+ Blow review by Cynthia Fuchs
Then I got jazzed
I walk in on Ted Demme as he's wolfing down a sandwich. He's in a room at L.A.'s swanky-weird
Standard Hotel, and we both look longingly -- for a
second -- at the balcony window that looks out on the
pool, where pretty tanned people lounge in the warm
sun. He's between interviews, talking all day about
his new movie, Blow. The 36-year-old New York
native's sixth feature is, he says, his most personal
movie -- he produced, developed, and directed it, yes.
But, as he's eager to say, a few times, he also feels
invested in its most crucial themes, family, loyalty,
and responsibility.
Ted Demme as always been attracted to projects with a
bit of an edge. A former music video director, Demme
inclines toward stylish visuals and offbeat subject
matter, and has cultivated a serious pop-cultural
political sensibility as well. This led him, in 1988,
to produce the groundbreaking (and by then, long
overdue) Yo! MTV Raps and executive produce the
short-lived snarky series about the entertainment
industry, Action. He has also worked with this
film's co-producer Denis Leary repeatedly (directing
two tv specials and The Ref), and directed episodes
of Robert Altman's Gun and Homicide: Life on the Streets, and the films Beautiful Girls (1996) and
Life (1999). And, he casts Noah Emmerich in all his
movies.
With Blow, Demme focuses on the story of one man,
set against a large and colorful backdrop -- drug
trading in the U.S. over three decades. George Jung
(played by Johnny Depp) began by dealing pot during
the 1960s, and after going to prison (which he calls
"crime school"), he became infamous as the guy who
brought cocaine to the United States in the late '70s
and made millions off it during the '80s. The film
follows Jung from his childhood in Weymouth,
Massachusetts through his early weed-dealing days in
Manhattan Beach, California, and then on through his
impressively lengthy career as an international
cocaine dealer.
Cynthia Fuchs: Let's start with an obvious question:
in making a movie based on someone's life, how do you
decide what to leave in, leave out, or change?
Ted Demme: I tried to stick to my game plan, which was
always being aware of what my A story was -- the love
story between a father and his son, and that son and
his daughter. I always knew that would make this film
stick out from others in this genre, the crime drama.
I made sure that all my events wouldn't screw up that
through line, because I knew what the ending of the
movie was. We stuck to George's life fairly close to
the bone, with the exception of the very ending,
because he got busted a few times, and we combined
them into one bust. I felt that as long as we were
being honest, and that we didn't bend the truth to
accomplish another goal, to be entertaining or to be a
happy ending, I was confident that we'd be able to
tell the story the way it happened.
CF: I'm interested in the daughter story. Did I read
it right that Kristina's name is listed in the credits
as a "Clerk"?
TD: She was. Speaking of things that didn't make it
into the movie, I had a courtroom scene that I decided
we didn't need. She came to visit the set, because I
wanted her to be a part of it, and I made her a clerk.
And then we cut the scene, but I left her name in the
credits.
CF: So how does that work, that she has not gone to
visit her father in prison, but was part of this
project?
TD: Well, Kristina's a 21-year-old who's trying to
figure out life as a 21-year-old, as we all did.
And she's not only coming to grips with all the things
everyone goes through, but she's also taking a look
back and there's a lot of pain and sadness, and stuff
she hasn't dealt with. So I don't think she's ready to
go sit down with dad. But I wanted her blessing on
this movie, I wanted to use her name, I wanted her
input, and wanted to know her feelings. So she came on
the set, but she didn't quite make it to Otisville
[New York, where her father is incarcerated].
CF: What kind of input did she have?
TD: I called her and her mother Mirtha in
pre-production and asked them to come down. I bought
them lunch and dinner and showed them the script. I
wanted to let them know what I was doing. They knew
there was a book out already and they didn't like the
book that much, I guess because there are a few
inconsistencies. I wanted to get that straight,
because I'd heard that. I wanted to make sure that I
was getting the events down as they happened, and to
make sure that I was capturing how they felt, for the
actresses who were playing them. Mirtha became an
amazing outlet for me and we've become friends. She
met Penelope [Cruz, who plays her in the film] and
spent a lot of time with her. When you do someone's
life story, which I've never done, it weighs on you.
