American History X

[MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] >> And action.

>> Nicholas Holt, Daniel Radcliffe. Ryan Gosling, Topher Grace, who are four actors who went full-wight supremacists for potential Oscar Glory, and what movie were they inspired by? That's the movie we're talking about today. Welcome back guys to another episode of What Went Wrong.

Your favorite podcast full-stop that just so happens to be about movies and how it's nearly impossible to make them let alone a good one. Let alone the equivalent of Bluntforce Trauma, audio visually to the head.

As always, my name is Chris Winterbauer, joined by Lizzy Bassett.

Being led by Lizzy Bassett into a very controversial, interesting, oddly-pressient, maybe

“weirdly relevant today film, Lizzy, what have you picked for us this morning?”

>> I've picked a movie that is more of a horror movie than I remembered, and that is American History X. This is a really interesting episode. Very excited to talk about both this movie because I think it has aged not necessarily badly, but interestingly, and also the story behind it is really fascinating. Before we dive in though, I do want to say we've gotten a lot of emails that say they love

how well research the show is, and if you're new to the show, I just want to call out that's because we have wonderful researchers who help us. We have Jessie Winterbauer, and we have Laura Woods, Laura Research, this episode should

an amazing job, so I just want to always want to shout out the help that we have because

we literally couldn't do it without them. So with that being said, I thought you were going to say, and this episode will be the success. >> In this episode, I'm flying off the handle. No, Chris, what is your experience with American History X? >> So I saw this movie for the first time. I want to say like freshman year of high school. I know it came out in '98, but I don't think I saw it until I was

“about 13 or 14. There was young. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think this movie was most known for the”

curved stop moment, at least in my friend group, and people I knew that there's one of the most horrific acts of violence put to film in the '90s, which was a period with some pretty horrific acts of violence put to film. And I remember thinking, oh my god, this movie is so powerful,

I've never seen Edward Norton like this, I had I'd seen him in things like rounders and primal

fear, or even fight club, but he obviously booked up for this to very different role, and I not seen it in full between then and now. I'd seen scenes from it, but it's not a movie I felt in need to go revisit. >> No. >> Yeah. >> And on the one hand, watching it now, it does feel very pressure. My first thought was, is this about Steven Miller? >> Yeah. Seriously. >> Because it takes place where he more or less where he grew up, put on the other hand. And again, I just want to be

clear, I know this movie, a lot of people really like this movie, I do know that a lot of people find it very powerful, and I don't mean to dismiss it, but while I think it is effective in conveying its messages, I do think, again, a blunt instrument can be effective in conveying its messages, and I found myself consistently frustrated with the filmmaking, and I have a suspicion that certain things that I thought were very avant-garde as a kid feel actually more like they're trying

to fix things in post, watching it as an adult. So like the non-linear editing, for example, felt far more messy and somewhat confused than it did as a child. When a lot of things were I was experiencing non-linear editing for the first time in, you know, Memento and Pulp fiction, et cetera. And I guess what it brings me to is, I kept thinking as I was watching it, the screenwriter had seen Malcolm X and thought, but what if it was a white guy and decided to make that movie with

the white supremacist? Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but what Spike Lee does with Malcolm X, so well as he injects that movie with a lot of warmth and humor, and then the violence is very shocking as a result. This movie opens with just the most, sorry, but the most pretentious, stylistic, candidly film-schooly choices, in my opinion, like the use of operatic black and white high-speed photography, the ridiculously over-the-top string school. Yeah, the score is rough.

“It just like bludgeon's you and tells you, this is how you should feel. This is how you should”

feel. Yeah. The reason I find that frustrating is that the moments when the movie lets you breathe

just hanging out at the house and then Seth shows up, that's a great sequence. I really like the

“white angle cinematography. I think the performance is really grounded. Similarly, when he is in”

prison and he's speaking with his friend to be, in the laundry, those scenes really sparkle and crackle because there's a real human warmth to them, and it just allows me to observe these characters. And so that's my frustration, is that it's a movie that has a lot of really great moments,

and I do believe in the intention behind its messaging. And again, I do think it's ultimately

effective, but it also can feel like the Tracy Jordan hard to watch greatest hits. You know what I mean, sort of thing where it's like, "What's the full title of that?" Yeah, the full title, hard to watch based on the book Stone Cold Bummer by Immunipulate, which I do think captures the way I felt during a few moments in this movie, which is that it was a Stone Cold Bummer and a little bit manipulative. But I guess the exposition can feel so clumsy like the FBI scene to give us the

random background on like this principal shows up. I don't know if it's the LAPD or the FBI office in LA or whatever. And it's like, "Who, Cameron? Here's the binder. Let's read from it. I know." But then

“there are other moments that I think are actually very subtle when Edward Furlong, when his mother”

says like, "When are you going to grow out that beautiful hair?" And he says, "When you stop smoking and we're actually talking about each of their self-destructive habits without actually talking about it?" And like, "Oh, that's a nice scene." And so again, like things like the black and white, I'll bring it back to two big points and then I'll let you go. So number one, I understand I think what they're trying to do with the use of high speed photography and black and white in his past,

which is he lived in a black and white world. Okay, like that's very obvious. Chris Geth. But also maybe yeah, these scenes are somewhat told from the perspective of the kid who's idolizing him, right? And so that's the slow motion, that's the music. I don't can't remember which film critic or film theorist said this, you know, someone at some point said

that it's impossible to make an anti-war film. Like inevitably you always in some way

sensationalize war. And my frustration with those flashbacks is that I understand the POV that they're trying to ground us in, but it felt in so many instances like we were sensationalizing Edward Norton's body and his physique and his menace and his masculinity in a way that I don't know, just rub me the wrong way. It didn't feel like it was matching the intent of the film makers necessarily or it wasn't fully thought out. And then similarly, I didn't feel that

his turns were effectively executed in the movie. I did not feel that we were given enough of a window into why this guy went down the road of race hatred. And I didn't feel like we were given a compelling window into how he turned away from it while he was in prison. I thought that moment felt very force and it was not earned despite a good performance from Edward Norton. And so if this movie is supposed to ultimately be about overcoming the hatred that can define us and that we can

fall into in a weird way, it doesn't fully capture those causal traps, you know, those moments

“that I think you really need to. So maybe I can end with this quote, I like from James Gilligan,”

who's a psychiatrist who's done a lot of work on violence in young men. The quote is all violence is an attempt to replace shame with self-esteem. And I just think that it's a flaw in this movie that we do not bear witness to the shame that Begets is journey down this violent path at the beginning of the movie. And in a weird way, we're just given the shame that he experiences post rape in jail that maybe allows him to return to the good side. It felt confused. It felt a

little bit like it was the causal order was reversed in some way. But I'll just say, I don't think it's a bad movie. But I think it's in a weird way, kind of like the TV movie almost quality version of what could have been a much more effective movie. I agree. And I am coming to this with obviously knowledge that you don't have in terms of what happened behind the scenes on this. I know there was some scuffle between Norton and the director of this fall. I know. And I didn't look up anything

else. So that's all I know. We're going to get into all of it. But point being a lot of what you just called out. I think will be addressed over the course of this episode. I feel similarly about the turns not being earned. But to be honest, I would have preferred that they didn't flash back to him being a child and just focus on the prison because you could have spent more time in prison with him and Guy Torrey as Lamont who turns in a wonderful performance. And yes,

he's really good. That's the better half of the movie, too. It is. And that could have been the time when you learn about Derek Vineyard and maybe there are things revealed about, you know, his past maybe there is something real bad as father like fine. But spend the time there, invest it there. I don't care about the earlier stuff. But I had the same experiences you. I watched this when I was probably 14, which is too young to understand what you're looking at. And I thought it was

same thing. I thought it was incredible. I thought Edward Norton's performance was incredible.

And I did not watch it until I watched it again for this podcast. And I was shocked at how uneven

one of the things this movie does the absolute best is that Derek is smart. And the stuff that he's spouting, particularly outside of the grocery store before they go in and wreck it. You could literally pull that from Stephen Miller, from JD Vance at this point. Like that was very prescient. And it makes it scarier because he's not stupid. And he understands how to convince people. So that

“I think the movie doesn't incredible job of. I think Edward Norton does a really good job of that.”

