Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Vanity Fair. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Vanity Fair. Mostrar todas las entradas

26.2.10

Brutal Attraction: The Making of Raging Bull (Vanity Fair)


‘It was Bob’s film,” says Irwin Winkler, the producer of Raging Bull. By which he means that it was Robert De Niro’s driving passion, long before it became Martin Scorsese’s common-consent greatest work. At the time—the late 70s—no one could understand what the actor saw in the life story of Jake La Motta, the brutal, yet curiously masochistic, middleweight boxing champion from 1949 to 1951, who may have been bull-like in the ring but was often more raving than raging when he was just trying to live his life.

I’m not certain that De Niro himself could, at the time, have fully explained his obsession with what was nominally a biopic and nominally a boxing picture, but was not quite either one. It had something to do, he now thinks, with “the primal emotions” the film trafficked in. He felt that if an essentially middle-class movie audience could be induced to empathize with these marginal, emotionally ignorant, and screechingly inarticulate people—La Motta, his wife, and his brother—it would be a good, discomfiting, perhaps even instructive experience.

He also believed, more certainly, that the only man who could possibly make the movie was his closest friend, Marty Scorsese. This, in turn, means that, when we’re talking about how Raging Bull came into being, the drama is not centered on its sets or in its editing rooms—that part was relatively easy. The real story took place in offices, restaurants—even in a hospital room and on a balmy Caribbean island. Essentially, it was all about Mobilizing Marty. To Thelma Schoonmaker, the film’s editor, the project was “a great gift of friendship” on De Niro’s part. But for the longest time it seemed anything but that to the director, who was then passing through what was surely the greatest crisis of his professional life, wondering whether he would make another film of any sort, let alone one as challenging, as enigmatic, to him as Raging Bull.

At this point, in 1978, Scorsese and De Niro were, in the former’s words, “like brothers.” As adolescents they had had a nodding acquaintance when they were members of rival (but peaceable) Lower East Side gangs. As adults they had made Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and New York, New York together. By now, they were capable of finishing each other’s sentences, though sometimes there were no sentences to finish; they could communicate with nods, gestures, and fleeting facial expressions.

They were not, however, communicating very well over the proposed film’s source material, Raging Bull: My Story, an autobiography La Motta had cobbled together with the help of writer Joseph Carter and boyhood friend Peter Savage. It was not much of a book, even by the primitive standards of sports bios, circa 1970. But Savage was also an acquaintance of De Niro’s and had sent him a copy, and the actor somehow perceived subtexts—maybe even a sort of rough sublimity—in it. At some point De Niro resolved to meet La Motta and sought him out at a strip club on New York’s Seventh Avenue between 47th and 48th Streets. “He was in charge of security there,” De Niro says, then pauses and laughs: “Well, really, he was the head bouncer.” The actor’s first impression was of an old fighter “doing battle with his weight”—a battle that De Niro would himself famously fight when he had to gain some 60 pounds to do the film’s later sequences (and then lose them after they were finished). By this time La Motta was truly a fringe figure. His last fight had been in 1954; he nominally stayed in the public eye doing stand-up routines in clubs as well as a one-man show reciting Shakespeare, among other literary sources, for audiences who came for the spectacle of seeing a roughneck make a fool of himself.

Scorsese just couldn’t understand De Niro’s enthusiasm for this story. Mardik Martin, who was a friend of Scorsese’s from N.Y.U.’s film school and co-author of the Mean Streets screenplay, thinks that, at this point, Scorsese had done no more than riffle through the book. Born in 1942, the director had been a little kid (and already a committed movie geek) when La Motta was at the top of his game. “I didn’t know anything about boxing,” Scorsese says. “It was always one angle on TV or in the movie theaters, where they’d show the fights on the weekend. I didn’t know what the hell was going on. It was sports, which took me out of the picture.” Still, he agreed to help develop the project with De Niro, though without much passion or focus.

Factors aside from an allergy to sports contributed to Scorsese’s inattention. There was, to begin with, the New York, New York problem. Released in 1977, it was a strange hybrid of a movie, partly a lavish tribute to the big-scale MGM musicals of the 1940s and 50s, partly an improvisatory love story tracking the combative relationship between a saxophone player/band leader (De Niro) and his songstress (Liza Minnelli). Its mixture of styles and intent reflected Scorsese’s own mixed motives. Some days he wanted to be an old-fashioned Hollywood genre director; some days he wanted to be an auteur on the more modern European model. What this picture taught him was that you couldn’t be both at the same time. It was scorned by critics and audiences alike. Worse, there was in its reception an implication that Scorsese, until then generally considered the most gifted director of his generation by the cinematic cognoscenti, had received a deserved comeuppance—an opinion fueled to a degree by gossip about heavy drug use and messy emotional dramas on the set.

If anything unambiguously good came out of New York, New York, it was the relationship Scorsese forged with Irwin Winkler, who proved to be a remarkably patient and supportive producer, even though he had his own unexpressed doubts about what had been a rather hubristic enterprise. At the time Raging Bull was first being discussed, his company, Chartoff-Winkler, was coming off Rocky, a mighty, Oscar-winning—and surprise—hit. United Artists was pressing for a sequel, so, as Winkler puts it, “we had some heat with them.” He thought that if Chartoff-Winkler could come up with a script for Raging Bull while playing hard to get regarding Rocky II they could force the studio to do both boxing films. Martin, by that time, was working for Chartoff-Winkler as a story editor and consultant, and the company assigned him to write a screenplay based on the La Motta book.

Scorsese paid scant attention to his efforts. Drained and exhausted by New York, New York, he had immediately taken on The Last Waltz, a complicated concert film and music documentary about the breakup of the rock group the Band, which further depleted his strength. It’s within this context that, instead of taking the 1978 Labor Day weekend off, he decided to attend the Telluride Film Festival, high in the Colorado Rockies.

The air is thin in Telluride; it is not an ideal locale for a lifelong asthmatic—especially a physically and mentally exhausted one. Scorsese more or less collapsed there, and immediately on his return to New York he collapsed again and was taken to a hospital, bleeding from every orifice. His condition was life-threatening; his girlfriend at the time (eventually his wife), Isabella Rossellini, had to leave the country for work and later told Peter Biskind, author of Easy Riders, Raging Bulls—a history of Hollywood in the 70s—that she did not expect ever to see Scorsese alive again. The doctors told him that he had no platelets in his blood, the result of an interaction between his asthma medicines, other prescription drugs, and the cocaine that he then regularly abused. They told him that he was in imminent danger of a brain hemorrhage. They pumped him full of cortisone and ordered total bed rest.

