|
Lets start with a quick trip back in time, to a moment not too long ago on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. After an enthusiastic introduction by Leno, Tom Selleck walks out on stage and casually takes a seat in the guest chair, wearing a wide grin. Not an unusual occurrence. Except for the fact that this time Selleck is outfitted in traditional Scottish garb. The big guyin a kilt.
|
Get the Soundtrack
music from
Crossfire Trail &
Monte Walsh!
Plus a song sung by
Tom Selleck &
Keith Carradine
click here
Tom Selleck
A&E Biography
Run Time: 50 minutes
$19.95 VHS
TOM SELLECK
Biography
Buy Now - click here
|
Fast forward to a week or so later. The ranch phone rings; Tom Selleck returning my call. Upon hearing Sellecks voice on the other end, I am suddenly reminded of the Leno show. Seeing as we are going to discuss his upcoming western film, Crossfire Trail, I jokingly hint to Selleck that, although he looked very fetching in a kilt, he really looks best in chaps.
Selleck laughs. Well, thats another side of my culture, he proudly says, explaining his kilt-wearing appearance on the Tonight Show. The last time I was on the show Jay was kidding me, and he dared me to wear it.
I chuckle, and am reminded of that universal phrase women around the world must say beneath their breath on occasions such as this: Boys will be boys.
Aside from that, if there is a lesson to be learned here, it would be this: Never be foolish enough to dare Tom Selleck. You can bet he'll live up to his end of the deal.
Another lesson that could be learned, comes from the realization that Selleck is indeed a man of both strong moral character, and opinion. And experiencing that kind of genuine and open honesty is as refreshingly rare as it is charming.
So how does Tom Selleck like being back in the saddle again in his latest TNT adventure Crossfire Trail?
Well I like it very much, Selleck begins. Obviously, its one passion of mine. I mean, I dont always want to do westerns, but its nice to always kind of have one in the works.
He offhandedly remarks that after dealing with the pressure and subsequent success of adapting an Elmore Leonard book (Last Stand at Saber River), he supposed he was just masochistic enough to try his hand at another LAmour novel.
You know," he says, "Id always wanted to do another Louis book because Id done two others [The Shadow Riders, 1982 and The Sacketts, 1979] . But, doing it from a producing point of view it was a lot of pressure.
What kind of pressure, you wonder? Oh, you know, just the usual kind of jitters one might experience when working on a movie, freshly adapted from a book which was written by a very dear and close friend of his, who passed away some years earlier but also happens to have left behind some ump-teen-dozen-million fans all around the world that hold a keen interest in who-does-what to the revered authors work. Not to mention, a loving family who is dedicated to preserving and protecting the memory of that author.
But even under pressure like that, Selleck finds a source of pride.
Because, as you know, the L'Amour family doesn't exactly release this stuff to just anybody, Selleck modestly adds.
And anybody whos anybody in this world would know that Tom Selleck, indeed, is not just anybody. This matching of executive producer to project is a rare and perfect union in the movie business these days, especially as it applies to westerns. Selleck mentions that Louis LAmours widow, Kathy, likes this movie, and by that he takes it Louis would have too.
The first challenge of getting the story to screen came from having to deal with only two hours of television time. Basic changes to the storyline were also in order.
Movies do change, and I think mostly, should change from books because its just a totally different way of storytelling," says Selleck. "That being said, the pressure came withhow do I capture the spirit of my friends book?
So we kept the elements that we thought really worked. We enhanced some for storytelling purposes. You know, one of the things we learned in doing Elmores book, with Last Stand... he wrote that book in a different time. One of the things he was thrilled at was we embellished and elaborated on the relationship with my characters wife in that movie [played by] Suzy Amis, who was terrific in that filmand dealt much more with the preamble that led up to all the conflict that was in Last Stand at Saber River.
Having had that experience... I think, what modern culture wants to see is the relationship with the woman. I dont think you can tell a story on film nowadays where the woman simply is there for the man when he decides to settle down. He laughs with an assured amount of uncertainty and adds, I dont think that works.
So, how did all that updating of a LAmour novel written in the fifties carry over into the making of Crossfire Trail on todays screen? Perhaps one of the most notable changes made to the screen adaptation appears in those applied to the character of Ann Rodneywho went from being Charles Rodneys daughter in the novel, to his wife on screen.