And he had a lot to do with that. So we'll learn more about that. I think honestly, one of the most successful performances in the film, although still uneven, is actually Edward Furlong. He's very good. He's very good. He's very subtle. I could have used less voiceover. The voiceover is rough. I don't like the voiceover, but I thought and my parents were watching it with me. And my mom was like, who's this? He's really good. You know, who's this boy?

Because she had not watched terminators who I don't think in decades. Well, he's amazing in that.

But yeah, he's super natural. Yeah, he is. And that works the best in this world, I think. Edward Norton, I was surprised. Yes, very uneven on revisiting this. I think he has moments in this movie where he is absolutely transcendent. And, you know, God bless him for really throwing himself at this because this was quite risky. And he did it. But the moments that are supposed to appear the most like sincere and pure really don't work very well. Yeah. He plays very, very well.

When he is a super scary skinhead, nails that. I have a hard time with him in the flashbacks. They're pretty bad. Well, the flashbacks are, again, hello, my fellow kids. A little bit with his wing. But it's rough. And literally a backwards ad. I mean, we didn't mention this in our coverage. I mean, I got to say, like, sorry, Brad Pitt and F1. That's the worst I've ever seen. And in terms of playing yourself when you're young. And this doesn't come close to that.

Lizzie, you mentioned him being scary. The one at the moment I want to mention is the moment when he looks at Elliot Gould at the dinner table with that nasty look about basically like, you know, he's admitting to him. I am deeply anti-Semitic without saying it in that moment. That was one of the best moments in terms of his performance in the whole movie. That scene is maybe the best scene in the entire movie. And we're referring to the dinner scene where

Elliot Gould, who is dating their mother played by Beverly DeAngelo, is there at the time? And again, what's so effective about that scene is that he has such a command over that family and that

“table. And that's one of the sequences where the height of violence that it gets to, I think is very”

much earned over the course of the scene. Everyone does a great job. It's really scary. So yeah, this is an interesting watch. I highly, highly recommend that people watch it because boy did it predict an awful lot of what we currently see in terms of the political landscape and how people

are justifying things. It does a pretty incredible job of that. And I think it was shocking at the time

because we didn't have access to the internet in the same way that we do now. And then in the almost 30 years since this movie came out, people developed an anonymity online where suddenly you could say these things in a much more casual way. And then that spread and spread and now you can say them on national television. And I do think this is worth watching for that alone because it is shocking and it's really scary. And it's important because you're seeing someone with a gigantic

swastika tattooed on their chest saying these things and not somebody in a button down shirt, you know, in a position of political office. So watch it, but it is a, it's weird. It's really weird.

“So let's find out what happened because I think there could have been a version of this movie”

that transcended most, if not all of the problems that we have raised. And the other big problem, what I think we have to raise is the turn of the kid who kills Danny of the black teenager who kills him. That makes almost no sense. It's just dex, Machina, at the end. Yeah. There's like, what would be the most impactful? Like what if we killed Edward for a long? Right. And it does a disservice to that character. This movie feels extremely uninterested in most black characters with

the exception of Gaitories. Yeah. And even then he's there to serve Edward Norton. So that's a big problem with this movie that I think could have been addressed and could have solved some plot holes to be honest, things that just don't make sense. All right. Let's dive in, Chris, because this is a story of two very passionate, hot-headed and talented artists who were possibly both gigantic pains in the ass. The only difference is that one knew exactly how to work the system and the other

tried to dismantle it. So here are the facts, as always. American history X is directed by Tony K,

with a screenplay by David McKenna, cinematography by Tony K. It was released by Newline Cinema. It had a budget of about $20 million, and it starred Edward Norton, Edward Furlong,

And the IMDB Logline as always is. A white supremacist is released from prison, a changed man,

“and hopes to prevent his younger brother from following in his footsteps. Let's dive in, Chris.”

Let's roll it back. At the end of April in 1992, a young screenwriter named David McKenna stayed locked in his Hollywood apartment while Los Angeles burned. One year earlier in March of 1991, four police officers had severely beaten an unarmed black man named Rodney King, following a high-speed car chase. The beating resulted in broken bones, skull fractures, and permanent brain damage. It was hardly the first time this had happened, but thanks to an unseen bystander with a camcorder

it was one of the first times it had been caught on video. Just two weeks later, a 15-year-old girl named Lutasha Harlan's had been murdered by a shop owner in South Central who thought she had stolen a bottle of orange juice. She'd been holding the cash for it in her hand when she was shot. And the woman who shot her didn't even do prison time. On April 29, 1992, all four of those police officers who beat Rodney King were acquitted a felony assault and all hell broke loose,

looting, violence, and fires erupted across Los Angeles for five days before finally beginning to calm

down around May 4th. And all this time, David McKenna had been furiously writing a new screenplay. So McKenna had grown up in Southern California, more specifically San Diego, and then most of his childhood was in Newport Beach, where he reportedly watched hardcore punks and mods get into fights at the Balboa pier, which if you've been to Newport Beach, I don't understand what happened, because they're not there now. There was a big punk scene in the 80s down there, and in

Orange County, in general. Yep. And there were a couple comics. I know that came out of there that kind of document of that. And there's a, if you go inland in Orange County, you get into some Narlie territory. Well, yes, inland in Orange County is a different situation, but Balboa,

“Island, Balboa pier is literally a rest of development. So just to keep in mind, that's what it came.”

Now it is, yeah, exactly. And to your point about Orange County, he also did have a memorable interaction with the skin head while in high school, which again, if you know Orange County, it is not like what you see on the OC, and that is very much believable. He had long been very fascinated with where hate comes from. Is it learned or isn't inherited? Now, you may see online that this movie is based on the life of Frank Meink, who was a former neo-Nazi, who went to prison

for three years for assault and attempted kidnapping. He did leave prison reformed and did not go back to his former life, but he went to prison at 17 in 1992, which was the same year David McKenna wrote American history X, so I could not find any credible sources saying that there is actually a connection between the two. But fun fact, Frank Meink, who is a very active activist and public speaker, is now married to Allison Mack from next year. Really? Really? But married before all

of the-- No, married after. All right. I mean, well, the charitable view, perhaps, you know, she's changed, reformed, and if there were ever somebody who could appreciate or understand

“the power of reformation, that would be him. I think that hopefully is right. All right. So McKenna”

took up screenwriting and college, moved to LA after graduating, and then waited tables for a few years, and because this was the 90s, managed to get one of his customers to read a screenplay, that customer was producer Nick Grillo, who helped get McKenna an agent, and I don't think this happens anymore, but then he had-- he was a professional screenwriter, but his agent did struggle to sell any of his scripts. And so with nothing to do, but watch LA burn McKenna wrote what would

become American History X. And he finished the first draft in six weeks and called it to Brothers,

which is interesting. I think I'm surprisingly no one wanted to buy this either. It wasn't until 1995 that producer John Morris the option to script, which did bring attention to it, but everyone was still too scared to buy it. Gee, Chris, why? I mean, you know, it's tough to cast brothers, they don't-- it's hard to get you to walk alike? No, yeah, I mean, I'm guessing explosive race relations Neo Nazis. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Teddy Z. An exec at Sony actually really wanted to buy it

and argued that if they had made boys in the hood, which they of course did in 1991, that they should be able to make this, but his boss read it and said, Teddy, you've lost your mind. Yeah, those are not a two sides of the same coin. So the script was submitted to New Line Cinema twice, who said hard past, until finally it was bought by Savoy Pictures and things were really looking great. Until 97, when Savoy, of course, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. But New Line Productions,

President Mike DeLuca, came back around to American history X. And at 26 years old, David McKenna sold his first script to New Line. Now, their first choice for director was actually-- he's mostly known as an actor, but he has directed things as well. He was big in the 60s and then became an excellent villain in the 80s and 90s and he guesses. He was big in the 60s, became an excellent on camera villain. Well, originally I was

Oh, I never would have guessed it. Hopper. I guess, yeah, he has directed. Yeah. Interesting.

