#documentary making

From the William Friedkin papers of the Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. / Photo courtesy William Friedkin

Throughout the intimate one-on-one session, it’s clear that the 85-year-old’s gift of gab has not diminished. As ChainsawMasacre writes on Letterboxd, “his mind and memory is still like a steel trap”. Philippe, a Swiss-born cinephile-centric doco filmmaker who’s covered everything from zombie movies to George Lucas, captures Friedkin’s contagious ranconteuring in all its prickly, contradictory, exuberant bluster. It’s so absorbing that from the moment he opens his mouth, you’ll be hooked in and suddenly an hour has vanished without you even realizing.

It’s true that considerable swathes of Leap of Faith may feel like old news to Friedkin/Exorcist obsessives—anyone who’s listened to the DVD audio commentary, read The Friedkin Connection, or watched Francesco Zippel’s Friedkin Uncut will be familiar with some of these stories. But Philippe’s incisive, thoughtful, highly accessible approach, excavating deeper than anecdotal interest but eschewing academic stuffiness, makes the documentary as much of value to newcomers as to seasoned fans. “The intersection of influences between music, film, fine art and personal travesty made me admire Friedkin on a whole new level”, writes Databaseanimal.

How many times have you seen The Exorcist, and on average how often would you need to rewatch a film in prep? Alexandre O. Philippe: You have to watch a film over and over and over again. I can’t tell you generally how many times I’ve watched The Exorcist but I can tell you when I was preparing for my interviews with Bill, I watched it every day for 30 days straight. That’s part of the process.

Leap of Faith is a bit of a departure from your previous two deep-dives—Memory: The Origins of Alien and 78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene—in that you’re only talking to one interviewee, and that interviewee happens to be William Friedkin. What was that experience like? It’s wonderful. It’s really hard to put into words how incredible it’s been to spend that amount of time with him. Getting my own personal masterclass with him is invaluable. There’s no film school in the world that can give you that experience. It’s been really something.

Did spending that extended time reveal something about Friedkin that you weren’t aware of prior to shooting? Oh sure, that’s the beauty of that extensive of an interview—six days—and multiple conversations in between. Without giving it away, in the final sequence when he’s talking about Kyoto Zen Gardens… this is the stuff you can only get from someone like Friedkin once the comfort level is there, once you’re in the groove of conversation. It’s an aspect of his personality we’ve never seen before.

We all know him as a storyteller and a showman but he’s probably been very guarded in the past. There’s a certain amount of vulnerability even when he talks about the climax of The Exorcist, and how much to this day he’s not sure he understands some of the choices he made shooting that scene. That’s a remarkable thing to say about one of the most iconic scenes in the history of movies.

William Friedkin in ‘Leap of Faith: William Friedkin on The Exorcist’. / Photo by Robert Muratore, courtesy Exhibit A Pictures

I could listen to him speak for hours. Did you challenge him at any point? I definitely pushed him as far as I could. The whole sequence around the climax of The Exorcist that I was just talking about. There’s only about three minutes of that in the film but we talked about that scene for an hour and a half. I kept pushing and pushing him because I didn’t understand where he was coming from. I feel as a film fan that I understand that scene. For me, Father Karras sacrifices himself. It’s an act of complete selflessness. But he kept going back to the idea of suicide and that suicide in the Catholic Church is a sin and how he didn’t understand it. And that’s why you see him a little on edge during that scene. It was very important to go there.

I love the obsessive detail that goes into your examination of the creative process. Was there any detail—something that is interesting in and of itself—that you left out? We had a really great conversation around Carlos Kleiber, one of the conductors he admires the most, who essentially taught him to direct in metaphors. It’s a fascinating conversation. We actually built a scene around that and it just didn’t work with the film. There’s a point in any film where it becomes autonomous and its own entity in a way and you have to listen and pay attention to what the film tells you it wants to be.

We also had a great conversation around his first documentary The People vs. Paul Crump, and the technique which he used of slapping him in his cell on death row, which is the same technique he used for Bill O’Malley in The Exorcist. I had a long conversation with [executive producer] Karyn Kusama about this and we felt it was a little too over-the-top to go there and it wasn’t necessary to take the film to that level so we eventually left it out.

Friedkin talks about The Brink’s Job at one point, which is great to hear as it’s probably my favorite underrated Friedkin film. What’s yours? [Laughs] If you’re talking underrated or one that’s not much talked about, for me it’s Bug. Bug is ummm… [pauses]

What can you say about Bug? I mean honestly, truly, have you ever seen performances that pushed to the very edge of what’s even reasonable to expect or see from actors? It’s mind-blowing stuff. How does he even get performances like these? I mean they are wonderful actors but Michael Shannon and Ashley Judd, like, really… Like, really? You know what I mean? That’s Billy.

To me, you’re talking about Billy when he was in his early 70s when he made that film, a filmmaker who’s still really interested in pushing the envelope and going as far as he possibly can. It’s absolutely remarkable and I wish we talked more about that film.

Tell us about one ‘holy grail’ film or filmmaker you’d like to cover. The one I really want most to make a film about, and I will, is Vertigo. To go back to Hitchcock. I definitely have a healthy obsession with that film—have had since I was a kid. I love melodrama, and it’s the greatest melodrama ever made. I can’t think of a better film for my money from anywhere. It’s a glorious, glorious piece of filmmaking, but it’s also a very complex, tortured, complicated film that alienates some people.

