i n
t e r v i e w
spotlight september/october/november 1997
Alan Bates: An
Actor Who Prefers To Be Anonymous
by Peter Buckley
From SHOW (the magazine of films and the
arts) May, 1972
© 1972 by H&R Publications, Inc.
PART THREE (of three).
Alan is the first to agree that in both films and
the theater the more difficult and impossible the part, the more
rewarding the results, and in his list of favorites, "the
bitches" are in the majority. "The younger son in Long
Day's Journey Into Night must be one of the hardest parts
ever written, another one of those author-narrators, and the
play is so powerful that it almost overwhelms the character,
but it's one of the best things I've ever had a chance to do.
Hamlet is the only man I've ever come across who really touches
on the whole range of human experiences -- I know that sounds
corny as hell, but it is true -- and I'd like to tackle
it again in a few years time, only I'd want to do it very simply,
probably on a bare stage with nondescript clothes. It seems to
me that's the only way I could make it work."
 In spite of the odd flop along the way, Bates'
career has moved steadily up and out over the years. In films
and in the theater he's had the best names writing for him and
directing him and a  list
of his collaborators looks like a who's who of the last decade.
In the theater his writers have been John Osborne (Look Back
In Anger), Arnold Wesker (The Four Seasons), Harold
Pinter, (The Caretaker), David Storey (In Celebration),
and Simon Gray (Butley), as well as Messrs. Shakespeare,
Chekhov and O'Neill, while his directors there have included
Tony Richardson (Anger), Lindsay Anderson (Celebration),
and again Harold Pinter (Butley). In films his directors
have included Richardson (The Entertainer), Michael Cacoyannis
(Zorba), Carol Reed (The Running Man), John Frankenheimer
(The Fixer), Laurence Olivier (The Three Sisters),
Ken Russell (Women In Love), Joseph Losey (The Go-Between),
and twice John Schlesinger (A Kind of Loving and Far
From the Madding Crowd). You might say that he's had all
the best breaks at the right time, and he's certainly taken advantage
of them, but he's never exactly played it safe. By disappearing
into the live theater again and again -- and not just the commercial,
but repertory companies like Stratford, Ontario and the Bristol
Old Vic -- he may have been improving his craft but he certainly
wasn't bolstering his box office, while his films haven't always
been the most obvious way to the top. Zorba was a long
shot that paid off, so was The Fixer, and so is Joe
Egg, while in Women In Love he was not only playing
against the odds, he was playing it in the raw.
 "Yes,
I suppose it was the first time you actually got to see
the actual star's actual organs. Such a big deal.
We didn't think too much about it before we came to the wrestling
scene - it was there in the script and I suppose we thought 'when
it happens, it will just happen and that will be that,' but of
course it wasn't. It never is. When we shot the scene, it was
fine - it hurt, but it was okay - but the rushes, oh my God.
Sitting there day after day after day staring up at yourself
hanging out all over that screen in glowing color. You only get
to see a few moments of it in the film, just a flash, but we
saw hours of it. It seemed to go on forever, and it was tortuous.
I thought at the time that it all looked so - well, so wrong,
and I looked so hideous, but there wasn't anything I could do.
That was me up there and that was all there was to it.
I suppose it's a great lesson in humility. If you can get over
the awfulness of yourself in the flesh, you can get over anything.
"I was slightly nervous about the reaction
when the film was shown - after all, this was the first time
that a big commercial film concentrated so heavily on those particular
areas of the star's anatomy - I mean, one could finally put a
face on those genitals, couldn't one - but then when it came
out, hardly anyone paid any attention to the wrestling scene.
In fact some of the love scenes did come under attack as being
too sensuous, but people seemed to accept the stark nudity without
too much shock. If you present it outright and straightforward,
it's reasonable and nobody's offended; it's when you cover up
and get sneaky about it all that you upset them. My worst fears
were about my mother's reaction - that I really dreaded - but
it never bothered her in the least."
 One of
the main reasons that the explicit nudity in Women In Love
never offended anyone - not even Mrs. Bates - is that one was
totally conscious throughout that the naked male in question
was a well balanced, humane individual, not a degenerate on any
level, and that no matter how much he ranted, raved and randied,
he was basically a nice guy. And that is Alan Bates more than
anything else; in and out of character, he is nice. One
winces at the thought of charisma, but it's easy to see why he
is so respected, admired and well thought of. Friendly, open,
natural, unhung-up and easy, and in the best possible way, nice,
and he can't quite shake it. Not that we'd ever want him to.
As for his "other-man, just run image,"
the double combination of Butley and Joe Egg should
get rid of that completely. In both he stands powerfully alone,
at last, and this year could well be the biggest turning point
in his career. After that, who knows. He's got staying power,
obviously, and he's a star in spite of himself, but a superstar,
never. The fickle mantle just wouldn't fit, and worse, he'd never
be able to walk down the street without somebody coming up to
him and saying "Hey, aren't you what's-his-name?" No,
that just wouldn't do at all. Time to move on.
|||
|
