A Moviemaker Under the Influence

Richard LaGravenese discusses his non-fiction debut

by Jennifer M. Wood | Published February 3, 2007

Director Richard LaGravenese (left) with actor/interviewee John Voight in A Decade Under the Influence.

Chat with any moviemaker long enough, and the subject of the “New Hollywood” films of the 1970s is likely to arise as a topic. It was this decade, in fact, that helped to forge the relationship between moviemakers Richard LaGravenese and Ted Demme. Friends since 1994’s The Ref (which LaGravenese wrote and produced and Demme directed), over the years the two spent much time discussing the films of this decade—the films that made them want to become moviemakers in the first place. “We’d even show each other clips,” states LaGravenese. “It would be like ‘I’ve gotta see this scene now’ or ‘I’ve gotta show you this, it’s amazing.’” When faced with the possibility of a writer’s strike, the two decided to move this interest in the New Hollywood films to a full-on exploration, and A Decade Under the Influence was born.

Though the two-year production experienced a serious loss with the untimely passing of co-director Demme, LaGravenese continued working as team: “It still feels like we’re partners and that we’ve worked all year together. I’m sure some of it was just denial, but I don’t care. I miss his something terrible. The documentary has kept us a team. He’s still around.” Here, LaGravenese talks about the process of making a documentary and the films that he grew up with.

Jennifer Wood (MM): Had you always conceived of the project as being more like a series of 'conversations about film' rather than the traditional 'talking head' documentary? The film has an intimacy to it that is actually quite reminiscent of the films you’re chronicling. Was this an intention you had, or something you were made conscious of while watching the footage?

Richard LaGravenese (RL): Neither Teddy nor I had done this kind of thing before. What made sense, to us, was to have these conversations the same way we’d talk to each other. The way we’d get excited talking about movies carried us through the interviews.

MM: How did you prepare for the interviews?

RL: We put together about 10 questions: describe the period, what were the differences in making films, studio involvement, specific film work, who were their influences. One big question for me was how was it possible to make these smart, intense films that broke the rules within the studio system?

Sydney Pollack says that the attraction to movies was changed by the time. The previous dictum was that one’s pleasure at the movies was in relation to how distant that movie was from their own life—escapism.

In the late ’60s and ’70s, audiences wanted movies that reflected their lives and their experiences. They didn’t want glamour or Hollywood fantasy. Once again, the youth steered the culture. But the youth were angry and rebellious.

MM: What was your method of co-directing with Ted Demme? Were you each responsible for specific aspects of the project, or was the entire job a shared one?

RL: Once Ted and I constructed the idea, Teddy took us to Alison Bourke at the Independent Film Channel. He had been working with her on a show called Escape from Hollywood. Alison, Caroline Kaplan and Jonathan Sehring from IFC have been incredibly supportive.

They wanted to make it as a theatrical release and as a re-edited television series. Teddy brought on producers Gini Reticker and Jerry Kupfer to head the production team. I put together the data on movies from the period and the ideas we wanted to cover. We both created our list of interview subjects and possibly interviewers we wanted to share the load with us.

MM: What was your process for recruiting those filmmakers who took over some of the interviewing duties? I imagine that you had a number of volunteers for this; was there anyone you had to turn away? What about in choosing your interview subjects—were there any moviemakers whom you weren't able to speak with but had desperately wanted to include?

RL: People were excited about the idea of interviewing and would come up with their five top preferences. Getting the subjects was about making connections and calling in favors. Everybody was so gracious and helpful. It was incredible. The most difficult thing was scheduling.

There were some people we couldn’t get, like Polanski, who was interested, but was in Paris. Spielberg, Lucas, De Palma and Rafelson were unavailable. And Warren Beatty got very close to doing it, but it just never happened. I’m sorry about that one the most. I think he’s an incredibly important filmmaker and, as far as I know, no one has ever just sat down with the guy and asked him about the work.

With some, we never got past the agents, who told us their clients weren’t interested. Whether or not their clients ever knew about the project, I don’t know.

MM: Can you talk a bit about the production of this movie: how long the entire film took, from conception to completion? How much research went into the project? How did you shoot it? At what point did IFC get involved?

RL: We started the research phase about four months before we began the interviews. Our research team, John Miller-Monzon and Tania McKeown, did extensive research, not only on the filmmakers and films of the ’70s, but also on what was going on in the world at that time. This gave us a sense of the context the filmmakers were working in.

The interviews took exactly one year. There were 29 in all; we use 23 in the film. The first interview was Altman on the first Monday of December, 2001. The last was Scorsese, also on the first Monday of December, in 2002. Editor Meg Reticker started assembling in May and we just locked last week.

We made some changes since Sundance (archival, clips). Locations were decided as we scheduled. It was “fly by the seat of your pants” a lot of the time. We had crews on both coasts—with cinematographer Clyde Smith in LA and Anthony Jannelli in New York. Everyone was fantastic because every one was so into the project.

MM: Who did you envision as the primary audience for this film? Did you see it as a primer for younger movie fans and moviemakers, but also a reminiscence for the New Hollywood moviemakers still working today?

RL: Yeah. For today’s audiences, I conceived of it as a primer to get them interested in discovering some of these films and filmmakers. But either way, it’s certainly not by any means a definitive portrait of ’70s movies.