Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
June 19, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     nsa     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Reporter Who Brought Down the 'Runaway General' Dead at 33

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's Supreme Court Warning

Warren Opposes Obama Nominee, Lawmaker Urges Gender-Role Class for Kids, and More

The Terror Con

Rachel Maddow Gives Emotional Tribute to Michael Hastings

Most Comments
Most Emailed




The Unwinding


Truthdig Bazaar
Citizen Stan

Citizen Stan

By Patty Sharaf with Robert Scheer
$15.00

more items

 
Arts and Culture

Eric Lax on Elia Kazan

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 28, 2009
book cover

By Eric Lax

Original intent is a murky sea indeed if one wants to consider the U.S. Constitution, but for the work of Elia Kazan it now is an azure pool of clarity. In “Kazan on Directing,” Robert Cornfield has edited the notebooks and other writings of the man who was at the center of American theater and film in the mid-20th century to give us a portrait of the artist in his own words as he planned (and plotted, too, in what we see was his conspiratorial style) how best to bring a play or film to life.

It is impossible to overstate Kazan’s contribution to the world of American drama. He was a principal of the Group Theater and then the Actors Studio, which adapted Konstantin Stanislavsky’s “Method” notion that an actor will most naturally portray a character if he first has a psychological identification with the role. The list of actors trained in this discipline would fill a block of marquees. Among them: Marlon Brando, James Dean, Lee J. Cobb, Robert De Niro, Jo Van Fleet, Julie Harris, Karl Malden, Paul Newman, Geraldine Page and Eva Marie Saint. (“You have to start from the actor, and you have to find out where the part is alive for him. Somewhere within them the part must exist,” Kazan wrote.)

 

book cover

 

Kazan on Directing

 

By Elia Kazan

 

Knopf, 368 pages

 

Buy the book


Kazan directed, among other Broadway debuts, Arthur Miller’s “All My Sons” (1947), “Death of a Salesman” (1949) and “After the Fall” (1964); Tennessee Williams’ “A Streetcar Named Desire” (1947), “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” (1955) and “Sweet Bird of Youth” (1955), along with major plays by William Inge, S.N. Behrman, Thornton Wilder and Archibald MacLeish. He received seven Tony nominations for his direction and won three times.

The films he directed include “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” (1945), “Gentleman’s Agreement” (1947), “A Streetcar Named Desire” (1951), “On the Waterfront” (1954), “East of Eden” (1955), “Baby Doll” (1956), “A Face in the Crowd” (1957), “Wild River” (1960), “Splendor in the Grass” (1961) and the autobiographical “America America” (1963). He received five Oscar nominations for his directing, won twice (“On the Waterfront” and “Gentleman’s Agreement”) and received an honorary award in 1999 for his “long, distinguished and unparalleled career during which he has influenced the very nature of filmmaking through his creation of cinematic masterpieces.” (There was considerable protest from a segment of Academy members because Kazan had testified as a friendly witness before the House Committee on Un-American Activities 47 years earlier.)

To see long excerpts from “Kazan on Directing,” click here.

Kazan was fearless, fearsome, ferocious, pugnacious, instinctive, ambitious, compulsive, defiant, brutally honest, totally charming and, above all, insightful. He was a chronic and unrepentant womanizer. And he was a genius at, as he put it, turning “the inner events of the psyche into a choreography of external life.” (“A thought—directing … consists of turning Psychology into Behavior,” he wrote in 1947.) He looked ruthlessly into his own character and experience to find the heart and soul of a production.

Born in 1909 in Constantinople, he emigrated from Turkey to New York at age 4 with his Anatolian Greek parents, George and Athena Kazanjioglou. His mother doted on him and made him her confidant. His carpet salesman father responded with vengeance. “Don’t you look in the mirror?” George demanded when Elia declared his desire to be an actor. In truth, with what Cornfield describes as his “gnarly mug, with its large, jagged nose,” Kazan was not handsome, but that became the source of his strength. He parlayed his humiliation from his sense, even as a student at Williams College, that he was “an outsider. An Anatolian, not an American,” into an outcast’s desire for control and revenge. It worked. If he could not make himself into a successful actor, he would make successful actors, and productions that everyone talked about. Their triumphs put him “where I wanted to be, the source of everything.”