In time, he began to recover, at which point De Niro visited him in the hospital. Like La Motta, Scorsese had touched bottom, and the actor judged his friend was ready to hear yet another pitch for Raging Bull. He was right. “I couldn’t understand Bob’s obsession with it, until, finally, I went through that rough period of my own,” Scorsese recalls. “I came out the other side and woke up one day alive … still breathing.” Says De Niro, “Mostly I told him to do it or not do it, that we had to get real. That was the ‘Come to Jesus’ moment.” And De Niro was not going to take no for an answer. He says that if Scorsese had rejected this new overture “I’d have found some other way to get him to do it.”

Fighting as if He Didn’t Deserve to Live

At this stage, no one envisioned the film’s unique look, tone, or structure. Raging Bull would turn out to be—as its great cinematographer, Michael Chapman, calls it—an opera, in the verismo tradition of Cavalleria Rusticana (portions of which can be heard on the soundtrack) and Pagliacci. “The boxing sequences would be the arias,” Chapman says, contrasting with the very simply shot family sequences, which reveal the La Mottas to be “Italian peasant people who just happened to have been moved to the Bronx.” Probably De Niro saw the redemptive elements in La Motta’s story, but he was thinking largely in terms of its powerful melodramatic possibilities. These people are, of course, uneducated, but they are not stupid. It is just that they have no governors on their emotions, so they scream and hit a lot as they express those primal emotions. More important, they have no capacity to think ahead, to imagine the consequences of their acts.

De Niro had played such a character for Scorsese before—his Johnny Boy in Mean Streets, bopping cheerfully, anarchically, to his doom. Scorsese, indeed, goes as far as to say that Mean Streets and Raging Bull are “really the same movie.” That’s a bit of an exaggeration, and probably not something that consciously occurred to De Niro at the time. He was thinking about Jake’s masochism, for example—his capacity to take brutal beatings without ever being knocked down and then somehow rally and K.O. an opponent who was ahead of him on points. Scorsese likes to quote the inscription on a folk-art painting he was once given: “Jake La Motta fought as if he didn’t deserve to live.” More significantly, there was his lunatic jealousy about his wife, Vickie, which drove him to beating her and his brother, Joey, who he imagined were having an affair. These were scarcely novel emotions in our dramas; what was novel was the screaming pitch—and the physical violence—with which De Niro imagined their being expressed.

By the time of De Niro’s hospital meeting with Scorsese, Mardik Martin had written at least one draft of the screenplay, with very little input from Scorsese. Everyone recalls it as quite conventionally chronological: boyhood, adolescence, triumphant and then defeated young manhood, and finally some sort of almost inarticulate redemption. There was good stuff here—La Motta had been put in the ring by his father when he was a kid, with the money he picked up in these unsanctioned bouts helping to pay the family’s rent—but somehow it didn’t sing. And besides, Scorsese had a distracting obsession of his own: The Last Temptation of Christ, which he had wanted to make since Barbara Hershey had pressed the novel on him when they were shooting Boxcar Bertha for Roger Corman in 1972; he thought it was time to make another push for this unlikely project (which he would end up making nearly a decade later).

Even so, Scorsese found himself intermittently drawn to Raging Bull. Michael Chapman points out that in the 1940s and early 1950s boxing was much more central to popular culture than it now is, that the leading fighters were major celebrities that the young Scorsese would have been aware of. That would have been especially true of La Motta, whose six fights with Sugar Ray Robinson—he won only one of them—form one of the legendary sporting story lines of the era. The young Scorsese must have had some awareness of what La Motta meant to people of his class—especially the Italian portion of it.

Then, too, there were obvious Marty Moments in the screenplay. Martin recalls, for example, describing one of the boxing sequences to Scorsese. He knew of the director’s boyhood love of Biblical epics, so he said, “Think of them as gladiators, fighting in an arena packed with people. Then think of them exchanging blows, and the sweat and the blood flying all over the place, onto their tuxedos, their mink coats.” Martin adds, “That got him excited.” Scorsese also found himself thinking about his grandparents—immigrants who had never really adapted to their adopted country’s customs. “All they could do was have some dignity and respect within the neighborhood,” he says. “They were just lucky to get where they were.” In their mute endurance he saw an analogy to La Motta’s noisier misery. Weren’t the feelings he was expressing—about the nature of manhood, and womanhood, about honor and the obligations to bloodlines—as primitive as theirs but much more visibly expressed?

Martin tried a draft that melded Jake’s story with anecdotes drawn from Scorsese’s family history and his experiences growing up in Little Italy. This draft displeased De Niro and it was discarded. So was Martin—somewhat to his relief since, after three drafts, he felt he was written out on this project. Scorsese and De Niro then met with the writer and director Paul Schrader at Musso & Frank Grill, on Hollywood Boulevard. The occasion was not entirely relaxed. Schrader had written Taxi Driver, but after it won the Palme d’Or at Cannes the film became, as Scorsese puts it, “a Scorsese–De Niro picture, you know. These things get a little touchy at times.” More important, Schrader’s career as a writer-director was flourishing. He had just done Blue Collar and Hardcore and was about to start American Gigolo. He was a very busy guy, but he agreed to give the director and the actor six weeks and not a minute more. And he delivered just what they needed: “He started the picture right in the middle,” throwing out the backstory, Scorsese says. And he started it on a perfect note, with La Motta yelling at an earlier wife for her failure to cook a steak to his exact specifications. In Schrader’s draft she was pregnant and La Motta began beating and kicking her. The violence of that scene was scaled back later—it was too raw a way to begin any movie, and the scene, in the finished film, plays almost comically over the top. But its most important element remains: an unseen neighbor repeatedly shouting “You animals” at them.

Remember that epithet. This may be the only movie the theme of which—La Motta’s unacknowledged struggle for some sort of human redemption—is adumbrated by an offscreen voice. But if Schrader had saved the show, he had not perfected it. “It was a cold script,” says Irwin Winkler. Scorsese and De Niro met with Schrader at least two more times in New York, where he gave them a lot of useful advice—the best of which was to go forward on their own.

