LIFE AND CINEMA
Rob Reiner on his evolving interpretation of
Years before Rob Reiner portrayed oft-insulted left-wing son-in-law Michael Stivic on “All in the Family,” he was a teenager worried he’d get drafted and sent to Vietnam.
So Reiner left the 1960s with a poor opinion of President Lyndon B. Johnson. But the filmmaker and actor has had additional time to consider Johnson’s legacy, which he presents with all of its contradictions in the new film “LBJ,” starring Woody Harrelson as the 36th president of the United States. It’s one of two films Reiner plans to release this year, the second being “Shock and Awe,” about reporters investigating the credibility of the George W. Bush administration’s claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, prompting a 2003 invasion.
At 70, Reiner is disinclined to stop working. In addition to the two new films, he continues making periodic appearances on TV and in films, too. And his beloved early work still circulates as midnight movies, starting with his first film, the 1984 mockumentary “This Is Spinal Tap.” That began a six-year run that included “Stand By Me,” “The Princess Bride,” “When Harry Met Sally” and “Misery.” Reiner comes to town Friday to screen “LBJ” at WorldFest Houston, where he’ll receive the Remi Career Achievement Award. He talked about his latest and some of his greatest work.
Q: Would you say your thoughts on Johnson have evolved over 50 years? I would imagine with the war, you weren’t necessarily a fan in the ’60s.
A: They absolutely have. I was of draft age when the Vietnam War was going on, so I had a very specific opinion about Johnson: I hated him. He was responsible for a war that I thought was illegal and immoral. And he had the power to send me to my death. That’s all I could see. It’s only as I’ve gotten older and become involved in politics and government that I’ve been able to appreciate what he was able to accomplish and how difficult it was. His ability to move legislation. We can see clearly right now how difficult that is based just on what the Republicans tried to do with health care this year. It’s not easy. He had a supreme skill there that was probably unparalleled in American history. Had it not been for that war, he’d have gone down as one of the greatest presidents. But you can’t carve that out. It happened, and it colors everything about him. But I’ve developed a different understanding and appreciation of him, and hopefully made a film that showed his complexity. He was almost a Shakespearean character. People think of him as this armtwisting, bull-in-a-china-shop tough guy. But he was also incredibly insecure and frightened about whether or not people liked him. He was always concerned about that.
Q: How much did you lean on Johnson biographies for the film?
A: I read the Robert Caro books (namely “The Years of Lyndon Johnson”), and we optioned the first one but couldn’t get it off the ground. The one book that I read that was most helpful in understanding his personality was the Doris Kearns Goodwin book (“Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream”). It had several little nuggets that I hope we were able to bring out and show in the film. One thing I remember is that he had this recurring dream that he’d be paralyzed. And you see this inability to pull the trigger right away on big decisions, like running for president. This fear of the Kennedys. He was paralyzed, but he overcame it, and his strength and abilities kicked in. He was very close to his mother, but she was not consistent in terms of showing her love. So he was left feeling like he didn’t
know her. And there was a nervousness and insecurity there that played a part in his inability at times to make decisions. Once he kicked in, he could be incredible. I tried to show both sides.
Q: It’s frustrating how some of the cultural and political issues from that era remain unresolved.
A: It’s interesting; I saw it at this film festival in Maryland. It was the first time I’d watched it since (President Donald) Trump was elected. And it had taken on a different meaning. Now we’re seeing this racism that was submerged for a long time, but last year it was unearthed and bubbled up again. You think about this president working for civil rights and voting rights; he started Medicare. You think of the progress we’ve made. Stars like Oprah and Will Smith on TV and in films. Our first African-American president. We’d been gliding on this path, but then there it is again.
Q: I think he had a line about how he was the only guy who could speak two languages: that of the Southern Democrats and that of the Kennedys.
A: He was the consummate politician. He made it his business to try to understand the workings of everybody he was trying to convince. He understood the mind of (Georgia Sen.) Richard Russell and also the mind of the Kennedys. His thing was to try to forge some unity from that. And he was able to do it. I’ve been asked if I think his portrayal in “Selma” was wrong. I don’t think so. He knew he needed something from MLK. He also knew there was an African-American community that was anxious for him to get legislation started. But he knew he had to do it when it was right. And he’d only do it when the time was right. He went crazy when (Senate Majority Leader) Mike Mansfield couldn’t tell him if he had the votes he needed. He knew you couldn’t put something on the floor without knowing if it would pass. There would be political fallout. And the civil rights, he knew that was going to mean losing the South. He said for a generation; it turned out to be a lot longer than that. People ask if he did things out of the goodness of his heart or for political reasons. I think it was both. If you look at his background, he grew up in (rural) Texas. He understood poverty. He taught in schools where the kids were poor. At the same time, he was a practical person. He was happy to let Russell believe he was a good old boy, and he was happy to let the Kennedys think they knew who he was, too.
