A critical and commercial failure upon its release late in the summer of 1998, not many can probably remember Mark Christopher‘s directorial debut, 54 (this writer’s Proust-ian childhood memory of it being its soundtrack on display as a reward in the arcade of a Dave & Buster’s type establishment). Yet with the quite belated release of its director’s cut (now available on Digital HD), which premiered at Berlin Film Festival earlier this year, the film finally has a chance at another life, and we sat down with its creator to discuss this lucky break. Check out the conversation below.
The Film Stage: To start things off, can you guide us through the development process of 54?
Mark Christopher: I was in graduate school at Colombia and I wanted to make a disco American Graffiti, because as a kid American Graffiti was my favorite movie and I came of age during the disco era. I had a teacher named Paul Schrader who was my mentor there and he said you should set it at 54, and I said great idea. He started introducing me to all these people; some celebrities, some of the people who were at it, but especially bartenders, coat-check girls and busboys because that was the story I wanted to tell; to take you into that world and not have it be glamorous and fabulous, but be as a common man or the worker bees. So I talked to a lot of those people and did a lot of research; it was of course a very well-documented time in photographs and newspaper and magazine articles. There’s a little video at the time that I made the movie and only one tiny bit of film; you might be able to go on YouTube now and find tons of it but at the time I found very little.
That was the development process. I was still in graduate school when I started it so I was writing and researching it for several years before I finished it.
If you look back at when the film came out, there were a number of 70’s period pieces, like Boogie Nights and Casino. Do you think there was something in the air that made the 70’s so appealing at that time?
That’s one of the reasons that I thought when originally conceiving the project, or it seemed to me that these nostalgia movies — for lack of a better word — or these music nostalgia movies, they sort of go in fifteen year cycles, you know what I’m saying? When I was in graduate school it was fifteen years later, so there was sort of this sense of missing that time and that era and that’s probably one of the things that appealed to me; it was certainly very much in the air.
Also very much in the air, or very much on paper, were very many Studio 54 projects that were not written by graduate students — they were written by people with credits. But they took an approach that was from a very much famous lens, while mine came through the lens of these young kids who worked there.
When you see the names Harvey and Bob Weinstein in the end credits, it kind of alludes to why the film may have gotten re-edited. Can you talk about the process of it getting taken away from you?
All of that’s out there already so I’m really more interested in talking about the movie that actually exists, but I will say that it was very painful at the time, but I’m not the first director to have his movie re-cut by a studio, and I will not be the last director unfortunately to have his movie re-cut by the studio. So that’s sort of that and now I’m just excited about this kind of mini-miracle that the real movie is coming out after seventeen years.
Why did it take so long to assemble the director’s cut?
My producer Jonathan King, he was interested in getting it out there as soon as possible, but it takes awhile for people to get interested in director’s cuts. And the studio cut had kind of stood the test of time. It has its fans and it had a shelf life. They kind of needed to see that this was a viable project, so the bootleg had shown at Outfest in 2008, and it had shown at the Torino LGBT festival and it has caused a mini-riot actually because it oversold the venue; that was fun, there’s nobody like the Italians.
But me and Jonathan would go back to Miramax every two years. I would pester Jonathan and he would pester them and finally they said yes. They were like, ‘This is the right thing to do and we’re going to release this thing.’ Then we got such a wonderful response in Berlin, but it took time. But here’s the thing that I don’t understand; it’s always the most successful movies that get director’s cuts, and I think to myself, ‘but why?’ It’s already a big success and it’s good. So I always had this deep eternal ember burning inside me that thought director’s cuts should be for movies that were re-cut by the studio and actually don’t work. So that was really important to me, but it took time because even though the film has had a shelf life, it wasn’t seen as a success. But somebody like Orson Welles who had great fame, he had a chance to do a director’s cut — or actually it may have been posthumously — of The Magnificent Ambersons that eventually came out.
So to take a chance on this movie, especially when there wasn’t actually an official director’s cut was quite something. I’m so thankful and thrilled that they took a chance on it.
I know that a lot of what was cut out was the bisexuality of the lead character. Do you think at this point in time seventeen years later homosexuality is more accepted in mainstream cinema?
Yeah, very much so. I think the thing that helps so much is television; the dark one-hour drama with flawed characters. This director’s cut, aside from him being bisexual, is also he is very much an opportunist, and I think that was complicated in 1998 to release a movie on 1,800 screens that had so much sexuality and bisexuality and a guy who was really flawed. I’m not saying that by being bisexual he was flawed, but he has flaws, he’s quite the opportunist. I think the combination of things made the film too dark for such a wide release, and I do think that audiences are ready for darker things, more complex things, bisexuality, etc.
What was specifically added in the reshoots?
Around forty-four minutes of the movie was cut out and then we re-shot thirty minutes of it. Did you see the studio cut by any chance?
No, the director’s cut was the first time I’d ever seen the film.
You probably have to see it to believe it, but the love triangle is gone, the story is gone, the character development is gone and the character relationships are completely different and the themes are completely different. In fact I’m not sure that the studio cut has any real themes under it. In fact, how does it end in the studio cut? It’s been so long since I saw it. He’s outside, but them I’m not sure what happens, I think the Neve Campbell character comes up and talks to him, then we cut to a reunion scene later after Steve’s out of jail. I could be getting that wrong, but I honestly don’t remember the actual studio cut that well.
You still directed the reshoots, but with a gun pointed at your head I assume?
No. You know, I grew up on an island farm and taught that when you start a job, you have to finish a job. So it was painful, but I had to do it.
Were you and Miramax always on the same page? Because when you think of Miramax at the time, you think of all of their Oscar films and what not. Were they always supportive of your vision and at the last second they got testy or?
I would say it was the audience at the test screenings. It was a business decision with the cast getting so famous and seeing the potential for the movie and wanting to put it out on 1,800 screens. It was a business decision to remake the movie.
The director’s cut of 54 is now available on Digital HD. Watch the new trailer above.