Notice: Can't open file: 'mos_core_log_items.MYD'. (errno: 145) in /home/httpd/vhosts/filmshi.com/httpdocs/db/includes/database.php on line 184
Notice: Can't open file: 'mos_core_log_items.MYD'. (errno: 145) in /home/httpd/vhosts/filmshi.com/httpdocs/db/includes/database.php on line 184
Greg Whiteley
Contributed by Sara Schieron
Tuesday, 06 December 2005
Greg Whiteley's film NY Doll is a sensitive portrait of the newly converted ex-base player of the infamous glam punk band The New York Dolls. Offering me as much kindness as he offered his subjects, Greg gave me a half hour of his time and from his home in Los Angeles.
Your film is about Arthur "Killer" Kane, the ex-base player of the New York Dolls. He's such a fascinating and quiet character. How did you come to meet him?
I met him at Church. (Long Pause) At my first Sunday at Church in Los Angeles. I was introduced to him and we became friends.
Okay. (At this point I can't help it and I laugh.)
Did you want more?
No. It's just funny because that's very straightforward. I think the way you answered says something about the tone of your picture.
The "tone of my picture"?
Yeah. It seemed to me the film was about these really quirky and profound but totally quiet characters. That's not to -
- So are you saying I'm quirky, profound and quiet?
That's not to say I think that - We've only shared three sentences.
Well...that's how I met him.
I was really surprised how much Arthur was glorifying his days of debauchery. Though he was a born again Mormon and living a pious life, he didn't look back upon his past shamefully; rather he carried an air of remorse for having lost that stardom. Was there any judgment passed? And if so, why did you choose to exclude it from the film?
I certainly wasn't judgmental of Arthur so that's one reason why it's not in the film. I think films that pass those judgments are bad films. I don't think that's your job as a documentarian or an artist. I think your job is to tell the truth and not bore people and hopefully out of being recklessly honest with facts and allowing your view of the world to be reshaped by the thing or the person that you're filming or attempting to describe you stand a good chance of having something that's moving or interesting. But to set out to persuade people to a particular religious philosophy or a moral ground is really shooting yourself in the foot. That's a sure fire way to make propaganda not to make good entertaining movies.
I didn't mean to suggest that you would be doing the judging but rather that the people in the community that surrounded Arthur could have been doing the judging.
I think if you're an active, churchgoing Mormon, you're well acquainted with sin, just like everyone else is. I think Mormons get a bad rap. Most people think they're these fundamentalist, bible thumping, judgmental, stoic people and I'm not sure those people really truly exist as prevalently as people might believe in them. Some of the gentlest, non-judgmental people I've ever known have been Mormon people and I don't think they're perceived that way. Most people I think are shocked by how accepted Arthur is and I don't know what to say about that except that I wasn't shocked. I was raised Mormon and I've encountered all different walks of life other than Mormon people. Nobody fits neatly into a stereotype; we're just too complicated. The most fundamental reason why you wouldn't be judgmental of Arthur is just look at what a good soul he is. Even if he's done some reckless things in his life it's pretty easy to forgive him. Especially for someone whose suffered as much as he has. And for that matter, there's not a single person in the Mormon Church who hasn't had his battles with struggles and sin and debauchery.
I did feel the film posited a point of view, let's say an interest, in quiet and quirky characters and to an effect they're played in a way that's both charming and jokey. For example you show the two sisters who work with Arthur and they're sweet old ladies and you ask them if they're going to be Arthur's groupies. Yet, in Contrast to that there are some characters who are vestigial to Arthur's past, in particular I'm thinking of the interview in which a very medicated Lynn Todd says that in Rock there is nothing to worship but drugs and she admires Arthur Kane for his relation to something bigger than him... as opposed to worshiping drugs which is all there is to worship in Rock. I can't help thinking you made a deliberate choice in including that and speaking to Lynn Todd. And I don't want to say you're communicating a Modus Operandi but do you feel this part of the comical edge of the film? Is it intended to be ironical? Did you feel it showed the value of Arthur's transition from drug worship to god worship?
