BT18
Superhero
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,850
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
http://www.tuftsdaily.com/media/sto...e200611010629&sourcedomain=www.tuftsdaily.com
Interview | Richard Linklater
Richard Linklater sits down with the Daily to talk politics, diet and how to change the world
Raven Anderson
Dressed in jeans and hiking boots, the director of the new film, "Fast Food Nation," Richard Linklater, was amiable and prepossessing as he announced, "Boston colleges, I see we have a diverse demographic here," addressing me and the four other student reporters (all white guys in sweaters).
He rose to prominence as the writer/director of offbeat independent films, many of which - "Slacker" (1991), "Dazed and Confused" (1993), "Before Sunrise" (1995) and "Before Sunset" (2004) - take place in a single day. His films are often introspective and focus more on complex dialogue than plot. Recently, Linklater has helmed larger studio projects like "School of Rock" (2003) and "Bad News Bears" (2005) while still remaining faithful to his indie roots.
This year has been a busy one for Linklater. This summer saw the release of his adaptation of Philip K Dick's "A Scanner Darkly," and now he passed through town to speak about his latest film, the fictional adaptation of Eric Schlosser's 2001 expose "Fast Food Nation," which opens in November.
Question: You prefaced the screening by saying this is not a satire. Do you see this as a realistic depiction of what happens [in the food processing industry]?
Richard Linklater: Yeah, I think it's pretty damn realistic when you talk about the meat processing plants, the fast food. It's all pretty realistic right down to the adulteration of food and the spitting in the burger.
Q: So, ultimately, the end of the film is rather despairing; the college kids don't achieve any [industry reforms], the executive doesn't make any life-changing decisions [about his diet]. What do you want to inspire in the audience? Is it hopeless?
RL: Well no, I don't see it as hopeless. What would be depressing to me would be to tie it up in a bow and say this guy fixed everything or that it's an easy fix. Because it's not, obviously; all these issues are so vast.
But I think all of us as consumers, together, have a really powerful voice. Industry responds to consumers - that's what capitalism is; that's what free market is. And if there can be an informed choice, if people can wake up and see the full global ramifications of their purchases, that's not just food - that's everything. The market can respond accordingly, and it will. They'll do whatever they have to to be profitable.
But right now, we have this kind of mass delusion of a culture where you're not supposed to care about your health or about the planet's health. If you do, you're an elitist. Ultimately, I see it in real class terms.
Upper-class people eat well. Rich people don't eat fast food, by and large; they have nutritionists and they have good health care. These products are marketed to poorer people. That's where the obesity epidemic is: low- and lower-middle-class people. That's who these corporations are making money off of. They hand it off to the medical industrial complex - I guess that's what you'd call it - and they just make money off of them at every step.
Being healthy these days and being informed is kind of the new act of civil disobedience. That's sort of the only way to not play their game.
Q: Do you see this as sort of a continuation - or maybe the other side - of themes in "Slacker" and "Waking Life" (2001), about how daydreaming can be good and productive? Is this what happens when you are trained not to think?
RL: Yeah. [laughs] This is sort of a depiction of a machine that's just flowing forth unconsciously. It's the downside, I guess.
Q: Is that why, if there is a revolt - or what little revolt we see in the movie - it comes from kids who are removed from it: the college students rather than the immigrant workers themselves?
RL: It has always been that way. There have always been intellectuals - in this case students - people who analyze who aren't the workers themselves. There has always been that tension.
A lot of workers in most cultures are, by nature, pretty conservative people overall. Your basic worker everywhere is somewhat conservative on a lot of levels. And yet you have these elites - whether it's intellectual or just class - rich people, telling people what they should do. So it's a built-in tension.
The heads of unions are often closer to the company than to the workers; it's just the way it is. In this case, it's just that the college kids have the luxury of where they find themselves so that they can actually sit down and read some books and inform themselves and be activists. And that's important; I hope it doesn't belittle that in any way, because I think that's where change actually comes from.
But if you're from Mexico and you haven't gone to college and you're just trying to make a living, it's a whole different world. That doesn't mean that a person can't be informed on a very specific activist level; that's why very often the most effective person is the one who came from that: the Caesar Chávez-type leader who emerges out of the workplace.
And that's what I think our political culture needs right now, someone to emerge from the population as a leader with some vision, not a professional politician. We're really primed - don't you think? - for something fresh, but the family political dynasties like the Bushes and the professional politicians like the John Kerrys, I don't think they're going to speak to the country in a way we need to spoken for. But is the system even open for that, is the question.
Q: It's like when they open the gates and the cows don't go.
