Alexandre O. Philippe on You Can Call Me Bill, Leap of Faith, and our shared cultural experiences

Director Alexandre O. Philippe came to visit Helsinki for the Night Visions film festival, and to premiere his latest documentary, You Can Call Me Bill. I was lucky enough to speak with him about his works over the past decade, working with the two Bill’s, Friedkin and Shatner, and how to grapple with big questions that no one has the answers to.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

JI: I’m thrilled to meet you in person, because I’ve watched your films for over a decade, and they’ve been such a huge part of my film education. The first ones I saw were Doc of the Dead and The People vs. George Lucas, which are great, but they’re very different from your style today. A couple of years ago I watched 78/52 for the first time, and I remember it was like a discovery of a language in a way. What was that moment where you realized this is the way you’re going to approach the material from now on?

Alexandre O. Philippe: I’m very interested in the way cinema resonates with culture and impacts the Zeitgeist. Those films and scenes that transcend the medium of cinema to become cultural events. You mentioned The People vs. George Lucas, I think I entered this initially via pop culture, and looking at certain movies and their cultural impact. But then I think that led me ultimately to the emotion, that’s a real sort of keyword.

I think what you’re talking about, what my films are about, is about how we emotionally respond collectively to certain movies. I think it’s tremendously important to sort of dig into that and try to understand why. Because horror movies, especially, have a lot to say because they tap into collective fears.

JI: You mentioned in Memory and also Leap of Faith, that they’re films which reflect the values of what people are afraid of at the time, and that as such tie themselves to the Zeitgeist. It’s similar to Lynch and OZ, which is a different sort of beast, but I feel like it shares a deeper understanding and connection between these themes, and why they resonate with us. It’s something you spend a lot of time very effectively communicating.

AP: I think what’s important also is that is that my films are not about explaining or elucidating. They’re about deepening the mysteries in a way. I’m very committed to these sorts of explorations into the creative process. And the creative process is a mysterious thing. I mean, where do ideas come from? As David Lynch would say, it comes from the room over there. But you know, in a way, it means nothing, but in a way, it means everything.

It comes to you in certain ways. It’s a very magical, extraordinary process that you have to pay attention to. I think the great artists kind of have this ability to tap into things. To enter that room next door wherever those ideas come from. But they can also have the ability to recognize when things are really happening and clicking without necessarily trying to understand, because there’s nothing to understand, except that when the work is done, it resonates with people. And it resonates with them because it taps into these primordial themes and ideas and images and motifs that clearly are related to what it means to be human.

We relate to Psycho, or we connect with Psycho, for completely different reasons than we connect with, say, Twin Peaks. When you’re watching Lynch, you’re really connecting with him on a much more sort of subconscious kind of level, but it’s still there.

JI: There’s a wonderful moment in Leap of Faith, where Friedkin emphasizes that he didn’t have meaning, or he didn’t have subtext in the material he was making. I think it’s a fascinating idea that, when given to an audience, we fill in that meaning.

AP: I think it’s always a little tricky, because when you’re dealing with artists at that level, the Alfred Hitchcock’s and William Friedkin’s, and the Lynch’s, I mean, there’s obviously a lot of intent. Of course, there’s a lot of stuff that’s very intuitive that he wasn’t thinking about certain things, which just happened, because you have to trust your gut. I think all of those, all of the great filmmakers, all the great artists, period, just do that. But it doesn’t negate the fact that there’s always also a desire and an intent. So, it’s a little bit of both.

And then, similarly with cinephiles, when we watch those films, sometimes we can recognize the intent for what it is, but sometimes it’s very easy to overread something that was not necessarily intended by the maker. I also want to say this, because I think it’s important, I think it’s okay to overread. I think it’s okay to read stuff into a movie that’s not necessarily there. If it speaks to you on a level that was not intended, it still speaks to you. Because we put a fair amount of ourselves into the watching experience. I think that’s perfectly valid. It’s especially valid because any great filmmaker, any great artist, can’t possibly mean everything that they put on the screen or on the canvas. There’s always going to be stuff that is going to be outside of their intent. But that’s what art is.

Those are the mysteries of the creative process. You work on something with a certain kind of intent, and then other stuff starts happening that you were not envisioning. But that makes it even greater. So, it just happens by virtue of the great craftsman. The better you get at what you do, the more magic happens around the intent of what you’re creating.

JI: I love oral histories, especially when you have a lot of people who have differing viewpoints, because memory is so subjective, so whatever big picture you get is like a broken mosaic. But when you’re interviewing somebody who has a very clear viewpoint of themselves and their process, be that William Shatner or William Friedkin, do you have a temptation to try and push them when you know it’s not quite how things happened? Is there an instinctive knowledge or does your bullshit meter ever take off? Or do you just let them go?