**No. Lynn Todd is there for a very particular reason 1. She is a friend of Arthur's and 2. She expresses a sentiment that happened to be prevalent among every single person we interviewed. That sentiment is: she is pleased that Arthur found something to help his life out. Arthur passed away before we could really talk to him about how his life has gotten better. I had one quick interview with him by a pool at the apartment building and another quick interview inside of his apartment itself. Other than that I don't have anything about how his life is better since he found the Mormon Church. Otherwise, all we have is other people talking about how his life is better since he found the Mormon Church. I'm not trying to say anything there. If there is something that is moving or surprising about what she says I think that's a greater tribute to Arthur than it is to us as filmmakers. She said that without any prompting. I think the question we asked was: "What do you think of your friend Arthur being a Mormon?" And she gave an answer that was echoed by a lot of his friends. Why did you choose animations to map out the storyline of Arthur and the band?
For one thing it's cheap. You can get a lot of bang for your buck with graphics and we didn't have a lot of money to work with. And two: **It's a very efficient way of explaining who the NY Dolls were and are and where Arthur came from and where he's going. Rather than having the** "Voice of God" narrator as in the traditional documentary, I think the graphics replace that. For lack of a better word it was just cooler.
It was a great way to keep up the tempo. I found it interesting that Arthur put so much emphasis on the fame that he missed and shockingly little emphasis on the music he played. There's a brief montage set to the music of a harp player in the London Underground that established our change of location - from Los Angeles to London. It seemed to me that the use of the harp factored into some of the subtle comments you might have been making about the lack of interest in music... on part of Arthur and the band.
That had never occurred to me but now that you mentioned it, the NY Dolls were more famous for who they were, and what they did, and what they represented, and looked like, rather than what they played, or wrote, or sounded like. And maybe subconsciously that ethic found it's way into our film. It's clear that our film is not a rockumentary. And because it's not a rockumentary, it's really a story of one guy and not even one guy but one small period of time in one guys' life. I think that probably best explains why we would choose some music over others. We could have made the whole thing a NY Dolls rock opera and we could have chosen to use songs as filler but that wasn't this movie.
The adversarial situation between Arthur and David Johansen is not clearly a reasonable one and not clearly an unreasonable. At times it seems as though Arthur might be projecting the adversity onto David and at other times it seems as though David had it coming.
It was unclear to me and so in fairness, I think we had to leave it unclear in the film. If I had to guess I'd say the truth is somewhere in between. I don't think Arthur is imagining everything. I think it's probably true that Arthur tried to get a hold of David at some point during the last 30 years and David being a busy guy with his own career and concerns maybe was inconsiderate about returning a phone call or two. Or maybe it was more than that. Maybe there was actually a fight that I simply don't know about. My feeling is that much of Arthur's feelings and animosity towards David was exacerbated by the fact that he was living on disability, penniless while watching his friend enjoy a life that I think he wished he were enjoying. And Bishop Mark Brag mentions this in the film. How much more there was I don't really know and I don't really care. I think it's natural when you care as much about someone as Arthur and David cared about each other in that period of time when they were very young; you're going to have those disagreements. And when a band breaks up they don't break up when things are good, they break up when things are bad and things were bad in that band. Thirty years later, no doubt grown men, you can see how any animosity that Arthur and David had for each other quickly melted away just by looking at each other and sharing a hug and it was like they were best friends again.
There was a really great moment of insight in the film when we learned that Arthur, down and out, had pawned his guitars and instead of buying them back when he got a job he paid $175 a year for the shop to hold them and not sell them to anyone; all that when he could have bought them himself for $260. It's a game and it's not a game.
I think you understand exactly why he didn't buy them back. I think Arthur lived in a different world than most of us lived in. During those years when you're typically developing the muscles that it takes to navigate yourself through the bureaucracies of life he was in a rock and roll band where all of those things were taken care of for him or he was in rehab where they also do all of that for you. For all I know he might have lacked the DNA or even the patience that's required to understand the intricacies of pawn shop policy or the different hoops you have to jump through to get a drivers license or a passport. Those are the things that were a struggle for Arthur. It's heartbreaking to think that here's a guy for six years that was paying $175 on a loan and all he had to do was pay $75 more and he'd not only not have to pay the loan anymore he'd get his base guitars back. But whatever gap existed between understanding that concept and actually having the money to do it for 6 years it alluded him - until his home teacher explained it to him and gave him the money to get it out.
I loved the role Morrissey played in the story. One of the things I discussed in my review was the way the band was revived by its fans. I really like the role Morrissey plays in bringing the band back to together; he's kind of like a fairy godfather. I'm curious why you chose to interview Morrissey in extreme close up when there are so few close-ups elsewhere in your film?