Not a Wanker

De Niro suggested a period of total isolation and immersion—no phones, no distractions of any kind. They chose the La Samanna resort, on St. Martin, in the Caribbean—a complex of separate villas. They shared one of them and installed a young assistant in another nearby. She was Gloria Norris, a recent Sarah Lawrence graduate who had worked with Scorsese’s pal Brian De Palma on his early picture Home Movies. Better still, her grandfather had been a fight promoter in New England, so she was no stranger to the boxing world. She brought “tons” of books along to help them with research. She remembers De Niro rising early to run along the beach. She remembers him and Scorsese talking out the script scene by scene in the mornings. She remembers Scorsese writing up the new material on yellow legal pads in the afternoons. She remembers “his handwriting was bad, so he’d have to read some of it out to me. It was full of profanity, and he’d get embarrassed saying those words to me.”

After that, Norris would retreat to her typewriter, and De Niro and Scorsese would sometimes head out in their Jeep to dinner in one of the several extremely good restaurants on the island. “It was total concentration,” Scorsese recalls. “Everything was done at that little table with that silly cabana umbrella and we’re looking out at the ocean.” “Everything” was three complete passes through the script over a period of several weeks.

One important thing they accomplished was to combine two characters—La Motta’s brother, Joey, and a close friend, Pete Savage. The latter finally disappeared entirely from the script. Another much-wrestled-with aspect was the emotional climax. This occurs when La Motta, retired from the ring and owning a nightclub in Miami, is arrested on a morals rap, accused of providing under-age girls for his customers, and ultimately loses everything: his money, his club, his wife. Tossed into jail—his struggle with his guards is as physically intense as anything that takes place in the boxing sequences—he finally reaches the low point of his life. Completely isolated, with no place to turn, no inner resources to summon, he begins to masturbate—in Schrader’s script, that is.

Scorsese thought that was “interesting.” De Niro was more dubious. He just couldn’t think of La Motta as a wanker. But his masochism—that was another matter. The actor had shown an alternative idea to Scorsese once before in New York: getting up and banging his head and his fists against the wall, a brutal act of self-punishment. But the director had been insufficiently focused. Now, on St. Martin, De Niro brought up the idea again. And demonstrated it again. This was another kind of self-abuse, full of a sort of coiled anguish that would really hurt De Niro when, eventually, they shot the sequence. “When I looked at it there [in St. Martin], I saw the scene,” says Scorsese. “I saw the shot—what you see in the film. A number of times I wished I had a camera. I would’ve shot it immediately.”

There are a lot of words in Raging Bull, but there are only four that really count—“I’m not an animal”—muttered in that jail cell in a tone so choked that you can barely hear them. Until that moment, Jake is, as the title implies, just an animal, without any real consciousness, any sense of morality or mortality. Now, in some primitive way, he achieves that knowledge. It’s not a blinding revelation; sainthood is not suddenly on offer for him. But he is, as Scorsese says, “more accepting of himself. He’s more gentle to himself and to the people around him.”

That is to say, he’s more of a Catholic figure. Almost everyone knows that as an adolescent Scorsese briefly aspired to the priesthood and that his adult life has been marked by spiritual questioning, spiritual longing. De Niro came from a much more secular background, but like Scorsese he was an Italian-American formed by the same, well, yes, mean streets; he too knew something about the longing for grace by people who had no words to express that longing. Scorsese says, “It’s the old line from The Diary of a Country Priest,” the Georges Bernanos novel about a clergyman who utterly fails to redeem his greedy, ungodly parish yet dies absolved: “God is not a torturer. He wants us to be merciful with ourselves. And Jake kind of gets there.”

But inexplicably so. Looking back on the film’s writing process, we can see that the entire effort was to strip this story down to its primal elements, to reveal states of being, not states of mind. The controlling idea was never to step back and explain anyone’s behavior; it was to plunge the audience into it, to make us feel, viscerally, every blow Jake La Motta delivered or absorbed in the ring and outside of it. The 40s and 50s, for example, were a period when Hollywood discovered Freud. Picture after picture, as Scorsese puts it, “explained that this guy did this because of that. But you can’t explain any human being with one Freudian term. I said, ‘Let’s take all that out. I don’t want to do any of that.’”

Another significant change in the script was suggested by Michael Powell, the great English director (The Red Shoes, Peeping Tom), whom Scorsese had adopted as a sort of consigliere. At the end of the film we find La Motta in his dressing room, running lines as he prepares to go onstage for his one-man show, An Evening with Jake La Motta. These included some Shakespearean passages, which he had actually done in his act—Bronx accent and all. All wrong, said Powell. Reality be damned, it’s going to sound false on the screen. De Niro proposed the “I coulda been a contender” speech from On the Waterfront, which Scorsese immediately bought: “That was our iconography, not the Globe Theatre.” And it’s an oddly touching monologue coming from La Motta, who had been more than a contender and was now something less than one.

You Can Go Home Again

The less Raging Bull explained, the more Scorsese was drawn to it. He returned from St. Martin completely committed to the project. Moreover, he derived two bonuses from his island idyll. One was a full return to physical well-being. The weeks on St. Martin, he says, were “sort of like a spa, like 81D2.” More important, the film began a process of reconciliation with his own past, from which he had become estranged during his years of Hollywood strivings. “Raging Bull meant something new to me. I said, ‘Wait a minute—I can’t deny who I am or where I came from.’ And so I embraced my parents again. They became part of my life in the films. My father’s in Raging Bull. My mother started acting in a lot of the films. They became people who were on the set to help me remember who I am and where I came from. I was harboring a lot of anger and I think it just explodes in Raging Bull.”

But not as a white and blinding fireball. It’s typical of very potent movies that we tend to remember their most explosive scenes—in this case the vivid carnage in the ring, the cringe-inducing scenes of domestic violence. They often blot out sequences of a different, indeed contradictory nature. I know you’re going to find this hard to believe, but if you re-encounter Raging Bull today, after a long absence, you will find it far more tender than you remember—even, at times, rather sweet-spirited. The picture would not work if it did not contain expressions of the authentic yearning Jake and Vickie felt for each other in their courtship and in the early days of their marriage. For instance, the scene where he first seduces her is almost silent—and faintly comic, too, as he pours cold water down his pants to cool his ardor. But it motivates the rest of their story.

