|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to the release of Revolution: Revisited (starring Al Pacino) by Warner Bros. I recently had the opportunity to speak with the film’s director, Hugh Hudson about not only his revisiting of Revolution, but also the circumstances that made this project not only necessary, but also, very worthwhile. Director Hugh Hudson has managed to breathe new life into what was an unfortunate critical and commercial disaster due to forced concessions and an unwelcoming 1985 viewing public. For more on how he did this, read on.
- Matthew Orlando
Staff Writer
NOTE: The following interview contains SPOILERS.
Matthew Orlando: We’re here to talk about Revolution: Revisited. This is actually the first time the film in any form has been released on DVD in the US. How exactly did this come about with Warner Bros deciding to revisit the film?
Hugh Hudson: Well, we always wanted to put the film on to tape, well DVD how we envisioned it in the first place... 25 years ago or whatever it was, 1984 I think, it was released incompletely. It wasn’t a completed film, it wasn’t the film we had either envisioned when we were writing it or shooting it. We always wanted to put a big narration on. And the company, it was not Warner Bros actually, it was a British film company distributing the film, they were the majority investors decided they had to get the film out. So we stopped working and couldn’t put the narrating voice from Pacino telling us what he thought and what he felt, etc, etc. As you see now, obviously, if we done it then the voice would have been slightly different because Pacino would have been younger. Now, the film we wanted, the voice’s slight difference gives it a slight difference, the perspective of looking back. And it works, from our point of view it works. And we finally got the film out after 25 years of wishing to do this, Pacino and myself, we got the film we always wanted. We cut a bit; scenes that were imposed upon by the financiers, we cut them out. Imposed upon on the script, in order for them to put money in. We took those out; we shortened the film by ten minutes or something. And otherwise, it’s the same, only it’s better actually.
MO: Unfortunately, I have never gotten to see the original Revolution, but I enjoyed Revolution Revisited. And although, the original wasn’t well received, as we all know, as I was watching it I felt that it almost wasn’t a film of it’s time. Released mid-80’s, during the Regan Era, with a very de-romanticized view of the Revolution, that this was something we don’t see coming out of the 80’s.
HH: Well yes, we wanted to make a real, sort of realistic idea or feeling of a guy who is dragged into war against his better judgment or his wishes. And who finds a voice during it because of what happened to him and his son. And then, heroes were different. They were Sylvester Stallone, etc under Reagan. And sort of the anti-hero approach was deemed to be of interest. And then they attacked on every level. I mean, Pacino’s performance is perfectly good, very good I think, and he was attacked, his accent was attacked, the way he looked. They were right on one level, saying the narrative was difficult to understand because in fact, the narrative voice holds the film together, but they wouldn’t allow that to go out. And as a result it didn’t have an income and people attacked it. The camera was hand-held, it was rough, it is the kind of film that is made today.
|
|
|
|
MO: Exactly, the film is very similar to war films made today.
HH: But then you could say the film was ahead of its time. But, you can’t be ahead of your time; a film should be of its time, you could argue. But, ahead of its time, I don’t mean it quite like that. I mean people weren’t expecting it. Now you’re used to seeing films shot in that manner, The Bourne Conspiracy (sic) or a war film are shot like this, 20 years later.
MO: I think revisiting the film, of course the film is Revolution Revisited, is the appropriate term because now when you watch the film it seems very much in place today.
HH: Right, well hopefully people will like it. And hopefully it will make some sales for Warner Bros. who helped and were confident enough to give us money for which we are very grateful. But, hopefully, it will be well received. At least, after 25 years, I’ve got the film I’ve always wanted. It was a waiting game.
MO: About the film itself, the process of when you were making it. Grafting what is essentially a father and son tale on to a war film backdrop, what was your decision making process like for how much of the battle we should show versus the relationship itself?
