Taking Woodstock - Ang Lee interview

ANG Lee talks about making his new movie, Taking Woodstock, why the subject of finding utopia appealed to him, and why it was important for him to make a happier film after the heaviness of work like Brokeback Mountain and Lust, Caution. He also talks about putting Wolverine star Liev Schreiber in a dress. This was a one on one interview.

Q. What appealed to you about Woodstock as a subject?

Ang Lee: It’s always a myth… the idea of utopia and that it actually happened. It was unlike any other concert, so it became a myth and a legend that has kept growing for the past 40 years. The first time I was aware of it was when it happened. I saw it on the television news. I was in Taiwain, I was 14-years-old and the images were in black and white of guys with big hair jamming with guitars. As always, we worshipped whatever Americans do… and it was really groovy at the time. There’s no comparison to man landing on the moon, but over 40 years I think there’s no smaller event in significance.

So, I came to the States and saw the documentary in 1980 as a film student and things started setting in. For a long time, we lived in the backlash of Woodstock and I hoped we were just getting out of it. Personally, I think it’s our collective memory of the age of innocence and at this point of my career and my life it was attractive to me because I wanted to examine the age of innocence and the theme of happiness without cynicism.

Q. Do you think audiences are ready for that now? We do seem to have become more cynical…

Ang Lee: Some audiences… but not as many as I was hoping for if you look at the box office in the States. I was a little disappointed at how few people saw it. A lot of people who saw the movie have a lot of appreciation for it. But it wasn’t as hot as I was hoping for.

Q. Does that frustrate you as a filmmaker, the emphasis that’s placed on box office no matter how good the film is?

Ang Lee: Well, box office represents two things… one is perception and how much people care for it. The other is marketing and how successful that is. Both were disappointing to me. I’m not saying I make movies just for the money… certainly not this one. And I don’t have box office pressure – [screenwriter] James Schamus is very good about that and it was a pleasure to work on this film. It was indulging to make a movie like this… like a hippie. It’s obviously an independent movie, it’s unusual, it doesn’t have big movie stars. But it has lots of extras and lots of production values. It’s indulgent.

Q. Why was it so important to make something light after a few heavy movies from you [Brokeback Mountain and Lust, Caution]?

Ang Lee: It was important because rationally, after a couple of them, I wanted to come back to comedy like my earlier movies. But I kept getting deeper and deeper into that trench. I was very proud of those movies. They were a profound experience for me. But here I had the chance to make a movie about Woodstock that was a manageable size. It’s a family drama and it’s very special material. I didn’t have to examine the bigger picture like the documentary did, otherwise there would be no point in me doing it.

But it was also like a saviour at this point of my life… it was something to dig me out of Lust, Caution and the six films that had come before it. You become the film you’re making… no matter how profound the movie could be, I didn’t want to prevail a sick feeling. I have to be healthy. But making tragedy takes its toll and I like to have a healthy attitude and point of view. If I get sick, I don’t want to transmit that attitude to the audience. So it was important for both my own life and for the audience for me to make something lighter… but non-cynical. But it still takes a learning curve. It’s more than just letting my hair down and losing control. It’s not that easy. It still takes some effort.

Q. So what was the biggest challenge of making Taking Woodstock?

Ang Lee: The hardest thing for me personally was to smile and admit that I was happy making a movie. In the beginning that was actually the hardest thing. I can do research… it’s like having lunch for me. I do things accurately and I like casting and assembling a crew. But the [happiness] part was a big turnaround psychologically for me. Technically, directing hundreds of actors and making them look as though they have a life – and not as moving props. I think that was the biggest job.

Q. How was recreating the Woodstock scenes, because you didn’t use any original footage did you?

Ang Lee: No. I thought I would. I had it in my head. But when they made the documentary, most of the footage was outside the stage and was shot by young filmmakers – film school students, or graduates. They were given 16mm cameras and told to shoot whatever they found interesting. That film crew actually lived in the same hotel that I was portraying in this film. So, I tried something similar and hired filmmakers, put them in period costume, gave them a camera and some film and it turned out exactly like the footage from the documentary. So, I put that together. I was shooting them while they were inside of the scene being shot and they were shooting at the same time. I couldn’t tell the difference between their footage and the documentary.

Q. How did you know Liev Schreiber would look so good in a dress?

Ang Lee: I didn’t [laughs]! I knew he was a good actor. He has great legs… and that I did check! We were lucky, he’d just got off the Wolverine movie and still had big muscles. So, I got him something short so that he could really show off the biceps.