“That could be an interesting energy for this. It actually kind of could, you know, if you think”

about some of the stuff he's done. Yeah. Well, he wanted a million dollars and the entire budget was initially set at nine million, so he was out right away. Yeah. But Mike DeLuca had two more affordable directors in mind, one was Larry Clark, who had made kids. He directed and co-wrote kids, co-wrote with Harmony Crinn, and then Tony K. Now DeLuca had David McKenna meet with both, and McKenna liked both very much, but sounds like they did go to Clark first and Clark was booked.

So Tony K got the job. But unlike Clark, Tony K had never directed a feature film. According to McKenna, quote, Tony had only done commercials, but his real was like nothing I had ever seen, and I liked the fact that he was British and somewhat insane. I just didn't know the extent of his insanity. So Chris, let's plumb the depths. Please, I know. I don't think I know anything about Tony K. He's a very interesting man. He's a man who's full of contradictions. So Tony K was

raised in an orthodox Jewish family in North London, and from a very young age, he had a pretty

“massive stammer. He could not speak without a stammer. It was actually so bad that he refused to”

talk on the phone and started calling friends only when he'd made recordings of himself, saying things like, "Hello, this is Tony, so he could literally just play the recordings back into the receiver." Now, it should be noted that sources differ kind of a lot about his early life and

education, even his own version of events is adaptable. Let's say, but here's basically what we know.

He wanted to be a painter, so he enrolled in art school, but he didn't do very well. Thanks to his version to the more commercial elements of the curriculum. According to one source, he went completely off it and decided to scientifically study the dynamics of a Brussels Brout instead. And according to another, he left with one GCSE grade one in art, which is not good, and then wasn't accepted to any other art programs. So at 20, he returned home to work odd jobs

and make his own art, but eventually he found a job at a graphic design studio. And his stammer continued to be a problem until he was at least 26, but he started to find more clever ways around it. If he needed to ask directions, he would pretend that he was Russian and couldn't speak English, so he would communicate visually instead of verbally. He also apparently still wouldn't use the phone, and he actually went to artist's house to commission work from them face-to-face for the

graphic design job that he had. But right around 26, he landed a job as a junior art director at the same advertising agency that had launched the career of another famously grumpy British director we've discussed here before. Ridley Scott. And Kay had pretty much zero passion for advertising, but he did have a passion for filmmaking and a slightly overblown sense of entitlement. He started demanding a company card daily, even though there were many senior people above him who were

still waiting years for one. But he was really good at his job. And three years into a successful career as an art director, he decided he wanted to direct TV commercials because he felt this was the next stepping stone on the path towards filmmaking. In 2012, he told campaign live, quote, "around this time, I started to think of myself as a director. I had to find work somehow. I had no regard as a film major. I had been thinking in terms of slogans and words and headlines,

and of course pictures for the previous four years. I was also a massive fan of cashes clay and then Muhammad Ali." So in 1983, Chris, he took out an ad in the London Evening Standard. And Chris, I'm an ascendist to you, and I would like you to read it. One of my favorite parts of this show is when the creatives take out ads and things, like the salkines with Superman, which doesn't exist, and they're saying, "Superman is coming."

You're going to love this episode. Go ahead and read this. I just texted it to you.

“All right, let's read this. Tony Kaye is the most important British film director since Alfred”

Hitchcock, which makes a waste of his claims that they were going to be bigger than the Beatles, seem reasonable by comparison. Yeah, because Chris, how many films do you think Kaye

had directed at this point? Well, I'm guessing zero since American history actually is first.

That's correct, zero. But six months later, it worked. He was hired to direct a commercial for all of Eddie computers, which actually won an award at the Canada National Film Festival. So he's basically Marty Supreme. He's literally Marty Supreme, just wait until we get into this. All right. It's around this first brush with real success that Kaye started to take the idea of following in your hero's footsteps a little too literally. In 2007, he told the telegraph quote,

"The directors I admired, like Francis Ford Copla and Eric Von Stroyhem, they were all nuts kind of mad." So I just thought to myself, you've got to be eccentric to do well in this business. To which I say, sir, you're already there. You just, you don't need to, you're just looking at out saying you're the big film director since Alfred Hitchcock. You can stop now. But he left the ad agency world and went freelance as a commercial director before eventually launching

his own production company, which he announced with a magazine ad that showed him drinking a hynicking and then turning into Steven Spielberg. Like Anna Morris, but becoming a director. He proceeded to perform a series of stunts that he felt would help bolster his reputation.

promotional leaflets about himself, appearing in reception there, dressed in combat fatigues and kidnapping

a secretary, who reportedly was a girl he was living with at the time. He was arrested for that one. Okay. Buying an inflatable ET doll, which he took everywhere at lunches with potential clients, ET was given his own chair. And then the grossest one, he paid a homeless man to accompany him to art galleries attempting to exhibit him as Roger by Tony K. He kind of fits in more with the fine art, like the absurd, grotesque nature of the fine art world. I feel more than the filmmaking

world. A hundred percent. Now surprisingly, this didn't work. And by 1986, his company had gone into liquidation. He was in massive debt, and his London flat had been repossessed. But to get through these rough times, he turned to the source of inspiration that I think we all turned to Chris. And that is Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver. He said quote, "Taxi Driver holds a monumental importance for me in my life because about 40 years ago I stood in the unemployment line in England.

I was trying to be a commercial director. I couldn't get any work. I gave a very long impassioned speech to the lady behind the glass window about the British film industry, and how hard I was trying. And she told me to go away, find myself a job, and not bother her. As I walked out of the labor exchange, I happened to have been watching Taxi Driver on a loop. Don't do that, sir. I still remember vividly to this day as I crossed the street,

walking out of the office in Soho, London. I thought, I'm going to be Travis Bickle. And I'm going to become a machine." Sorry, whilst trying to think that does, it's so interesting how that continues to be such a driving force in the Manusphere right now. This idea of the ultimate self-optimization,

“you have to turn yourself into a robot and perfect yourself. Looks maxing all of these things.”

I just found out about looks maxing, and I spent an hour just glued to my-- You haven't noticed me looks maxing for the last five years, Lizzy? I've been looks minimizing. Yeah, I don't know if it looks maxing. We've been doing it to women for years. Why did they get a name for it? That's true. That's fair. For women, it's just exists. But for men, it's been looks maxing. For men, it's like a special fun thing. Fuck you.

Makes me mad. I don't think anyone's having fun. Anyway, I'm going to go get Botox. All right. So thanks to Travis. When you're later, Kay had turned things around with two massive commercial spots that won him major awards. And by the way, I'm laughing a lot at Tony Kay now. I think he's a very interesting person. So please reserve some judgment. Yes. And obviously, I mean, he's clearly very talented. He's a extremely talented. It's crazy. Yes. By the way, I mean, American history

acts. I think the cinematography is really good in that movie. I don't love certain choices.

“He was his own DP and cameraman. I know that's what I'm saying. That takes a lot of talent to pull off.”

Yes. All right. So in 1990, at the peak of his success as a British commercial director, he said, bye and left London for Los Angeles with dreams of directing features. I think he did keep working on commercials to pay the bills. But by 1996, he was the highest paid UK commercial director commanding over 10,000 pounds a day. And so when Mike Deluca and New Line offered him

American history acts, he jumped in his chance to finally break into feature film. And everyone

was very happy with his hiring, especially Mike Deluca, who had really fought for him, even making it possible for Kay to serve as his own DP and camera operator, which is very unusual. But there was just one problem. It seems that Kay also expected to add screenwriter to that list. He said, quote, I use a script as a ticket for a journey, not as a roadmap. I thought I could get in there and rewrite the script and turn it into something. The tragedy is that even against all odds,

I almost did it. Now, David McKenna, the screenwriter and his producers were already not very happy about this approach. In fact, at one point producer John Morrissey tried to fire him during pre-production, but he kept him at the behest of both New Line and Edward Norton. Meanwhile, New Line cinema was concerned about the script for different reasons. They had shown the script to several African American directors, Mario van Peebles, and Rusty Cundeev both responded with

complaints, focusing on what they saw as a one-sided depiction of racial conflict. Yes, big time. Rusty said, quote, I didn't call them up and say, hey, guys, you have a racist script, but I did say there was a problem. Not being black, the screenwriter may have had trouble

saving the black character's point of view. He's created a powerful character, but when you make