I dont know who thought of it, says Selleck, speaking of that particular change, whether it was me or Michael Brandman (producer) or Charlie Carner (screenwriter). We were all dedicated to this proposition of capturing the spirit of Louies book. But, I know as an actor I responded to the idea of what a wonderful complication [that would be for the character of Rafe]... after being aboard ship, and then crossing land [on horseback] from San Francisco all the way to Wyoming... to see a woman he was enormously attracted to, and wanted, and to go up and meet herand find out shes his best friends widow.
That single complication within the plot provided Selleck with a more challenging role.
photo: Brooke Palmer / TM&©2000 TNT
Tom Selleck stars
as Rafe Covington
in Louis L'Amour's
CROSSFIRE TRAIL |
That was something I felt that I could play, Selleck confidently adds, and something that created a lot more conflictwithin a guy who is a man of few words anyway. That would really tie him up in knots, and I just thought that was a wonderful complication.
This film is somewhat different from Sellecks last western, Last Stand at Saber River (1996), in that it has touches of humor throughout. I ask what are some of the things he looks for within a story that makes a project particularly appealing to him.
Saber River was a darker story. That character was at a darker point in his life and was carrying a secret that was kind of eating away at him. I thought there was much more opportunity for humor in this filmbut the emotional stakes should be no less trivial. With that being said, it was just a character that was at a different place in his life, he viewed life a little differently, and I thought it was important that we find those elements.
We talk about the responsibilities of his additional role, as executive producer; Michael Brandman (Last Stand at Saber River) partnered as co-executive producer of the project. For this film Selleck and Brandman gathered together a star-studded cast which includes some of the most recognizable actors around: Mark Harmon, Wilford Brimley, Barry Corbin, Virginia Madsen, Christian Kane, Brad Johnson, and the talented heart-throb of Ireland, David OHara.
Ive got to tell you, says Selleck, we couldnt afford a cast like this, you know. They all wanted to be in this movie, including Barry and Wilford. And then when we get two leading men to play the heavies, who are both friends... they approached those kind of roles in a refreshing way, because theyve played mostly leads, he says of Brad Johnson and Mark Harmon. It just lends a freshness to what I would certainly calland Charlie Carner, who adapted this screenplay, would calla traditional western. Not a conventional western. But I think we pay a homage to Louis and the sense of a traditional western.
Selleck continues. I know you asked what I look for... theres a writer, Anthony Lejuno... and I remember what he wrote. You know, its one of those things where you go, Oh, I know what he said! and you can quote it? And Ive always remembered it...
Selleck cites the quote, delivering the line with his usual perfection as if it were branded not only into his brain, but also deeply within his soul. The classic western always has a moral dilemma, and a challenge to the human spirit, the resolution of whichas John Wayne said in the movie The Alamospeaks well for men.
Known for his quick wit, Selleck doesnt miss a beat. He immediately breaks out of the moment, at which point you could almost envision him flashing that wide and bright, wiseacre grin, reminiscent of his Magnum, P.I. persona from his television days.
And I dont speak for women, Selleck says, chuckling. Ive learned not to do that.
Perhaps wisely opting out (while at the same time foolishly passing up a prime, if not juicy opportunity) of pressing him for more information as to how it came about that someone of his stature stopped speakingas he claimsfor those of us of the gentler gender, I let our conversation naturally glide towards the more pertinent topic of Crossfire Trail.
For a moment, Selleck returns to the Lejuno quote and reflects upon its meaning. Clearly, it is not just the element of good-versus-evil that draws him to a story, but perhaps more importantly it is the element of a mans true character and how he approaches life in the face of adversity that gets Sellecks attention. I think that is a common denominator in the westerns I tend to like, says Selleck.
Speaking in terms of material for possible future adaptations, I mention works by various other authors and ask if his novel-adaptation choices will ever go beyond the usual names that are automatically associated with the genrebeyond the works of LAmour or Leonard.
Selleck admits he is always looking for material, and that there is a wealth of resources available from which to choose. However, books present certain challenges when bringing them to screen.
