The Paper Dragon (36 page)
Authors: Evan Hunter
"Never."
"We asked Mr. Langford, on May 16th, to supply us with a list of anyone who had worked on
The Paper Dragon
either before or during its production. As Script Writer and Director he listed 'Ralph Knowles, under employment to the studio.' You are that same Ralph Knowles, are you not?"
"I am."
"As Story Editors he listed 'Joseph Edelson and Iris Blake, under employment to the studio.' Mr. Langford swore to the truth of his responses, so we have good reason to believe they were accurate. Yet you seem to disagree with him."
"In what way?"
"You have told this Court that neither Mr. Edelson nor Miss Blake had anything to do with your production of
The Paper Dragon
."
"Correct."
"Yet Mr. Langford swears they were employed by the studio…"
"That may be so, but—"
"… as story editors on
The Paper Dragon
."
"I'm telling you they had nothing to do with my film."
"Were they or were they not story editors?"
"I don't know what they were. This is the first time I'm hearing of this credit. Was it in the titles?"
"What?"
"Of the film. Did this credit show in the titles? I never heard of it before today."
"Mr. Langford swears…"
"Well, he ought to know who was hired or who was not hired by the studio. But even if they
were
story editors, would you mind telling me what that has to do with my movie?"
"That's what I'd like
you
to tell
me
, Mr. Knowles."
"I've already told you. Neither of them had anything to do with
The Paper Dragon
."
"Yet you knew Mr. Edelson personally?"
"Yes, I did."
"If I told you that Mr. Constantine knew both Mr. Edelson and Miss Blake, would you take my word for it?"
"Why not?"
"But you yourself never heard of Mr. Constantine before this action began?"
"The only Constantine I'd ever heard of was the Roman emperor," Ralph said, and smiled.
"But not Arthur Constantine?"
"No.
Not
Arthur Constantine."
"Are you familiar with a film called
Area Seven
?"
"I am."
"In what way?"
"I saw the film, and I know the man who wrote the screenplay."
"Which man are you referring to?"
"Matthew Jackson."
"Was it a good film?"
"It was nominated for an Academy Award. Whether that makes it a good film or not is open to debate."
"Has Mr. Jackson ever mentioned Arthur Constantine to you?"
"Never."
"Were you aware of the fact that Arthur Constantine worked on the film?"
"I was not."
"Yes. He adapted it."
"I didn't know that."
"Will you take my word for it?"
"Certainly."
"Do you know a man named Rudy Herdt?"
"No, sir."
"A woman named Betty Alweiss?"
"No, sir."
"They are both presently employed by API, and have been working there since 1949. Are you sure you do not know them?"
"I am positive."
"You don't seem to know too many people at the studio, do you, Mr. Knowles?"
"I'm not gregarious," Ralph answered.
"How about Mr. Silverberg?"
"Who?"
"Mr. A. Silverberg. Or it may be
Miss
A. Silverberg, I can't tell from this. Mr. Genitori, would you know…?"
"It's
Mr
. Silverberg," Genitori said. "Abraham Silverberg."
"I don't know him," Ralph said.
"Have you ever read any synopses prepared by Mr. Silverberg?"
"I do not read synopses."
"And therefore you have not read the synopsis Mr. Silverberg prepared on
Catchpole
?"
"No, I have not."
"Have you ever read
any
synopsis of the play
Catchpole
?"
"Never."
"But you
have
read the play itself."
"No, I have not."
"No one at API gave you a copy of the play to read?"
"That's correct."
"I am referring now to the period of time since this action began."
"I have never read
Catchpole
, nor do I intend ever to read it."
"Didn't your attorneys suggest that you read it before coming here to testify?"
"They did."
"But you chose not to read it?",
"I am too busy to read anything that does not personally interest me."
"And I take it that
Catchpole
does not personally interest you?"
"Correct."
"How can you tell this without reading it?"