“the film, from the point of view of a character whose evil you have to walk a real tightrope,”

or the film could really misfire. So let's talk about this. Chris, do you think it misfires in this department? Yeah, and so the way I would describe it is the only characters who are allowed to change in the movie are the white characters. Right. Like Edward Norton's character and Edward Furlong's character, they are allowed to arc with Edward Norton, obviously, toward racism and then away from it. Whereas the black characters in the movie exist in very static forms that are

designed to repel or attract the white characters towards their specific the needs of the screenwriter. So you have good black characters who are the morpheus's, you know what I mean of the movie,

to leave. Yeah. Exactly. And then you have bad black characters who are just gang bangers and they're violent and like maybe they don't deserve what's coming to them, but like, you know, they do a lot of bad stuff in this movie. So yeah, I just, again, not a lot of nuance, not a lot of complexity is lent to these characters. And they clearly exist to serve one narrative. That's right. So meanwhile, with the director in place, casting was underway. Now I've seen

if in a few places that Joaquin Phoenix was under consideration for the role of Derek Vineyard and turned it down. Interesting. I could not confirm that. And I kind of don't believe anyone other than Edward Norton was ever seriously in the running. So let's talk about him. Norton was a Yale grad whose feature film, "Day View" was primal fear. That's right. Which is pretty crazy. It had earned him a best supporting actor nomination. I love that movie. I know it's

like peak 90s thriller cheese. It's so good. It's really pulpy, but it's fun. It's like a huge, great performance. He's great in it. Yeah, Richard gear is great in it. Yeah, it doesn't air in Stampler. And Laura Linney, that was like one of my first more Linney experiences, doesn't

“air in Stampler the character he plays. I believe he, when he's faking it, I believe he has a”

stammer. It's a part of how he was just interesting with the Tony K component to it. But yeah,

I mean, it was, it's an amazing debut. It's like, it's not a great movie, but it's a really fun movie.

And it's an amazing debut. Yes. He is really good. So from there, he moved on to everyone says I love you. And more critically, had played the young lawyer in the people versus Larry Flint, which had gotten him even more attention. He's great in that. He was up for the role that would eventually go to Matt Damon and the Rainmaker when he got some advice from Francis Ford Copla, who was directing that film. So here is Norton on Joe Rogan. When I was talking to him about it, he was like,

well, what, you know, what are you, what are you working on? What are you interested in? And I was telling him about my friend David, who had written this Americanist Jax, and that we were working on that. I was kind of telling him what we were trying to do with it, and how we wanted to make it, is this kind of gorilla thing. And he was like, you should do that. You should do that immediately. And I was like, well, I was like, don't cancel, I still want to do this with you. He's like,

“no, no, I think you should do, like the way you're talking about that. And he said, if you do that,”

now they'll never, they'll never know what to do with you. I think it's interesting advice.

Interesting that he would go on to star opposite Damon in Rounders, like, right around this time, too. Yes. So they shared the screen. So one thing it's interesting is he refers to David McKenna as his friend here, and he does that across most interviews, and definitely gives the impression that he had been at least discussing this movie before being officially attached. That's not quite how McKenna tells it. So I'm not really sure. But regardless, he was definitely

involved in some development of this. And he campaigned pretty hard for American history X, met wonder why did he have to campaign when he had a pretty impressive resume at this point. Part of the reason is that Tony Kay didn't really want him. He thought he was too slight, not imposing enough. He didn't think he had enough screen presence. He's like a little whirming in the stuff that he's played so far. And he was expensive. But Norton was like, I really want this.

I will cut my $1 million rate in half, at least. He actually may have cut it more than that. And Tony Kay eventually admitted that he, quote, couldn't find anyone better. So Norton got the part. You amount the Tony Kay dunks on Edward Norton. This is like, yeah. Well, it's interesting that like you mentioned the slight. And one of the parts that though, as you mentioned, he's most effective in are the more menacing portions. I actually think because of maybe primal fear in this

movie, but also rounders, I always think Norton is best when he has a slimy villainous quality

to his characters. Like, those are my favorite performances of his. He's a little slimy and villainy and free to. Yeah. Yeah. He's good in that at all. He's always like, I like that more. But touch a slime to him. Like you mentioned Guy Pierce has a weasily quality to him that can be really good. I love him. And so yeah, it's like that. All right. There was also, you know, we're talking around this, but there was a lot of concern that he didn't look right because

he was quite scrawny. But he went and put on 30 pounds of muscle. And I do just want to call out. I miss the days when actors were getting like normal yoked, not steroids yoked. Like he's obviously in incredible shape in this. He's got a ton of muscle on him, but it doesn't look like he's used, you know, performance enhancing drugs to get there. Now, part of the reason that K says he agreed to Norton's casting is that he thought Norton shared his vision of the script, which K felt

“was deeply flawed. I want to hold what I think K's problems with the script were until we get to”

post production. Okay. But I do have reason to believe that the concerns that were raised by Mario van People's and Rusty Cundeef may have been shared by Tony K, along with some others. So the role of Danny Vineyard, as we said, went to Edward Furlong, who had of course broken out in Terminator 2 judgment day. He was discovered at a boys club in Pasadena. He was not an actor at all. And he got thrust into the Hollywood machine very fast and very young. He is, unfortunately,

happen chronologically prior to making American history X, I do want to mention that at 15 years old,

he entered into a relationship with his tutor who was 29. Of course, that's not a relationship that is statutory rape. And he was still in that relationship at the time of filming this movie. The relationship would end shortly after the release of this film very badly. The woman accused him of domestic violence, which is something that he would go on to be accused of by other partners.

“And he struggled quite a bit after this film without call and drug use. I think we'll dive into”

him quite a bit more when we cover Terminator 2 judgment day. But this is kind of the peak of his career. Yeah. Now, let's talk about the way that they round out the rest of the cast, because they do it with mostly comedy actors, which I actually think is really smart. You have Guy Torrey, who plays Lemont, and he was cast on the spot after a casting scout came out to see the show that he hosted and produced at the comedy store. They'd actually come to see Tommy Davidson, but they cast Guy Torrey instead.

Of course, Beverly D'Angelo, best known for National Lampoons Vacation, Feroja Boc, not a comedian per se, but can be very, very funny. At this point, probably best known for the craft. She'd been a child actor. And of course, you end up with the water boy. And many more Vicki Balancourt. You then got two actors from Boy Meets World. Chris, who are they?

William Ross. Yes, the father. Who's the second actor from Boy Meets World?

Ethan Supply. Oh, Ethan Supply was in Boy Meets World. Yes, Ethan Supply in Boy Meets World. He shows up like two seasons in, and he has like a pretty long arc on the show. I think that was one of the first big things he did. I don't remember him. William Ross, I thought was actually the brilliant one, because that I thought was very effective. Stacey Keech is the guy you assume is going to be a Nazi, but William Ross does a very good job of he seems like this wholesome home American firefighter,

who obviously harbors very deep prejudices. I think this casting was intentional. Boy Meets World was a

“big show. It was reaching the end of its time when this movie came out. That's what I'm saying. I think it's”

really smart casting. It is smart. And I think it was smart to cast comedic actors around Norton and Furlong, too, because again, they cast people, particularly with the neo Nazis, who maybe come across less serious in some ways, which makes their turns scarier. I think like Ethan Supply is really good in this. He's very menacing for Rujibalk. He's absolutely terrifying in this. Yeah, she's hardcore. I do not want to run into her. He's so scary in this.

Okay, so on March 17, 1997, filming began around Venice Beach. In any tensions that have been simmering about the script seemed to melt away when they got to set, because by all accounts, K was very collaborative and seemed to welcome suggestions from the cast in crew. As we said, he functioned as his own DP in cameraman. He shot nearly 200 hours of footage and paid for the cost of extra film stock and developing it. And everyone who saw the daily seemed to agree that K had

shot a really excellent movie. And for the most part, things also seemed to be going well with Edward Norton. His then girlfriend, Courtney Love, was welcome to visit set. He is a very interesting taste in girlfriends. He was also allowed to help rewrite portions of the script while on set. Most

“critically, I think. Well, if you had to guess Chris, there's one speech in this movie that Edward”

Norton rewrote pretty heavily. It's either got to be the recruitment speech or the dinner table speech I feel like, right? What would qualify as the recruitment speech? I was thinking it's the speech outside of the grocery store. That's the one. He does. That's the one. Originally, it was really short and kind of just a lot of swear words, but Norton and by McKenna's account, also McKenna rewrote it to pull in a bunch of statistics that were actually from then governor Pete Wilson's office.