"Books are hard because it is a different medium, and theyre seductive. You know, if you read Louis [LAmour] or if you read Elmore Leonard, the most seductive element of their work is the internal dialogue the character is having. I learned a long time ago that only in soap operas do actors talk to themselves out loud. He chuckles. Thats a seductive thing that youve somehow got to find another way to capture. Its so brilliant in their books, and so resonating. But you dont have that ability [on screen] except for an actor to communicate, in wordless ways, those thoughts.
Ever wonder where Selleck stands on remakes?
I dont think you should remake classics. Somebody once approached me to do Gone With The Wind. He laughs as he thinks back to the time. I needed the work, and I said theres no way Id go near there. But, you know theres a lot of westernsnot that they were badits just that they can be remade because theyre great stories that arent indelible in an audiences mind when it comes to both the cast and the story.
And there is material out there that Im always looking at that I think, boy, theres something that was done and had they had more money they could have done it better, and maybe we can have a better budget and put a new wrinkle on it, and its not indelible in peoples minds. But I dont think you remake the classics. Nobody should even attempt to redo The Searchers or Rio Grande.
I ask if it is less costly to do films for television as opposed to the big screen?
Well, it has to be. But they cant look that way.
His answer doesnt end there. Selleck is quick to offer a rare glimpse into the business of movie-making from the producers point of view. And so for a moment we get to walk a mile in Sellecks shoes...
You know, audiences are used to a standard, and the trick is youre producing on a limited budget. Now TNT has fairly generous budgets because their movies have to stand on their own. Like I say, this may be a feature film in most of the world, in terms of release, and it was photographed that way, Selleck says of Crossfire Trail.
But we dont have movie budgets. So, while we have a generous budget for what you might call a TV movie, this isnt a TV movie. So the trick is to find ways, in all of your years of experience, to put your money up on the screen and not to waste it. Which means you have to have a very good script, really ready to gonot one thats going to change as you go along, because that gets expensive. You need to pick your spots, in terms of location.
Selleck takes a moment to gather his thoughts, then puts things into a straightforward perspective. Put it this way: If youre going to have cattle in the movie, dont put them in thirty scenes, because if you do that, youll only be able to afford about 5 head.
So... what exactly is the going rate when it comes to on-screen appearances for no-line bovines these days?
We were paying about fifty bucks a day for each of the Longhorns, says Selleck.
Surprised by the amount, and immediately struck by the irony of it all, I mention how that kind of money is more than some ranch hands make these days. Ah, to be a Longhorn and alone in Canada.
Under his breath Selleck adds this piece of sage advice: So the next time people tell you its cheaper to film in Canadadont listen. He chuckles.
In terms of the apparent high price of renting live Canadian beef, Selleck, a savvy businessman, explains the secret of how he worked it to his advantage. We chose to get a couple hundred head on selected daysand that takes creative producing. Now the audience doesnt care about any of that. They just care what they see. Believe me, if you see this movie on the big screen... its even more impressive than what you see on television. And that has a lot to do with Simon Wincer, who has directed Lonesome Dove, and another movie Im very fond of, Quigley Down Under. [a 1990 film in which Selleck also starred]
I agree and note that although Wincer didnt overly dwell on the scenery shotsthe audience certainly will not be disappointed. Wincer delivers the film as a complete package, providing the audience with a purely visual treat from beginning to end. Effortlessly, he captures the pure essence of the West on screen, and when he caught it, he always caught it just right: lighting, mood, breadth, depth, soul, heart, love and alland every bit of it done with not a single frame wasted.
Exactly, Selleck enthusiastically adds. I feel the other element of a western is the land, which is very important in this movie. I mean the land is another character in the piece, actually. Its a motivating force for both Virginia Madsens characterwho has turned her back on it and doesnt want to go revisit it because its seductiveand its a motivating force for Rafe played by Selleck, who never allowed himself toas hed say, never had any roots deeper than topsoil.
"And more than that, an audience, when they see it as they did in Saber River, when they see a piece of land, they have to understand that thats worth fighting for. The only way you get that is through a visual sense and I think that Simon understands that almost more than anybody.
I begin another subject and speak of my hesitation when it comes to applying the term western to films such as this because of the negative attitude and perceived limitations Hollywood seems to tack to the genre, and how very unfortunate it is to have to suffer under that attitude, especially in regard to projects that are quality-made and certainly deserving of mainstream attention and acceptance.