"I've read transcripts, or depositions, or whatever they were, and I knew from those that the play would not interest me."
"Do you mean transcripts of the pretrial examinations?"
"Correct."
"And I take it you were not overly impressed with Mr. Constantine's work?"
"I was not."
"Are you ever impressed with anyone's work other than your own?"
"Objection, your Honor."
"Sustained. Let's leave off with this, shall we, Mr. Brackman?"
"Mr. Knowles, did Matthew Jackson work with you on the filming of the motion picture
The Paper Dragon
?"
"He did."
"In what capacity?"
"As assistant director."
"What does an assistant director do, can you tell us?"
"Certainly. It's his job to see that everything is functioning properly, actors have their scripts and know their lines, props are ready, extras are in place, quiet and order are maintained on the set. An A.D. is an invaluable person on a film, and Matthew Jackson is a good one."
"Does an assistant director ever
direct
?"
"Sometimes."
"Did Matthew Jackson direct any of the scenes in
The Paper Dragon
?"
"He may have."
"Which scenes?"
"Second-unit stuff, I would imagine."
"Was the bayonet charge second-unit stuff?"
"It may have been."
"Who directed the bayonet charge?"
"I'm sure I directed the sequences involving the principals."
"And the other sequences?"
"Matt might have. Mr. Jackson."
"Was the montage second-unit stuff?"
"Which montage?"
"The one containing vignettes of the soldier being shot out of a tree, and the soldier crying…"
"I directed all of that."
"Mr. Jackson did not help with it?"
"Only as A.D. on the sound stage, that's all, his normal function."
"Let's talk about Private Colman for a moment, shall we?"
"Certainly."
"You portrayed him as wearing eyeglasses…"
"Yes."
"… and you testified that you did this because the actor playing the part, Mr. Olin Quincy, wore glasses in real life?"
"Correct."
"And would not be able to
see
unless—"
"No, I didn't say that. He's as blind as a bat, that's true, but I wouldn't have given him glasses if the part didn't call for him to
read
something. There was a very complicated scene in the film where the positions on a map are being traced, just preparatory to heading into enemy territory, the same as in the book, and Olin thought it would be a good idea if he could
see
all these Oriental place names and actually
read
them from the map, rather than trying to memorize them."
"Do you remember the character of Colman well?"
"Yes, sir."
"As presented in the book?"
"Yes, sir, I do."
"Was he wearing eyeglasses in the book?"
"No, sir."
"Was there a character named Corporal Finlay in the book?"
"No, sir."
"Was there a Corporal Finlay in the movie?"
"Yes, sir."
"Would you say that he possessed some of Private Colman's characteristics?"
"What do you mean?"
"Column's characteristics from the book."
"Yes, sir, I would say so."
"Would you say that Private Colman and Corporal Finlay in the movie were
both
derived from the single character of Private Colman in the book?"
"I would say so, yes."
"You would say that both these characters were derived from the single character of Colman?"
"Well," Ralph said, and hesitated. "Finlay was a composite."
"Of whom?"
"Of Colman and several other characters in the book."
"Which other characters?"
"Characters who were dropped from the film."
"Which?"
"Well, I would have to think for a moment."
"Yes, please do."
"There were a lot of soldiers in the platoon. % m
"Yes…"
"… and we obviously couldn't use all of them in the film, or we'd have had a picture that ran for six hours."
"Yes, I understand that."
"But many of these were minor characters, and I sort of bunched them together to create the single character called Corporal Finlay."
"Yes, but from which characters
besides
Colman was this character derived?"
"I don't recall their names offhand."
"Can you remember their characteristics?"
"Not offhand."
"Would you say that Corporal Finlay was derived primarily from Colman as he appeared in the novel?"
"Yes, primarily, I suppose."
"In that Colman in the novel became
two
characters in the film: Colman and Finlay."
"Correct."
"Are you familiar with the character named Colonel Peterson in
Catchpole
?"