McKenna admits that he in Norton probably rewrote something like 25% of the script on set,

but he caveats that by saying they always did it together. Edward Norton is a really good writer.

I do think he did a lot of this. And people seem to like Tony K, even though he was a little weird. K would arrive for work in his hype art car, which was a Lincoln town car with a chauffeur, four cell phones, a fax machine and a California license plate that read Jewish. During the Passover holidays, he had boxes of mozzarella delivered to the set. And when he was filming one day on Venice Beach, he started talking to a homeless man and then he brought that guy to a hotel room,

gave him the script and asked him for notes. But they were able to film quite a bit in Venice Beach. There was actually some concern about gang activity there at the time, so they did also film in North Hollywood. Ben Nye's mid city. I will say I think this movie doesn't excellent job of capturing what L.A. actually looks like. I think so generally, I think again for a lot of the interior scene, especially I think this movie is it's like we tend to overlook this, but it's very

well blocked. Yeah. The movement of the actors feel really natural within these spaces. I think whatever the vibe was on set, it feels like they got to a place where everyone felt pretty organic or on each other, which is that's very hard to do. Yeah. The white power tattoos did prove

convenient store, and he had forgotten to remove the white power tattoo that was painted on his upper

“arm. He got yelled at by all the people there saying what a jerk he was and I'm sure he was like,”

"I know, I'm sorry, it's not me!" But there was another kind of tension brewing. Here's Guy Torrey, who plays Lamont in the film in an interview with Vlad TV. First day on a set, you know, we had to direct a Tony Kay. This was his first film. He came from videos and commercials and things, and he's from Australia, and he goes, "Guys, you have the green light. Bring to this role whatever you want to bring to this role." I was like, "Thank you," he said, "But let me warn you."

I'm a director, and he said, "It has a tendency to want to direct, you know, actors." Don't do it. Don't listen to him. I'm green, you know, and got on the set in Lombio,

it was doing that. He was, you know, an actor should never direct another actor, and let's y'all

a boys, unless he's an actor, an director, but an actor should never direct an actor. There's a chain of command, and I say it is misunderstood because what I got from that was that he cared about the entire film. He cared about the process. His way of going about it may have been wrong, but I understood why he was doing the things he was doing, and there would be battles on the set. You guys have arguments. Not me and him, but he and the director, and the

producers were on the edge side because he was the star. He was, you know, a film, and he's very, I learned so much from him shooting that movie. I learned about, you know, film making. By the way, Guy Torrey, great source for this episode. Thank you, Guy. He's right. Just leave aside his geographic mistake. Yes, he's not really a thing for his show. Yes, yeah. Yeah. But he's right. If you're not the director, you shouldn't be directing people. I mean,

you're a director, Chris. Maybe you can speak to that a little bit. If one of your actors was doing that,

“well, how would that make you feel? I mean, obviously, it would be very frustrating. I think it would be”

more frustrating as the scene partner, as the other actor, because to have another actor step on

your choices or decision, you know, I'm sure you could always offer a tip or something like that,

and that may be appreciated. But ultimately, the problem becomes, the director's job is kind of to control the tone of any given scene, right? And you can do that in any number of ways through the performances or the art direction or the cinematography and all of it needs to be considered. And the problem is like, Ed Norton's in the scene. Right. And it's like, also, is his direction serving the movie? I mean, Guy Torrey saying it is. Or serving his own performance. Or is it serving

his own performance? And so that can be tricky. I think that right there is the question that we are going to be asking ourselves for the rest of the episode. Was he serving the movie or was he serving himself? All right. That's all the time we're going to spend on filming, because this episode

“is about the shit show that began in post-production. So filming wrapped in May of 1997. And in”

mid-97, Tony K. delivered his first cut. It was screened for a test audience, and it actually got a pretty positive reception, but it was very tight, like 90 minutes tight. And new line was like, "Sir, you shot 200 hours of film. Where is it?" Like, fluff this out a little bit more, please. But K said, "No, this is my cut, and this is the runtime." Now, according to a 1998 Washington Post article by Sharon Waxman, which is a great article to read if you have time,

here's what happened next. New line invited Edward Norton into the edit bay to see what he thought.

When Edward Norton's notes aligned with New line and not Tony K, they brought Norton in to help edit the film. But this depends on who you ask quite heavily, so let's hear the other versions. According to that same blood TV interview, Guy Torrey said Edward Norton wanted to be in the editing room. I'm inclined to believe that. Tony K seemed to agree with this narrative. He said he wouldn't have minded if he had had final cut, but he didn't. So this put him in a bad position, because he knew

Norton was going to side with New line. And according to LA Times, Mike Deluca does say that he brought Norton into the edit, but Edward Norton gave him a little push. He essentially refused to do press for the film if he felt he couldn't stand behind it. To hear Edward Norton tell it, also to the Washington Post, quote, "When I came back in the spring and gave notes on the performances, Tony was consistently saying, "Thank you, bless you. Thank you. I'm so excited.

It's getting better every day." He would constantly say, "I don't have an opinion about the narrative. If it looks right, that's all I care about." To hear K tell it, quote, "It was insane. I was horrified at the work he was doing." K also described Norton as a, quote, narcissistic dilatante. And listen, Tony K is a bonkers man who is not a reliable narrator at all as we will continue to get to. But Edward Norton does have a history of rewriting scripts and clashing

with directors. He very frequently argued over the script of Red Dragon with Brett Ratner, right, Ratner, the worst, but you know, whatever of working with Norton, Ratner said, quote, "He likes

"I have to take over this film." He's going to try and rescue the film. That's both a blessing

and a curse. He also rewrote parts of the incredible Hulk. And famously, he did do an uncredited

rewrite of freedom with Julie Tamor that most people seem to agree massively improved that movie.

“He's a small part in that, I believe he was dating some of Hayek at the time. That's an interesting”

one maybe we could cover at some point. He's a really smart guy. I think he's probably a really good writer. I think he's also, as we said at the top, a giant pain in the ass, at least at this point in his career. But again, really talented, really smart. I think all of these things could be true, right? Yeah. The movie probably tested pretty well. I believe that. But New Line says, well, where's the rest of it? Or we want it to test even better? K is not agreeing. Maybe Norton's

been itching to get into the edit room. So they say a great two birds one stone. We bring him in. It's possible that K was actually saying to Norton, brilliant, fantastic, because he knows he needs to stroke his ego. Yes. And behind the scenes, he's saying, this guy's to not, I got to get him off of this movie. Yeah, I don't think Edward Norton's just bald face lying about that at all. No, I don't think any of these things necessarily conflict. But I think there is a lot

of maneuvering behind the scenes that is happening here. Yeah, nobody's communicating clearly and also no one is actually willing to work with each other, which is the biggest problem. And that includes Tony K. Right. So K got more and more upset by the edits he was watching Norton make. At one point, he actually punched a wall and hit a hidden nail behind it, causing him a trip to the hospital in several stitches. But he kept going along with it outside of

casual wall punches, because he was always under the impression that New Line would still let

him cut his own version of the film. However, his fights with Norton were intensifying. According to K, quote, whenever I argued with Norton, I didn't have a leg to stand on. He could wipe the floor with me because he's a great articulator. My problem all through American history acts was that I could never tell anyone what I wanted to do with the film. Sometimes I didn't even know myself. More often, I was so intimidated by the process that I went into meltdown if I wasn't

left alone to work things out. Of course, if you actually listened to what Norton was saying, you could hear that none of it made sense in filmmaking terms. That's not his forte. As you'll know, if you saw the movie that he directed, keeping the faith pretty fucking awful, hardly covers that one. That's weird. Keeping the faith is cute. That's not a bad movie. But, you know,