AP: I tend to deal with that more in the editing. You’re spot on here, because, especially when you’re looking at Friedkin or William Shatner, who are both showmen, and I think they’re both very, very clear on their image and how they come across. They like to mess with people a little bit. But occasionally, they’ll take off the mask. I think that, in the case of Friedkin, I was very lucky that he got to show me a lot more of who he was, than I think he ever has before. I mean, just to name of one of many examples, but the whole Kyoto monologue is extraordinary. When it happened, I have a very distinct memory as it unfolded, he started telling that story on the spot, and I recognized how special this was. I knew this was going to the ending of the film. And that we’d have to go to Kyoto. Which was not budgeted, but we had to find a way to do it. Because it’s just too good, you know?

Then you look at a Hitchcock, who was a prankster. He was pranking his audiences constantly. So, when he talks about Psycho being this big joke? I don’t think he means it. I think it was trying to pull a prank on the audience, but I don’t think he saw the film as a joke. I think he took the prank itself very seriously.

I think these kinds of people, Hitchcock, Shatner, or Friedkin, they’re going to take a lot of their secrets to their graves. But I think, at least as far as Friedkin and Shatner are concerned, I’ve spent enough time with them, that I think I have a pretty good sense of when they’re telling the truth. When it’s real and when they’re just trying to put up a front. In a way, You Can Call Me Bill and Leap of Faith are, in a way, companion pieces. I think they’re both men at a stage in their careers where they were, I think, ready to be a bit more candid about who they who they are. And, for whatever reason, they both trusted me to be the one to sort of channel that. It’s very strange, the whole way these two films happened, but it’s an incredible honor to be able to have made them, and to know that they’re both very delighted with the results, I think it’s super special.

JI: I don’t know if I’m reading too much into it, there’s a moment where Shatner pauses, and you can tell that he’s kind of breaking through something, and he starts talking about how, when he dies, he would like to be a tree. When that happened, did you talk with him if it’s this too personal? Was there ever a fear this was going to a place that might not feel right for an audience? Because it is a really big thing to talk about.

AP: I didn’t, but the reason for that is that we had that conversation before we started working on the film. The whole discussion that there were no taboo subjects, that everything was fair game, that we were going to go there. Obviously, I told him that I really wanted to dig into the themes that meant the most to him at this point in his life. So that means talking about loneliness and death. We talked about a lot of pretty dark stuff to be honest. Which, again, is not really what you would expect him to talk about.

JI: I found the experience of watching You Can Call Me Bill fascinating, because I didn’t read or see anything about it in advance. So, when it began, I was stunned to see that it almost forced me have this kind of conversation with myself about because William Shatner. Someone who, for me has always been Bill Shatner, the character. A kind of creation that overtook the William Shatner.

Then, during the film, I have to question myself how this happened. Because, clearly there has to be something to him as a genuinely great actor. If you look at the performances he’s given, beyond just Star Trek, which takes immense talent to hold together, but it’s all there. Not just the physicality, which is impressive, but this impactful presence that, 57 years later, we’re still discussing it. It’s such an intimate and revealing experience to see the person beyond the star, if that makes sense.

AP: Yeah, for sure. I think he’s underrated as an actor, for sure. I think he’s underrated as a human. It’s easy to think of Shatner as this kind of over-the-top kitschy kind of actor, which of course he can be. He does that really well. But there’s so much more to him. But then as a result, I think we tend to sort of conflate him as an actor as who he is as a person. Meanwhile, nothing could be further from the truth.

JI: It’s also very clear the film holds a very deep empathy for him. But it’s also tough to see people who are open to be vulnerable. To have that as the main focus. It reminded me of a John Ford quote about how the greatest landscape is the human face. And then you have Shatner, who has these really soulful eyes, filling the frame, and I had to remind myself that he’s in his 90s. Yet he’s so vibrant. So, when he says that he is not ready to go, because there’s so much to do, it really hits me in the soul.

AP: It’s incredible, and I have to tell you, I have so much respect for him, so much admiration, just seeing how he operates every day. He wakes up super early, he works every day. He’s busier than he’s ever been. Not only that, but he rides his horse every day! I just think, like any of us at his age of 92, or even in our 80s, if we can get lucky enough to do that. To be close to that is incredible. But it stems from, obviously, he’s got good genes, that’s one thing, but even beyond that. It’s taking care of his inner child, as he says, that’s a very important thing. This sort of lust for life that he has, and, his deep empathy and compassion and appreciation for the world that we live in. His concern for future generations. All of it.

