Robert Redford's Heroes
New documentary features social entrepreneurs around the globe
'Scarborough Country' MSNBC
June 28, 2005
Actor Robert Redford's new documentary tracks people around the globe who try to change the world in their own small way. The film, “The New Heroes,” premieres Tuesday night on PBS. In the current project, Redford teamed up with Jeff Skoll, co-founder of eBay and head of the Skoll Foundation.
They sat down with Joe Scarborough for Monday's program to talk about the film along with some other hot issues.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: What does it take to become a "new hero?"
JEFF SKOLL, FOUNDER, SKOLL FOUNDATION: Well, I think there's really been a movement in the last 20 years where people are seeing that there are problems in the world, environmental degradation, and people that can't afford health care, crimes, drugs, terrorism, and so on.
They're saying the traditional institutions can't solve all of these problems, so we're going to take matters into our own hands. And so these people who today we call social entrepreneurs are finding these problems around the world or in their communities and they're taking action themselves. And the amazing thing is, an ordinary person can really make a great deal of difference in these problems.
SCARBOROUGH: Robert Redford, obviously, you can pick and choose your projects. Why did you decide to get involved in “The New Heroes”?
ROBERT REDFORD: It tied nicely to issues I'm concerned with and things I feel passionate about. I mean, obviously human rights and the condition of human rights is one.
What we do at Sundance, at the nonprofit suit at Sundance focusing on independent film, is to raise the voices of independent people around the world, to increase diversity, as some areas might be shrinking. For me, the idea of using film — I mean Jeffrey is a social entrepreneur. And he's bringing the idea forward of social economics and social responsibility and putting it in a form.
The role that I would play would be to do what I do. I'm more on the art end or the content end. That is to use film in a way other than just something as restrictive as just straight-out entertainment. Saying, is there a way that we can take these people, who need to be celebrated, their voices need to be heard, and who can be so inspiring to other people when they see the courage and the commitment that they exhibit around—from an impoverished position, sometimes against incredible odds of corporate greed and corruption?
But that's the reason that I'm involved, because it ties to a lot of things I've tried to do over 30 years in my work and particularly in the environment to raise awareness about what's at stake. That's my role in this.
SCARBOROUGH: And why do you think the Bush administration has such a blind spot on the environment?
REDFORD: Look, this is a personal opinion, so it will have to sit that way. I'm not a politician. I think you have a leader that, in my opinion, comes from a privileged place, is somewhat spoiled, narrow, limited, and arrogant.
And that's my personal view. And the policies that come from that, the people he puts around him, attitudes about the environment display a kind of ignorance, more than anything else. They seem to be enjoying shredding the environment to create support for something that might be yesterday's news, rather than tomorrow's future.
That's hard for me to witness. I don't think you're going to change it because of the arrogance. They seem to enjoy it. I don't know beyond that why this is. I think that the thinking in Washington right now is old. It seems like they're operating in the ‘50s rather than the year 2000. It's a new world we‘re living in and a new future. And a lot of our resources have already disappeared. And communities are now living closer together. Cultures are living closer together. Somebody better start paying attention to foreign culture and history and what the environment really means, rather than something treated like an enemy.
It just is mystifying.
SCARBOROUGH: You talk about Sundance. This past weekend, I was up at the Nantucket Film Festival. A young filmmaker came up to me and talked about a film that she was making, a documentary about the electoral process in South America and in Central America. It's a remarkable film.
And it really drove home to me that what you started at Sundance — obviously, it began before that — but what you specifically started in 1991 really unleashed a cultural revolution. Could you have ever imagined, 14 years later, what you started in 1991 would lead to?
REDFORD: Well, no, Joe, I couldn't. First of all, it actually started before that in reality. I don't think it came to the awareness factor until around 1990, ‘91. But it started in 1980.
And it was a rough start to begin with, because it was not easy to get support. People did not think there was much future in independent film and why would I waste time with something like that.
But, in time, as it grew and increased in value and awareness, I was encouraged. But I didn't think I could anticipate the broad reach that it would have and that we would move into the international marketplace with this idea. No. No, I didn't. I'm glad to hear that story, because that's why we're there.
_________________________________________________________________
Redford: Business Warming Up To Environment
June 15, 2007
DAVID BRANCACCIO: This week, we're talking to Oscar winner Robert Redford, who's a long-time environmentalist and an executive producer of a new documentary called "The Unforeseen." The film is a poetic, heartbreaking, and eye-opening examination of the struggle between real estate developers, citizens, and environmentalists in the pursuit of the American dream. Well, Robert Redford, thanks for joining us.
ROBERT REDFORD: My pleasure.
BRANCACCIO: How did you become interested in telling this story about a—a springs near Austin, Texas?
REDFORD: As a child, my mother's family was all from Austin, going back several generations. And I would spend many of my summers with my grandfather in Austin. The first place I ever learned to swim, when I was about six years old, was Barton Springs. And it had a tremendous impact on me.
BRANCACCIO: And had you followed the controversy that would eventually swirl around this place?
REDFORD: Oh, yeah. I mean, I—I've been involved with this issue of Barton Springs for about, oh, I'd say 15 to 20 years—starting from the very beginnings when the grassroots was just starting to raise their voices to help preserve Barton Springs.
BRANCACCIO: In the film, we see you sitting in front of the Barton Springs pool. And you talk a lot—I mean, you come back to it a bunch of times, this idea of short-term gain versus long-term costs. What do you mean by that?
REDFORD: The fundamental issue that I've seen, going all the way back 35 or more years of being involved in the environment, is what are we going to develop for our survival and what are we going to preserve for our survival? When you—when you hear these sloganeering statements by politicians saying, "America, the beautiful. America, the great." And they always show the shots of the beautiful landscape, whether it's the Southwest or the Rockies or the oceans or—or the midlands—
BRANCACCIO: They don't show tracked houses in a (LAUGHTER) real estate development.
REDFORD: No. No. And—and yet, we sloganeer about how important—preservation is, but it's not shown up in our policies. And so I think that—obviously, we are development-oriented society. We have—we've been kind of led by businessmen, who are out to make money. And then you have—the overriding issue to that is population growth.
BRANCACCIO: You worry about the numbers not being on your side. I was looking at census bureau numbers. By mid-century, there could be 420 million people that live in this country. And you gotta worry that it's—the developers are gonna win, and the land is gonna lose.
REDFORD: Well, I think up to a few years ago, that was certainly the way everything was heading. I think there's ch—a change in the air. There's—there's no question about it. We can see now that business is readjusting itself—more towards the value of the environment. I think the tipping point that's been reached in the last year is pretty much led by big business deciding there was money to be made by doing good, rather than just making money to make money to make money. And then led to a whole new grouping of social entrepreneurs.
And—and I think that was a very, very major step. People are becoming more and more aware of how—the dominance of development and business is altering their lives, and particularly, their own heritage.
And that's why the Barton Springs issue—it's—it's become a—a model for how we're going to go forward and—and the power of the grassroots. 'Cause the grassroots is really the voice of the people. And we've had—particularly with this current administration, we have a—a government and the policies that come out of this government ignoring the American people.
The irony of constantly seeing this slogan statement of "Protect the American people. Protect the American people. We're doing this to protect the American people." When, in fact, the policies are endangering the American people. And I think the people are beginning to see it, because they can feel it. They can feel the effect of negative development on their health, their well-being, their children's future, and so forth.