“he makes a good point, which is, you know, on the one hand, you have a director who has, I think”

probably gravitated towards a visual medium in part. He had a stammer. He had a hard time communicating with other people. He was using a voice recorder to pre-record his messages and get his intent across. And he's going up against somebody who is very smart and also a very gifted performer. And that's not a level playing field. No. And then, in June of 1998, the shit had hit us the fan. Newline called Kay into tell him that they had tested Norton's cut of the film

and it had performed well and they were leaning towards that one. They asked Kay to stop pursuing his own cut of the film. And Kay was understandably quite furious. He openly wept, unable to contain this frustration that his debut feature had been taken away from him by a star and his producers weren't doing a damn thing about it. Okay. The argument seems to have focused on the length of certain sequences. Again, Kay wanted everything much tighter based on interviews that happened later. I think

this is a lot of the more emotional stuff. He referred to it as, you know, people crying in

“each other's arms. I think he didn't want any of that. The placement of the dinner scene flashback”

with Derek's dad. I couldn't confirm whether he wanted to completely remove it or move it up. But he wanted to change at least change the placement of that. And then, here's the big thing, the end of the movie. So you may see online that there was, although there's an alternate ending to American history X and what it was is that after Danny gets killed, Derek goes into the bathroom and you see him take a razor and he trips off his shirt and he's looking at his swastika and he

shaves his head and he smiles and holds a gun and he's he's going back. That's not true at all. Thank you, Reddit, for helping me dig out an interview with Tony Kay, where he confirmed that

that was never ever a possibility and that would be a totally different and very depressing movie.

No, but what he actually wanted to do, which I think is really smart, is he wanted to save the reveal of what put Derek and prison until the last scene of the movie. So he was saving the curb stomp. And part of the reason he wanted to do that was because he felt the fact that Derek was in prison for three years was an enormous plot hole, which I agree with. Like, you would not be in prison for three years for murdering two people. And I think it does something very interesting

because what he wanted to do was play, I think, more with the non-linear editing to the point where you're never quite sure what Derek did to land himself in prison. Like, was it the grocery store incident? Was it something else that he just beat somebody up? And then you still see Danny

on you watching Danny watch his brother do this. So I don't know. I think that's much better, but what do you think? I don't know. I mean, it may be, but I also completely understand why the studio shy away from it. It could be very confusing if it's not done right? Not that it's confusing. It is bleak. Like, that is a brutal tough ending, right? I like this, but I can understand why they shy away from it, which is we're going to get you to buy into this guy's redemption. And then we're

going to show you the absolutely heinous, almost unforgivable thing that he did. But that's smart. I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree. But what I'm also saying is I can see a studio head saying, which is all this. Like, we're going to have no word of mouth. Like, no, what he's going to

want to go see it after the first weekend is just two. It's two brutal, even though it's maybe

more honest. And it's more interesting. Yeah. So again, I don't know if it would have answered all of my questions, you know, about the movie, but I do think it's certainly presents a more complicated

“portrait. Yes. And I think that was his goal. But K said, if you won't let me cut my movie,”

then take my name off of it, which would force New Line to release it under the pseudonym, Alan Smithy. Can you explain Alan Smithy, Chris? Alan Smithy is a universal pseudonym that is provided by the director's guild when directors want to remove their name from a project, because they feel like they actually did not have sufficient authorship over this project, and therefore it would be a misrepresentation to have their name on the movie as director.

It's a bad look for a movie. It generally indicates it was a mess. It's probably not very good. You want to avoid this at all costs. So New Line was like, fine, you can have eight weeks to finish your cut. And K came up with what he called a radical new version of the film. He went out and shot additional footage with black gang members, actual interviews, and the narration from Nobel Prize-winning poet Derek Walcott. So this is what makes me think he was trying to address

“some of the plot holes that we have been discussing. Mike Toluca did his best to keep”

culminating K, he bankrolled another $1.5 million of footage that included interviews with actual

Neo Nazis, but K was still furious at everyone. So while he worked on his own version of the film, he did something a little strange. He spent $100,000 of his own money to take out a series of advertisements that were basically just advertising his rage. Some of the ads were intended to shame, new line, and Norton on June 11th, an ad ran in the Hollywood Reporter with a quote from Edmund Burke that said, "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is

for enough good men to do nothing." The same day, an issue of daily variety ran a full page ad, quoting John Lennon, "Everybody's hustling for a buck in a dime. I'll scratch your back and you knife mine." And of course, each ad was signed off Tony Kay. According to Guy Torrey, Kay also dedicated the back pages of variety to individual cast members, asking them personally, "Please take my side and help him preserve the integrity of his vision." Torrey said that he,

and his castmates felt that they were really putting a bad position by all of this. But sometimes the ads were nice on June 15th after reaching the agreement with New Line to get 8 extra weeks, he ran a new ad. He quoted Ponton Jolly, the Indian founder of yoga, and said, "When you are inspired by some great purpose, some extraordinary project, you discover yourself to be a greater person by far than you ever dreamed yourself to be." And it said, "Thank you. Thank you,

Tony Kay." It sounds like he's having a manic episode. He is. And he also is someone who has massively struggled with verbal communication his entire life, and he's kind of trying to do it.

“I think in his head, he's justifying it by like, "Well, I know how to make ads. I know how to”

communicate visually. Maybe this is how I get a hold of them." New Line tried to counter this with their own weird ads, quoting green eggs, and ham, and yellow submarine. That's actually kind of a smart tactic in that, like, let's play up the absurdity of it to try to diffuse it in some way, to de-escalate. But they also continued simultaneous work on Norton's cut of the film, even completing orchestration sessions. But everyone has their limit, and it seems that New Line

had reached theirs with Tony Kay. So when the eight weeks were up, they said, "What have you got, Tony?" and he said, "I don't know, and I don't know when I'll be done." But in order to say this, he had actually showed up to the meeting where they priest a rabbi and a Buddhist monk

into their to keep the peace. He told the executives, "I'm fully aware that I'm a first-time director,

but I need the same autonomy and respect that Stanley Kubrick gets. If Stanley Kubrick could take as much time as he needed, he deserved the same consideration." Is that where Ed Norton got the idea for keeping the face? Actually. It was missing a Buddhist monk. There we go. As you can imagine, New Line said, "No." They were sticking with their planned October

of Edward Norton's cut. So clearly, like... Yeah. And they're gearing up for award season,

like that is the classic Toronto into the festival run into award season. That is poll position. They're saying, "This will be his next acting nomination." Right. They're building it around Norton. The movie is built around Norton's performance. They're building the movie around Norton. Well, Tony Kaye flew his ass to Toronto to meet with the president of the festival in person and to lobby him to refuse to screen the film. It worked. New Line pulled American history

ex from the festival lineup before the president could do anything. And Kaye viewed this as a success. He also threatened to pay protesters to rally outside screenings if the film was released as planned. He said he was "going for their throat." In late August, the debate about his name on the film

“had gone to the DGA. And they denied his request for Alan Smithy. Do you know why?”

It's something he did. Something he did. Was it the advertisement? Was it? Yes.

Oh, okay. So you actually cannot use Alan Smithy if the director has publicly disparaged the film. But they said, "Look, if you and New Line can agree on a pseudonym that's not Alan Smithy, then fine." So Kaye requested "humpty dumpty" to which they said, "No." And by the time he'd requested a more reasonable name of Ralph Codes, New Line said, "It's too late, my guy. We are releasing the movie and your stupid name is going to be plastered

right on the front of it." And Kaye was devastated. Sharon Waxman, who I mentioned was working on that Washington Post article, said she received a call directly from Kaye. This is before the movie was released. And he told her or rather screamed at her, "I have made no money. I have jeopardized my business, my family, everything. I've walked away. This is a purest gesture, like you'll rarely come across. I will do everything in my power to keep my name from theirs. I do not want to be part of that club.

I do not want my spirituality to be associated with theirs to them. It's a game to me. It's life and death." In an interview, just a few days after the film's eventual release, Kaye explained that this had hurt him so deeply because unlike his work in the advertising world, his name was plastered

“all over this. Like this was really the issue for him. I think had they let him remove his name.”