I think he has also this very sort of unique ability, which is given to very, very few people, that he’s able to take those ideas and communicate them to the rest of us in a way that we can all understand. Which is a gift.

JI: There’s also a moment where Shatner talks more openly about the Shatnerisms, and how he’s always confused when even his friends mimic him. There’s this thin line between loving tribute and mean parody that kind of feeds into that misunderstanding.

AP: That’s an area where I’m not entirely convinced that he’s actually being entirely truthful. When he says, “I don’t know what that is”, I think surely you must know. I think it’s tricky because on the one hand, I agree with you, I think it’s easy to see how it would rub it the wrong way sometimes. But I also think that he’s having a little fun with that, too.

JI: I wanted to ask you about Leap of Faith and Memory, because there’s one of that one of the things that I remember an interview where you had spoken about how it had taken you years to see like certain horror films because you had been told about how scary they are. For me it was much the same, only much later because of the censorship laws in Finland. But in both cases, we hear of these images, the chest buster, Pazuzu, that they sear into our minds well before we see the film.

So, it’s a revelation to hear Friedkin talk of the simple liminality of things like that, because for them, it was just putting together simple images to create something that became culturally important. When you start looking for a subject, do you draw from those childhood images as an inspiration? Is it a desire to know what’s behind them?

AP: It’s interesting because a lot of the films I’ve made are about movies that meant something to me when I was growing up. I did wait quite a bit of time before I saw The Exorcist, because my mom had been so sort of freaked out by it. I was very anxious to watch a film on that level. But I don’t know, it’s strange, because it’s also very much intuitive. I feel like the film’s going to choose me and not the other way around. I mean, things usually sort of happen in a way that is very sort of organic. Especially now that I’m in this kind of groove, where things happen more in a way that I didn’t plan them to.

I wasn’t planning on making a film about the Exorcist, but Friedkin invited me to his table at a film festival, because he had heard about 78/52, and he wanted tell me stories about a Hitchcock. Then he saw it and loved the film, and he invited me to lunch. It was really one of those things that led to another.

Leap of Faith really was his idea, in the sense that I think he saw something in me that made him think: “This is someone that I want to make this film”. So, he threw the hook in the water, and I took the bait, but before that there was no plan to make that film. There was no real plan to do anything on Shatner, except that I had heard that he was the spokesperson for Legion M, the company that purchased Memory out of Sundance. It was very serendipitous. They introduced us, and it became came around from that. Now, I’m working on a film on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. But, again, that wasn’t my plan, except the owners of the franchise, they came to me and asked: “How do you feel about making a special film for the 50th anniversary?” I couldn’t refuse, because it’s a very special movie.

JI: That’s also one of those films where people put a lot themselves and their fears into it. To this day, people will insist you can see a bunch of gore in the film, when in reality it’s surprisingly bloodless.

AP: There is so much technique in that film. It’s crazy. Not just in style, on every level. Have you seen Tobe Hooper’s first film, Eggshells, before? Sadly, very few people have seen it. But if you care about Texas Chainsaw, you’ve got to watch Eggshells. It’s full on experimental, but it has all the markers of the stuff that came to fully bloom in Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It’s a really amazing. But after that, I think he changed. I don’t think he ever had that sort of pinnacle. Once you make something like that, it’s very difficult, I guess.

JI: It is very dangerous to do a seminal work as your one of your first films.

AP: Exactly. Yeah.

JI: I want to go back to one at one thing, which is The People vs. George Lucas. Looking back at it now, it feels almost quaint. Even with some of the vitriol, the years surrounding the prequels and the way people talk about them is much kinder than anything these days. Have you looked at any of that in the years since making the film? Or is that one of those things that’s just not interesting to go back to?

AP: Not really. I mean, I toyed for a while with the idea of making a second chapter, because obviously, so much has happened, but I let go of it. I hate to say it, but I think Star Wars now is has become boring. I think fans are sort of holding on to this thing that it’s never going to be. I think the franchise is playing it very safe. I’m happy to move on from that now. Is there down the road a different kind of film about Star Wars that I could make? Yeah, potentially. But I’ll tell you what, the one thing I would love to do, but he will never do it, is a one-on-one interview with George Lucas.

JI: Oh, that would be very interesting.

AP: But, as far as I understand, he’s very upset with The People vs George Lucas. So, I don’t think he’ll ever talk to me, which is a shame, because that film was a love letter to him. It was very empathetic towards him. I mean, obviously, I call him out on the BS of the idea that they had permanently altered the original negatives. That’s just one of those things. Don’t lie to your fans. But other than that, I think the film is very loving towards him.

JI: I think you should be able to call BS, especially when something matters to you.