So the Barton Springs issue is really, I think, a microcosm of issues all over the country, and probably the world as well. And these people that are rising up are saying, "Hey, you come and wipe this out to put the development in and take all the water, you're gonna wipe out something that's part of our personal heritage. And we don't want that. Go somewhere else."
BRANCACCIO: Yeah. I wanna ask you about the change in the air, as you've put it. You were recently featured in an advertisement urging the presidential candidates to make solving global warming a top priority. It takes political guts to go against the status quo, I mean, for these politicians to push for revolutionary changes that would be necessary for addressing something like global warming. But, you know, politician aren't really known for (LAUGHTER) their ability to embrace revolutionary change. But you think now's the time?
REDFORD: I do. I think those days are coming to an end. I think that we can see it in—in the shift, the—be—because of the government bias towards the power of money and—and also, always offering the promise of jobs, the way they help deflect the negative costs of this with the—they will always promise jobs. And that's age-old. But when I would start speaking out about environmental preservation being important, I would get just hammered and knocked down, like, "What does he [Redford] know? He's an actor... I had to live with that one until Reagan got elected, and that took care of that argument."
So, yes. I think that we—we can see this administration, despite their posturing, it's pretty lame duck because their policies were voted out in the last election. And so, therefore, I think that there's a shift occurring. And I think the next election—I mean—forget this administration. They're—they're hopeless.
And they—they're—they're gonna continue behaving the way they have right to the end. But I think this next election, global warming, it's on its way to becoming a huge issue. And I think that it's going to be an election issue. And I think the politicians, most of who—whom are just—have one interest and that's to stay in—in their (LAUGHTER) jobs, are gonna be listening to the voters, because it will mean them being voted in or out of office. I think the issue—you wanna call it green, you wanna call it the importance of the environment—is now finally reaching the place I think it should have reached for many, many years in many, many of the debates, which is a much higher priority than it's ever been given. It's always been pushed to the bottom of the ladders on issue. And I believe the American people care a lot about the environment.
BRANCACCIO: This film works at many levels. One of them is a fight by citizens to preserve their beloved springs. And the—the folks, initially, seem to pull it off. Development is stopped.
But then, George W. Bush is elected governor of Texas. One of the first things he does is sign a pro-developer law, and the construction begins. You don't want people to walk away from that part of the story feeling that, you know, big money always wins in the end, and resistance is somehow futile.
REDFORD: Well, it didn't win. What the documentary shows—and I—I thought it was particularly poignant to be able to show the cost to that—that person's life, that developer's life. I mean, you—you can't fault him from coming where he came from, from a hardscrabble life, to build towards the American dream and—and have an authorship role in it. But the people spoke against it. And he was—stopped, and at great cost to himself.
BRANCACCIO: By the way, you mentioned about Barton Springs, when you swam in it as a kid. It's cold, isn't it?
REDFORD: Boy, is it cold. And it's not any warmer. Even despite of global warming, it's still cold. (LAUGHTER)
BRANCACCIO: I know. My brother lives in Austin. He took me there about a year ago.
REDFORD: Oh, yeah?
BRANCACCIO: And—you know, I froze my "patooties" off, whatever my "patooties" are.
REDFORD: Yeah. But I —
BRANCACCIO: It's—chilly.
REDFORD: —I imagine they disappeared when you went in.
BRANCACCIO: (LAUGHTER) But it's still a gorgeous place, isn't it, even now.
REDFORD: It's fabulous. It's natural. It's gorgeous. And it belongs to the people in that area, and it should stay that way.
BRANCACCIO: Well, Robert Redford, thank you very much for this.
REDFORD: You're more than welcome. I'm very happy to have talked to you.
BRANCACCIO: Robert Redford is one of the producers of the documentary "The Unforeseen." To let us know what's on your mind, send us an e-mail to pbs.org/now. That's www.pbs.org/now. This program was produced by Karin Kamp. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm David Brancaccio.
_________________________________________________________________
The Airing of "The Green"
Robert Redford chats about the new green programming on the Sundance Channel
11:26 PM on 16 Apr 2007
by Amanda Little
With his legendary Sundance Film Festival, Robert Redford brought sex appeal to the business of independent filmmaking. Now, with his Sundance cable channel, he's aiming to do the same thing for another under appreciated art form -- eco-themed television programming.
Tonight, the channel launches "The Green," a block of environmental programming that will air on Tuesdays at 9 p.m. Each week, it will kick off with a half-hour segment of Big Ideas for a Small Planet -- a 13-part series on environmental problem-solvers and innovations. Produced by the team behind Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, the show is slick and fast-paced, applying a thick coat of gloss to environmentalism's typically rough-hewn image. Following each segment will be the television premiere of a feature-length documentary, on topics ranging from environmental refugees to Andy Goldsworthy's natural sculptures to Dr. Bronner's natural-soap empire. Tonight's documentary -- A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash -- explores the frightening implications of peak oil. (Full disclosure: I am a member of the advisory committee for "The Green.")
I spoke with Redford about his new green enterprise last week at his office in the Sundance Channel's Manhattan headquarters, just before he jetted off to D.C. to finish filming his latest political thriller.
What was the inspiration for "The Green"?
RR We are coming out of one of the most politically damaging periods of American history, during which so many cornerstone environmental protections were rolled back in the face of immense ecological challenges. The beauty of it is that in the midst of this political disrepair, all these solutions and opportunities have been bubbling up from the grassroots. People are fighting back, they're finding green solutions in agriculture, in food, in fashion, in building, in home furnishings, in transportation. And more of that's going to come. There are so many positive and exciting stories to tell about the environment right now. What Sundance Channel's "The Green" is going to do is tell those stories.
Can you give us an example of some upcoming green programming?
RR I'm particularly excited about the Big Ideas for a Small Planet series. It's organized by topic -- fuel, cities, buildings, clothing, food, and so on -- and spotlights the creative innovators and innovations emerging in these areas all around the country. The shows are solution-based, story-driven, and moving the conversation about sustainability to a new place -- one of optimism and of people taking control.
It's a big departure from the doom-and-gloom scenario that environmentalists have been communicating for the past 20 years. We were trying to warn people that things were getting bad, but America didn't want to listen, so it was hard to get traction. This is about solutions, about people from all these walks of life who are finding industrious ways to help solve our environmental challenges and make money from it.
Would you call what "The Green" is doing "activist media"?
RR Absolutely.
The environment has surged into pop culture in the last year or so. Do you think it's a fad or the beginning of lasting change?
RR It's certainly more than just a fad. The environmental tipping point has been reached. It has come together to a crux so fast that it's now a bandwagon, and it's moving fast, and there are all these opportunities that are rolling out of it. But the battle isn't over. We have to educate and engage people about what's going on. There are going to be new ideas and new innovations, and those innovations are going to lead to new industries. And the industries will lead to new jobs, and that will lead to a new economy. But in order for this to work we have to educate people -- especially young people before they get hardened.
What factors do you think led to the environmental tipping point?
RR Two things. First, it became good business. A bunch of entrepreneurs discovered that you can make money doing good, and then suddenly larger groups woke up to the fact that they didn't want to be left out. Then Wall Street got on board. Once Goldman Sachs is in, you know you're in business.
At the same time, people were experiencing the symptoms of climate change and a changing energy landscape -- whether it was soaring gas prices or intensifying hurricanes or their health was being affected.
So I think that those converging forces created this tip where we are now.
