't mean you want to be friends with them for life. But
sometimes you want to work often with the same actors. I think I'll probably want to shoot with Richard
again. I stayed in touch with De Niro, for all these years ... I wrote The Jake La Motta Story for him.
Scorsese is the director. And I will also write for them two an adaptation of “Christ Recrucified” by
Kazantzakis.

Would you like to direct a movie with De Niro?

• If I have a role for him. There are so many fantastic people ... What matters is that the actor suits the
role.

In other words, you would not take a star simply because it is a star?

• There are really around thirty wonderful actors right now, on whose name we can build a business. The
role has to suit them, that's all.

And for the role of the gigolo, would you still have preferred John Travolta to Richard Gere?

• I am unable to tell you what did not happen. All I can tell you is that I am very happy to have had Gere.
The film is as good as I could hope for. It is quite possible that I would not have obtained such a good
result with John. That's right, I was worried about John.

You didn't say it before the shooting, when you were at the Paris Festival.

• Of course, I couldn't admit it at that time. But it's true, I was worried. That said, I was determined to
make it work. But it was much easier with Richard, because he has such strength, as an actor, that once
he was in place, I could focus on Lauren, and make her good in front of Richard. With John, I would
have had to give him my full attention. It would have been much more difficult to work with Lauren as I
did.

Do you think Richard Gere has a lot of future?

• Oh yes. Absolutely. He's very interesting. He has a kind of strange bisexuality ... a depth ... without
looking homosexual. He has this thing that American actors no longer have: the presence of the stars of
the old days.

That is to say?

• You know ... back when stars were first a face. Wayne, Bogart, Valentino ... as opposed to the current
New York school, people like Pacino, De Niro, Hoffman, Nicholson, in whom play counts more than
presence. In whom the character, the composition dominates a kind of hidden presence. What Gere is
capable of, like the stars of the old days, is to enter a room with a kind of physical arrogance…

It is true that he moves very well.

• Yes, and he can play too. Before the shooting, I showed Richard Plein soleil, from Clément, and Le
Samouraï, from Melville (which I really like). And Richard said to me, "Why are you showing me these
films? I have nothing to do with Alain Delon! ” And I said, "That's the problem. Alain Delon is a man
who is extremely proud to be Delon. He is proud of what he is, and of his look. When he enters a room,
he feels that the room is a better place since he entered it. Because he entered it. This is precisely the
23
 kind of self-confidence that this character (the gigolo) must have. He is not an American actor. He’s not
from the Actor's Studio. He must feel in him the pride, the arrogance that are specific to Delon. Study
Alain Delon, analyse it closely, and only then can you start to worry about your acting. But first, learn to
walk, to look, to stand up straight. It is by studying Delon that you will learn all that. Because no one in
the world can enter a room as well as Alain Delon. You know, I happened to be in places where Delon
was. He is a great master, in terms of occupying a space, standing in a room, making people aware of his
presence discreetly, without seeming to. He does nothing: just the way he stands, looks ... he creates
tension. And yet he is friendly, he smiles, he is friendly, pleasant ... but he wants you to know that he is
Alain Delon. Americans don't know how to do this. It's not their type. You see what I mean ... They hide
in a corner, they curl up, all that ... So I told Richard to study Delon, and that's where the process comes
from ...

 ... The animal presence …

• ... and sexual arrogance.

But why don't you make the movie with Delon?

• I would very much like ! But, once again, the role must correspond to the actor…

I am convinced that Delon would be delighted to make another American movie.

• Yes, well for now, I will make a film with a Japanese Delon: Ken Takakura. He will play the role of
Mishima.

Maybe you should make a French film one day.

• I don't speak French, unfortunately, I only read.

What are the origins of Julian, the gigolo? Was he really born in France?

• He lies a lot! He also says that he was born in Turin, that he was raised in Nantes ... all this crap ... that
he was a pool boy at the Beverly Hills Hotel ... I don't know what is truth in there ... That is to say that
here, as for Taxi Driver, we imagine a life with the character that we never tell the public. What I said to
Richard is that this kid was probably born somewhere in the middle of the United States, Oklahoma,
Ohio ... At home, he was a problem child, a troublemaker …

What were his parents doing?

• I don't know ... Unstable family environment, maybe one of his parents was in prison ... Anyway, one
day he fled. Maybe he meets a man. The man takes him to Hollywood. He is thirteen, fourteen, fifteen
years old.,. There he learns that he can live on the sidewalk. And then one day, he meets a woman, Nina
Van Pallandt. She falls in love with him. She makes him heterosexual. She teaches him that he can do
better. And leads him to improve. And from that moment on, he became totally obsessed with the idea of
making progress…

He is very ambitious…

• Yes. Like Julien Sorel, he devotes his life to improving. He learns foreign languages, he learns to escort
the ladies, to be a pleasant companion, to speak to women so that they feel good in his company ... And
he becomes the best of his profession.

That's why they start to hate him…

24
• Yes. He started out on the sidewalk, and now he's wearing a tuxedo, and he attends dinners with
politicians. But it is so extraordinary, so beautiful, that we accept it although we know who he is. The
money he earns comes from women who understand that between them and him, there is a business
relationship.

Did you do research for the film? Have you met real gigolos?