I agree with you. I mean, Last Stand at Saber River wasnt the highest rated two-hour western in cable television history, it was the highest rated two-hour movie in the history of cable television. Westerns resonate with everybody, and I know exactly what youre talking about. My goal in this is....
"I get the same stuff, you know... says Selleck, ...'Why are the westerns dead?'
On that he admits, It infuriates me. |
He hesitates for a very brief and fleeting moment, as if taking a quick mental assessment of the long road ahead and the journey he must take before reaching his goal.
But quicker than the time it takes to type the name Tom, Selleck goes right to the heart of another matter at hand, readily acknowledging that Louis LAmour fans will probably be among those likely to watch the film.
...Still, there is that unspoken goal of his. I wait. I listen.
Soon it surfaces again in the conversation. He states his case, as enthusiastically as ever, in clear and precise terms:
...This movie offers something for everyoneand our goal in it is to let people know that this is an epic movie that all audiences will enjoy. I dont think western fans will be disappointed in this movie, but I think this is a western that plays to anybody. Why westerns get segregated into a genre in Hollywood, I dont know. ...Its just good entertainment.
I mention how often western authors also struggle when it comes to having their work acknowledged by the mainstream, or judged solely on its own merit without getting pigeonholed into something that is passé. Not only do actors experience being type-cast, but too often the same holds true for books. Then, too, there are those annoying and relentless rumors...
I get the same stuff, you know, says Selleck. He mentions how he is often asked, Why are the westerns dead? And on that he admits, It infuriates me.
So why doesnt Hollywood make more westerns, I press.
Not a man to mince words, Selleck puts it bluntly, but certainly in a sociable sort of way, and suddenly youve got to appreciate him all the more for it.
First of all they dont know how. Theyre always trying to gimmick them up with machinery that didnt exist because they havent worked enough on their stories, so they want special effectsand thats all nonsense.
Are there any possible solutions to squelching the rumor of the westerns demise?
Perhaps that depends upon how you address the critics in Hollywoodin which case the 56 year-old Emmy award-winning actor shoots straight from the hip, his aim dead-on as he fires back with the perfect case in point.
I try to remind them of something, Selleck casually notes.
As he voices his next thoughts, his tone carries a hint of uncompromising passionalmost as if he had just been presented a friendly dare.
I say, Look, I dont put westerns in a particular genre. I like good movies. I say to them, But if you want to talk genre... and if I said of any particular genre in the last decade, if two out of ten of thoseof the Best Picture of the Yearwere of that genre, would you then say the genre was dead? ...You know, I think its within the last decade Dances With Wolves and The Unforgiven were Best Picture of The Year at the Academy Awards.
Still, as far as Hollywood goes, it would appear theres a mighty strange and cock-eyed warp in the universe, or maybe a severe depletion of the intellectual ozone somewhere high above L.A. that could somehow account for Hollywood's innate inability to get with the program. Nobodys on the same page anymore, and creativity has left the lot. Awed by it, I press on: Is it really such a hard-sell in Hollywood to get a story made without all the gimmicks?
You know, theres so much imitation and so much pandering in Hollywood," says Selleck. "The people who are not creative, in my opinion, are the ones who lump things in genres. Like if its a spy movie, and it makes a lot of money, theyll make fifty spy moviesas opposed to looking for another good story, where ever it fits. I guess after Dances With Wolves they probably tried some derivative westerns, and if they didnt work, they said the western is dead and moved on to something else.
Selleck adds, Thats such small thinking. But what they are dealing with is one of the great American art forms: the Western motion picture. Its as much a part of our mythology as King Arthur is in English mythology. And there is a deep well of positive feeling and emotional ties to it that they can always take advantage ofif they just work on good stories. But Hollywood isnt making...well, most of the stories arent about people anymore, theyre about explosions. And, unfortunately, you can have bigger explosions in films within a modern setting than you can in westerns.
Selleck notes Crossfire Trail was shown at the Ojai Film Festival, the Sarasota Film Festival and also at the Cowboy Hall of Fame. He mentions many of the comments received during those showings relate to how pleasant it is to have a family film that parents can see with their children.
But if you analyze this movie in terms of violence and conflict, says Selleck, theres plenty of it.
Agreed. But how does he explain the audience's easy attitude towards the violence?
Because, says Selleck, its a movie about people. And because its handled responsibly.