RR Do you really think we've reached a tipping point politically? Many enviros would argue that while big change is happening at the grassroots, it hasn't yet reached Washington.
I think on global warming it has. There have been dozens of different climate-related bills introduced in recent months.
But do you think we'll see climate regulations pass in the 110th Congress?
RR I do, I honestly do. We may have to wait until 2009 to get a really ambitious program in place, but I do think the political tides are turning in a big way on this issue.
In general, I am very hopeful that the dangers and the destructive patterns of our leadership in Washington are going to be stopped. It's hard to believe that one man, one president, could undo so much.
You seem to have very strong feelings about Bush.
RR King Midas had the golden touch -- everything he touched turned to gold. Everything [Bush] touches turns to shit. Everything. The only thing guarding him must be the Rapture, because it doesn't make any sense otherwise. I've met the guy. He's in a bubble. But it's getting ready to pop.
Do you think the environment is going to be a defining issue in the 2008 elections?
RR I think it's going to be a defining issue, yes, but will it be the defining issue? It's going to be competing with some other pretty strong issues. Hopefully voters will understand that all the major issues -- namely, national security and jobs -- are actually very intimately connected to protecting the environment and greening the economy.
Is there a candidate you favor?
RR Not at the moment. I don't get involved in presidential elections. I usually focus on local elections, candidates who are solid on the environment. There is certainly a great presidential campaign to be built around a strong green agenda, and I hope we'll see that emerge.
Are you working on any politically or environmentally themed movies?
RR I'm just finishing filming Lions for Lambs -- that's very much tied to these issues. It's about taking personal responsibility in the area of politics, national security, and media. It stars Meryl Streep, myself, and Tom Cruise.
The character I play is a professor who's trying to keep a kid from drifting into total apathy and cynicism. We're trying to get this kid involved and to wake up because he's such a brilliant student, and he's not coming to class anymore and he's drifting away, and he's trying to save this kid before it's too late.
When the professor tries to get the kid to engage, the kid says, "Why do you want me to get involved in a system that's so fucked up and broken? Do you want me to go into politics and be jerked off by some page under the table? You call that morality? What's the matter with just having a decent life? Do I have to go to the barricades and fight this and fight that? And you're certainly not going to tell me I should go into the armed forces. That's the most morally absurd thing I can think of." The kid is trying to justify a certain amount of apathy. He's trying to justify non-involvement.
So the professor says, "Because how long do you think you and your neighbor are going to be safe? How long do you think your streets are going to last before forming potholes like Third World countries? Before there's no gas in your tank?"
Do you think this debate within the movie reflects a real reluctance within the younger generation to address the challenges of our day?
RR I do think there is a pervasive apathy among young people. Some say it's because there's no draft, some say it's the consumerism, some say it's the media. But I also sense change. I think the pendulum might be ready to swing back the other way, where young people start to engage. I think kids are beginning to realize that there's more to life than just having an easy life. It hasn't happened yet on the grand scale, but it's rumbling. I can feel it underneath my feet.
I agree that the younger generation is struggling to shake off apathy, but then again, it was the boomers who are largely responsible for America's profligate energy use and heavily polluting habits. There's apathy inherent in that legacy.
RR You're absolutely right. When you stop to think about it, the boomers did the burning, and that seed was sown by the generation before it that sacrificed so that we could burn the oil. In the '30s and '40s, it was the Depression and off to war -- it was struggle, sacrifice, die for your country. Then suddenly the '50s come and we're told to get out there and consume, build, burn oil -- it was the patriotic thing to do, and boy we did it. And then, suddenly, it was like, "Where are all the ashes going?" We are leaving these problems to you all to figure out, and that's a huge and daunting responsibility.
Robert Redford Says Goodbye to Newman
"Man Who Lived a Life That Really Meant Something," Redford Says
Sept. 29, 2008
ABC News' interview with Hollywood legend Robert Redford on the death of his co-star and longtime friend, Paul Newman, for "World News With Charles Gibson" on Sept. 29, 2008
QUESTION: First, let's start, just off the top of your head, any reflections that come to mind immediately about your friend, about Paul, on this day?
REDFORD: Yes. There are a lot of things that come into my mind. I think probably the first thing would be what the country saw, that this was a man who lived a life that really meant something and will for some time to come.
In my -- you know, there will be a lot said about Paul, and all of it deserved, and there'll be a lot of accolades and a lot of, oh, postmortems on his life and career, and I think that will speak well for him.
My issue is just the fact that it was a personal friendship and relationship, and that I come at it from probably a more personal place that started years ago. And the durability and the length of this friendship has created a pretty deep root. And so that's sort of where I come from.
I mean, I -- when I first met Paul, I came in contact with one of his virtues, which was generosity. In the film "Butch Cassidy," I wasn't -- the studio didn't want me. I wasn't as well known as he was. And he wanted me in the film and the director was, "Well," but he wanted me in the film. Now, he didn't have to do that. I mean, the fact was he was quite well known. I wasn't. The studio didn't want me because of that. But he said, "I want to work with an actor," and that was very complimentary to me, because that's, I think, how we both saw our profession, that acting was about craft, and we took it seriously, because we both came from the same background of theater in New York.
So that was the first, the first indication with Paul. And then once the film started, once we went forward, we then discovered other similarities that just multiplied over time, a common ground that we both had between us, interests and so forth, and differences. The differences we had great fun with, you know. But anyway, what happened in the film was that we played characters -- we focused on the characters, and I think because of our respect for the craft, we focused on the characters.
The iconic stuff is not anything we paid attention to and whatever came out of the relationship of the two characters was kind of not our business. That was for others. But it was just that connection of playing those characters and the fun of it that really began the relationship.
So the partnership in the movie that started cinematically then became -- it just sort of went into life in a very natural way. So we became friends, then we did the other film, "Sting." Again, different characters, but playing them the same way. And by that time, we had developed a friendship that then grew beyond that. So over time, because I lived in Connecticut for a while, about a mile from him, we got even closer then.
What we -- I think what we found out over time was that the things that made us friends were -- had a lot to do with values, what we saw as valuable in society. Obviously, Paul was very socially responsible. He was very generous, as I said, and he had a lot of integrity and all those qualities were pretty fierce, and I liked that.
I mean, that's, I think, what hooked us up. Respect for privacy, personal privacy, that's another common connection. Family, that Paul's concern and his commitment to his family is huge.
REDFORD: The thing that moved along is that Paul really likes to have fun and he loves to laugh and he really especially loves to laugh at his own jokes, and some of them are just really awful.
So the fact that he enjoyed them so much, you forget about the joke and you'd start to laugh with him because you're so caught up in his enjoyment of them.
Then he's just a man who really loves fun. Well, I guess that's the kid in you. You know, I feel the same way. So we played these tricks on each other. And we were at a restaurant once and the idea was you would never acknowledge the trick that was played on you. So we were at a restaurant once in California. The waiter came up to me at the table and he says, "Oh, Mr. Redford," he says, "Mr. Newman, Mr. Newman's in the next room."
I said, "So?" I said, "Can't you see I'm busy?" The guy was so completely shattered. And when I walked out of the restaurant, this woman charges up to me and starts shaking my hand. She seemed like a crazed old bird, and she was shaking my hand.
And I thought, oh, she's -- this critic that had savaged both of us was apologizing and saying, "You must hate me." And I thought, well, this is Newman, he's put this person up to it, and it was the real person.