He would have dropped it. Now, everyone had a different take on what had happened. Producer Morrissey believed that he had simply panicked at the prospect of having to finish the film. He said, "What sent Tony around the bend was the idea that he had to finish the movie. He's terrified. He comes from fear a lot and he went into a kind of panic. He stopped eating. He started getting up at 330 in the morning. Tony could be a successful

director of features if he weren't in the grip of the neuroses from which he suffers. I think that's probably true. According to Beverly DeAngelo, quote, "What I really believe is that Tony Kaye is in a position where he's been victimized by his innocence. He could not imagine that anyone would ever want to release a film that wasn't everything that everyone wanted it to be, including him." According to David McKenna, quote,

"Here's the deal. Tony shot a terrific movie. I had seen all the daily as I know what we had. I was on the set every day and he and Edward had a solid relationship. Tony simply couldn't find the film in the editing room and as we gave him notes, it only got worse." A screenplay is like an architect design and once a builder starts moving around bathrooms on the fly, bad shit is going to happen. Edward simply went into the editing room at everyone's behest, cut the film according to

the script with Jerry Greenberg and rescued our child from an abusive father.

“Or as Edward Norton put it, quote, "At what point does Tony have to deal with practical limitations?”

He wants complete indulgence for an ad infinitum process." Now, it's worth noting that three editors did take their name off of the movie in support of Tony Kaye and at least two unnamed actors refused to show up for any ADR or VO in post-production as a form of protest. So, he wasn't completely on an island. But on October 30, 1998, American history acts was released and I limited the practical run, followed by a wide theatrical release on November 20th.

Opening weekend, hit garnered $156,000. It's worldwide gross would top out at 23.8 million. So, it lost money.

Yeah, I know. It's always interesting that this movie has had such staying power kind of in the

zeitgeist when it was a bit of a flop when it came out. But it's also one of the, you know, when we had video stories, this movie has a swastika on the cover of it. Oh, it's got a very noticeable one. Yeah. You would walk by and what is that? It was very shocking to see, you know, as a kid. Well, I think it does come back to Tony Kay has an amazing eye. Like the footage that he shot

is impressive. It is shocking. And the production design is great. So speaking to the Guardian in 2002, Kay said the release version was 40 minutes longer than his cut. He said, quote, "I had done a hard fast 95 minute rough diamond of a picture, but the movie they put out was crammed with shots of everyone crying in each other's arms." And of course,

Other people, though, said that it was not as big a difference as he is making it out to see him in terms of the two cuts. His was just shorter. I'm not sure if I buy that. He was unapologetic about his hatred for the film, saying quote, "Well, it's good enough to fool Hollywood. It's good enough to fool Newline and it's certainly fool Edward Norton, but it doesn't fool me. My standards are a lot higher."

Norton was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor. He did, of course, lose to who Chris? The Oscars were 99. It's Roberto Benini. Oh, that's right.

“Climbing over the chairs. Life is beautiful. Yes. And then everyone's out. Why do we give it to”

the guys? Climbing on our chairs. See, random, very unsafe to collect his Oscar. That footage is pretty insane when you watch it. Yes, it is. He's like remarkably has a swift foot as he runs across those seats. He does. Yeah. All right. On November 23rd,

shortly after the release, Tony K filed a $200 million lawsuit against the studio and the DGA.

This all revolved around the fact that the DGA and the studio would not let him take his name off, but the suit was thrown out by a judge in 2000 sighting with the studio and the union over K. But K wasn't done with his ads. In the late 90s, in the middle of this chaos, he took out an ad in variety that read to Marlon Brando. Have you read one arm? The Tennessee William screenplay yet? Tony K. So they end up becoming friends. Brando actually said he's open to doing the screenplay.

And according to K, he invited him to his house and greeted him with, "Here's the joy of crazy as I am." I mean, Brando was interesting as he had been in a movie a few years prior with new line that similarly, Richard Stanley was ejected off of that movie off of island of Dr. Maro much earlier than Tony K had. But Brando was the one actor who kind of was standing by Stanley through most of that process. So if ever there were a candid spirit to find,

it would be Brando. Well, yeah, and he tried to help out his new found friend. He hired K to direct a series of DVDs called "Lying for a Living" that would be a documentary about a 10-day acting workshop in which Brando taught people how to use acting techniques in everyday life. The project brought together around 20 young acting students alongside many established stars including Sean Penn, Nick Nolty, Edward James almost, Whippy Goldberg and Harry Dean

Stanton. I mean, can I be a 100% honest? Masterclass is just a gussied up version of what you just described in my opinion. Just throw it out there. Well, keep that in mind when I tell you how Tony K showed up. This was in November of 2001. And on the first day of shooting, he showed up dressed as any guesses. Oh, some have been lying. Oh, some have been

“lying. That is correct. That's how I've been lying. Yep. All right. He walked out and according to”

him, Brando never spoke to him again. In 2002, he wrote an op-ed for the Guardian that I strongly

encourage listeners to read. It's alternatively incredibly eloquent and self-aware and also just like stunningly oblivious to the point that it is hard to believe it's written by the same person. He seems to entirely understand how he mishandled new line and Mike Deluca. He is able to articulate why he behaved the way that he did. You know, he says basically he's saying like my body felt that this was a situation of life and death. And so that's how I was reacting to it. But like it was stupid.

I was, you know, that's not what it was. And then he goes on to have zero understanding of why everyone wasn't stoked on his Osama bin Laden comedy bit and also takes every opportunity to say what an untalented moron Edward Norton is when it comes to filmmaking, which we know is not true. So he's just, he's a really interesting guy. I don't totally know what to make of him. I think he's very smart. I think he's probably very hard to work with. I think the same is probably true,

Edward Norton, right? Like yes. He seems very smart. He also definitely seems a little trick-difficult. You know, he's going to have a lot of opinions about a lot of things. I'm not saying he shouldn't. But that's just another thing you have to manage. And there are a lot of things you have to manage as a director. So that could be challenging. Yeah, absolutely. Back in 2007,

Kay watched the theatrical release of American history acts in a theater for the first time.

And at this screening, he referenced that he was working on a documentary about the making of it that would be titled Humpty Dumpty. It still has not been released. In that 2002 Guardian op-ed, Kay said, quote, "Four years ago, I made my first movie, American History X." That might have been caused for celebration. Had I not been preoccupied with destroying myself, my career, and my chances of ever working in Hollywood again. I thought I was upholding the old movie

industry traditions of strutting around picking fights with the studio and being the fly in everyone's ointment. I don't buy this narrative that he has spun in the years since this, that he was trying to be as crazy as the directors that he admired. That doesn't quite add up for me.

“I think he's letting himself off the hook there. I don't know. What do you make of it?”

I don't know. Is the truth? There was definitely a period where that was the case, where you had,

maybe like to think," and so I just can't tell. It seems like he was a person in crisis.

Yes, a hundred percent. And maybe remain so. I'm sympathetic towards that. I've had one or two moments where I really felt like my brain was going to break or I needed to go do something drastic to get off of a movie I was on or something like that. Generally speaking, this movie, what you've explained to me really makes me think about, you know, we were talking about Casa Blanca, right? For example, this is a movie that had so many authors had so many people

vying for credit at the end. I've really think broadly speaking as much as I believe in a tour

“cinema and as much as I selfishly am like, "Yes, you need to have one person guiding the ship”

at the end of the day." The version of this movie that sounds the best to me is the version that's halfway between Tony Kay's version and Edward Norton's version. A hundred percent had they been able to work together. It would have been excellent. If Kay could have healed or curved in some of Norton's excesses, because Norton is, "Oh my God, this movie can become sentimental, quick sand, and it can be portentous and completely self-important, and it gets in the way of

the message." But at the same time, I do think you need some of that emotional ballast. Otherwise, you're going to be, you know, it's going to be so bleak that you're just going to leave the movie

thinking, "Jesus Christ, we're screwed." And I don't think that's ultimately the goal of the film.

