The only downside I could put to William Friedkin when it comes to this documentary/interview he conducted in 1974 with Fritz Lang - director of such films as M, Metropolis and The Big Heat - is that he starts off his film with asking a question that would bring the best/most dramatic story. This, of course, was Lang's encounter with Joseph Goebbles in 1933, right at the dawn of the Third Reich, and how he was approached and offered a post as the head of propaganda filmmaking (the Nazis were impressed by M and to an extent The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, despite, as Lang points out, a direct criticism of Nazi ideology in the film - later the film was suppressed). Lang, not wanting to hide anything at this point, mentioned there was some Jewish blood in his background, though he was not full-on Jewish. As Goebbles said to him, "We decide who is and who isn't Aryan." And at that, he decided to flee the country, which was not too easy to accomplish.
This is the first tale that Lang tells, and it's a riveting one, even with some of his pauses and deliberate way of taking his time speaking (he's not a Scorsese, to be sure). From here Friedkin goes into more of the standard-type of questions, like 'how did you decide to become a filmmaker?' 'What were the 1920's like and did they influence your work?' Things like that which takes Lang into telling more about how he came about to film - we learn, for example, he didn't see his first motion picture until 1917, not too soon before he began making films, almost by luck - and how he approached doing films in his way, in a 'sleepwalking state' of confidence.
There's so much good stuff here to discover and Friedkin is a decent interviewer. I hesitate to say great - he sometimes asks the kind of questions that reminded me of Bogdanovich in 'Directed by John Ford', sometimes questions that should be a little obvious, though Lang is a better/easier sit than Ford was to be sure. But he keeps it moving along and we discover about process and history, and even if Lang doesn't always acknowledge it that there was a link in those early, tremendous silent epics he made. One other downside - though it can't be helped due when it was filmed - is that because of just the nature of filming at the time (this was on *film* mind you, not video- tape), the reels have to change every ten minutes. We see just a little of the friction in-between shots as the director tries to calm down the set and keep things going along. Thankfully, that's not really the focus here.
For fans of Lang it's really worth something; you don't really get anything out of Friedkin, though that's not the idea (it's not a Hitchcock/Truffaut situation either). It's long, in-depth, and worth the while for any hardcore cineaste.
This is the first tale that Lang tells, and it's a riveting one, even with some of his pauses and deliberate way of taking his time speaking (he's not a Scorsese, to be sure). From here Friedkin goes into more of the standard-type of questions, like 'how did you decide to become a filmmaker?' 'What were the 1920's like and did they influence your work?' Things like that which takes Lang into telling more about how he came about to film - we learn, for example, he didn't see his first motion picture until 1917, not too soon before he began making films, almost by luck - and how he approached doing films in his way, in a 'sleepwalking state' of confidence.
There's so much good stuff here to discover and Friedkin is a decent interviewer. I hesitate to say great - he sometimes asks the kind of questions that reminded me of Bogdanovich in 'Directed by John Ford', sometimes questions that should be a little obvious, though Lang is a better/easier sit than Ford was to be sure. But he keeps it moving along and we discover about process and history, and even if Lang doesn't always acknowledge it that there was a link in those early, tremendous silent epics he made. One other downside - though it can't be helped due when it was filmed - is that because of just the nature of filming at the time (this was on *film* mind you, not video- tape), the reels have to change every ten minutes. We see just a little of the friction in-between shots as the director tries to calm down the set and keep things going along. Thankfully, that's not really the focus here.
For fans of Lang it's really worth something; you don't really get anything out of Friedkin, though that's not the idea (it's not a Hitchcock/Truffaut situation either). It's long, in-depth, and worth the while for any hardcore cineaste.