Gloria Norris agrees with that reading. She stayed with the picture after St. Martin, continuing her research, and as production proceeded she also saw a more compassionate tone seeping into the film. Some of this doubtless derived from the conciliatory mood that overtook Scorsese. Some of it arose from his contentment with the people he had gathered to make it. Like the writers (credited and uncredited), most of the cast and crew had worked with him before, and the outlanders recruited to the film partook of their mood. This was, more so than on most movies, a band of brothers functioning efficiently and harmoniously—with a couple of sweet sisters added to the group: the actress Cathy Moriarty and the editor, Thelma Schoonmaker.

Of the newcomers, Moriarty and Joe Pesci are the most visible. The latter was known to Scorsese from a comedy act he had with Frank Vincent (who also appears in Raging Bull), in which the pair parodied comedy teams, but it was his appearance in a short film that Scorsese had screened that won him the job. He had the right spirit for Joey—loyal, excitable, trying to discipline his ever wayward brother. Pesci was also instrumental in bringing Moriarty to the film. He and Vincent had first seen her in a photo from a disco beauty contest in Mount Vernon, New York, and Cis Corman, who was the casting director for the film, also became a supporter. In due course a screen test was arranged at a small New York studio. Irwin Winkler was among those present, and when Moriarty did her scene, he says, “we just looked at each other. We didn’t even print the takes.” They simply agreed, on the spot, that the part was hers. As with De Niro and Pesci, she achieved a rare quality—a curious sort of guilelessness, something that narrows the distance between “performance” and “reality” to paper-thin dimensions.

Achieving that quality in Raging Bull’s visual presentation required considerably more artifice. The most basic (and radical) choice Scorsese made was to shoot in black and white. Michael Chapman approved: “In those days boxing was always in black and white—on television, in Life magazine.”

Scorsese had also studied all the classic boxing pictures, and was troubled by the fact that for the most part the camera was stationed outside the ring. The one exception he noticed was Robert Rossen’s Body and Soul, of 1947. Rossen had sometimes placed his cameraman, James Wong Howe, on roller skates to achieve an unprecedented (and so far unduplicated) intimacy with his boxers. Scorsese wanted to get that effect, sans roller skates, which meant, in the end, placing the camera on a dolly. Normally the floors on which dollies roll are concrete or wood. But a boxing ring is much softer—in order to cushion knockdowns. “Imagine pushing dollies on that surface,” says Chapman. “Those dolly grips really earned their money.” So, too, did the camera operators, for Scorsese wanted to change the speed at which the film was running through the camera without cutting. “There was just no mechanics for it,” says Chapman, so he had an operator adjusting the frames-per-second setting on the camera from 24 to 48 to 120 and back again “on the fly.” For Chapman, Raging Bull was “the last great 70s movie.” He’s speaking in a largely technical sense. This was a movie that took traditional, mechanical techniques to their limit—by the 90s, digital techniques, created far from the set on computers, would replace the kind of work he was so laboriously doing on set. He doesn’t quite say it, but he strongly implies that there is a correlation between the kind of hard physical labor that went into Raging Bull and the muted, almost strangled humanism of its message.

Continúa


7.8.09

Don and Betty’s Paradise Lost (Vanity Fair)


Probablemente esta larguísima nota (aquí les copio apenas una de las siete páginas que tiene) sólo me interese a mí: no conozco nadie más, al menos por aquí, que vea "Mad Men".

Entering its third season on a fresh wave of Emmy nominations, AMC’s Mad Men is the most stylish—and perhaps best—show on television. Inside its meticulous reconstruction of the precipice that was New York advertising circa 1960, where the men and women of Sterling Cooper smoke, drink, love, and lie, the author learns about the struggle of Mad Men creator (and former Sopranos writer) Matthew Weiner, the casting of Jon Hamm and January Jones as Don and Betty Draper, and the obsession that fuels each episode. Photographs by Annie Leibovitz.

By Bruce Handy

T
he thumbnail history of Hollywood goes something like this: Once upon a time, the studios reigned supreme. They bulldozed geniuses and turned out dreck, but in applying Henry Ford discipline and efficiencies to filmmaking they also gave us The Lady Eve, Casablanca, and Singin’ in the Rain. By the 1960s, however, the factory system began to give way, power shifted to directors and stars, and a new generation of independent-minded auteurs crafted sometimes indulgent but often original and even brilliant films such as Bonnie and Clyde, Midnight Cowboy, Taxi Driver, and Apocalypse Now. Then, another turn: studios got the upper hand back, or learned to share it grudgingly with a handful of superstars and A-list directors. But without the old assembly-line rigor the result has too often been big, bloated dreck, like the films of Michael Bay, or the gaseous Oscar bait that bubbles up every fall—the worst of all movie worlds.

But, ah, television. Its great accomplishment over the past decade has been to give us the best of all movie worlds, to meld personal filmmaking, or series-making, with something like the craft and discipline, the crank-’em-out urgency, of the old studio system. I’m thinking first and foremost of The Sopranos, which debuted in 1999 and sadly departed in 2007. This strange and entertaining series, as individual a work as anything by Hitchcock or Scorsese, was the creation of David Chase, and it paved the way for The Wire, Deadwood, Rescue Me, Damages, and its successor as the best drama on television, the equally strange and entertaining Mad Men, which will launch its third season on AMC August 16.

Set in an advertising agency in the early 1960s, Mad Men debuted two summers ago and right off the bat earned itself two Golden Globes and a Peabody Award, and was nominated for 16 Emmys, becoming the first basic-cable series to win for outstanding drama. Its second season, no sophomore slump, has been nominated for another 16 Emmys, including best drama and four out of five possible writing nominations. A more interesting measure of the show’s impact is the fact that its title has become a kind of shorthand: you can now talk about a Mad Men skirt or lampshade or pickup line where once you might have used “space age” or “Kennedy era” or “Neanderthal.” But while the show, like its subject, has many surface pleasures—period design, period bad behavior (if you like high modernism, narrow lapels, bullet bras, smoking, heavy drinking at lunch, good hotel sex, and bad office sex, this is the series for you)—at its core Mad Men is a moving and sometimes profound meditation on the deceptive allure of surface, and on the deeper mysteries of identity. The dialogue is almost invariably witty, but the silences, of which there are many, speak loudest: Mad Men is a series in which an episode’s most memorable scene can be a single shot of a woman at the end of her day, rubbing the sore shoulder where a bra strap has been digging in. There’s really nothing else like it on television.