• Yeah, a few. They were abominably boring. As boring as real taxi drivers. The same thing happened
with Gere for this film as it did with De Niro for Taxi Driver. Gere wanted to meet gigolos. I had met a
few, but they were so sinister, so nauseating that I didn't even want to talk to them. I had the same
conversation with De Niro for Taxi Driver. I said, "Bobby, we're going to go to Del Mar Cafe together,
and we're going to be covered in taxi drivers. But please don't think for a second that your character
looks anything like these guys. Your character may speak a little like them. But you have nothing to do
with them. You are my taxi driver, you are not a taxi driver. And this film is not about the reality of
driving a taxi. It is the movement of a soul. A tortured soul. And this is what you drink your energy for.
"I had to say the same thing to Gere:" Look, I want you to meet gigolos. Listen to them talk, maybe you
can pick up something here and there. But, please, don't try to be like them. Here again is a film about
the journey of a soul. And I want to clarify: I have absolutely no interest in the sordid reality of the
gigolo profession.’’

Do you feel sympathy for this character?

• Oh, I really like these two characters, the taxi driver like the gigolo.

The fact that your gigolo sells itself, doesn’t it bother you?

• He gives himself.

No, it sells.

• He gives himself, and the women give him money! He gives these women what no other man would
give them, for any amount of money. He gives them a taste for life, he gives them pleasure ... Other
young people would not do that. Because they would be unable to make the gift of themselves that Julian
makes. These women are happy to give him gifts. Men always give gifts to women who give them
sexual pleasure. There is nothing wrong with that! You have a girlfriend, you are happy to offer her
clothes, gifts, jewellery. It is a fair reward in exchange for what she gave you. And what she gives you is
nothing compared to what Julian gives to these women. He takes women whom society has said they no
longer have the right to make love with beautiful young people. And he said to them, "Yes, you can still
do it." I find him to be someone much better than I ever would have the courage or the energy to do what
he does!

And what do you think about pornography?

• I find it healthy.

It does not bother you?

• It does society a favour.

You know that in France, we found that Hardcore was a Puritan film, even reactionary?

• The film chooses to defend a Puritan. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's me, the puritan.

But if you don't condemn pornography, while your film condemns it, there is a contradiction …

• Absolutely not. Look, this man is my father. I have chosen to illustrate his point of view. I even
understand him enough to feel sympathy for him. But it's not my point of view. I can still make a film
25
 about a crazy killer, without being a crazy killer myself! What you need is to understand the character, to
understand his reasons. And the reason why Hardcore was perceived as a Puritan film was because I was
interested enough in my character to not demolish it. I refused to attack him.

In a recent interview with "Take One", you said that you really liked John Ford's “The Prisoner of the
Desert”, but that this movie lacked a scene that, according to you, John Ford had been unable to
shoot: a love scene between Natalie Wood and Scar, the Indian who kidnapped her…

• Exact. A scene which would have proved that the world of John Wayne is not the only « good" world.

• Yes ... and this scene is found in Taxi Driver, between the mackerel and the little prostitute …

• But not in Hardcore.

That was the question.

• Yes I understand. I wrote this scene for Hardcore. But it was not good, I never shot it.

A love scene between Kristen and Ratan, the horrible pimp who kills women in "snuff" movies?

• No, a love scene between Kristen and this kid, Todd ... But the problem with Hardcore is that the film
did not follow the right path. Hardcore was not supposed to be the Prisoner of the desert. This is part of
the problem. The father was not supposed to find his daughter. It was not the subject. Finally ... I am not
satisfied with the film. There are good things in it. But neither Hardcore nor Blue Collar are a whole.
They are not consistent enough, they lack rigor. They become confused, contradictory. American Gigolo
is a whole, from start to finish. It's a film that knows what it does, why it does it, and where it goes. It is
a film that knows its job as a film.

You think that problem and metaphor did not merge, in Hardcore?

• With Hardcore, I was wrong. I was told to change the ending. The new ending didn’t suit the problem.
And so, indeed, we got to the point where the metaphor no longer corresponded to the problem. And
also, the interest was no longer there.

A few final words In your opinion, what are the chances of American Gigolo commercially speaking?
Do you think it will be a financial success?

• Yes I think. I believe that it is a provocative, sexy, beautiful film to watch ... It is a film which gives to
think…

Sexy without being sexy. There is not a single sex scene in the film.

• It's not the movie that is sexy. It's Richard.

Whenever there could be violence, you cut before.

• Yes, it is very "below".

Aren't you worried from a business point of view?

• I believe that the film has a high level of quality, which will certainly help it. Richard is really fabulous.
It matters commercially. There is a certain ceiling that I hope, that I believe this film will reach. It is the
public of Taxi Driver or Midnight Express. About the same number of people. It's a lot of people, it's a
huge audience. These are pretty smart people, but they are going to see commercial films, not art and
essay. That said, there are only a limited number of people who will go to see a film on such a subject.
It's like what happened with Taxi Driver and Midnight Express. These are films that went off like
rockets, hit the ceiling, and came back down, as if they couldn't make it past a certain level. There are a
26
lot of people who will never go see a movie about an American gigolo, about a guy who was caught for
drug trafficking, or about a taxi driver who becomes a crazy killer. There is a point when the potential
stops. Quite frankly, I don't mind. I'm not here to make Star Wars. It's a conversation I had with Scorsese
recently. We were talking about the Godfather, Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind ... And
Marty (Scorsese) said to me: "You know, I decided that this is not what I want to do with my life. I'm not
here to beat the box-office records. I want to make good movies, and I want them to make enough
money so I can keep making good movies. But I don't have complexes because I haven't done
Jaws! » This is what I feel too. I don't want to make Jaws. I want to make movies like Taxi Driver, like
Gigolo, like Midnight Express, movies that are good, that many people watch, that earn money. But, you
know, it's really not something that I want to be put on my grave: "I made Star Wars". This is not what I
am looking for. No.

27