RL: I think those gates are always open. For people, that's the metaphor: They are as open as you allow them to be. People say it's a rite of passage to work at a McDonalds as a teenager. Is it? To sell a product that's bad, to work a job that takes no skills, that's low-wage. Maybe it's a rite of passage if for the rest of your life you want to be a total conformist: selling a bad product for the money. I hope it's not a model; I hope you don't have to work there to become a good American citizen. [laughs]
Q: Obviously, you had the book to go off of, but did you yourself do any investigative reporting-type things before filming?
RL: Well, Eric [Schlosser] was so thorough in that. He did introduce me to a lot of the people in the book. I stayed on some of those ranches, and I met various ranchers who were depicted in the book. Being at facilities and talking to workers, I think you absorb a lot. I didn't go out on my own that much.
I think being in Mexico and being around a bunch of Mexican workers was the biggest eye-opener. I hadn't been there so much. In a film you come in with your notions, and then you meet people and you do character work. I didn't have to go out and do a shift at a fast food place or anything. I've worked at restaurants, never at a fast food place, but I feel like I get it.
Q: It seems like it's more about the human drama anyway.
RL:Yeah, that's where your connection is - to me, anyway, to the characters. For the actors it's different: They might go work, or they might go pull a worker aside at lunch and talk to them for 20 minutes, and if they say one thing that contributes to their thinking about the character, that could be a good thing.
Q: Can you draw parallels between the fast food industry and Hollywood?
RL:I think that's its easy to say, "Oh, certain kinds of movies are fast food meals, and certain kinds of movies are gourmet meals." But, I don't know, usually those movies cost a lot of money. [laughs]
So not really because the film industry is really dominated by unions - they do take care of their people. If you're going to work them late, they are going to get paid overtime. I'm proud of the fact that the crews get treated well ... Well, at least they get paid well, even on a tough production. So I don't think there's that level of exploitation. They're so different: one's entertainment, one is food - well, supposedly; it's actually a chemical concoction of food.
Wasn't that in "Super Size Me" (2004)? The burger just sat there for months and didn't change? Did I imagine that? I know that's a fact that you can just let a burger sit on a table for months, and it really doesn't change. It's a total chemical thing, and you're going to put that in your body? It took me a while to figure that out as a young person.
It was always "I'm tired" or "My energy is low." I got to a certain age and I started eating better and dropping things out of my diet, and I haven't had a headache in 23 years.
If you see your body as a fuel engine, you won't put kerosene in your car. It's that simple, and yet no one teaches you that. It's kind of cool to be unhealthy, to eat really crappy food. Get high, eat $h!ty food. And it's kind of fun, but stupid.
Interview | Richard Linklater
Richard Linklater sits down with the Daily to talk politics, diet and how to change the world
Raven Anderson
Dressed in jeans and hiking boots, the director of the new film, "Fast Food Nation," Richard Linklater, was amiable and prepossessing as he announced, "Boston colleges, I see we have a diverse demographic here," addressing me and the four other student reporters (all white guys in sweaters).
He rose to prominence as the writer/director of offbeat independent films, many of which - "Slacker" (1991), "Dazed and Confused" (1993), "Before Sunrise" (1995) and "Before Sunset" (2004) - take place in a single day. His films are often introspective and focus more on complex dialogue than plot. Recently, Linklater has helmed larger studio projects like "School of Rock" (2003) and "Bad News Bears" (2005) while still remaining faithful to his indie roots.
This year has been a busy one for Linklater. This summer saw the release of his adaptation of Philip K Dick's "A Scanner Darkly," and now he passed through town to speak about his latest film, the fictional adaptation of Eric Schlosser's 2001 expose "Fast Food Nation," which opens in November.
Question: You prefaced the screening by saying this is not a satire. Do you see this as a realistic depiction of what happens [in the food processing industry]?
Richard Linklater: Yeah, I think it's pretty damn realistic when you talk about the meat processing plants, the fast food. It's all pretty realistic right down to the adulteration of food and the spitting in the burger.
Q: So, ultimately, the end of the film is rather despairing; the college kids don't achieve any [industry reforms], the executive doesn't make any life-changing decisions [about his diet]. What do you want to inspire in the audience? Is it hopeless?
RL: Well no, I don't see it as hopeless. What would be depressing to me would be to tie it up in a bow and say this guy fixed everything or that it's an easy fix. Because it's not, obviously; all these issues are so vast.
But I think all of us as consumers, together, have a really powerful voice. Industry responds to consumers - that's what capitalism is; that's what free market is. And if there can be an informed choice, if people can wake up and see the full global ramifications of their purchases, that's not just food - that's everything. The market can respond accordingly, and it will. They'll do whatever they have to to be profitable.
But right now, we have this kind of mass delusion of a culture where you're not supposed to care about your health or about the planet's health. If you do, you're an elitist. Ultimately, I see it in real class terms.