There were a lot of times we played these gags on each other and they were great fun. And one of them was that he used to -- when he went into racing, he just drove me crazy talking about racing, because he was obsessed with it, and, obviously, great at it -- by the way, great at it.
And I said, "Geez, can't we talk about something else?" He said, "Well, I want to take you up to the track and we'll do this and we'll do that." So for his 50th birthday, I happened [to be], in Connecticut, to find a trashed Porsche and it was just totally demolished and I had them wrap it up and leave it on his kitchen back step, wrapped in paper with a ribbon around it, that said "Happy 50th."
And so a couple weeks went by and I didn't hear anything, and then I went up to my house a couple weeks later and walked in the living room and there was this gigantic box in the living room, and it was so heavy you couldn't lift it.
In fact, it was so heavy, it had created an imprint on the floor, and this was a rented house. Well, by the time I crobarred it out, there was just this block of metal that had been taken down.
The [towing service] came and took it away ,and they said, "This is great." I said, "OK, look, hang on." And I called a friend of mine who was a sculptor in Westport.
I said, "If I give you some material, can you create a sculpture." He said, "That's great, absolutely." So these guys come take the thing over to her, and she did a sculpture. I said, "Make it a garden sculpture."
So she did. Had the towing guys take it to Newman's garden and just plump it there. Now, to this day, neither of us had ever spoken about that, never even -- that was -- there were many other situations like that, but that was ...
QUESTION: No one ever says "gotcha?"
REDFORD: No, no. That would diminish it. No. The idea was you just never acknowledged it. But anyway, the point is that the fun of the relationship, the humor had a lot to do with it and underneath that were other things that I said, you know, the commitments we shared, politically, socially. Both had a very strong feeling about putting something back if you were fortunate enough or successful enough that you should put something back if you could, and he certainly did that in spades.
So we had that commonality and his family I knew very well. My kids were his children's age. And so when you finally cut it down, am I sad? Of course I am. He was a real friend and that humor that we had, I'll miss that. I'll miss him.
QUESTION: You said something about you really valued your privacy. He was one of the first actors that managed to carve or make a real line in the sand between the private and the personal. And how do you think he did that?
REDFORD: I think Paul was able to maintain that because of the personal value system that said I'm not going to the way of all flesh. It would certainly be tempting for him, as it has been for me, but for Paul, a lot longer.
And I think he made a decision somewhere along the line, I think, "I'm going to have a life and my life, if I'm going to have one, it has to be private. And I'm committed to family. In order to do that, I've got to come up with a scheme to avoid the usual stuff that sucks people into the exalt of our business." And I agree with that.
QUESTION: What was the scheme?
REDFORD: How you move around publicly and how you maintain yourself privately. Not easy when people are outside your door and looking for ways to get in and all that kind of stuff.
You just had to get very -- you get paranoid. You take on paranoia as a strategy. It's not fun. That's not a great way to live, but you have to do it to protect yourself. And I think his being able to balance between when he decided to go public for something and being private, he just did very well.
But I think it took time. I mean, I can't speak for him. I just saw the result of it and I thought he did damn well.
QUESTION: And legacy-wide, professionally and, also, personally, what do you think the legacies are in terms of the human being and as an actor and as a friend?
REDFORD: Well, as a friend, the friend, of course, is more personal. But as an actor, I think he would share with a lot of other actors the fact that he was really committed to his profession, I mean, through and through. That's something that -- there's a legacy in that simply because of all the films he made. They'll be there and they'll be there for posterity.
QUESTION: Was there a sea change in acting? Did he do something that changed in some way in terms of what you might have learned as an actor? [...] You said he really lobbied to get you on that film. Was there something about working with each other that ...
REDFORD: Well, I think Paul was, at that point, anyway, he was a little skeptical of just being with so-called personalities for stars, because of where he came from, and he respected acting and the commitment to acting and I think that's the way he saw that. I can't -- I can't answer that question fully, because I don't know what was on his mind. I just know he stood up for me. The studio didn't want me. I didn't have to be in it. I wasn't as well known as he was. But the fact that he committed to it, I think, started something rolling in terms of our friendship, because I put a lot of emphasis on loyalty and generosity and integrity. That means a lot to me.
QUESTION: Do you think he'd change anything about the craft, the way people act and the way they approach the films?
REDFORD: Yes. He covers so many decades, you have to shift, you know. He covered a lot of ground. I suspect if he looked at the earlier films he did, he'd gasp.
I think Paul, as he went on, he just got better and better. And when I acted with him, I think Paul was in a real groove, a wonderful groove. About the earlier films, when he talked about them, they were unforgettable.
QUESTION: Just one other thing, only because this has to go on the air in 20 minutes.
So basically, anything about his philanthropy and beyond the ...
REDFORD: Well, look, I mean, the fact is we can all be really sad here, and I am sad. I've lost a really good friend and you're going to take some of the things we had together that were fun, like humor, you take that off the table, I'm going to miss that.
But the fact is that the person he was, the person he is, because he's going to be lasting, I think has got to do with the way he lived his life, the commitments he made and what he put back, and the fact that he was a realist. I mean, it's very easy to lose your mind, your brains in this business, and he was a realist. He never -- he knew enough not to take himself too seriously, and that was another thing that we shared in common. We went after each other's flaws just to remind ourselves that we shouldn't take ourselves seriously. He was very much focused on that. I think that kept a kind of balance for himself. I think that his commitment to his family was intense and quite wonderful.
So I think those things that are out there the country has seen and will continue to see, will just be there. So that's a legacy, if you want to look at it that way. So there's the public legacy that I think is there for everyone and a very impressive legacy, and then there's the reason I'm doing this, and I won't do a whole lot more of this, because I respect the fact that we both respected privacy and I want to respect his.
QUESTION: Why was he a great actor or you said a craftsperson, as well?
REDFORD: I think because of his commitment to the craft. You know, as I say, we both started in the theater and so, therefore, there's a built-in respect for craft, because you don't get through the theater without it.
And it was before the personality culture became so intense, where you could be in another profession and cross over because of your personality, because the business changed, the world around us changed.
But I think that Paul started, I think, back in the '50s, and so at that time, it was a different world that we lived in and craft was everything, and you went to Hollywood or you went into movies from theater or television. You just didn't pop in there.
So there was a built-in respect for that and I think that him following that and being serious about his role, I mean, very, very -- he was a very serious actor.
_________________________________________________________________
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
A Lively Discussion on Rising Oil Prices
Aired May 17, 2006 - 21:00 ET
LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Tonight, why are gas prices skyrocketing? How high will they go? We'll ask Robert Redford, the legendary actor and filmmaker, also an environmental activist who's advocated alternative energy for decades.
Plus, a primetime exclusive, David O'Reilly, Chairman and CEO of energy giant Chevron, who enjoyed huge first quarter profits. He'll tell us how the price at the pump is set.
And then some heated debate over gas prices and America's energy future with Sir Richard Branson, and more.
They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
We begin in Napa, California with Robert Redford, the Academy Award winning filmmaker, director, producer, and actor, environmental activist, and conservationist.
By the way, David O'Reilly, who will follow Mr. Redford tonight, Robert Redford's father worked with Mr. O'Reilly at Chevron for a lot of years. And you were also in the oil business, right Bob?
ROBERT REDFORD, ACTOR: Yes, not illustriously but I was in it.
KING: All right, tell me first your read on all of this. What's the concept of the kick the oil habit to you?