Q: The idea of “endless compromise” is a theme that works through the film. And it’s a theme in short order in our political present.
A: That’s the thing. You watch this film — it’s the way government is supposed to work, and it’s not easy. People are functioning, and they do make compromises. But we’ve had a broken government for a long, long time. That’s what (Russian President Vladimir) Putin was able to exploit. He came in and disrupted things because these people don’t know how to govern. He was able to show how weak a democracy can be. We’re at a real test right now. After 250 years, there is still a test to see if this experiment will survive. Whether or not our institutions will hold. You had the Civil War, and our democracy held. You had the 1960s, it held. But now I don’t know.
Q: You’d mentioned how the film feels different to you than it once did. That idea of evolving interpretation reminded me of “Stand By Me.” I remember being so swept up by its humor when I was a kid. Thirty years later, I watched it with my daughter. I forgot how devastating it was.
A: It’s interesting you bring that up. One of my all-time favorite movies is “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I saw that when I was pretty young and was just taken by the magic of it and the love of it. And as I’ve gotten older, that movie means even more to me. I think it’s pretty simple. As you get older, you cherish life more. You realize it’s precious. The less time you have on the planet, the more you see how precious it is. “It’s a Wonderful Life” is about that. How everybody’s life means something and how your life touches others. The movie doesn’t change, but you change. It’s the same movie, but you definitely see it differently.
Q: This may sound overly serious because some of the films I’m going to mention are comedies. But there’s a melancholy thread I see in a lot of your work about people either being left behind or worrying about getting left behind: “Stand By Me,” “Misery,” “The Princess Bride.” Even “Spinal Tap.”
A: “Spinal Tap”? I guess there was a little emotion in there with two best friends fighting.
Q: By the end, they’re the opening act for a puppet show. I mean, that’s funny, but it’s also heartbreaking.
A: Yes! Puppet show, Spinal Tap. They got second billing to a puppet show. All those films, to a degree, represent me in some way. You mentioned “Stand By Me,” which I think is the one that is closest to my personality. There’s a lot of humor but also a lot of melancholy in the mix, too. But it’s a difficult thing to get the tone right. A film like “Princess Bride,” it was an odd mixture of satire and romance and adventure. That’s a tough mixture. If you go all the way, like Monty Python, where it’s pure satire, you can focus on that one thing more easily. That’s one of the reasons I think I could tell the story of Johnson. There’s humor and sadness in there. I’m 70, and I’ve lived long enough to know nothing is simply black and white. Except Hitler. I guess that’s pretty clear.
Q: Those films are beloved now, but people were unsure what to do with them at first.
A: Yes, even “Spinal Tap,” which was total satire, had a difficult time. The first time we screened it was in Dallas. Nobody knew anything about it. People came up to me after and said, “Why would you make a movie about a band nobody has heard of ? And one that’s so bad? Why do that? Why not make a movie about the Stones?” So that’s satire for you. “The Princess Bride” had the hardest time finding its audience. “What is this? What are we watching?” It’s hard to walk the line making these movies. You can’t think too much about what the audiences will like because you just never know. So I approach them as me doing what I like.
Q: Was there ever a time as a kid when you considered not following your father into entertainment?
A: I liked sports as a kid, and science and math. But when I was a senior in high school, I took a drama class, and it just felt familiar to me. It felt comfortable to be around. It was something I’d been aware of in the house growing up. And it just got into me. I looked up to my father; he was like a god to me. Recently, just days ago, we had our hands and feet imprinted in the cement at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre. We were the first father and son to do it simultaneously. And I made a joke that I was literally following in my father’s footsteps. And for me, that’s been a great thing. Since I was 17, it’s pretty much all I’ve wanted to do.
Q: Norman Lear seemed to be a huge influence, too. “All in the Family” has a strange and at times frustrating timelessness about it. Did you ever think Archie Bunker would be a parody that resonated decades later?
A: It’s so weird. There were times during the campaign where people would ask me, “Do you think there could be another show like ‘All in the Family’ to come along now?” And I’d point to the TV and say, “What are you talking about? It’s on every day. You got Archie Bunker running for president. They both came from Queens. They’re both angry. They don’t like change.”