How does one judge that?
Selleck explains. Ill tell you what my governor is for this stuff. If youre playing a lead in a movie like this... your character has to act... or react... after everyone in the audience already would have.
Selleck takes a moment to let the words sink in, and soon the realization hits me that this is darn cool, damn interesting, and pretty neat stuff. I am eager to hear more.
If you can develop a rage in that audience, continues Selleck, and get them to the point where theyre saying, Youve got to do something about this and it gets violent, then youve probably been more responsible in your handling of it. Violence is one of the essential elements of drama, but its not the only one. But what people are sick of is mindless violence where quantity is more important than quality. I think whats missing is that you must show the consequences of your actions if youre showing violence. All too often people get shot, and you know, the standard network sanitation is, you cut to a commercial and you dont show the body. And well, thats one of the worse things they can do.
That type of sanitized violence is something that wont be found in Sellecks film.
Our movie certainly isnt without violence, its just a little more responsiblein the sense that I think the audience would have reacted sooner than Rafe did. Thats a pretty good governor for a lead.
All this talk of mindless violence suddenly reminds Selleck of a script that came across his desk, which he says serves as the best example of the kind of writing he doesnt want to see, the kind of stuff he is not at all interested in seeing.
You know I grew up watching the TV series The Rifleman, Selleck explains. Now recently I read a Hollywood version of it they were going to make a movie out ofand in the first scene Lucas McCain shoots up a train. He takes that rifle and hes shooting it everywhere.
Sadly, it's just another example of absurd scripts making the rounds.
"And that really helped me articulate this for other movies, what I just told you, because if you really think about the series The Rifleman, every week Lucas McCain wasevery week you would get so frustrated and so angry because Lucas just sat there and took it!" Selleck's voice gets a little quieter. "And then he reacted. That was the franchise of The Rifleman. But when he acted, he was lethal and justified, and I think that was a good key for me, in general. I also think its a good example of how Hollywood has completely missed the whole franchise.
Hollywood might be striking out, but Selleck is batting a thousand. I ask about the props used in the film, the saddlery, the rifles, and the challenges that he must have faced on that level alone in putting this film together.
"I had an advantage," says Selleck. "You know, movies bother me when a character is in the 1860s and he pulls out a 73 Winchester. Its not right, its historically inaccurate. The advantage I had was two-fold. Number one, Ive done a lot of research in that area. And number two, I was with this project so early that I had probably about a year to think about it and to go to artisans across the country and get stuff made. Now, I did it with my own money because we didnt have a funded budget.
Selleck goes on to talk about one other star of the movie: a rare 76 Winchester carbine.
First of all, you just dont see that many 76 Winchester carbines in movies. And thats an interesting visual for an audiencewhether they know about Winchesters or not. Thats a very rare gun. And to see a brand new one... Selleck stops and chuckles at the thought.
Something that rare, how much would it cost?
If you could find one? It would cost about $250,000. So, I had some time and I went to a guy by the name of Kenny Howell in Illinois from R&D Guns and he built me two 76 carbines, out of two old rusted seventy-sixes.
Selleck goes on to offer an insight into how important the rifle is to the storyline. That rifle turns out to be kind of an avenging angel for the character of Charles Rodney. When Rodney got the money to pay off his mortgage, the back story, to me, was he ordered the rifle he could never afford. That was his dream rifle from the Winchester factory... and he died before he could ever pick it up. But in the film, that rifle has to be brand new.
And, another thing you never see in westerns is enough brand new gear. With Rafe, coming off a ship the way he does at the beginning of the story, hes going to need a new rig."
The challenges of finding the right saddles took Tom on a hunt to another part of the country.
Im pretty large," adds Selleck, "and if youve ever tried to sit in a real period saddle, well, they were made for little people. So I had the time and I went to Jerry Croft in Deadwood, South Dakota. Hes made other saddles for meSaber River and a couple other moviesand I had the time for him to make me an accurate saddle for the period that we left new in the movie. Ive never seen a new saddle in a western. So we left it on the new side. The guy there says, You want me to age this down? and I said, Why? In the film, Rafe just bought it.
continued on next page...
Click here to read Part 2
Copyright ©2001 Taylor Sophia Fogarty.
American Western Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction not permitted.
|