REDFORD: Well, the concept of kick the oil habit campaign is primarily to let the American people know that there are solutions, other than ones that have been given and the fact that it involves citizen action that's a big deal for me because I think there's been too much over the last while, too many policies that affect our future and our security, particularly our environment had been done in secret and it's been without the participation of the American people.
And, I'm against that and I think it's time that they had a voice and I think that there's so much doom and so much gloom out there today and particularly around the issue of energy.
I think it's important to see the true story being told about how we got there, why we've had a lack of political leadership on the issue and what the solutions are and how the American people by looking at this campaign can get involved and push, pressure their elected officials who have -- I mean, look, there's been a big elephant in the room for a long time that the elected officials haven't wanted to acknowledge, excuse the pun on that, that they haven't wanted to acknowledge.
And now it's time to look at it but without spin, without obfuscation, without doing things in secret. Let the story be told and let the American people know how they can play a role in what's going to be big in their future.
KING: Since we need gas and oil what's your answer?
REDFORD: Well, the question is how much do you need and do you need it and how do you need it and what is the cost of it? Look, first of all it's a non-renewable energy source and there are renewable energy sources and the planet has already been trashed enough, particularly with the policies of this administration. Excuse me but it's a fact.
And, we don't have much longer to go continuing on that path. And there are solutions that do not have to involve oil and gas. I mean you can have it but not to the degree you had it.
And also we've had no energy policy. We've had no leadership on the issue of energy. If there's been energy policy at all, it was one designed in secret by our vice president and it was done with oil and energy companies.
So, it's non-renewable. It's not cheap. And it's not particularly safe because our national security is involved because we're depending on oil from unstable countries.
So, the solutions are here and they're here right now and I think you'll find one in this new energy bill that's being put forward right now called E-85, and that's ethanol. And ethanol is -- I'm for it because simply it's out of corn and there are other agricultural products that could be used to do the same thing.
It's cheaper. It's cleaner. It's renewable. And you know what it's American because we grow it. We make it. We're not depending on other countries who are unstable to have to beg and borrow for it.
KING: Other countries, I think Brazil uses ethanol in a major way right?
REDFORD: Look, yes, there are examples all over the place. They're just not here in our own country because of our current leadership. Well, look, for decades we've not had an energy policy and we had the problem for decades.
And I think that if you connect the dots as to the influence the oil and gas companies have had on politics and our political leaders you'll see how the problem came. The question is how did we get here, what can be done about it?
And, as far as I'm concerned the solutions do not have to involve dependence on oil because the solutions are here in front of us. They're here. They're now. They're renewable. They're safe. They're clean. They're economically viable. And also it affects our national security.
KING: Do you think -- are you optimistic? Do you think it's going to happen the way you want it to happen?
REDFORD: Well, I guess, yes, I'm optimistic. I guess you should say I dream on occasion so it will never probably happen the way I would like to have it happen but I think it can happen. I think it should happen.
And I think, you know, I think it will happen because I think finally the American people have been kept out of it for so long with spin and all these policies being designed in secret that now the truth is beginning to come out about the consequences of doing that and how the American people have been ignored and pushed aside and disenfranchised.
And now they're beginning to raise a collective voice with this campaign the Center for American Progress is kicking off is going to help them get information that's going to allow them to have a voice in the process about something that's very, very important for their health and well being and their children, mine, yours, all of us.
KING: We're going to show you a part of this campaign has a series of ads, the kick the oil habit campaign.
REDFORD: Good.
KING: It includes a video message. It's an advocacy ad of course. Let's watch.
KING: Were you encouraged, Robert Redford, by the president using the term addicted to oil in the State of the Union?
REDFORD: Was I encouraged?
KING: Yes, I mean that the president is saying something he had not said.
REDFORD: No, I'm afraid not. Oh, that part, yes, if you take it out of context and just use that phrase and that sentence that's encouraging. But you always have to look behind what either the photo op is or the statement is because I have to -- I think you -- you can't look at this issue and not see how this administration and this leadership has been part of the problem.
So, yes, it's nice that it was acknowledged. The question is what are they going to do about it? They better do something other than what they've been doing, which is depending on the oil and gas companies to design an energy policy that cannot possibly work for us in the future.
KING: And how do people get involved in your campaign?
REDFORD: Well, the way they'll get involved, which I like a lot is that this will be able to be put out before the public. I mean, look, if we can send a guy to the moon and we can invent the Internet, we can certainly do something about renewable energy and develop technology to put it in place without depending on foreign countries for oil.
But, the thing that's going to happen, Larry, is that this campaign is going to get before the public. First of all they're going to see facts, the hard, true facts rather than the facts that are spun.
And they're going to see -- the most exciting thing for me is that finally the American people are going to be able to see solutions that they can have a role in and playing a part in that's going to affect our economics so we have gas prices that are through the roof. We have energy companies that are raking in gigantic profits.
And they're going to see ways to avoid having to be trapped by that because these solutions are ready. They're here. They're now. They're homegrown. They can make America proud instead of being dependent on countries that we have no idea which way they're going to bounce, as we can see. So this campaign is going to let the people know that.
KING: Thanks Robert.
REDFORD: And I'm supporting it, yes.
KING: You sure are, Robert Redford speaking on behalf of the campaign he's helped kick off, the kick the oil habit.
By the way, we invited Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to take part in tonight's program. He declined. We also asked the CEO's of Exxon, Mobil, Conoco, Phillips, BP, and Shell to participate in a roundtable discussion. They declined.
_________________________________________________________________
Slashfilm.com
Interview: Robert Redford
November 8th, 2007
Last month we had the chance to sit down with director/star Robert Redford at a roundtable to discuss his new film Lions For Lambs. In Lambs, Redford stars alongside Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise in “a powerful and gripping story that digs behind the news, the politics and a nation divided to explore the human consequences of a complicated war.” In the interview, Redford discusses the political issues inherent in the film. Lions for Lambs hits theaters on November 9th.
Question: Been a crazy day so far?
Robert Redford: Ahh…No, no, it’s a beautiful day. Physically, it’s a beautiful day. What I don’t like, and you should know about it, is those for minute sound byte interviews, that’s hard. I said look, I’d rather not do that. I’ve done that. I don’t think anybody likes it. I don’t think the press likes it. The subjects don’t like it, and, Ah, I know, It doesn’t do any good anyways so if we can have be a little more relaxed. So, today’s fine.
Question: You will have a question to answer tonight in a screening with students. So what does that mean to you, to like go out with students and show them, like what do you hope to get out-
Robert Redford: It was my idea, um, to do that. When we were talking about promoting the film I knew it would be difficult because there were so many films out and business is changing so much in terms of distribution, marketing and all that. So I knew it was going to be very, very hard. And I said, I don’t want to do, the normal stuff, the press junkets we got to do in hotels, me and tons of people. Everybody has to act like they’re interested and excited in so on and so forth, so I said, I’d rather go, to the areas and meet the preferred groups, ya know, take time. And I would be particularly interested because of the film and what the film is about, to, to involve young people to go to schools, go near colleges, see what they think, because fundamentally, if you’ve seen the film, in the last moment, it is about the future. It goes to the young man, what’s he gonna do? We don’t provide the answer, it’s simply meant for you to think about. And why not put that in front of students and let that, be curious what they have to say.
Question: In the film, you play a mentor to that young man, when you are appearing in front of a college crowd like the one you will be tonight do you feel, do you see that as an extension of that role?