You feel an added responsibility to get it right. And
when you have a character like Mirtha, you'd better
get it right, because it's a thankless role in our
film. What I like about what
Penelope did, is that by the end of the movie, you
feel sorry for her. She's standing there in that awful
sweat suit, with that horrible wig, broke, and she's
sad. She's an absolute victim of what went on. She's
an amazing woman -- twenty years later, she's clean
and sober and living her own life. Mirtha kept saying
that the reason she got involved in this project was
because she wanted it to be realistic, because she
wanted to show people, young girls particularly, who
get caught up in this promise of money, drugs, and
happiness, in this lifestyle, that it is not real. She
felt strongly about getting that message out, and she
wanted to be able to close the book on her own part in
that.
CF: It's an elaborate way to close that book.
TD: She's got guts, man, she really does.
CF: You touch on a lot of complicated history, of U.S.
government involvement in the drug trade, by way of
Noriega and Escobar.
TD: I had two important FBI advisors on the film, one
had been on the Manhattan Beach beat in 1968, because
I wanted to make sure that I had all that zaniness
correct. And then a second had been tracing George
through the '70s, to make sure that all those facts
were right, that he had been involved in 85% of the
coke [that came to the U.S.]. It's true, they brought
it in by the planeload. People have asked me a lot
over the past few days, you can imagine, what my stand
on the drug issue is, like that will make a difference
to anyone. But my humble opinion is, I'm not quite
sure where I stand on the legalization of drugs --
though, if tequila is legal, pot should probably be
legal. But I have come firmly to believe that the
punishment of drug offenders is really bad in our
country. It's cockeyed. George is a victim of that --
he's not a victim of a lot of things, but he is a
victim of that. And when I went to visit him in
prison, I saw there are a lot of kids in his prison,
19- or 20-year-old kids, who have their girlfriends
visit them with one-year-old daughters in their arms.
So I'd ask, "What happened to that guy?" Oh, he got
caught with 20 rocks in his hand, first-time offender,
selling crack cocaine on the corner, he's got 20
years, minimum, bang. See ya later. When he gets out
at 39, his son's going to be 20. What do you think's
going to happen to that kid? That crushed me. I don't
know if our guy now [in the White House] is going to
take care of that...
CF: I don't think so.
TD: [Laughs] Yeah, I don't think so either. But I've
come firm on that stance. [Sentencing] needs to be
examined because it is bad.
CF: And being in prison is, as George says in the
film, "crime school."
TD: Yeah. It happened that way. I've told people
before that if I wrote this film as fiction, no one
would believe how easily it all happened. But it
happened. All these guys talk to each other in prison.
I mean, George was in prison with Gordon Liddy: think
about that posse! George and Carlos [Lehder Rivas],
who Diego del Gado is based on, were cellmates, and
George said they just started talking. Carlos told
him, you're wasting your time with pot, you're going
for the wrong dream. And when he got out, Carlos said,
come visit me and my friend, and that friend was Pablo
Escobar. Wrong place at the right time or right place
at the wrong time, I'm not sure.
CF: On the time tip, you cover so many decades, and
while the story evokes Goodfellas, the look is like
Boogie Nights.
TD: Yeah -- I had the same costume designer [as
Boogie Nights, Mark Bridges].
CF: And you worked with Ellen Kuras, a spectacular
cinematographer [she shot Tom Kalin's Swoon, Steve
McLean's Postcards from America, as well as Spike
Lee's Four Little Girls, Summer of Sam, and Bamboozled].
TD: I've been an admirer of her films for a long time,
and wanted to work with her, but she's always booked.
So I booked a Tylenol commercial with her almost a
year and a half ago, and hit her hard, and said,
"You're reading this script tonight, Don't show up on
the set tomorrow unless you read it." And she said,
"Okay!" When she read the script, she was like, "Wow."
I said, "We're using different film stocks in every
decade, different lenses, we're zooming in, we're
zooming out, we're swish-panning, we're freezing,
we're gonna use it all. And you're the one to do it."
And she said, "Yeah, I am." She's become a dear friend
of mine. She's fantastic.
CF: How did you come up with these various "looks" for
the decades? I mean, they're not historical per se,
there are scenes that look like Miami Vice....