Including the transcription of his thoughts. It is instructive and pleasurable to read what Kazan had to say without benefit of a filter, and there is the bonus of seeing how his ideas change over time, and how he argues with the playwrights whose work he’s directing. With Tennessee Williams, for instance, there is a fascinating back-and-forth about the character of Brick in “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.”

“Here’s the conclusion I’ve come to,” Williams wrote to Kazan. “Brick did love Skipper. … He identified Skipper with sports, the romantic world of adolescence which he couldn’t go past. Further: To reverse my original (and somewhat tentative) premise, I now believe that, in the deeper sense, not the literal sense, Brick is a homosexual with a heterosexual adjustment: a thing I’ve suspected of many others, such as Brando, for instance. (He hasn’t cracked up but I think he bears watching, he strikes me as being a compulsive eccentric.)”

Kazan had his own thoughts on Williams. Regarding “Sweet Bird of Youth,” “I think this is the most truly autobiographic play Williams ever wrote,” Kazan wrote to a friend. “Not in the way “[The Glass] Menagerie” was autobiographical—not a memory, softened and romanticized by time, of his youth, but Tennessee trying to describe his state of soul and state of being today and now. It is the frankest play he has written, dealing as it does with his own corruption and his wish to return to the purity he once had. … I don’t think Tennessee could live if he were unable to function as a writer. His art is necessary for him.”

1   2   NEXT PAGE >>>

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Nollywood Rising

Next item: Klein Disowns ‘Shock’ Film



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Richard Schickel, August 31, 2009 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The responses to Erik Lax’s excellent review of Kazan on Directing are dismaying
on many counts, But to name just two: The book is not about politics, it is about
the art of directing and it is, as LAx suggests quite profound meditation on that
topic. But even if there were an excuse for bringing politics into the discussion.
the vulgarity of discourse and lack of a nuanced understanding of the politics
Kazan was involved in over a half century ago is appalling. These comments lend
credence to the widely held view that the Internet is an instrument of use only to
the illiterate and the uninformed. Or to put the point simply, your correspondents
don’t know what they’re talking about and they do not know how to speak above
the moron level.

Report this

By prgill, August 30, 2009 at 11:02 pm Link to this comment

A good review and important reminder that you cannot always tell a wolf by his clothing.

Not that Kazan was a wolf. Kazan was an artist and director with a vision of human nature and hunger for success. Many of us share his view and drive.

There can be no question however, that he was manipulated, threatened with ruin and instrumentalized by the commercial interests that drive American public life, especially the entertainment industry.

As a first generation American he understood all too clearly the precarity and fickleness of success.

Report this

By Mike Havenar, August 29, 2009 at 11:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Aw, give me a break. You all sound like a bunch of incorruptibles. But Sartre had your number: “cowards and traitors…” You would sell out yourselves if the price were right. You’re Americans, aren’t you? But you get off as presenting yourselves as the pure the noble and the proud. Ring Lardner, Zero Mostel, and others of the Hollywood 10 were the brave ones. I bet there aren’t two of you who would go to prison today. I don’t believe your self-righteous “outrage.”

Report this

By dr wu, August 29, 2009 at 10:49 am Link to this comment

Great director, OK; but to tell on your friends to keep the scoundrel “red-Hunters” happy is the stuff of bad Hollywood movies.

Report this

By dennis hayes, August 29, 2009 at 10:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The fact of a man being a poisoner is nothing against his prose.”  Oscar Wilde

Report this

By Mitchell Freedman, August 29, 2009 at 7:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is sad how Kazan continues to be attacked here.  He named named of people
who were already named by others.  He named names later in the game, after
holding out to the point where he had already risked his career.  There were far
less courageous people who named names who did not get the vitriol that was
leveled at Kazan.

For a group of liberal lefties who often ask that we forgive far worse offenses, and
rightly so (pun intended), we ought to be more charitable about Kazan.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, August 29, 2009 at 12:45 am Link to this comment

Folktruther and Mitchum have it right. All the Robert Osbornes in the world can not convince me that Streetcar or Waterfront are more than the turgid corny melodramas that they really are. Inarguably my foot…

Report this

By ron hansing, August 28, 2009 at 9:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

On elia kazan…

A snitch is a snitch…. But hell, I love the guy too. sorta a love-hate thing.

