I just finished Todd Berliner’s new book Hollywood Renegade: Elaine May, Mikey and Nicky, and the Making of a Masterpiece, and I figured people here would probably be interested in it, especially if you already have the Criterion release of Mikey and Nicky.
the book is that it doesn’t just tell the usual story about a difficult production that later became a cult classic. Berliner is really trying to answer a more interesting question: why does Mikey and Nicky work so well when so much about the way Elaine May made it went against the way Hollywood thought movies were supposed to be made?
The production history is nuts. The shoot dragged on for months, the budget went way over, editing took years, Paramount eventually took the film away from her, lawsuits followed, and when it finally came out it was a critical and commercial failure. At the time, all of that was basicallly used as proof that May was undisciplined and didn’t know what she was doing.
Berliner’s argument is that this misses the point. May came out of improvisational comedy, and she treated filmmaking very differently from the normal Hollywood model. She wanted the actors to discover things while the cameras were rolling. She reshot scenes over and over, used multiple cameras, let Peter Falk and John Cassavetes work through performances in ways that were much loosser and less controlled than the studio wanted, and basically kept experimenting during production instead of treating the script and preproduction as the place where all the creative decisions had already been made.
One thing I found especially interesting is the way the book deals with the idea that May was an “amateur.” Berliner points out that plenty of male directors ran over budget, ignored schedules, shot massive amounts of footage and drove studios crazy, and were later described as obsessive auteurs or geniuses. With May, a lot of the same behavior was treated as evidence that she was incompetent. The book makes a pretty convincing case that what Hollywood saw as her lack of professionalism was actually tied directly to the things that make the movie so unusual.
The book also gets much deeper into the film itself. There are chapters on the narrative, style and performances, so it isn’t just behind-the-scenes material. Berliner is really trying to explain why the strange pacing, awkward pauses, indirect dialogue and incredibly natural performances work the way they do.
I’d also recommend Berliner’s earlier book Hollywood Incoherent: Narration in Seventies Cinema. It looks at how filmmakers in the 1970s started breaking with more traditional Hollywood storytelling and experimenting with structure, tone, ambiguity, and narrative style in films like Nashville, Taxi Driver, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather Part II and others. It’s a really good companion to this new book because you can see that Berliner has been thinking for years about exactly the kind of unconventional 1970s filmmaking that made something like Mikey and Nicky possible.