Dan Auiler on Billy Wilder

Some Like it Hot

by D. K. Holm, www.cinemonkey.com

aschen, the prolific German photography and art book publishing house with a sideline in fetish erotica, has moved into movie book publishing. First there was Dr. Jurgen Muller's Movies of the 90s. Now comes the complete screenplay of Some Like it Hot, and it is as packed as a really good DVD. We talked via e-mail with Dan Auiler about the Wilder book and both past and future projects.

How did Taschen come to contact you in the first place? I assume it was because of Hitchcock's Notebooks.

ctually, Benedikt contacted me after the Vertigo book and we began tossing around film ideas during Hitchcock's Notebooks.

How much time did this book take to put together?

bout a year and a half.

Were you nervous interviewing Wilder?

ery—he was the principle reason for doing the book. Who would turn down a chance to talk with Billy Wilder—and to do so for 8 weeks.

Dare I ask you to describe what Wilder was like personally?

rascible. Charming. Sweet. Sensitive. Just about every contradiction possible.

Does Taschen intend to publish a less expensive, perhaps smaller version?

od, I hope so otherwise I can't afford it!

Why is the screenplay of Some Like it Hot as fun to read as the film is to watch? (I know an answer to the question; just wondering what you think.)

lmost—it's one of the best screenplay's I've ever read.

Production on SLIH began before the screenplay was finished. Yet the movie doesn't show any sign of incompletion or being rushed; the climax is a natural extension of the beginning. How do we account for that?

he extraordinary professionalism of both Wilder and Diamond.

Can you imagine any other film that might merit this form of elaborate presentation? To Catch a Thief? Rules of the Game?

mm. Maybe Vertigo. Citizen Kane. The films of Bunuel and Cocteau lend themselves to this kind of treatment, too.

Given your researches into the production practices of both Hitchcock and Wilder, is there anything you have learned about the way Hollywood films are made or the way that Hollywood works that surprised you?

bsolutely nothing and everything. It impresses me how much magic there is in making a classic film. So much is luck and timing even with the great ones like Wilder and Hitchcock.

General question: Wilder seemed to pace and Diamond may have done the writing. Do you get the impression that the credited famous writer-directors really "write" in the conventional sense at all? Meanwhile Hitchcock had a big but often uncredited hand in most of his movies.

ilder and Hitch "wrote" only in the sense on talking through plot and character—with Wilder providing also more direct dialogue and gag lines. But, no Wilder and Hitch hated to sit behind typewriters. That was left to Diamond in Wilder's case (or Charles Brackett earlier in his career).

You were permitted to investigate Hitchcock's private papers. This is almost unheard of. Do you think that in the future more researchers will be permited to look at the material of directors, the way academics research the work of Faulkner? Or does Hollywood still have that "secretive" stance many of the old guard shared?

ell, any researcher with a project can look at Hitch's papers at the Academy Library. The question is, what can he/she do with that material. The studios and the Academy are very protective of the material and this sometimes gets in the way of scholarship. I'm not sure Hitchcock's Notebooks could be attempted again without endless legal wrangling over what studio owns what part of some note scribbled during a production. My book exists strictly due to the generosity of the Hitchcock Estate. They gave permission for all the materials to be reproduced in the book—with other directors this may be more complicated if they didn't have such clear proprietary control over their projects.

I'm sure the answer is in the book, but while looking at Hitchcock's work notes, did you find that he was as concerned with thematic issues as he was the mechanics of suspense? In other words, did your research confirm or contradict the speculations of critics?

y own theory is that Hitchcock only became conscious of the thematic connections between his films in fifties--and became quite deliberate in shaping material to match these themes in the 60s. His work suffered for this. As far as what's there—we only really have the Truffaut tapes to discuss the themes—in the notes, Hitchcock is mostly concerned with character (in scriptwriting) and structure and effect (in film-making).

What is one thing that the public doesn't really understand about the movie making process?

hat so much of the great films are great not because of any formula but because of the inherent talent in all involved and the inspiration that arrives on the set. This is all chance—and in a career like Hitch's, greatness happened maybe a half dozen times; in Wilder's case, maybe a few times. The other missing piece that "the public" doesn't get is just how important they are in the equation—Wilder and Hitch made great films for an audience that they respected. That's not always clear with some filmmakers.

Besides Hitchcock and Wilder, are there any other directors or film artists from the past with whom you would like to spend so much time in the archives?

ubrick, of course. And one wishes Welles had kept absolutely everything. Maybe even DeMille, who was such a showman. I wish there was more in the John Huston files—these men led interesting lives as well were good directors. If there was one director who I could write the next great biography of it would be John Huston, without a doubt. But no one (publisher that is) is interested.

Having dipped into the papers of Hitchcock, can you make any generalization about the seriousness with which filmmakers of the past approached their material? The public often likes to think that Hollywood is brainless entertainment. How much "brains" does it take to make even the simplest film?

t is never easy to make films, and what made Hitch and Wilder unique was just how involved they were with all the hundreds of jobs in making a film. Most directors are content to just do their job and leave the rest of the process to those in charge. Hitch made sure he had a consistent, trusted team with him whom he granted much freedom but closely supervised. That's really how all really good directors work.

Did your work on Hitchcock have any impact on your opinion, if any, of auteurism (again, I assume the answer is also in your books).

do believe in the overall influence a director can have over a film, but no great director would ever want to diminish the contribution that everyone has to the final film. Most films are not products of single visions--but with Hitchcock and Wilder, I think you can safely say that these men shaped films that were distinctly theirs.

How have DVDs changed the way we watch movies: all that stopping and starting, the supplemental material?

think the fact that we all can own copies of our favorite films and watch them over and over has completely transformed the art. Most filmmakers today assume that their film will be seen multiple times. Hitchcock and the other greats thought most people would see their films just once and only in a theater. In the early '80s with the advent of Beta and VHS, this all changed. DVDs have just made the experience better for those of us who like to own films and watch them more than once. I'm not sure how much people really get into the supplemental material. I still think mostly film junkies watch most of it—with the rest of the public sticking to outtakes and music videos.

What is your next project?

'm trying to finish a book on the making of Taxi Driver, but Scorsese has been difficult to pin down for his interviews because of the problems with Gangs of New York. And, if all goes well, I should be on board to write a book on the making of Anthony Minghella's Cold Mountain.

2/02

Return to Archive Index

Return to Top