HH: We didn’t want to show too many battles. We showed one battle, Brooklyn Heights. And the rest is following the army, but we were making a personal story. Also, it is a story from the lower ranks, where they wouldn’t know what is going on in the war really except on those days. Also, the film is without any CGI at all, no process shots, it is all happening for real. Not one process shot in the film, there was no CGI in those days, 25 years ago. It is not really that important though, but what we were attempting to do was make a movie from the ordinary guy’s point of view. You’re swept into war, conscripted, pushed into battle. It’s seen from the ordinary Joe’s, GI’s point of view.
MO: For the other readers like myself who have never seen the original, other than the narration, can you sort of explain the differences between the two films?
HH: Well, there was the narration and some scenes, which were overlong, we trimmed them. And we took the end off. The end of the script as we originally had it is now the end of the film. When we were trying to get some money, one of the conditions of bringing the money in was that Al Pacino and the girl should meet up in the end. In the original film that happens. After he says good-bye to his son who goes off to buy some farmland. He suddenly catches sight of the black girl and he follows her and that takes him to the girl. And there she is with a scar on her face and its got a happy ending. But, we didn’t want that. It wasn’t how it originally ended. So, it is how it is now. The girl is maybe killed, maybe not. But, that is how war happens, people disappear. This is how we wanted it to be, realistically. In order to get the money, they wanted a happy ending and we gave it to them. But, it is better like this.
MO: I think it is better to end the film like this…
HH: Right, he says good-bye to his son, it’s sad. And Tom Dobbs stays in New York, but Tom’s got thinks to do; he needs to learn how to read and do some good. We don’t know what he’s going to become, he may go into politics. But, we always wanted to show the film from the bottom of the ladder, from the street. He is sucked into war. I think it is more interesting on the whole like that instead of George Washington’s point of view. You never see George Washington in the film, you hear about him.
|
|
|
|
MO: Right, we see an effigy of George Washington at one point.
HH: Right, this is about a lowly guy swept up into the battle, he would never get near George Washington. So, anyhow that is the story we told. And sadly, when it came out it got a lot of flack. Poor Pacino was attacked for looking how he did and wearing the clothes, that he did. He is a fine actor and Donald Sutherland was attacked, the language was attacked, the accents were attacked. Like everyone knew exactly how they spoke, the critics were language experts? It was a melting pot of life under the British. I was attacked viciously for telling American history. Why should an Englishman tell American history? Ignoring the fact that it was British history.
MO: That was actually my next question, which was how…
HH: We were attacked! How dare they shoot in England. Shoot American history in England. But, there aren’t American cities like that anymore in America or they have been turned into pristine museums. Fine, but to attack us for shooting in England were the towns actually look like that. To find towns in England building that haven’t actually changed so much. So that was kind of the vitriol we got. Very odd. They wanted Stallone or Schwarzenegger; those were the heroes of the day under Reagan.
MO: Luckily, the pendulum has swung the other way.
HH: It has swung the other way. In the words of Obama, you want a new birth in this country. A new revolution is going on. You want change after the 8 or 10 years of Bush and company. Obama comes in and he is looking for a new way of looking for things. And that is what the Patriots and American Revolution did to get rid of the British. Again, I think we can say it was made in the wrong time.
MO: Well, luckily the DVD is out now. And moving a way from the film for the moment, do you have any other projects in the works?
HH: Yes, this film I’m going to do this year or maybe the summer of next year with Colin Firth and Kevin Spacey, called Catalonia. It’s a love story set in Spain during a war. And also, I teach in school in Marrakech, a film school in Morocco. That is very enjoyable.
MO: Do you have a particular film you like to show your students, a personal favorite perhaps?
HH: Oh no, I take in all films. I never show full films, I show clips and I show all films from all over.
MO: But, personally, do you have a favorite film?
HH: That is a hard question because there are so many films that I like. I like Walkabout, a British film by Nicholas Roeg. Raging Bull, Scorsese’s picture. I love The Sweet Smell of Success with Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster.
MO: All three of those are excellent films, Raging Bull, being one of my favorites. And again, thank you for taking the time to speak with DVD Snapshot today.
HH: Thanks very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