Robert Redford: As me teaching? As me teaching? I would be petrified if I was a teacher in front of these guys considering I never got… I never… I got kicked out of school. So I hope that biography doesn’t come up…. Ah, No, it’s a Q and A when you say, what do you want to talk about? Have you seen the film? What’s on your mind? Also, I’ll let the other guys that I’m with, the other actors who played the students, Michael and Andrew let them throw some out, answer the other students. I don’t have any idea how its gonna go, I would imagine someone’s gonna start it off with a question. The film is not so much focusing on current events as they change…They’re too volatile. It’s really what’s underneath it, what are the fundamental factors that keep repeating themselves that create these situations that we’re in right now with this administration. This country, having lost so much in the last six years, it’s not the first time, this has happened, it happened with McCarthy-ism, Watergate, happened in Iran contrary, so there’s a fundamental pattern that keeps repeating itself, that involves the same characters, that think the same way. So you dramatize that, into 3 categories. The young people because there’s no draft, there’s no spark to energize the young people, they either accept or deny, they don’t have to, they don’t have to make a decision. And how is that played out? In the public place, kids not getting interested in their country, cuz they don’t have to. And yet things are getting worse and worse and we need to pay attention cuz one day you might wake up and things will be much worse. These are the sort of issues that are put forth in the film. There’s sort of a general idea that young people over the last 10 or 50 years have grown more apathetic, more cynical…Which I think is true for probably, for some good reason. But now its dangerous. If this continues, if that’s the way its gonna be with young people they’ll move further and further away with involvement of the system. It’s getting worse and worse and worse. On the other hand, the film just puts that out there, the film just suggests ‘Give the kid a choice; you wanna take the easy road, don’t come to class.’ Cuz I’m here to do something and you’re not interested then don’t, don’t hurt me by not showing up, just don’t come. Well he’s trying to activate the kid to make up his mind and push him, do you wanna take the easy life, do you really think this is the easy life? What good do think this is gonna do for you? Do you want to get involved? And the kid comes back with a legitimate argument and says why would I get involved with a system that’s this diseased, this corrupt? The retort is; precisely because it is. You’re the one that’s gonna have this future not me. So that duel back and forth was exciting to me and it doesn’t mean that there aren’t young people today that are beginning to get active so there might be a shift that’s actually beginning to occur. You’d know more then I would. It just may be that that attitude that prevailed this last several years might be starting to change. I hope so.
Question: Do you think that the youth of the young people is also the answer to breaking that cycle because it seems to me that in the film, Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep kind of, taken into this role and their opposite views and then it’s the young people that is making up their minds and use their views to shape up the future to what they want it to be?
Robert Redford: Well, Meryl and Tom, Tom is a very convicted man, he’s totally, he’s a very singular and narrow point of view. Because that is basically the point of view we have in the administration right now, it’s very singular. And it’s very ideological, you can’t shake’em you can’t make them think there’s any other way to think. There not doing it very well, and it’s beginning to show up, it’s beginning to be transparent, that this attitude is very flawed. Tom’s character portrays a guy who has the same convictions but he’s gonna be better at it. He’s smarter, more charming, which makes him more dangerous. And she’s trying to figure out what he’s doing, and challenging and challenging and challenging and to the point where he say’s listen this is legitimate, every point of view is represented in this film. He turns to her and says is this how its gonna go, are you gonna keep talking about yesterday, well she says don’t you think its important, to think about how we got here? Well no I don’t, because we’re hear now. It doesn’t matter, we’re here. Well he has a point. We can ask ourselves about 9/11 all we want, how do we get there, did we have warnings before? The fact is, we’re here now. We got to think how we’re gonna move forward, so he’s got a point and she’s got a point, and you put it to the audience and the way you position it and the argument you got to decide what their point of view is but he does have a point he says ‘Sorry, you don’t think we should bring the troops home that’s an option, and he says lets play it out, we bring them home and the Taliban turns twice as big, well they have. Cuz this movie started last January. So a lot has happened.
Question: And he throws down a challenge to Meryl’s character as well and mentions her character and what she’s done and thinking about her role and getting her to be in perspective. The thing I wanted to ask you, cuz you’ve talked about the varying crisis’s in America’s political system in the last 20 or 30 years, how long did you have the idea to make this particular film? Cuz you could have made it in any of the political eras that have come along. So how long ago did this idea develop for this kind of film?
Robert Redford: A year ago. I was sent the script, which had been around for awhile and I think that about a year and a half and nobody was willing to make it, I’ve always been interested, no matter how many films I’ve done along the years, I’ve tried to do a lot of diverse film, there’s usually a fundamental theme underneath all of it. But I’m always interested in the political theme. Have been since 1970. I did the Candidate, I did All the Presidents Men, Quiz show, there are various films that are about power of media and film, but times have changed so drastically since I started doing it, its like there’s always a new film to be made about the new condition. This is different because this is about what is fundamentally unchanged, what are the conditions that lead us into this situation and we find ourselves if during McCarthy, during Watergate, during Iran, and now here we are again. What’s underneath it that creates this? Not this, but what’s underneath it. It’s a mindset, it’s a sentiment that belongs to a certain kind of character and a way of thinking. And they don’t go away, you woulda thought after Watergate that all those people that did those dirty tricks for Nixon and lied and cheated and his efforts to withhold the truth and hide the truth, conceal the truth, and the press going after him, you would have thought after that high point was reached, that would never happen again. It is! Only worse. So you say, ‘that’s an interesting film to make, not about what’s happening, about the factors underneath that’s happening. Cause it to repeat itself. That’s why Tom Cruise represents something about winning. Winning, winning, winning. That’s very American. Both good and bad. And her representing a category that was much stronger 30 years ago. After Watergate, the press was at its highest point, now look. And she’s desperate, she’s up against her own network against her own conscious and she knows he’s wrong. He’s running right over her, so therefore it’s really about the condition that we’re in. That makes these things happen.
Question: What is Robert Redford’s problem with America, did you read this in the New York Times?
Robert Redford: I have no problem with America other then I love it. It’s the problem I have is that I love it so much I don’t like to see what they’re doing with it.
Question: Traditionally American films usually have like a moral or kind of stabs you with it, like this is the theme of the film, this movie makes the audience ask questions and really is kind of vague do you think there is a benefit of this type of film in American cinema today?
Robert Redford: That’s a good question. I don’t know. The film was designed in a way that didn’t wrap up the answers. We didn’t tie it up with a ribbon. It could have been very easy to do that. We could’ve had a scene where the student comes in walks in the back of the classroom and the music rises up and the teacher looks up as he comes through the door and you know he has come back….We don’t know what he’s gonna do. We know one thing, he’s thinking, so therefore your asking the audience to think about how they feel. And when Tom Cruises character, the senator, finishes with her, he sweeps her right out, ‘Okay thanks, he’s gonna go on doing what he’s going to do, the ways he’s gonna do it. He tried to use her, he thinks he did and she thinks… Good god, what happened? She goes back and say’s I can’t write and her editor says ‘you just talked to the top guy? And we can’t put it up and she say’s no there’s nothing, she’s up against her own people. And then of course the two soldiers are caught in a mission that is not prepared for, and they’re being the cost. They’re lives are gonna be the cost. And their realization that they did something right, fight for their country, that they could make a difference. All those thing come together, I just wanted the audience to think about it. Not giving them any answers other then ‘what did you feel about this?’