TD: Of course! I saw this great documentary on A&E one
night, on Laurel and Hardy that was amazing, with
their home movies from the 1940s, with big
Eckta-chromey greens and blues. It wasn't typical home
movie look, and I ordered that film stock, and showed
it to Ellen, and we decided to use it. And then we
watched an amazing number of movies from the late '60s
and '70s, which is my favorite time, and we studied
their camera movements, their stocks, the way they lit
stuff, the colors they used. We pulled Time-Life
magazines out, what was popular at that time. What I
think happens today is that a lot of filmmakers look
at other films that are retro pieces, like L.A. Confidential, and say, oh, that's period. We didn't
want to do the stereotypical stuff. So we had palettes
that we stuck to very religiously for each decade, and
lighting strategies and different lenses. So, we
cranked up the contrast in the '80s when the coke
started coming in, to make everyone feel a little bit
brighter. We also had different colors for each
character.
CF: And while you're doing this huge span of time,
you're also anchored in one character's perspective.
TD: Yes. In reality, George, when he was a young man,
he'd charm the pants off you. He was handsome, broad
shoulders, former football player. He was very
intoxicating as a human being, funny and smart, quotes
Kerouac and Dylan, and he's seen all these great
obscure movies. That was why he was so damn good at
trafficking -- people trusted him and wanted to be
with him. At the end, when all those agents are bummed
out about busting him, in real life, they were really
bummed out. Here's these guys who are the cats and
George is the rodent and they couldn't wait to get
their hands on him, because they'd been following him
for years. But two of them left the force right
afterwards, it fucked them up so badly, to bust him. I
knew that if I could tell that story, the one about
the guys who hated this guy the most but actually felt
sorry for him -- imagine that! He was like Public
Enemy Number One, and they were sad to bust him.
CF: You produced this film as well as directing it.
How do you like that process?
TD: We did this movie really conservatively, for what
it was. We did it for $30 million, and that's five
decades, four continents, arguably, and period. I
wanted to keep it smaller, because there's no
guarantee that people will go see this movie, called
Blow, about an unsympathetic character, on paper.
I'm comfortable working in that range. I have friends
who are working on enormous movies with huge stars. I
mean, Johnny's a big star, but he doesn't have a
posse. When you do a movie like Life, two $20
million players, a $5 million producer: I've spent
half the budget before I even blink. The
above-the-line on Life was the entire budget on
Blow. I'm not so comfortable with that -- I loved
working with those guys, because it was fun, but
there's a whole different head that goes into it.
That's why I'm really trying to produce my own stuff.
This film was so good, because I produced it myself,
and developed it, and made it with New Line, which is
a smaller studio, so I was in control of a lot of
stuff that I wasn't in control of for my other films.
For New Line to let me make this movie was pretty
ballsy anyhow, and I felt an obligation to them not to
get errant with the cash. I think, on a larger note,
that filmmakers and studios should start to tuck it in
a little bit, because films wouldn't have the pressure
they have if the word wasn't out about how expensive
they were. Like a Pearl Harbor, they're going into
their opening weekend knowing that they spent $110
million making this movie. That pressure must be
enormous. No thanks.
CF: There's something about the film that is at once
very personal and also conventional, with the focus on
family and, for lack of a better term, "values."
TD: Yeah, you're right. It took me six years to make
this movie for a lot of reasons. First was, I didn't
know what kind of movie it was. I didn't want to make
a biopic, I didn't want to do the history of cocaine
in America, I didn't want to do Scarface. And I
don't think I understood what the film was until I had
a daughter, four years ago. It gave me added tools and
understanding of this traditional love story. On a
broader scale, it's about what happens to children
when they're brought up in a bad household. They grow
up to become their parents. And that's something I can
relate to now -- I have to be careful. I have a
responsibility now, that I didn't have when I first
got the book. Then I met co-writer Nick Cassavetes --
he has kids and his dad [filmmaker John Cassavetes]
passed away at an early age. And we both have kids, so
then we found out what the core of the movie was,
which was that responsibility. Then I got jazzed,
because I knew that if I told that story, everything
else would fall into place, and we can have fun with
Escobar and the '60s and blow it out, and not be
self-conscious about what message we're giving. Again,
because I knew what the ending was -- a man in hell. A
man who is alone, whose family won't see him, he has
no money, no friends, and he's there to think every
minute of every day, what his miserable life is about.
That punishment on any human being is a drag, whatever
they've done, whether they deserve it or not. There's
a real sadness in it.