The central character is Don Draper, the cool and commanding creative director of the fictional Sterling Cooper agency. He’s a man in flight from his own past, a Gatsby-esque figure without the romance of a Daisy; or rather, he seems to be looking for a Daisy everywhere but his home in the suburbs, where his beautiful, bored, emotionally stunted wife, Betty, is stranded in what feels at times like an improbably compelling adaptation of The Feminine Mystique. Played in an instantly iconic performance by Jon Hamm, Don is a man whose emotions are in lockdown—a man as sleek and handsome and seemingly invulnerable as a hood ornament. But in the show’s central irony he is able to plumb human needs and desires with an artist’s intuition: if Mad Men ever approaches shtick, it’s when Don gets a faraway look in his eyes and somehow pulls a psychologically barbed selling point out of his own inner ether (a trope wonderfully parodied on Saturday Night Live last fall, when Hamm was hosting). In short, Don Draper is an advertising Mozart, or at least he’s the best Sterling Cooper has to offer, for another of the show’s ironies is that Don and his colleagues are dinosaurs not just in terms of the impending social revolutions of the 1960s but also in terms of the creative revolution that would roil advertising that decade. As in Hitchcock, the characters are unaware of shocks that the audience knows all too well lie ahead, whether they be the Kennedy assassination and women’s lib or long sideburns and the lasting influence of Doyle Dane Bernbach’s witty, self-deprecating “Lemon” ad for Volkswagen, which Don dismisses with the words “I don’t know what I hate about it the most.”

All in all, that’s a lot to pack into a mere 47 minutes of TV, one night a week—astonishing, really, considering that each episode of Mad Men, with its scrupulous period detail, is shot in just seven days on a budget that, at an average $2.8 million an episode this season, even a lot of indie-film producers would scoff at. But who knows? Going back to my original point, if Heaven’s Gate had been a 13-episode series with a hard-and-fast airdate, the last 30 years of Hollywood history might have been different, and Michael Cimino something other than the butt of a cautionary tale.

“I’m of the persuasion that budget contraints are very, very good for creativity. I think people having unlimited amounts of money makes you really lazy. And I will be quoted on that, believe it or not.” The speaker turning his back on decades of Hollywood wisdom was Matthew Weiner, 44, the auteur behind Mad Men, who also has a Sopranos pedigree, having written for that series during its final three seasons. As Mad Men’s creator and show-runner—the industry term for whoever has ultimate creative responsibility for a series, typically a writer- producer—he has imbued his own series with a similarly novelistic richness, scope, and meticulous sense of craft. He talks about “training the audience” to learn how to read the show, and says things like “It’s been a process for the audience to trust the show on some level, to think that we’re thinking about it as much as they hope we are.”

They are, all right. They’re thinking about it as much as even the most Mad Men–obsessed shut-in blogger could hope. You can glean this from watching the show, with its precise, even exacting style of acting and shooting—on Mad Men, the perfect prop can be the equivalent of a well-placed comma—but I had no real idea until I had a chance to visit the Mad Men offices and soundstages, which, aptly, are in a studio on the edge of downtown Los Angeles which was converted from a steel-and-glass Mad Men–era office building. A scene-setting anecdote everyone in the Mad Men orbit tells is how Weiner came onto the set one day and focused on some pieces of fruit he said were too large and shiny and perfectly formed; produce in the early 60s—period produce—wasn’t pumped up. Get smaller, dumpier fruit, he ordered. (Depending on who was telling me the story, from cast members to network executives, the offending produce morphed from apples to oranges to bananas, but Amy Wells, the set decorator, said definitively: it was apples.) In a similar vein, the show’s prop masters have been plagued by the steroidal dimensions of contemporary American pastry whenever a Sterling Cooper secretary needs to pick up a Danish from the coffee cart.


Continue Reading


18.7.09

The Last of Heath (Vanity Fair)



By Peter Biskind

It’s nine in the morning, and I am in a cab threading its way through a tangle of narrow country lanes toward Pinewood Studios, in Iver Heath, about 20 miles west of London, where I am to see Terry Gilliam’s The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, or, as it is more popularly known, “Heath Ledger’s last movie.” As everyone who hasn’t been hiding under a rock is well aware, Ledger died in January 2008, after accidentally taking a toxic combination of prescription drugs, while Doctor Parnassus was still in production. After a mad scramble to pick up the pieces, the film was finished with a little help from his friends Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell.

Built in 1935 on the grounds of a historic country home, Heatherden Hall, Pinewood is a storied production facility that has hosted a sparkling array of pictures, from early Alfred Hitchcock and David Lean to the James Bond series, not to mention recent blockbusters such as The Da Vinci Code (2006), The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), and The Dark Knight (2008). But I’ve never had the pleasure and am eager to see the studio.

As the hedgerows bounce past, I glimpse solitary cows grazing in absurdly green meadows, and look in vain for the kind of garish movie billboards that herald arrival at a Hollywood lot. There are none, not even a signpost, and just as I begin to suspect that I’m being taken for a different kind of ride than I anticipated, we heave to at the front gate, a modern affair of steel girders and glass that replaced an old, Tudor-style gatehouse when the studio changed hands, in 2001.

Behind the gate lies the back lot, looking like any other back lot, save for the magnificent Victorian gardens that surround it. I make my way to the Technicolor Screening Room, where I meet Gilliam; his director of photography, Nicola Pecorini; Samuel Hadida, the film’s French producer; and a few others. I have always been interested in Gilliam. He is one of the few true auteurs left to us, with an unmistakable personal voice and style, as well as the scars to show for his epic campaigns against the studios, the most notorious being his tussle with Universal over the final cut of Brazil, in the mid-1980s. But I have to confess that I haven’t followed his later career as assiduously as I might have, and so I am extremely eager to see where his quirky sensibility has taken him.

The film is fresh from the lab, and we are seeing it at this facility because the production cannot afford to rent a screening room in London. (The filmmakers are so cash-strapped that at one point during postproduction Gilliam had to take the bus to work.) This is the first opportunity the director and his colleagues have had to see the picture with the special-effects shots in place, melded with the live action, so there is a palpable air of expectancy in the room. I am alarmed when Gilliam sits down one seat away; I have just arrived at Heathrow after a sleepless night flight from New York, during which I was squeezed into my slot in coach like a herring, and am afraid I will doze off or, worse, snore. He’s anticipating all the film’s shortcomings, muttering under his breath, “Piece of shit movie.” But when the lights go down and a funereal horse-drawn wagon thunders down a dark London street, the thing lurching precariously from side to side, the director falls silent and I’m jolted awake. The story is set in the present, but through Gilliam’s lens the locale looks more like Dickens’s London than Gordon Brown’s.