I wish I had a smarter answer for that. The truth is we shot him with two cameras and he was the only person we did that with. We had already gotten into the Sundance Film Festival and we were feeling pretty cocky so we brought two cameras. Plus we love him so much. He was a difficult person to track down for interview. Once he agreed we were thrilled to get him. When we got there we spent almost three hours lighting because he was late. By the time he got there it looked pretty glamorous. Everybody else got about fifteen minutes worth of lighting before they were shot and he got the royal treatment and I think rightfully so. When we shoot him there's a certain glow, glamour, an aura that has. Aesthetically this is appropriate, for the role he plays in the film and in Arthur's life is that of the patron saint so the fact he has a halo is appropriate. At the time, we shot with two cameras and we just set up a B camera that was an extreme close up we'd cut to and we were going to use a wide shot that was the same shot we captured everyone else at. For some reason I don't like close-ups. I feel they can be misleading. They're sort of obtrusive, plus you can't get people's hand gestures, which I love. If people use their hands when they talk, and you're closer to the face you lose it. So we thought we'd use two cameras and pick and choose. We spent about two and half hours setting up for the A camera and we just threw the B camera down and the footage from the B camera ended up being this really beautiful close up shot of Morrissey - who is one of the most handsome men that walks the earth. So we went with that close up in the film.
Is he as handsome in person as he is on film?
Oh, yeah. He really is. My wife just melts. He has such a great sense of timing, he's articulate, I can't say enough about him. I wasn't one of those cool kids who was into The Smiths when I was younger. I'm much more into them now but I couldn't be more impressed with Mos he's just such a sensitive great guy and I don't pretend to know him. I've just interviewed him and traded messages but he sure seems like a great guy.
Whose idea was it to film David Johansen singing Hymn 29 and what relevance does that have to the film as a whole?
It occurred to me somewhere along the line that it'd be nice to have David sing a Mormon hymn. We'd become friendly and we were talking and I presented the idea to him and offered him 5 hymns. I had brought copies for him and said "take this folder and choose one and we'll record it". And I called him a week later and asked if he'd looked over the hymns and if there was anything he'd like to do and he said "yeah. There's one about a guy in prison" and that ended up being "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief". Incidentally that song holds a special place in Mormon's hearts. As the story goes it's the last hymn that is sung to Joseph Smith the night before he's shot. The hymn is about a man who keeps coming across the same stranger. In one instance the stranger is lacking food in another place he's looking for somewhere to sleep for the night and in another instance he's in prison, and in the last part he's actually condemned to death. And in each instance he's looking for this man to help him: either clothe him or feed him or house him for the night and in the last instance he's asking him to die for him. And you come to realize that the stranger who's been asking these things of the man isn't just a wayfaring person but Christ himself. That echoes a sentiment that's in the book of Mormon. It's a very famous scripture, - I'm paraphrasing: ‘when you do it unto the least of these my brethren, you are doing it unto me'. That's Christ speaking. And it basically what he's saying is: all these people out there who have their hand extended and are in need of your help, when you help them, you help me; and the best way to help me is through them. In many ways that has some resonance with Arthur's story.
I did a search and I understand Sylvain Sylvain and David Johansen have reformed and tried another round as the NY Dolls. The website isn't up so I was wondering if you knew anything about the new venture.
In conjunction with the film we've been to a few shows since Arthur's passing and they've replaced Arthur with Sammy Hoffa, he's formerly of Hanoi Rocks and I cannot give a more ringing endorsement of a band than I can of the newly reunited NY Dolls. If you ever have the pleasure of seeing them play you will be shocked at how good they are. I think I've gone 2 or 3 times I've thought, "How well can this go? There are only 2 surviving members." I'm always skeptical. And each time I've gone I'm blown away. David Johansen is a truly great front man, Sylvain Sylvain is a joy to watch, as always, and the people they've chosen to fill in: Steve Conti on guitars, Brian Delaney on drums, Brian Koonin on keyboards, and Sammy Hoffa, they're really great. They are a really great band and I understand they have a new album coming out this year.
I think nowadays, you have a few musicians who can age as old, great, bluesmen used to age: they actually get better as they age. When they grew in wisdom and experience and heartache their music got better. That hasn't always been true with rock musicians but it is definitely true with David Johansen and Sylvain Sylvain. You should do yourself a favor when they come to your town and go see them play and it sounds like they will be going to touring soon. And you should do yourself a favor and go see New York Doll. Which was fantastic. I feel very fortunate to have spoken to you today and I hope everyone gets to go see NY Doll before it leaves the Roxie on the 15th of December.
Feature Articles & Interviews 
