But, even if you haven’t met director Kenneth Lonergan and discovered him to be pleasant, self-effacing and unusually thoughtful in his responses to your questions, there is another way to read the “Margaret” story, one that doesn’t rely on those cliches. In this take, a disparate collection of smart and dedicated people identified enough greatness in the original, undoubtedly messy cut, to launch little less than a crusade to get the film out of the edit suite and into theaters. It is a story of a loosely-formed coalition of filmgoers, critics and filmmakers that united under the “Margaret” banner (or hashtag) with no agenda other than liking the film and feeling it deserved a chance. For posterity’s sake, we hope that’s the way the story will be told: as a measured triumph, albeit one that took a very long time to achieve.
And it is still unfolding. Today, Kenneth Lonergan’s “Margaret,” a film we greatly admire, comes to DVD and Blu-Ray, in its theatrically-released 150 minute version, as well as a new 3-hour long cut. And we’re marking the occasion by sharing with you the first part of a marathon interview we conducted with Lonergan at the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival last week -- part 2 will run tomorrow. And both will be available as a special lengthier cut later in the year, worked on by Thelma Schoonmaker. (Kidding.)
“It’s not a director's cut,” says Lonergan. “We’re calling it an extended cut. It’s a different version. A director’s cut is where they take the movie away from you and chop it to pieces and send it out without your permission...This is just another version with a little bit more of everything in it.”
In fact, Lonergan isn’t certain it’s anything like his "definitive" version. “Whether it’s better or worse, I don’t know. It’s longer, but it’s a DVD so you can turn it off or fast forward,” he quips. “But no I don’t think I prefer it. It’s different, it’s nice to be able to take your time. I know 2 1/2 hours seems like I’m already taking my time but there are so many characters, there is so much that happens to her that it was nice to have another opportunity to look at it.”
One of the criticisms of the theatrical release was a certain unevenness in terms of pacing, does the new cut make a difference there?
“It’s hard for me to judge, I’m sure it does. In the theatrical release there are many things suggested, which I hope is interesting, and this version I hope draws you in in a different way...In both versions I tried to pace it more like normal life and less like a film.”
And, as though aware that he has now earned something of a reputation for a “longer is better” approach, he goes on to say “I saw the second version of ‘Lawrence of Arabia,’ [recently]. I love ‘Lawrence of Arabia,’ I’ve seen it dozens of time (I don’t watch many films, I see a few films many times) and I’m just like, why in the world did he add 15 minutes more of horses and camels charging through the desert? Why? There’s only a few extra scenes, just many more camels and horses. There were enough camels and horses before - they were great. So maybe the extended version [of “Margaret”] will be like that but... maybe not.”
"That’s a good question. I've been thinking about that quite a lot myself... I don't know the answer. I'm at the point where nobody bothers me when I'm writing, but it's very hard to edit, because everyone gets very nervous.”
His personality, he suggests, is not best suited to that situation. “Nobody really did anything wrong, exactly, it's just everyone was very frightened and nervous. Some people can have fights and then go back to work; I have a big fight and I shake for the rest of the day. Or even if it's not a fight, it's just a conversation, and a problem comes up I think about that [constantly], so I very much need to be left alone completely and that's the one thing that's very difficult for people. Understandably. I mean, write a cheque for $12 million dollars and you wanna make sure it's going to come out all right, it's reasonable. But I need to find a way to separate the two things... Not that it was all bad, the film came out very well, I'm happy with the result and I'm happy that people seem to like it. So I don't know what more I can ask for. Except to be younger.”
In some ways, Lonergan seems to feel the perceived success of his first film, “You Can Count On Me,” fed into the difficulties of the “Margaret” process: “[Filmmaking is] the most collaborative art form in the history of the world. As a director, if you write the film, you're the only one there from the very beginning to the very end...And everybody comes in and, this is not false modesty, but I really don't know very much. To go from never having directed a film before to directing one film is a perpendicular learning curve but at the end of it you still don't know that much,“ he insists. “With the first film everyone helps you because they know you don't know anything but with the second film, I'd had a little bit of success so everyone thought that I knew something when I came back. So...I knew a little bit more the second time, but when I would say ‘You have to explain this to me,’ I got this ‘Oh, he’s being funny, he’s full of shit, his movie was at Sundance’ bullshit, so it was very hard to explain how stupid I was sometimes.”