Despite the revolution in special effects that has transpired since the director wowed audiences with his 1981 fantasy, Time Bandits, Gilliam, a master of cinematic prestidigitation, retains a fondness for old-fashioned models, though he’s happy to play with today’s digital effects. Here he is in top form, opening with a display of outlandish visual pyrotechnics, an eye-popping mélange of imagery appropriated from everyone and everywhere—Salvador Dalí to Tex Avery—all given his own peculiar spin. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a wildly ambitious movie, stuffed as it is with political satire, philosophical musing, puns and jokes, throwaway allusions both arcane and mundane, fleeting references to Gilliam’s previous pictures as well as classics such as The Seventh Seal and La Strada, not to mention a handful of Big Ideas—including the nature of narrative, the relation of the artist to audience, artifice to truth—all of which get turned over and ruminated upon without becoming boluses that stick in the throat of the story. Or, to change metaphors in midstream, Doctor Parnassus is like a pi&ntildeata exploding with brightly colored gewgaws, as if Gilliam were afraid the movie police would lift his license and this would be his last shoot, so he decided to cram it with everything in his head, downloading his entire mental hard drive into a two-hour hallucination.

One element is conspicuously absent, however, over the film’s first 15 or so minutes: there is not a trace of Heath Ledger, and I find myself wondering in my sleep-deprived daze if I’ve traveled all the way to London on the basis of some misunderstanding. But then, finally, he appears, abruptly, dangling from Blackfriars Bridge at the end of a rope, a scene so shocking, in light of his subsequent death, it takes your breath away. (Gilliam is referencing the mysterious demise of Roberto Calvi, “God’s banker,” a figure at the center of the Vatican bank scandal of 1982—alluded to in The Godfather Part III—who was found hanging from the same bridge. Before Ledger died, the image of him swinging in space popped up on the Internet under jokey headlines such as heath ledger hangs himself. )

Ledger’s fans—a category that now embraces almost everyone who goes to the movies, thanks to his Oscar-nominated performance in 2005 as the emotionally closeted Ennis Del Mar in Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain and his Oscar-winning re-invention of the Joker last year in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight—will not be disappointed. There is a lot of Ledger in this picture, which has the added advantage of showing him reloaded or, better, unplugged: without the slathered layers of white goo that were de rigueur for Batman’s clownish nemesis but obscured the actor’s features. This final performance, while not the tour de force of weirdness that was the Joker, is good enough—more than good enough—to remind us that Ledger’s death has deprived the movies of one of their most accomplished, and promising, talents.

When he signed up for Doctor Parnassus, Ledger was coming home, in a manner of speaking. Gilliam and his partner in crime, Nicola Pecorini, the cinematographer, were among the actor’s closest friends. The two filmmakers “come as a package,” observes Nathan Holmes, Ledger’s former assistant. They are so close they finish each other’s sentences.

Gilliam, who looks chicly grizzled with close-cropped gray hair and a shadow of a beard, is a self-exiled American who took refuge in England during the Vietnam era and stumbled upon John Cleese and his Monty Python pals, becoming the sixth Python, which was sort of like being the fifth Beatle but better: Gilliam created the group’s memorable animated titles and transitions and co-directed Monty Python and the Holy Grail in 1975. He went on to fashion a singular, if checkered, career for himself as the director of, among other films, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988), The Fisher King (1991), Twelve Monkeys (1995), Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), and The Brothers Grimm (2005).

Given the swing-for-the-fences ambition of his movies and his consequent dependence on capricious financing, along with his manic disposition, most of Gilliam’s productions have been high-wire acts. In 2000 he suffered an ignominious fall when his The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, with Johnny Depp, collapsed six days into production after storms destroyed the sets, and Jean Rochefort, the actor who played Quixote, had to be hospitalized—events all lovingly detailed in the documentary Lost in La Mancha. In fact, the director has been so unlucky in so many ways that people speak of a “Gilliam curse.” But, although his work is uneven, he is incapable of making a boring movie.

Gilliam met Pecorini when he hired the D.P. to work on Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Pecorini had been the great Vittorio Storaro’s Steadicam operator for many years, and first encountered Ledger in 2002 on the set of The Order (or “The Ordure,” as the D.P. refers to it), a sort of low-rent Angels & Demons. A large, bearish man with a head of tangled dark hair beginning to go gray, Pecorini says he was mesmerized by Ledger. “He was like a young Richard Burton,” he recalls. “Burton was one of the most intriguing faces ever to be on-screen. And I’m sure that, if Heath would have aged, he would have aged that way—like scars, but carried with pride.

Pecorini recommended Ledger to his friend for The Brothers Grimm, saying, “I think he’s fantastic. His name is Heath Ledger. You should meet him.” At that time, though Ledger had shone in films such as The Patriot (2000) and Monster’s Ball (2001), his name meant nothing, at least to Gilliam, and the director replied, “Heath who?” But, says Pecorini, “Terry fell in love with Heath.” As Holmes, who became Johnny Depp’s assistant after Ledger’s death, puts it, “Terry was to Heath what Tim Burton is to Johnny. They struck up a fantastic friendship.”

Ledger was more than ready for what Gilliam had to offer. As his career had taken off, he had grown increasingly uneasy with the trappings of success. In 2001, as A Knight’s Tale, his first big Hollywood vehicle, was nearing release, he famously jumped up in the middle of a meeting with top Sony executives who were grooming him to be a teenage heartthrob and ran into the men’s room, sequestering himself in a stall while he had a panic attack. His friend and agent, Steve Alexander, chased after him and engaged him in conversation through the door. “He was ready to bust out of the gate, but he didn’t want to step on the gas and become something that he didn’t want to become: a matinee idol,” says Alexander. “He was a private person, and he didn’t want to share his personal history with the press. It just wasn’t up for sale. That’s part of the reason he initially tore down his career. He wasn’t motivated by money or stardom, but by the respect of his peers, and for people to walk out of a movie theater after they’d seen something that he’d worked on and say, ‘Wow, he really disappeared into that character.’ He was striving to become an ‘illusionist,’ as he called it, able to create characters that weren’t there.”

