Guillermo del Toro served as the secret back-up director on William Friedkin’s final film
The studio required William Friedkin to have a potential replacement director for his final film, The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial
Aux News Del Toro
While promoting The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial this weekend at the Venice Film Festival—where the movie, director William Friedkin’s last, will have its world premiere—producer Annabelle Dunne dropped a surprising behind-the-scenes detail: Guillermo del Toro served as the film’s “back-up director,” meaning he was on-board to finish the movie if something happened to Friedkin before shooting had wrapped. (It didn’t. He had completed the film before his death on August 8.)
But, as Dunne noted, this was a contractual obligation that is apparently “very common” in show business even though she calls it a “state secret,” adding that, “Hollywood is ageist.” Friedkin, who was 87 when he died, said he had to “think about” who he would nominate as his back-up director, but he had thought of someone by the next day, with Dunne saying it went down like this: “Ok, honey I have the guy. Get a pen: it’s Guillermo del Toro, you got that?”
Del Toro and Friedkin were longtime friends, and though Variety says del Toro was in the middle of promoting his Pinocchio movie, he vowed to come to set “every single day” just so he could sit next to Friedkin and watch him work. “It was a joy for all of us,” Dunne said, “including the actors, to have his presence there.” She said del Toro “made it abundantly clear” that it was Friedkin’s movie and that he was just there as their “mascot.”
At least based on the Variety story, it doesn’t say who contractually obligated Friedkin to name a back-up director, but The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial is coming from Paramount and will be released internationally on Paramount+ (where Paramount+ is available) and on Showtime in the United States. It stars Kiefer Sutherland, Jason Clarke, and Lance Reddick (it will be one of Reddick’s final film appearances after his death, but he’ll also be in Regina King’s Shirley and the John Wick spin-off Ballerina).
14 Comments
Making sure you have someone to cover for your 87-year old director seems more ‘prudent’ than ‘ageist’. ‘Ageist’ would be refusing to hire him, absent of concerns beyond age.
You’re exactly correct.
Perfectly put.
she calls it a “state secret,” adding that, “Hollywood is ageist.” Friedkin, who was 87 when he diedI mean… come on. Two things can be true: Hollywood is ageist AND it is very reasonable to hire a back up for an 87-year old man. It would be irresponsible not to.
If you are an investor giving an 87 year old director millions of dollars to realize their vision, is it “ageist” to ask them to have a plan in case something happens, or is it just “sensible?”
Especially considering that after he finished the film… he died.
Life expectancy for a man in the US is 77 years.
Totally reasonable to require that a director who’s over that age choose his replacement.
The other solutions would be that the movie goes unfinished or that someone else choose a director to finish it. None of which is better IMO
Life expectancy doesn’t mean what people think it does. It doesn’t mean “This is when an elderly person is expected to die”. Instead, it is the average age at death at all ages. Which includes a lot of children who die at or shortly after childbirth, a lot of young people in their late teens/early twenties which are at heightened risk of dying in wars and accidents, and so on. The fact is, if you make it to 77 you are likelier to live on for quite some time rather than just drop dead.
Also, given Friedkin’s history, there’s a strong possibility that a backup director was required in case Friedkin got himself arrested for pulling out a gun or maiming an actor.
This is just Hollywood weirdness. Like, our president is old, but it’s not like we have some kind of backup in place if he dies. Can you imagine having some kind of, like, vice president?!
Yeah, it’s a bit like saying the government is ageist because they won’t let my 8-year-old drive a car. Age isn’t like race or gender where most differences are are social constructs or overblown. There are demonstrable differences between being five, forty, and ninety that can affect your ability to do most things. It does a disservice to the actual victims of the problematic kind of age discrimination — like, say, a Hollywood studio that won’t hire actors over thirty — to lump them in with acknowledging that an 87-year-old carries a much greater risk of not finishing a 2-year development process than a 32-year-old, even though it’s a statistical fact.
This has been acknowledged practice for years. Paul Thomas Anderson did it for Robert Altman on ‘Prairie Home Companion,’ and David Lean would’ve had backup on ‘Nostromo.’
It’s not *that* common a practice, because it’s never needed to be. During the studio system, the studio heads 100% determined the procedures that would be followed if the director dies. Today, there are so few directors that 1) have the clout and history to enjoy final cut, AND 2) are working *so* old and frail or actively ill that the insurers and completion bonders have to demand the step be taken AND that don’t have a designated person on crew pre-arranged to take over in case of emergency (as Eastwood and Scorsese, for example, do – or as Kubrick and Leon Vitali did, which came into play). It’s obviously an issue of pride with the directors, but also viewed as an honor for the second-chair person… which is why we generally don’t learn about the arrangement until after a director’s death, and from the designee’s camp (and tastefully).
I wouldn’t say “ageist”…I’d call it being realistic given how millions of dollars are on the line if the director croaks mid-shoot. The dude was 87–get real.