"No, sir."
"The character description of him states that he is a tall, slender, frail-looking man. Would you say that the man who played Corporal Finlay in your film — what was his name?"
"John Rafferty played the part."
"Would you say that he is a tall, slender, frail-looking man?"
"I don't know what you might consider tall," Ralph said.
"Well,
I'm
a short man, Mr. Knowles, and
you're
a tall man. Is John Rafferty more your size or more mine?"
"He's about as tall as I am, six feet give or take an inch."
"Is he slender?"
"I would say so."
"And he does, does he not, give an impression of frailty?"
"Well, I don't know about that."
"We have all seen the film, Mr. Knowles, and I think you will have to agree that John Rafferty gives an impression of frailty on the screen."
"All right, all right."
"In
Catchpole
, Peterson is a psychopath. Would you say that Corporal Finlay is a psychopath?"
"No, sir."
"Would you say he is a neurotic?"
"I don't know the distinction."
"Would you describe Finlay as being disturbed?"
"He is disturbed, yes. But you're forgetting that the character in the book was disturbed, too."
"Which character? Private Colman, do you mean?"
"Yes."
"Yes, and you've testified that Private Colman was divided to form two
separate
characters in the film."
"Correct."
"One who was still called Private Colman, and the other who became Corporal Finlay. I'm a little puzzled by this, Mr. Knowles, because it was my impression that in writing a screenplay the idea was to
eliminate
extraneous characters, tighten the action, generally bring a novel — which can be loose and sprawling — into sharper focus. Why then did you choose to make two characters out of what was a
single
character in Mr. Driscoll's novel?"
"I must have had reasons, though I'm not sure what they were right now. This may have been a suggestion from Olin, who played the part of the troublemaker, I'm not sure. Actors do have a say, you know."
"Yes, of course. Can you remember what it was he might have objected to in the character Colman as presented in the novel?"
"No."
"But whatever it was, it caused you to invent another character, the one you called Finlay."
"I would suppose so."
"Mr. Knowles, do you remember a scene in which you have Lieutenant Cooper requesting Corporal Finlay to assist him with some paperwork, and Finlay replies, 'I can't sir. Paperwork is for sissies,' and the other soldiers burst out laughing, do you remember that scene?"
"Yes, I do."
"If you'll look at this…"
"What is that?"
"… in reel 3, page 4…"
"Oh, yes. What page was that?"
"Page 4."
"Thank you. I have it."
"Would you look at the dialogue there, please?"
"Yes?"
"Where, right after the speech I just quoted to you, Private Colman says, 'Why don't you give him a hand, sweetie?' And then Kenworthy says, 'You could work in his tent, honey,' and Colman shouts, 'You'll enjoy it!' Do you see those speeches?"
"I do."
"What do they mean?"
"They mean, Oh boy, here comes the lieutenant with some more paperwork, everything according to the book. These men are joking, they're trying to make a fool of the lieutenant."
"How about the words 'You could work in his tent, honey'? What do those words mean? These are
men
talking, you understand."
"Of course. That simply means they consider paperwork to be sissy work."
"Is Corporal Finlay a sissy?"
"No, but he feels the way the others do, that paperwork is sissy work. And the men pick this up and make a big thing out of it, the way they do with everything throughout the film, badgering the lieutenant and trying to make him feel ridiculous, the idea that paperwork could be even remotely enjoyable to this soldier…"
"Enjoyable?"
"Yes."
"In what way?"
"Just the suggestion that it could be enjoyable, the suggestion Colman makes, you'll enjoy it."
"
Enjoy
it?"
"All right, I see where you're going, why don't we put it right on the table?"
"Sir?"
"Homosexuality."
"Yes, what about it?"
"That's what you're driving at, isn't it? You're trying to say there was a homosexual implication in this scene."
"Was there?"
"Certainly not."
"The words 'sweetie' and 'honey' used between men do not suggest homosexuality to you?"
