• INTERVIEW • The 'brutalization' of Your Ticket Is No Longer Valid , - ~> . " ' A • . ~. l:. .~ rla{fiS .. · d RiCnar d \}a1id lea \..onger 1.c.... e \ I s tlo • ,{our \ _ r, an producer Stephen Roth Richard Harris responds to Robert Lantos Cinema Canada: Let's start with the falsifications. I consulted a lawyer to see Richard Harris: I was in Toronto doing by Tom Perlmutter Robert Lantos interview that upset you about the pos$ibility of suing because it a picture called High Point. I got a so much. How did you come across it? ·was exceedingly damaging. A producer phone call from my agent at the time, Richard Harris: It was sent to me by a may have an opinion of an actor and an Marty Baum. Marty Baurn plays a very During a recent Canadian tour of a Canadian producer. actor's performance. He is entitled to leading role in Mr Lantos' manipulation theatrical production of Camelot, that But Robert Lantos went far in ex­ of the whole project. Marty was a very British actor Richard Harris learned of cess of that. He made statements that I successful independent agent. Then he remarks made about his role in the Cinema Canada: Was there a note at­ deliberately destroyed his picture. He was head of ABC films , where he made Canadian film Your Ticket Is No tached to it? made statements to the effect that I some very successful films. He then be­ Longer Valid (1980) that appeared in Richard Harris: Yes. The producer never read the script; that I only read came an independent producer and Cinema Canada's interview with pro­ suggested I read certain sections of it. I the script on transit to location and, hat­ then went back to being an agent He is ducer Robert Lantos in issue no. 123 contacted him and he said he thought it ing the script, set about to destroy the regarded as being one of the most reli­ last October. At Richard Harris' re­ was exceedingly damaging. He believed picture; that I only did the picture for able agents in the business. He is also quest, the fOllowing interview in To­ the article hadn't done me any good money. I found his comments exceed­ one of the most honest and tasteful. ronto with Cinema Canada allowed whatsoever in Canada. ingly offensive and unworthy, even for He's a wonderful reader of scripts. Lan­ Harris to respond to the allegations Robert Lantos. Mr. Lantos was quite tos and Roth had contacted him and he contained in the Lantos interview. aware of the extensive preparations I put them in touch with me. They left Cinema Canada: What was your first had done for the picture in terms of me the script which I immediately read. reaction when you read Lantos' com­ script and character analysis. I asked for a copy of the book on which Formerly Cinema Canada's Toronto re­ ments? the sCript was based. They didn't have a porter, Tom Perlmutter is a freelance Richard Harris: I was horrified, abso­ Cinema Canada: How did you get in­ copy. After a lot of pain and search I journalist and playwright. lutely horrified by the inaccuracy and volved in the project in the first place? found a copy of the book and read it. I February 1986 - Cinema Canada /17 • INTERVIEW • found the script exceedingly interesting lantos'S statement absolutely immoral. der to direct the picture. And I walked Cinema Canada: Did you feel that but in certain aspects it was inexplicit. I And he knew because I produced my to my caravan. with Robert Lantos you were working then had meetings with Lantos, Roth notes. Lantos speedily came down to the set. with someone who was highly crea­ and the director, George Kaczender. I I told him he had lied to me. He sat tive? met George for the first time. They told Cinema Canada: Were y ou meeting there very, very quiet. I said, however, Richard Harris: Not at all. What trans­ me what he had done. I made, for me, with the SCriptwriter at the point where that's a f ait accompli. What you do in· pired during the making of the picture the usual inquiry into his abilities as a your ideas about the man were being your private life is your own business, was very interesting. I had this wonder­ director. I got a copy of a film that he discussed and accepted? but I don't wart it interfering with the ful idea about the end of the picture. At had directed, In Praise of Older Richard Harris: No, we never met. picture. I had very high hopes fot this the end, my character decides to com­ Women. I found it an interesting pic­ This is another strange behaviour on picture. mit suicide. Before he does so he takes ture but very sloppy. It appeared to me their part. They stopped meeting me to­ From then on, they made rewrites. off a hairpiece and he looks like a to have fragments of such cohesion and gether. They came one at a time. I was The director was coming to me with grotesque caricature of a human being­ then of such sloppiness. I had to. put it meeting either with the director or one ideas for rewrites as we went along. I little band-aids that kept the hairpiece down to editing problems. It's impossi­ of the two producers. never forced a rewrite on anybody in in place. At a pre-ordained strike of a ble for a director to have that kind of the picture. Prior to the starting of the clock, as he walks to his death, his left style and for it to go out of style every Cinema Canada: Had you agreed by picture I did. I asked for rewrites but shoe falls off and we discover he's limp­ now an<i then. I questioned him about this time to do the picture? never put pen to paper. But through the ing. He even had high heels to .make that. He said that the picture had been Richard Harris: No, not at all. It was shooting they were ignoring everything himself as big as his father. The director taken out of his hands at a certain stage subject to their accepting what I had to they had guaranteed me before. wondered whether that scene would be of the proceedings by the producers, bring to the part. At this stage we all ag­ advisable given my image. I didn't care Lantos and Roth. I got a little wary. I reed that my analysis was superb. They about that. I asked him what it was like want to go into a picture with a director were going to go in that direction. I Cinema Canada: Were you frustrated for the picture. He said it was stagger­ who is in total control-of what he is finished the film I was doing in Toronto by that? ing. But apparently Lantos had terrible doing and has complete authority over and agreed to do the picture, with the Richard Harris: No. Whoever was objections. what he is doing. usual clauses like cast approval. I asked However, at the meeting we dis­ who was going to play the leading role cussed the script which even Lantos in opposite me, the girl. They suggested the interview admits wasn't complete. I three people. They showed me three endorse that admittance on his part. photographs. I don't remember two of At that time I had done a lot of work their names. I remember the third. She and research on the script. I had sent it was Jennifer Dale. Mr Lantos never dis­ to a psychiatrist in California, a man closed to me at that stage that he was called Eugene Landy who is a very close living with Miss Dale. I would have had friend of mine. I would go to him with an objection to doing the picture. It's a certain scripts and we'd have endless very tricky situation if the producer is sessions on character analysis. We went sleeping with the leading lady. There through the script of this film to such an are all kinds of complications. I wanted extent that, at the end of my discussions to avoid complications. with Landy, I must have had at least 52 By the way, before I accepted the piC­ pages of notes. ture, to show you how serious I was, I I met Lantos, Roth and Kaczender made inquiries about the producers. I again. We all conceded that the script discovered that Jennifer Dale was lan­ was not perfect. I hadn't committed to tos' girlfriend. I asked for a meeting doing the film yet. I knew at this stage, with Lantos. I told him that he had failed through Mr Baum, that other actors had to disclose to me that Jennifer Dale was turned it down. One or two very big ac­ his live-in girlfriend. I said, "You sub­ tors turned it down because of the very mitted three names to me but I have reasons that we are about to embark on, been told that she has already been in investigating the weaknesses of the signed to the picture and yet I have ap­ script, which lay basically in the charac­ proval. Am I to believe that you submit­ ter of the man. ted to me those other names as a kind The story is very simple - and it's a of blind? It appears you haven't been wonderful story - about a man who in very honest with me." Lantos said, "Oh middle-age is impotent.