5 Questions for a Hollywood Director:

David Tausik has worked in Hollywood for over 20 years as a director, producer and writer. He started his career working under Roger Corman. He is now preparing a feature he wrote and will be directing, to be set in Cuba.

1. You started quite young, and I am guessing that your first crews were quite young, and now some have gone on to win Oscars. How did you go about chosing the DPs you worked with?

I chose my DPs in what I imagine are the usual ways, first looking at the work of people who were available to me at my low budgets and singling out those whose look I liked for the project, then asking people who had worked with those DPs if they were fast (since our shooting schedules were very short) and worked well with others, and finally interviewing my top candidate to make sure our ideas and personalities meshed.

Because each film I directed was shot in a different part of the world and we didn’t have the money to fly in and house a DP from L.A., I had to find someone new each time. That was a drag, but the upside was that I learned something from each of the DPs I worked with.

One of the first films I worked on as a writer and 2nd unit director, back in 1990, which was directed by someone else, was an $800,000 comedy that was shot by Phedon Papamichael, Wally Pfister, and Janusz Kaminski. I think Mauro Fiore gaffed a few scenes since he was working with Janusz at the time. It’s not the fault of those incredibly talented shooters that the film doesn’t look particularly good — talent is important but you also need resources.

Janusz Kaminski shot the first film I directed, a very low-budget erotic thriller for Roger Corman. During filming he was hired to shoot Schindler’s List and so, for very good reasons, he took his name off the credits. He did a beautiful job, though, and also worked very fast which enabled us complete on our brutally short 16-day schedule. On the day Janusz had his big interview with Spielberg, Mauro Fiore, who was the gaffer, stepped in as D.P.

Talented people like that were looking for work and were available to anyone who had the ability to see how good they were. And that’s still the case.

2. What was it like working under Roger Corman, and do you see any similarities to what is happening with the DSLR revolution in Hollywood?

It was both wonderful and frustrating to work under Roger’s system in the ’90s. Wonderful because things came together fast, and there weren’t a lot of committees to meddle in your creative decisions. The place was a factory to churn out product for the video market, and if you could figure out how to keep your project contained enough to fit through their chute, you could get it done. Certainly, though, no one would lift a finger to help you make your film better — that was entirely up to you and whoever on your crew you could marshall to your cause.

Typically, people would bust their butts on their first few Corman films and then realize that their efforts were kind of wasted. People who stayed there longer than that were generally making garbage just to pick up a few bucks or because they didn’t know what else to do.

I think the DSLR revolution is an entirely different beast. Roger had a market for his films. The digital revolution means we no longer need Roger’s lumber yard full of old cameras, lights, C-stands, Moviolas, and Nagras, but we’re still desperately in need of an audience.

DSLRs are like the portable equipment that appeared in the early 60s allowing the Nouvelle Vague and the Cinema Verite movements to happen. I believe some great things will come, due to the accessibility and portability of these new instruments. They’ll come from independent, self-starting artists, and not from a factory like Corman’s.

3. When you are writing, are you also thinking about who the actors will be, and how you will direct them, or is that a separate process?

When I’m writing, I’m imagining the entire movie in my head, but I know if the film is made it won’t exactly match what I had in mind, because every collaborator will bring something different. Actors, especially, put their own stamp on scenes. I always have an idea of how I’d like a scene done, but once the actors start working that idea might fly out the window because the characters have to belong to the actors. So, in that way, yes, it’s a separate process. Of course, there’s always the opportunity to re-write scenes to fit the actors — that’s one of the advantages of writing and directing.

4. What is your method of working with editors? Are you in there every day, or do you let them do their thing for a while, and then you look at it?

I always want to hang around and edit the film with the editor. But after a while I get the hint that I’m not really needed, and I’ll usually take a break — perhaps my first break away from the film in a year’s time. It’s valuable because I can come back with slightly fresh eyes and it gives the editor a chance to find his/her own voice in the project. So, yes, I like to let the editor surprise me and I try not to micro-manage.

5. I know that sound and music are very important to you. At what point in the process do you start to bring them in? Do you have a thought on that before you start shooting?

I bring them in as early as possible, especially if they are a part of the fictional world you’re creating. Although sounds can always be substituted later, you can take something away from the authenticity of an actor’s performance that way. It’s better to do your work early, so that the cast and crew can benefit from your choices, rather than trying to slide it all it in during post.