That's exactly right. Neither of them could get out of their own way to actually make the best product, which would have been a combination of both of their skills. And I believe that thoroughly. So he has gone on to make a couple of other films. Blackwater transit is actually an unreleased crime drama, which found him again in arguments over final edit. And there was a bunch of litigation following this. They said that it was unreleasable. But he's also directed a documentary about

abortion in America called Lake of Fire. That was well-received. It made the Academy Award shortlist. He directed the music video for Danny California. Johnny Cash is God's going to cut you down. He directed Detachment in 2011 with Adrian Burdy and Christina Hendrix. And then in 2025, he premiered his latest film The Trainer. And it was released at the Tribeca Film Festival. So

he is still working. And you know, hopefully has learned from this experience.

Let's end with Edward Norton in his reputation. Because as you pointed out, he and Tony Kay, not that dissimilar. They're kind of two sides of the same coin. Edward Norton just was able to facilitate himself better. In a 2019 New York Times interview, he was asked directly about his reputation for being difficult on set, which Norton traced back to American history acts. And I think that's fair. He said, quote, "People take things that happen between

fervent people who care about the work and who end up shaking hands with each other and they make it into drama." Now, the reporter does not let him off the hook here. He's like, "Sure, but I'm not just talking about American history acts." Your reputation of this, it's not a one-film reputation. To which Norton said, "You're not reading anything that's any more authentic than people reading a Russian troll bot story about Hillary Clinton and a pizza

parlor is authentic. You're going there must be something to this, just like some guy in the Magahat is being engineered by the GRU into feeling antagonistic with liberals. You're wasting your time engaging with the matrix that's trying to foment negativity. The fact that there's a certain credence to it in your mind is it possible that there's literally nothing to this. When I read this,

“I was like, "Holy shit." I was like, "That's what Tony Kay was describing on the movie." Yes.”

You said a whole lot to not say that much. I don't want to argue with you. That's for sure. The reporter said, "That's what I want to understand." I'm trying to get at what it actually means for someone to have this reputation. Does it mean an actor who pushes back with directors? Does it mean someone who had just the screenplays? To which Edward Norton said, "Honestly, I find the whole line a little boring. You're pulling on a narrative from things

when I was 28 years old. That's not even a contemporary meme around me." I'm scared of it. Edward Norton is very far. You're ready for the best email of your life. No, it almost messes. It comes out. Look, he's so smart. He's so smart. And I reading this interaction that's exactly what I felt is like, boy does he know how to, like, he knows how to argue. But I think it's like you said, it's such a double-edged sword. I think if your incentives

are aligned, Edward Norton would be the best, best person to work with on a movie. Right. If we're making the same movie, I want this guy. Not only do I know he's going to be great. He's a great actor. Yes, he is. But I know he is going to help me fight for everything that I want or that we want and he's going to be effective. He's smart as shit and he knows how to work the system. I'm sending a studio wants to talk. I'm sending an ad. You go to it and he's going to be perfect.

“But it's actually just it's really about knowing who you're working with because you should not”

try to go make a movie with somebody that you're trying to make a different movie with you because that's going to become the fight of what you're trying to do. And this is a perfect example of why not to do that. And I'm guessing Edward Norton is, again, very good at defeating people

if you're aligned, I bet you it would be an absolute dream to work with him and he'd bring

you ideas on scenes and you know, could give you hints on working with other actors. I'm sure he's great at, you know, giving notes to it. But if you can facilitate that through your self as a director, I bet you would be an absolute dream unless you're trying to make a different

“movie. And when's the case? It might be hell. Yeah. So well, yeah. What went right, Chris?”

You know, I'd like to give it to Edward for a long, and again, I think in some ways he's a little misused at times in this movie. I just, I love Edward for a long, I like how unassuming his performances are. They're very natural. He has a very nasally somewhat gratings the wrong word, but just real teenager voice. I think that's tricky in voice over. And I wish they hadn't

deployed it in this movie in that way. But he really was such a talent. And I think, again, Hollywood

is just a place that does kids such a disservice. And I know it's more complicated than that. And I know there's a lot about his home life that we need to talk about, but I feel for him. And I do think he's very good in this movie. And the scenes with Edward Norton, who again is really one of the best actors of his generation, I think, in many senses for a long totally fine opposite hand. Yeah, he does. Does not miss a beat. He feels completely unaffected, you know, opposite him.

So I'd give it to Edward for a long, and also, you know, a guy Tory, there's some great

“supporting performances in this movie. I agree. I think for a long,”

guy Tory for Rujabakh, Ethan Sully, Beverly DeAngelo is really wonderful in this. She's really good. She's done some dramatic stuff. She's known for the comedy stuff, but she's done some dramatic stuff, and she's really good. She's great. And I do also want to call out Elliot Gould. He's only in, like, maybe two scenes of the movie. He's wonderful. Yes. That dinner scene, again, I think is the best in the movie. And the way that he handles himself.

Because obviously, Edward Norton is flying off the handle in that scene. And, you know, his sister is two to a certain degree, and Elliot Gould really just is watching so much. Yeah, he doesn't play fear. He plays almost regret, which I think is so much more effective. He pities this man. Yeah. And his mother. And the way in which his world has been reduced to just skewed hatred. And I think that's a more effective condemnation of Norton's perspective there

than if he had played fear. I agree. I will say I think what went right here in a lot of ways is what we're talking about, and it's the casting. The casting in this movie is really quite pitch perfect. Because the tone is so weird. Had the casting been off, had anybody turned in a not great performance. This would be unwatchable. But nobody does. Every single person in this is really, really wonderful, whether they're given a lot to do or very little. And so I want to give

it to casting director Valerie McAfrey. You did an absolutely bang up job on this movie. I think it's amazing. And it's kind of an amazing ensemble piece for a movie that it seems to be a star vehicle. So shout out to you Valerie. All right. Well, Chris,

I never want to watch this movie again. What can people do if they would like to support the podcast?

First of all, just thanks for listening. We love making the show for you guys. All right, onto the more formal ways. Number one, leave a rating and review on whatever podcast you're listening to us on. Number two, make sure you hit subscribe on this podcast. So we are dropping in your feed every Monday occasionally Friday. Number three, if you would like more from us, you can sign up for our subscription feeds. Those are available on Apple or Spotify for $5 a month. You get at least one

bonus episode. These tend to be reviews of new releases. This month, we just did our Oscars coverage.

“We've got some fun stuff cooking for you guys for this summer. If you want to take it a step further,”

you can join our Patreon. Head to www.patreon.com/wetwetwrongpodcast. For $5, you not only get the bonus episodes, you also get an ad free RSS feed. And then you can listen to the show in Patreon, in Apple, in Spotify, wherever you'd like. For $50, you can get a shout out just like one of these. Adrian Peng Korea, Angeline Renee Cook, Ben Shindlman, Blaze Ambrose, Brian Donahue, Brittany Morris, Brooke Beatrix Airheart, Cameron Smith, C. Grace B. Chris Leel,

Chris Zaka, David Friscollante, Darren Ann Dale Conklin, Don Shival, M. Zodia, Evan Downey, Felicia G, Bill Met Yourself, Frankenstein, Gailin and Miguel, the broken glass kids, Grace Potter, Half Greyhound, James McAvoy, Jason Frankel, J.J. Rapidole, Jory Hill Piper, Jose Emilano Souto de Jorgio, Karina Kanaba, Kate Elrington, Kathleen Olson, Amy Eldershlogger McCoy, Lazy Freddy, Lena L.J., Lydia House,

Mark Bertha, Mera Poses Humans, Matthew Jacobson, Michael McGrath, Nathan Knife,

Susan Johnson, the cast in crew of Winna Trip to Brown Town, the Provost family and the O's sound

“like O's, and there is no spoon. We love you guys, thank you.”

Alright guys, thank you so much for listening to this week's episode of What Went Wrong

Next week, we have something a little different, a little, still dark, but a little lighter,

“a lot lighter, a very fun romp with some wonderful puppetry, Lazy, what's coming next?”

Dance magic, dance, it's labyrinth. That's right, and David Bowie's cut piece.

We're heading into my, I think second favorite Jim Henson movie because weirdly I love the dark

“crystal more than anything else, but maybe maybe my favorite, I'm not sure. I'm very excited to”

talk all things, labyrinths. Great. Thank you guys again, and we will see you next week. Presented by Lizzy Bassett and Chris Winterbauer, post-production in music by David Bowman. This episode was researched by Jesse Winterbauer and edited by Karen Krotzoff.