AP: Yeah, and I don’t think it was cool. There was a statement from Lucasfilm telling the fans why they were never going to be able to see the original film again. I mean, come on. These are the people who made you a billionaire. Who built you an empire. Just don’t feed them that.

I’ve heard from people who’ve talked to George, especially when he spoke with New York Times, he was very clear that he was not happy. Mark Hamill still goes on his soapbox now and then to actually spew lies about how I approached him at Comic Con. I gave him the details of the film, with the poster and the title. But now he says that I tried to trick him, that he didn’t know the title, and the film was called something else. But it never was. Even the website back in 2007 was called The People vs George Lucas. We went straight to Lucasfilm and said, we were making this film, we’d like to interview George, like, we were always transparent. But, for whatever reason, he’s still going out there with that story. I mean, great. It’s publicity, I guess. It’s just odd how it keeps hitting that nerve. I don’t think that Mark Hamill even watched the film. Because if he did, he wouldn’t be saying those things.

JI: People are a mystery sometimes when it comes to things they love.

AP: All I can do is do the work that I do with integrity, and I can’t control the way people are going to respond to that. Otherwise, I’d lose sleep.

JI: It’s like reading YouTube comments, you don’t do that.

AP: Absolutely, don’t go down that road.

JI: One of my other heroes in documentary filmmaking is Werner Herzog, who has a very distinct way of inserting himself in his films. It is, in his words, anything but a fly on the wall. But in your films, I feel the hand is a lot more invisible. It’s there, but it’s almost sly in a way. You can see where you will insert a clip that graciously comments on what’s being said. Are those moments planned, or are they more a joyous discovery? Or is it both?

AP: It’s a whole process. I work with different editors for different projects, but each of them brings a lot to the table as well. I think you’re absolutely right in this idea of finding clips that are more than just somebody talking about a scene, and you’re showing the scene they’re talking about. It’s a lot more complicated and involved. Using the clips is an art form in and of itself. Because you want clips that are going to sort of communicate the ideas on a deeper level. You have to work on multiple fronts.

So, there are discoveries. I can give you one example of many, there’s this brief clip from this little-known Western series, The Outlaw, that is only available on VHS. I was super lucky, because it’s out of print, and I was able to find an expensive one on eBay. In one of the episodes, Shatner is a guest star, and he has this almost death scene. His character doesn’t actually die, but it looks like he’s about to. He does this monologue about meaning of life and death, which is very much the kind of stuff he talks about now in real life. But what’s remarkable is that in the scene, he looks up to the sky, and you can see a falling star.

It’s one of those absolute gifts, you’re looking at this obscure series that’s pre–Star Trek, but it’s a clip that speaks not just to the role that he’s about to embody, but it also speaks to the human that he still is to this day. Those are the gifts of discovery. That’s really the joy of my work.

I think in the case, specifically with You Can Call Me Bill, was to treat the roles that he has played throughout his career as avatars for Shatner, the person. So, it became this thing of finding parts that hold a mirror to the man. I think that exercise was really, really fascinating, because when you try to focus on who he is, and what he’s trying to communicate, and then you realize that a lot of the roles that he’s played, in many ways, we’re tackling some of those very themes and ideas.

So, you wonder, how does that work? You know, why those roles? Is it because they resonated with him on a deeper level? Or did those roles ultimately shape him as a human? Is it the chicken or the egg? There’s no answer to that, either. I’m sure even he wouldn’t have the answer.

JI: In a more traditional kind of a portrait, you would have castmates and friends come in for talking head portions. But with talking heads, it becomes a dialogue between their perception of the subject, and the documentary has to respond to that. I found it fascinating that here, you instead allowed Shatner’s characters to be the talking heads. It’s such an interesting and fascinating way of looking at him.

Because when I watch these kinds of films, I always worry I’m reading too much into a person. But here it’s different, especially when Shatner is talking about Kirk’s death scene, how he wishes that Kirk would have said, “oh my” a little bit differently. I think it is a fascinating way of him also reflecting on how will he face things when they do come to an end. And I don’t know how to respond to that on an emotional level. I think it’s too complex of an emotion at this point. But at the same time, I’m so glad to be able to experience that. Even if it’s weird, as this is a stranger who I don’t think I’ll ever meet. So, there’s this gift of emotion that comes with the experience.

AP: Thank you. It’s a gift that he’s given us, really. Same with Friedkin, who is sadly gone now, which is still something I haven’t wrapped my head around, but their works, their films, will live on long after they’re gone, and long after I’m gone. I think, in the end, they both knew what we were doing. I think they were both very clear that this was the time to do something like this. As a sort of a final statement. I hope I get to do more of those. But if I if I never do, man, I’ve worked with Friedkin and Shatner. It’s pretty incredible.