Upper-class people eat well. Rich people don't eat fast food, by and large; they have nutritionists and they have good health care. These products are marketed to poorer people. That's where the obesity epidemic is: low- and lower-middle-class people. That's who these corporations are making money off of. They hand it off to the medical industrial complex - I guess that's what you'd call it - and they just make money off of them at every step.
Being healthy these days and being informed is kind of the new act of civil disobedience. That's sort of the only way to not play their game.
Q: Do you see this as sort of a continuation - or maybe the other side - of themes in "Slacker" and "Waking Life" (2001), about how daydreaming can be good and productive? Is this what happens when you are trained not to think?
RL: Yeah. [laughs] This is sort of a depiction of a machine that's just flowing forth unconsciously. It's the downside, I guess.
Q: Is that why, if there is a revolt - or what little revolt we see in the movie - it comes from kids who are removed from it: the college students rather than the immigrant workers themselves?
RL: It has always been that way. There have always been intellectuals - in this case students - people who analyze who aren't the workers themselves. There has always been that tension.
A lot of workers in most cultures are, by nature, pretty conservative people overall. Your basic worker everywhere is somewhat conservative on a lot of levels. And yet you have these elites - whether it's intellectual or just class - rich people, telling people what they should do. So it's a built-in tension.
The heads of unions are often closer to the company than to the workers; it's just the way it is. In this case, it's just that the college kids have the luxury of where they find themselves so that they can actually sit down and read some books and inform themselves and be activists. And that's important; I hope it doesn't belittle that in any way, because I think that's where change actually comes from.
But if you're from Mexico and you haven't gone to college and you're just trying to make a living, it's a whole different world. That doesn't mean that a person can't be informed on a very specific activist level; that's why very often the most effective person is the one who came from that: the Caesar Chávez-type leader who emerges out of the workplace.
And that's what I think our political culture needs right now, someone to emerge from the population as a leader with some vision, not a professional politician. We're really primed - don't you think? - for something fresh, but the family political dynasties like the Bushes and the professional politicians like the John Kerrys, I don't think they're going to speak to the country in a way we need to spoken for. But is the system even open for that, is the question.
Q: It's like when they open the gates and the cows don't go.
RL: I think those gates are always open. For people, that's the metaphor: They are as open as you allow them to be. People say it's a rite of passage to work at a McDonalds as a teenager. Is it? To sell a product that's bad, to work a job that takes no skills, that's low-wage. Maybe it's a rite of passage if for the rest of your life you want to be a total conformist: selling a bad product for the money. I hope it's not a model; I hope you don't have to work there to become a good American citizen. [laughs]
Q: Obviously, you had the book to go off of, but did you yourself do any investigative reporting-type things before filming?
RL: Well, Eric [Schlosser] was so thorough in that. He did introduce me to a lot of the people in the book. I stayed on some of those ranches, and I met various ranchers who were depicted in the book. Being at facilities and talking to workers, I think you absorb a lot. I didn't go out on my own that much.
I think being in Mexico and being around a bunch of Mexican workers was the biggest eye-opener. I hadn't been there so much. In a film you come in with your notions, and then you meet people and you do character work. I didn't have to go out and do a shift at a fast food place or anything. I've worked at restaurants, never at a fast food place, but I feel like I get it.
Q: It seems like it's more about the human drama anyway.
RL:Yeah, that's where your connection is - to me, anyway, to the characters. For the actors it's different: They might go work, or they might go pull a worker aside at lunch and talk to them for 20 minutes, and if they say one thing that contributes to their thinking about the character, that could be a good thing.
Q: Can you draw parallels between the fast food industry and Hollywood?
RL:I think that's its easy to say, "Oh, certain kinds of movies are fast food meals, and certain kinds of movies are gourmet meals." But, I don't know, usually those movies cost a lot of money. [laughs]
So not really because the film industry is really dominated by unions - they do take care of their people. If you're going to work them late, they are going to get paid overtime. I'm proud of the fact that the crews get treated well ... Well, at least they get paid well, even on a tough production. So I don't think there's that level of exploitation. They're so different: one's entertainment, one is food - well, supposedly; it's actually a chemical concoction of food.
Wasn't that in "Super Size Me" (2004)? The burger just sat there for months and didn't change? Did I imagine that? I know that's a fact that you can just let a burger sit on a table for months, and it really doesn't change. It's a total chemical thing, and you're going to put that in your body? It took me a while to figure that out as a young person.
It was always "I'm tired" or "My energy is low." I got to a certain age and I started eating better and dropping things out of my diet, and I haven't had a headache in 23 years.
If you see your body as a fuel engine, you won't put kerosene in your car. It's that simple, and yet no one teaches you that. It's kind of cool to be unhealthy, to eat really crappy food. Get high, eat $h!ty food. And it's kind of fun, but stupid.
