THENEWCINEMA

Producer Jan Harlan talks about his work with Stanley Kubrick.

London, 2010

TheNewCinema: What does “Executive Producer” on a Stanley Kubrick film mean?

Jan Harlan: Very little. In the case of ‘‘A Clockwork Orange’’ for example, the title was given to people who we never even met. But they owned the rights to the book and the credit was part of the sales agreement. In my case it meant to serve Kubrick and to identify with his wishes and be part of what was a multi-tasking team. My role was to negotiate with people for their services or for rights or properties they owned. I researched or proposed music and was part of a remarkably small but efficient multi-tasking team. For example I bought in Venice the masks, needed for ‘‘Eyes Wide Shut’’… not exactly the usual role of an Executive Producer. But working for Kubrick, it was.

TNC: Kubrick worked like an independent filmmaker, but within a commercial framework. How did he manage to practically make these films on his own terms?

JH: Warner Bros. trusted him, and for good reason, he was a good trustee and money manager. There was also no point interfering with him, he was not that type of artist. The executives at Warner Bros. were clever people and knew that they either go with Kubrick, or not. Of course he had a contract, and a budget and was expected to deliver a film based on these contracts. But he enjoyed freedom and had ‘‘final cut’’. But he was a reasonable risk to take.

TNC: Do you think this would still be possible today?

JH: I think so… it depends on the filmmaker. A newcomer would not be given that freedom, but Kubrick also had to earn it.

TNC: Was he a filmmaker that came in on budget?

JH: Generally yes, but if unforeseen changes were necessary, he would arrange this with Warner Bros. But newer anything drastic, he was a responsible person.

TNC: What were the challenges for you when working with such an uncompromising filmmaker?

JH: To come up with what was requested at an acceptable price and in time. Kubrick was not unreasonable and certainly willing to compromise if need be. For example, when we could not find seven good actors looking approximately the right age to play marine recruits, we moved up a few years. The quality of the actors was more important than their age, but Kubrick needed to be satisfied with his own work, that’s true. We did Vietnam in East London with three tanks, one working helicopter and 25 palm-trees. That’s great filmmaking at a very reasonable price. An accumulation of compromises in the hands of a creative artist.

TNC: What kind of guy was he when it came to the way he wanted things done or his contractual terms?

JH: He was pushing all the time… if he didn’t like something he tried to change it. But he had good reasons he could explained to Warner Bros. He negotiated and in the end he always had a good relationship with the executives. They would not have continued with him film after film otherwise. They knew what they were doing and could evaluate the risk.

TNC: Did Kubrick often change things once filming?

JH: Yes, he did… reluctantly, because he knew it might cost time and money. But when he had an idea how to improve a scene, he would go for it.

TNC: What is a good producer?

JH: In our case Stanley Kubrick was the producer. He alone caused a project to be financed and approved. The film were his films and he alone assumed responsibility. But you might just as well ask ‘‘What is a good filmmaker?’’

TNC: For anyone trying to emulate this way of working today, what can be learned from how you and he worked?

JH: Don’t emulate anything. It is very easy to make a film and quite difficult to make a good one. A great film is a miracle like any great work of art, but you need an artist to make one, not a business man. Kubrick’s films remain relevant, none of them is like yesterday’s newspaper. Even films, which were not a great commercial success like, ‘‘Eyes Wide Shut’’, gain respect as time passes and find more and more acceptance and recognition. This happens sometimes with complex works of art… just think of Vincent van Gogh. The poor man never sold a single painting other than to his brother.

TNC: A young producer… one piece of practical advise?

JH: Only do what you love. To make a good film, begins with a love-affair and with all the anguish and worries that go with it. Having a great crush on the story is the only thing, that will see you through the troubles and sustain the energy needed. No love, no quality.

TNC: Problems. You seem like an incredibly friendly man. Did you often have to show your teeth working as a producer?

JH: Two things I learned. One: A good contract needs to be good for both parties. If not, it might bite you back. Two: Once you need to pull rank, you are on the losing side. You need to persuade.

TNC: What should a producer always avoid when dealing with other entities. Agents, co producers, distributors…?

JH: Avoid making adversaries, but rather try to make friends.

TNC: Contracts, how important are they?

JH: You can’t function without it, there would be no security for anyone. But if both parties function properly the contract goes into the file and will never be referred to. If there is conflict, then it is important that a clear contract governs.

TNC: How do you deal with it when a company throws the ‘‘standard terms’’ at you in negotiations?

JH: It depends on your strength. If you are a beginner and are desperate to get your first film made, you may not be in a position to change the standard terms, which usually favor the financier. Once you are Kubrick or Spielberg you are in a better position, you will also reduce the risk of the financier. But it is important to see the other side. Always try to wear the hat of the other party and think about, that the majority of all feature films made, do not recoup the investment.

TNC: What would be one particular character trait that accounts for Kubrick’s success as a filmmaker?

JH: He truly loved his chosen subjects. He was slow to decide, but he loved the work, the script and he was wrestling every day with getting it right. Nothing fell into his lap.

TNC: When shooting for several years on one film, were the budgets significantly higher than they would be for similar films or did you simply manage to squeeze more out of the money?

JH: First of all he didn’t shoot for several years on ‘one’ film.  ‘‘Eyes Wide Shut’’ was a particularly long shoot, but with breaks. Furthermore we had a very small multi-tasking team, so we would spend in a week what a comparable film might have spent in a day. Our two top stars were on a flat deal and never ever uttered one world of complaint. They loved working with Kubrick.

TNC: What fundamentally made it possible for you to be so much cheaper than other productions?

JJH: A very frugal approach, few people, no luxuries. He worked at his house for as long as possible and then had a minimum of offices at the studio, one copier, a secretary/production co-coordinator in one person. Terry Semel, former CEO of Warner Bros. and John Calley have a lot to say about this in my documentary ‘‘Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures’’.

TNC: What is a common misconception you see from young filmmakers or producers?

JH: Too much emphasis on HOW instead of WHAT.

TNC: What is the best way to save money when making a film?

JH: There is no adequate answer without looking at the script and I suspect you know this. But a great way to save money is inserting second unit shots, which can be done cheaply. But not having much money can sometimes be a blessing.

TNC: What does the future hold for Jan Harlan?

JH: Enjoying the company of my wife, playing more with my grandchildren, teaching at film schools and making yet another documentary.