I was on TCM a couple years ago as Ben Mankiewicz’s co-host on “50 Years of Alfred Hitchcock”. We did 24 movies together and when it came to Vertigo we had a fun conversation because he’s not a fan. He’s basically like “what’s the big deal about that film?” That really fascinates me. That’s a really amazing thing and he’s not the only person I highly respect who said that to me. I’d love to not only do a deep dive into Vertigo but also what’s so polarizing about it. That’d be fun to do that.

In Leap of Faith, Friedkin talks a lot about non-horror-specific aspects, such as grace notes, and the mysterious, magical aspects of filmmaking that can’t be easily explained. What movies are you drawn to but can’t explain completely through the technique and science of filmmaking? Any great work of art, not just film, that has a lasting impact on us and on society, works in ways that are much more mysterious than not. You can explain away the many different tangible reasons why Psycho, Alien and The Exorcist continue to have an impact, and had a massive impact on audiences when they came out. But for every tangible reason or every fact that you can provide, there are a million mysteries as well.

I’m much more interested in the mysteries of the creative process than I’m interested in the behind-the-scenes anecdotes or little tidbits of movie history. Because you will never get to the bottom of it and that’s the real beauty of it. And the lesson to learn from that is there’s nothing to do beyond just being in awe of it.

Documentarian Alexandre O. Philippe / Photo by Bas Bogaerts

What’s a documentary that uses the form in a way that’s inspiring to you, or one that made you want to pursue this form? I don’t watch a ton of documentaries. I don’t like the term ‘documentary’. With that asterisk out of the way, there are a number of documentaries I absolutely adore and filmmakers that are pushing the form that are remarkable. I think of Allan King, one of the great documentarians.

There is one that, formally speaking, absolutely blew me away and is very hard to watch. It’s called Caniba. It’s a documentary about this French-Japanese man who killed and ate one of his classmates. He did a whole comic book on it, and his brother is equally disturbed. It’s one of the few films, along with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, where I had to literally stop halfway through ’cos I just couldn’t handle it. The remarkable thing about this film is that the entire film is extreme close-ups. You’re watching basically his face and his brother’s face in extreme close-up the entire film and it makes you absolutely nauseous.

The formal choice that was made, in committing to that, it’s so much more horrendous and horrible than what’s on the periphery of the frame. You’re trapped in the geography of that face and you can’t get out. I’m not sure if ‘exciting’ is the best word I can use here, but to say this kind of approach excites me when I see a documentary filmmaker doing this, is accurate.

How do you spell that? I’m going to put it on my watchlist. C-A-N-I-B-A. Good luck watching it my friend [laughs]. Don’t eat while you’re watching it.

What films have you caught during the pandemic and completely loved, old or new? I watch almost exclusively the Criterion Channel. They’re the gold standard. I don’t even know where to begin. Recently I just watched the three Joseph Losey/Harold Pinter collaborations: The Servant, Accident and The Go-Between. I’ve always been a huge fan of Harold Pinter but what Joseph Losey has done with those three films is astonishing. The Go-Between, especially. Wow. That film just floored me.

They had a whole sidebar on Western noir films, and I discovered a bunch of incredible titles like Station West and Blood on the Moon with Robert Mitchum, which is an absolutely magnificent film. Some of the early Douglas Sirk movies. I can watch that stuff all day.

Oh there’s another one I would like to recommend as it is a criminally not just underrated, but completely under-the-radar film: Sun Don’t Shine.

Kate Lyn Sheil’s performance is amazing in it. Oh my god. Why didn’t she run away with the Screen Actors Guild Award, Oscars, Golden Globes? Like seriously. Some of the recent nominations Meryl Streep has been getting, like give me a break. It’s not even close. It’s not even in the same ballpark [laughs]. It’s really one of those rare performances that I think about, like Isabelle Huppert in The Piano Teacher. Once in a generation you see something like this and you go “Holy cow, what a performance”. It does not exist on DVD or Blu-ray and it kills me. I want that film in my collection so badly.

Kate Lyn Sheil in Amy Seimetz’s ‘Sun Don’t Shine’ (2012).

Maybe this will be the thing that will get them to push it out on physical media. I’m trying, I’m working with them, and I’ve done some with them. I need to send them an email and say “Can you please do something about this?”.

What’s a film that you were cold on first viewing but has grown on you with repeat viewings? The first one that comes to mind is Donnie Darko. I really hated the film the first time around, and it’s weird because there was always this voice at the back of my head that kept saying “watch it again”. I did and it completely blew me away the second time around. Often I will give a film a second chance. Especially when I know the film is well-respected. There are films where you can intellectually understand why the film is respected, but you don’t connect with the film.

I’ll tell you one that I’m really looking forward to giving a second chance. Not because I hated it but it left me really underwhelmed. A film that everybody loves: Moonlight. I also do remember when I was watching it, actively thinking I was not in the right frame of mind for that film. Sometimes you just have to recognize that. Sometimes you can be watching a romantic comedy but what you’re really craving is a film noir. That’s really not going to work.

So we’ll see, we’ll talk about it after I’ve watched it a second time. And hopefully it will be a revelation. There’s nothing better for me than these moments when you watch something the second time that didn’t work and you go “Holy cow this is great”. That’s an awesome thing to experience.

Related content

The Films of Alexandre O. Philippe

Follow William Friedkin on Twitter

Aaron’s list of documentaries on filmmaking and Hollywood

Vince’s list of narrative films about filmmaking

Follow Aaron on Letterboxd