East of Eden and streetcar, and splendor, my favorites.

The eternal question, I always ask: is it the director, the actors or the writers, the editors, alone that make the movies… or it the miracle of collaboration that either works or doesn’t work.

There is this story of a writer who demanded that they take his credits off the movie… and then he had to walk up to receive the academy award.

Ron Hansing 8.28.9

Report this

By Folktruther, August 28, 2009 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

Kazan was the darling of the American power structure for selling out his socialist comrades, and supported in a career that sold out everyone else.  He is featured on Truthdig as another example of the function of the Progressive media to pull the progressive rank and file to the right.  Sanatizing scum like Kazan is what they do for a living.

Report this
mitchum22's avatar

By mitchum22, August 28, 2009 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

INARGUABLY one of the greatest directors of the 20th Century? Maybe for someone brain-dead who knows nothing about the history of 20th Century film.

Leaving aside the fact that Kazan was a slimy, backstabbing asshole. (We all know that.) And perhaps he was a genius theater director. But how would Eric Lax or anyone know this, considering that the saddest thing about theater is that once it’s gone, it’s gone?

But as a movie director?? What in the world is the evidence of Kazan’s “greatness”? That piece of anti-union bilge “On the Waterfront”? Or maybe every cross-dresser’s favorite flick “Streetcar Named Desire”? Even his genre works are middle-brow ripoffs of the work of great directors such as Robert Siodmak and Anthony Mann: “Boomerang,” “Gentleman’s Agreement”(compare this damp squib with something like “Crossfire”), “Panic in the Streets,” “Man on a Tightrope.” And the rest of the list are social psychology exercises for self-enchanted mind-travelers who watch/read/listen to feel even more self-enchanted. Kazan—like all hucksters—rode the trend-wave of his time, in his case theories from Strasberg, the Actor’s Studio, the Method and similar junk.

Hawks, Ford, Welles, Cukor, Minnelli, Tourneur, Sirk, Aldrich, Preminger, Nick Ray, Anthony Mann, Walsh etc: Hollywood contemporaries. Beyond Hollywood: Dreyer, Bresson, Ozu, Mizoguchi, Naruse, Renoir, Antonioni, Bunuel, Rossellini.

Anyone who thinks a hustler such as Kazan belongs in either group should be forced to watch “America, America” 100 times.

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, August 28, 2009 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

But he named names!

Report this

By Bob Mitchum, August 28, 2009 at 6:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

INARGUABLY one of the great directors of the 20th Century??? Perhaps to one who is brain dead and knows nothing about the history of 20th Century film.

Leave aside for the moment what kind of slimy, back-stabbing asshole Kazan was. (We all know about that.) And maybe he was a genius stage director. (But how would Eric Lax know that? One of the sad things about theater is that once it’s gone, it’s gone.)

As a movie director, what in the world could one provide as evidence of his “greatness”? That anti-union bilge known as “On the Waterfront”? Or perhaps every cross-dresser’s favorite flick “Streetcar Named Desire”? His genre work was always middle-brow and plagiarized from much better directors such as Robert Siodmak or Anthony Mann: “Boomerang,” “Gentlemen’s Agreement”(just compare that damp squib to the filmic power of “Crossfire”), “Panic in the Streets”, “Man on a Tightrope”. And the rest of the list is meaningless junk made for pretentious mind-travelers who view movies(or any popular art) as some sort of social psychology exam. Kazan—like all hucksters—rode the trend-wave, in his case the theories of Strasberg, the Method and similar junk.

Hawks, Ford, Welles, Cukor, Mann, Hitchcock, Minnelli, Nick Ray, Sirk, Tourneur, Walsh, Aldrich, Preminger etc: Hollywood contemporaries of Kazan. Looking outside: Dreyer, Bresson, Mizoguchi, Ozu, Naruse, Rossellini, Renoir, Antonioni, Kinoshita, etc.

Anyone who believes a hustler such as Kazan belongs in either of those groups should be forced to watch “America, America” 100 times in a row.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.