The Brothers Grimm was shot during the summer of 2003, with Matt Damon playing Wilhelm Grimm to Ledger’s Jacob Grimm. In the outspoken director, Ledger found a mentor, a role model. As Christopher Plummer, who plays Doctor Parnassus in the new film, puts it, “Terry loved Heath and treated him like a son.” Adds Alexander, “The relationship with Terry was quite wonderful, in that Terry is a very free, creative spirit.” Gilliam, not disinterestedly, thinks that The Brothers Grimm marked a turning point for Ledger. “He was liberated,” he says. “He suddenly felt free. He was ad-libbing. Nobody noticed his performance”—the film was dissed by critics and ignored by audiences—“but it was extraordinary.” (The film has its charms. It’s full of screeching ravens, dark forests, and all manner of witchery, but it’s not exactly an actor’s showcase. That Ledger’s performance was eclipsed by Gilliam’s mise en scène isn’t surprising.)

Between The Brothers Grimm and Doctor Parnassus, actor and director followed very different paths. Ledger went on to make Brokeback Mountain, a critical and box-office success that put him in the front rank of young actors. But, for Ledger, shooting the film had been difficult. “There was nothing fun about the process of creating the character of Ennis Del Mar,” Alexander recalls. “Heath worked really hard at it, and it was exhausting. He thought Ang Lee was an incredible director, but Ang is a taskmaster, and he doesn’t coddle his actors. He pushes them until they give him what he’s after. It wasn’t what Heath was used to, but it obviously worked.” Gilliam explains, “He was looking for a father figure, and I think that’s why it was difficult with Ang Lee, because Ang Lee is not a father figure. That’s why he felt very isolated there.”

The subsequent awards season, in which Ledger was nominated for a Golden Globe as well as the best-actor Oscar, ate away at him. “You have to whore yourself around,” says Gilliam (who was himself nominated for an Oscar in 1985 for co-writing Brazil). “And on Brokeback he really did whore himself around, doing all the things he hated. He felt angry with himself for going along with the way the system worked. He felt dirty. And then he didn’t win,” losing the Oscar to Philip Seymour Hoffman, nominated for Capote.

Gilliam’s follow-up to The Brothers Grimm was Tideland, with Jeff Bridges and Jennifer Tilly. It features an obliging little girl who cooks heroin for her parents, who both die, and the story only gets weirder from there. Perhaps not surprisingly, according to Gilliam, the distributor, ThinkFilm, dumped it. Unhappy, he took to the streets of New York to hawk Tideland himself. Like the Ancient Mariner, with a square of cardboard hanging around his neck on which was scrawled studioless filmmaker … will direct for food, he buttonholed passersby, broadcasting the date of the opening as he collected coins and small bills, and muttering, “Independent filmmaker on the brink … God bless you and help a filmmaker out … You’ve made an old man happy … ” Addressing one startled young man, he said, “I hope you’re not trying to get into films, are you? This is how it all ends up.” He raised $25.

Gilliam’s career seemed to have hit a wall. Doctor Parnassus was born in the latter half of 2006, when the director hooked up with Charles McKeown, with whom he had written The Adventures of Baron Munchausen two decades earlier. “I was literally digging things out of my desk drawer—old ideas—and we just started throwing things around,” Gilliam says. “I was thinking of Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal, with Joseph and Mary’s little traveling theater. So we hit upon the Parnassus traveling theater going through London.”

The picture is an ensemble piece, revolving around a trio of characters: Doctor Parnassus, a God-like figure, pitted against his nemesis, the antically Mephistophelian Mr. Nick, who tricks him into incautiously trading his daughter for eternal life; Ledger plays a con man referred to as “Tony Liar,” the joker in the pack, if you will, who further complicates a convoluted plot. Explains Gilliam, “Both Charles and I were obsessed with Tony Blair at the time, and that’s why he’s called Tony. It’s about all of the hypocrisy that’s out there.” To the extent that the film has a central locale, it’s Doctor Parnassus’s traveling show, the distinguishing feature of which is a delightfully tacky mirror, resembling nothing more magical than a silvery Mylar curtain hanging inside an old picture frame, which nevertheless conveys people, when they plunge through it, into a fantasy world that reveals their true selves—or something like that. Rarely, it seems, is the journey a happy experience.

After The Brothers Grimm, even as Ledger’s star ascended, the actor had kept tabs on Gilliam, hanging out with him whenever he was in London, always wanting to know what his friend was up to. Gilliam showed him the Doctor Parnassus script, and they discussed the role of Tony, but Ledger kept backing away. “The first thing he would do was pass on almost everything that came to him,” says Alexander. “Or he would commit to things and then walk away from them. As much as he wanted to work, there was a part of him that was always looking for a reason not to work. He was always afraid, insecure about could he nail it. Then finally he would come around and embrace the challenge.”

But after Brokeback Mountain and Casanova, released the same year, in which he had unhappily starred for director Lasse Hallström, Ledger was so distressed he wanted to stop working. (He did stop for a year and a half after his daughter, Matilda, was born, on October 28, 2005.) He told his friends that one of the reasons he had taken The Dark Knight was that it would be such a long shoot it would give him an excuse to turn down other offers. In fact, a few years earlier he had met with director Christopher Nolan regarding the title role in the first of his Batman films, Batman Begins, but the actor was reluctant to become involved in a franchise. Says Alexander, “He was always hesitant to be in a summer blockbuster, with the dolls and action figures and everything else that comes with one of those movies. He was afraid it would define him and limit his choices.” But on The Dark Knight, he had a pay-or-play deal, so he felt he had the freedom to do whatever he wanted as the Joker, no matter how crazy. “We talked about Johnny Depp’s episode on Pirates of the Caribbean,” says Pecorini. “The very first day, Johnny showed up with 40 gold teeth. [Producer Jerry] Bruckheimer wanted to get rid of him. Finally, they said, ‘O.K., keep six.’ And that’s what he wanted, six.” According to Pecorini, Ledger went Depp one better, hoping his performance would be so far-out he’d be fired, and thus become the beneficiary of a lengthy, paid vacation.

Alexander, who now works with Charles Roven, producer of the Batman franchise, insists Ledger was eager to take the part, but wanted to follow up The Dark Knight with something less conventional. Among other projects he was considering was The Tree of Life, a coming-of-age story set in the 1950s to be directed by Terrence Malick (and now starring Brad Pitt).