Question: The film is very centered on how America does seem to be pretty introspective on the part that we all play, in the war at hand (”Hopefully.” Interjects RR). Is that why perhaps we never see the enemy?
Robert Redford: Yes. Exactly. It’s almost mystical, it’s not the point of the film, seeing the enemy. We’ve seen the enemy in documentaries, TV shows, there will be a lot of movies dealing with Iraq, and probably Afghanistan, It was meant to be a concept. The enemy is the enemy is the enemy. That enemy will show up as they have in time over and over again. Also that particular enemy has foiled everyone’s attempt to take then out. And they have been shadows. They have defeated people with tanks and guns and airplanes by going in and out of caves much the way the American Indians for some time defeated American Calvary would come in by the thousands and 25 Indians would out fox them by hiding underground. So this is a kind of situation I wanted to do more impressionistically I wanted to stay focused on the guys and their efforts to do the right thing. See them struggle against impossible odds, stay alive, be soldiers. Not knowing what is happening. That to me was more important than focusing on the enemy, it would have created another distraction in the film, I wanted to keep it focused on these 3 stories and the characters within these 3 stories.
Question: You mentioned earlier, we don’t have a draft right now, what would make people get involved in thinking, do you hope, do you think we do need a draft? If not, are you hopeful still that people will wake up now that things have gotten more out of control?
Robert Redford: Yeah. I’m worried about my country obviously, I’m a little bit in mourning, for what I’ve known in my life are pretty great things. I never in my lifetime and I lived through a lot of events, WW2, McCarthy-ism, to the assassination of the president, the vice president, Iran. I’ve never seen my country in bad a shape as it is now, how we’re perceived now, how the world perceives. What one administration could do to trash so many categories it makes me sad, it breaks my heart, but what are we gonna do about it? The only thing I can do is create a drama that puts certain things out there for people to think about, cuz if we don’t get involved, some how some way, this will continue. And I don’t know how many chapters so therefore we say young people should get involved, all I would hope for is that they would take some action, and its not that everyone should join the military. There’s the peace corp., you can start in a community activist, but get active! Don’t let this kind of leadership come again. Real quick.
Question: 35 years ago you kinda identified today’s moment with the candidate. The ending. When the characters elected then say’s now what? Is that what this kind of thinking leads to?
Robert Redford: Yeah. I think that character has shown up, maybe too often in our political world. Ill equipped. But looked good, and sounded good. Ya know, said things they think the audience wanted to hear… Took advantage of the lower parts of our sensibilities, very entertaining, you say ‘He’s a good guy, right? I want to hang out with him.’ So therefore he’d be a good president. So therefore looking at that we see characters like Dan Quayle. Bush….So ill equipped… Pathetically ill equipped…. When they get power…It’s scary. So yeah your right, to answer your question. These are the kinda things, these are the kinda films that say how we elect people in our country. Trying to be (?) at the time, 1970, saying its not about substance, its about cosmetics. I just didn’t realize it was gonna be so much…
PopEntertainment.com
ROBERT REDFORD
BEARS ANOTHER LIFE IN HIS LATEST FILM
by Brad Balfour
September 9, 2005
In An Unfinished Life, legendary actor Robert Redford tackles a character he's wrestled with before, a massive bear. In this film he plays co-star Jennifer Lopez's father-in-law who wrestles with her as she is forced to move in with him in order to take care of her daughter. Finally helmed by veteran director Lasse Hallstrom, the film was under development for several years (Redford’s former cinematic partner Paul Newman almost played the lead) until it was completed with the unlikely pairing of Redford and Lopez.
How was the bear?
RR The bear was tame, is what they said.
Did you interact with the bear before shooting began?
RR Not very much. I don't subscribe to the idea of wild animals being tamed. I don't think they're ever REALLY tame. They can be tamed for periods of time, but I would never take for granted a wild animal.
I read that you had a bad previous experience with a grizzly. What was it like working with that big bear?
RR Years ago, I was making a film called Jeremiah Johnson, and the scene called for me to be chased by a bear and the scene got out of hand and the camera had a malfunction and I had to keep running around a tree. The bear got all excited and started really chasing me and I had to jump in the tree to save my neck. I made it, but I said, "I'm never going to do this again." So, now I'm doing it again and why am I doing it again? Because I got paid to do it.
You said you did this because you got paid. Do you do certain films now because you get paid?
RR I've never done anything for the pay. I was kidding. [I did this] because I liked the script. I did think a lot about the bear. I said, "Gee, I wonder what they're going to do with this." But I did it because I liked the script and I liked the character and I liked what the script was trying to say.
Did you have to wrestle with a beast of another kind — Jennifer Lopez's following?
RR I didn't think about it because I didn't have to; we were in Canada in a very remote place and were working there as actors. She was just Jennifer. We were playing parts in a movie and she didn't bring with her any of the business stuff. It didn't enter the picture, so I never thought about it. I never dealt with it. She's a talented actor, so I just enjoyed her, but I never thought about her audience or anything like that.
The film is basically about forgiveness. What transgression have you had to forgive?
RR There's a long list.
Name one.
RR This is just one small example, there are others, but I don't want to waste time here thinking [about it]. There was a critic that I became friendly with early in life and I always wondered if that was dangerous to have a friendship with a critic, because what would happen if that critic were to review your films? I thought about it and worried about it, but didn't do anything about it. Then later on, the critic began to review my films and I thought that would not be a good idea and I told him: "Don't you think it's not such a good idea? That it would be a conflict?" And he said, "No, no problem at all." And then he and I had a falling out as friends, and from that time I got savaged in reviews. The abuse was so great, I mean, it was so extreme, his punishing me in print. I had no defense so I had to forgive it and I eventually did.
Are you friends now?
RR No, I just forgave. That was as far as I could go.
Morgan Freeman often plays the conscience in a film. What do you think makes him seem so perfect for these roles?
RR I just think that Morgan has something about him that is very soulful; it has to do with the way he looks, it has to do with his skill as an actor and the depth of his life experience and his career and you put it all together and you have a man that emits a great deal of soul in his work and I think that's the reason.
This film is also about facing your fears. Do you have any fears that you have faced down and are you sacred of anything now?
RR Sure. I'm probably not afraid of the things you might think. I'm not going to go into a personal thing here, but I'm afraid of certain types of people who are not straight—who have an agenda other than the one they are talking about; and the agenda they have is highly immoral, maybe even criminal, but is disguised as a performance and you have to work hard to figure it out. If you can't figure it out, when you can't figure it out, you sense it's there--and it's frightening. I'm not afraid of the dark. I'm not afraid of the unknown. I'm attracted to the unknown. I don't want to be a prisoner of what is known, so I like not knowing certain things. I like mystery. I'm frightened sometimes by my children [laughs.] They scare me to death because they've become the children I wanted them to be independent and their independence sometimes scares me. They take chances and so, as a parent, that frightens me. I get frightened by forces that take things in my world, my life or my country that are beyond my control. They take it down a dark path, which is what I feel is happening now, and I have no ability to have a voice in it, well, maybe a little voice, but it doesn't mean much. When I can see something that I value highly being taken down a destructive road because of either ignorance or lack of experience or limitations or over-exercised ideology, it frightens me because I know they don't get it and they are not likely to change. That's frightening—particularly when you can see the results are. So, right now I'm frightened for my country.
Swedish director Lasse Hallstrom [The Ciderhouse Rules, What's Eating Gilbert Grape?] was great for this project.
RR Lasse brings to the film his own sensibility, which has a very definite style and rhythm to it. I like a lot of his films and I liked them because he allows a film to breathe and develop in its own natural way and I think films like that, at least for me, have become more and more appealing as the industry has moved towards fast-paced, in-your-face, high-velocity films. They have a lot of cutting and fancy tricks with the camera. The way the film business has moved more and more towards the effects of high technology, animation, commercials and music videos, all of those elements have affected the movie-making business and so the films that give you a little bit more time to feel things and digest things have sort of been pushed a little to the side; I am drawn to filmmakers who still have the courage to make those kinds of films. Lasse does and has a European sensibility, which means that he has a very strong attachment to the humanistic side.
That's something you share with Paul Newman. Are you two planning to make another movie?
RR We're talking about it. That's true. I think Paul and I are alike in that we probably are reluctant to talk about something that is not real yet, but we are talking about something.
Have you been looking for something to do together for long?
RR Well, I don't think we really spent a lot of energy. I think it's sort of surprising that nothing came to us in 20 years, considering Hollywood's penchant for sequels and remakes and things like that. They could never find a script that might suit us. The stuff that came to us wasn't any good.
__________________________________________________________________
Arts Publications
Redford's Resolve - Interview with Robert Redford
Jan, 1997 by Graham Fuller
Can Sundance help keep independent movies from going soft?
This month's Sundance Film Festival, the sixteenth, kicks off at a difficult time for independent movies. Theaters are glutted with mediocre indie product that's pushing often better films out into the wilderness; studio movies are invading traditional Indie exhibition slots; and the box-office-driven mainstream mentality is gradually infecting the raw, low-budget indie sensibility.
Since launching the Sundance festival, Robert Redford has heard a few thousand kvetches about its unofficial role as the world's broker of independent film. He also knows that you can't please all of the trade press all of the time. As at any other festival, good and bad films play at Sundance, but it remains a bastion of artistic Integrity no matter how many ten-percenters from L.A. prowl the snowy streets of Park City, Utah, during the last week of each January.
Redford gave us the lowdown on Sundance '97 over the phone from his Wildwood production office in L.A., where he is gearing up to direct his next project, The Horse Whisperer.
GRAHAM FULLER:
The hoopla surrounding Independent film has led to Hollywood buzzing around it like bees around honey. As a result, you can see it becoming diluted. After the 1995 Sundance festival, however, I believe you indicated to your director of programming, Geoff Gilmore, that you wanted to see a return to that original gritty Independent spirit.
ROBERT REDFORD:
Yes, I did. I'd gone to the theater one night during the '95 festival to see a few films - including Shallow Grave and The Basketball Diaries - and I could barely eat for twenty-four hours afterward because they were so loaded with violence. I remember thinking, Uh-oh, somebody's got too keen an eye focused on what it is that works formula-wise in the mainstream. There are too many films here that have token violence that's appealing to the commerciality of the marketplace. That's when I said, "Let's be aggressive about finding edgier, more experimental, riskier films that don't depend on anything formulaic whatsoever."
GF:
Did you remind the programmers of that this time round?
RR:
No, because I thought the festival was very strong last year. And I would say you're going to find more thoughtful, cerebral films at Sundance this time, films that are quite a bit different than what's been there before.
GF:
Has it been a good year for submissions?
RR:
Last year we had around eight-hundred features to go through - some two-hundred documentaries and six-hundred dramatic features - and we could only play a hundred and ten. We're looking at a 20 percent increase on that this year. It's kind of a tough spot to be in because you simply can't play everything.
Although there's an expansion of product - and quality - there's no commensurate increase in avenues for theatrical release in the marketplace in general. Basically, there needs to be more theaters. That's the chief problem for independent film right now, and it keeps getting camouflaged by all the fashionable attention. It actually makes me nervous because, like fashion, it will exhaust itself, and independent film will become yesterday's news. That would he unfortunate, because it's vital to the industry.
GF:
Are you letting the festival get too big?
RR:
I have absolutely no plans to extend this festival. I'd rather close it, quite frankly, and let someone else start a festival. Of course, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't expand. People say, "Why don't you play more films?" We even have filmmakers trying to copy us on our own turf. In the last two years there's been a festival [Slamdance] that's tried to attach itself to us in a parasitical way and use the fact that we couldn't play all the films that had been submitted. They actually used that as a negative to bring more people to their cause, although it didn't really work. The fact is, someone will always say there's not enough of this or not enough of that. And then someone else will say, "You're getting too big, and you're losing the hardcore edge you had when you started." If you look at the history of the festival, we got criticism in the early days for playing films up in Park City that no one would ever see, because they were sweet, soft, go-away films. But then the films began to emerge on their own and dictate their own following, and the next thing we heard was that we were getting too commercial.
GF:
Do you think the festival has remained fluid?
RR:
I do. One year black filmmakers emerged, then there was a rash of young filmmakers in their twenties. Last year women filmmakers were particularly strong. What I've always liked about the festival is that it's eclectic in nature: No two years are identical.
GF:
Do you think it's dangerous for corporate-owned producer/distributors - the Miramaxes and New Lines - to be so invested in independent film?
RR:
It certainly presents a hazard. Whereas money is a means to an end for a filmmaker, to the corporate mind money is the end. Right now, I think independent film is very confused, because there's excess pressure in the marketplace for entertainment to pay off. Entertainment has pervaded every system of information in our culture, and along with it comes the promise of money. So it's hard for artists not to keep half an eye on what works commercially as they go about realizing their visions. As a young filmmaker, you've got to deliver, and you've got to deliver fast these days; that wasn't the case twenty years ago.
GF:
Do you actually see Hollywood as antagonistic to Sundance's aims?
RR:
The only thing that attracts Hollywood is success, and when success started to come around the edges at Sundance, Hollywood came to us. Once that onslaught started, I felt we needed to be very careful about staying true to our purpose. We are a festival that sponsors and supports the more diverse part of the industry, the part that's getting quickly lopped off by the mainstream industry itself as it becomes more and more centralized and expensive.
There's still a collusion in the industry between the distributors and the exhibitors. It's totally predictable that more major studios will start up small film divisions to cash in on independent film, which they will immediately fold if they don't pay off. That happened when Easy Rider took everyone by surprise in 1969. Several studios started up their "classics" divisions, but they lost interest after about three years.
GF:
Ironically, if the mainstream loses interest in independent film again, then maybe it'll recede from Sundance and you can resume normal business.
RR:
 [laughs] I'm trying to, believe it or not. We're always getting accused of "going Hollywood," and it's just not true! The first year that happened it was because people were noticing all the cell phones, but all that meant was that Hollywood was out in the streets of Park City - it didn't mean it could get into the festival. If we seriously wanted to go in the Hollywood direction, we would move the festival to the summer and to a different location. The fact is, we have simply created the worst possible conditions to have a festival in, and that's why I like it, because it brings the good people in and creates a kind of bonding that you couldn't get at an expensive, ultrahigh-service resort. If we did move, we'd all say, "Hey, remember how it was when we had to be resourceful?" But we're resourceful now - that's how we started, and that's what got us moving and has driven most of the work that I've done in the business. I hope we'll always try to stay in touch with that edgier part of ourselves; otherwise we'll get fat and our eyes will start closing.
|