And then there was the Doctor Parnassus script. One day in 2007, as Gilliam was going over his storyboards with his effects crew, the actor, who was working on a music video in the same facility, slipped him a note. It said, “Can I play Tony?” Evidently, he’d overcome his anxiety about the role. Or, as he explained in a 2007 interview, “I’d cut carrots and serve catering on a Gilliam film. I really love the guy.” Gilliam was thrilled. Says Alexander, “Heath felt like Terry had given him the nod on Grimm when it might not have been the most popular decision”—given Ledger’s relative lack of fame at the time. But now his name meant something. Says a source, “Everyone is terrific in the movie, but none of them could get a movie financed. Heath gave it wings.”

Not to hear Gilliam tell it. “We couldn’t raise anything,” he says. By his account, he flew to L.A. to graze the indie pastures for financing but was met with variations on the theme of: “No, we don’t get the idea.”

“But you get Heath Ledger,” Gilliam would counter. “Do you understand what’s going to happen in the summer of 2008? The Dark Knight is going to come out. Heath is going to be the biggest star in the world.” But still the answer would be no.

“Not one of them rose to the occasion,” Gilliam recalls. “They couldn’t see it. Live or dead, Heath would have stolen [The Dark Knight].”

The only way the director has been able to keep working, given his uneven track record at the box office, is to keep his budgets down to a fraction of what effects-laden films generally cost. Doctor Parnassus had been budgeted at an already skimpy $28 million, but Gilliam eventually launched production with no guarantee that he’d ever reach that goal. Says editor Mick Audsley, “There was always an uncertainty about whether we were going to have enough funds to make the film that was in Terry’s head. Every week we’d be thinking, Oh, is this our last Friday? But that’s true of more and more independent films. We start and see where we get to.”

Gilliam hired his daughter Amy and her producing partner, Bill Vince, who made Capote, to raise money. “He was wonderfully devious, like a good producer,” Gilliam says. “Lied to everybody.” The pair called producer and former CAA agent John Ptak and asked him to put together the financing. He in turn introduced Gilliam to Samuel Hadida, the French producer, who paid for the production out of his own pocket until a bank was found to secure financing.

Gilliam also gathered a support group of people he’d worked with before, among them production designer Dave Warren, who had just done Sweeney Todd. When the director called him, Warren remembers, “It was like the strange old friend you never want to phone you. Why do we quake in fear at the phone call offering us work? It was like, Oh, my God! We’re going to be dragged into this fucking madhouse again.”

Gilliam proceeded to put together an unconventional cast to fill the remaining parts: a dapper Tom Waits as Mr. Nick; model Lily Cole, who had virtually no acting experience, as Valentina, Parnassus’s daughter; and another near novice, Andrew Garfield, a young actor who had had small roles in Lions for Lambs and The Other Boleyn Girl, as Mercury the barker, complete with winged helmet. Verne Troyer (Mini-Me in the Austin Powers films) plays a dwarf gussied up as a medieval demon. Gilliam rounded out the cast with Plummer, whose ageless Doctor Parnassus first appears suitably guru-ish—brittle as parchment, a dried insect under glass—with chalky makeup and a wisp of a beard.

The start date of Doctor Parnassus had been put off to accommodate The Dark Knight, which was still shooting into the middle of November 2007. There would be no more than a narrow window between the end of the one and the start of the other—a very brief respite for Ledger after a long and exhausting shoot. Moreover, the Joker was a dark, twisted character, and Gilliam was worried about the effect it might have on the actor’s state of mind, especially in light of his chronic insomnia and the pressure he was under due to the end of his relationship with the actress Michelle Williams and an increasingly fractious custody dispute over their then two-year-old daughter, Matilda.

Ledger and Williams had met in the summer of 2004 on the set of Brokeback Mountain, where she played his character’s wife. He had recently broken up with Naomi Watts, and he and Williams (who declined to be interviewed for this article) established a strong physical connection. As Ledger revealingly described it in a 2006 interview, “We just fell very deeply into one another’s arms, our bodies definitely made those decisions for us.” Which is not to say that there wasn’t a genuine emotional bond between the two. Says Alexander, “Heath fell deeply in love with Michelle. Their relationship was extremely special to him. They have a daughter who is an incredible product of their love, and an incredible sign of how much they cared for each other.” Adds Nathan Holmes, who was Ledger’s assistant during the Casanova shoot, “On that film, they were totally devoted to each other. They were like young kids.” Ledger himself was quoted as saying, “When you’re this happy everything seems to fall into place.”

But fault lines soon made themselves evident. When A Knight’s Tale opened, in 2001, Sony had flown in 14 of Ledger’s old friends from his birthplace, Perth, Australia, at his request. They stayed at his home, a sprawling house with five or six bedrooms in the Los Feliz area of Los Angeles. Some of the friends never left, while others—newer friends and acquaintances—joined them, and the house became familiarly known as “the Aussie artists’ colony.” Says Alexander, “It seemed like anytime someone would be new in town, and was from Australia, it was ‘Just call Heath.’ He was so welcoming.” In Gilliam’s words, the house was “a place where you could hang out. It just felt good.” Says Pecorini, “Probably 50 people had the keys. It was like open house. ‘You’re a friend of a friend? Of course you can stay here. Of course you can show up without calling first.’”

But when Ledger and Williams moved in together in a new place in L.A., the open-house policy ended. “He had to cut that,” Pecorini says. “It was totally against his nature. He was a social animal.” Williams had been living in Brooklyn, near her parents, and the couple eventually bought a new house there.

According to Gilliam and Pecorini, the pair were too different for the romance to last. “My impression was that they had nothing in common,” says Pecorini. “They didn’t fit. They kept two separate lives. She never mingled with his friends—he never mingled with her friends.” The two men say the couple’s relationship mimicked the marriage between the characters they played in Brokeback Mountain, with hers, lonely and resentful, watching his go off on his mysterious fishing trips. But another source says that to this day Williams remains tight with some of Ledger’s best friends. During the early days of the relationship, the couple vacationed with each other’s closest companions, and Ledger even threw a birthday party for Williams’s best friend. It was only as the relationship faltered that these bonds dissolved.

Gilliam and Pecorini agree that the romance began to unravel during the Oscar campaign for Brokeback Mountain, when Williams was nominated for best supporting actress alongside Ledger’s nomination for best actor. For him, they say, the Oscars were a kind of game that he went along with grudgingly, whereas Williams took the hoopla more seriously. “The whole machinery started growing up around them,” Gilliam says. “That was the moment when it changed, when he realized, Uh-oh. We perceive the world differently. He didn’t care about things like those awards.”

Continue reading...