...with a well-known band for good measure!

by Christopher Hughes

July 2005 finally saw the release on DVD of The Committee, Pink Floyd's first direct journey into film soundtracks. Beautifully packaged, with a bonus CD of music from the Homemade Orchestra and an interview with writer Max Steuer and director Peter Sykes, the DVD is not just a must for any serious Floyd fan, but a moving and insightful look at society in the '60s that can easily be used as a tool to look at society in the 21st century.

So armed with the new release and a thirst for answers to so many myths about the band at the time, I undertook to interview writer Max Steuer. It turned out to be quite rewarding, filling in a few gaps in the band's history, Syd Barrett's initial involvement, and the whereabouts of the lost tapes! Working with Max via email has certainly been a pleasure and I can't thank him enough for giving up his valuable time to answer the questions.

Spare Bricks: The Committee was based on a short story you wrote entitled "Nightmare". When did you write it, and how similar is it to the film?

Max Steuer: "Nightmare" was published in a small literary magazine in 1966. The film is very close to the story, especially in mood. The director, Peter Sykes, and others, had a great deal of faith in me, too much maybe, and tried to realise in the film exactly what I had in mind.

SB: Was R.D. Laing an influence in writing The Committee, and if so, how?

MS: Laing was undoubtedly an important influence. Like a number of other thinkers in the Sixties, he took a view about the balance between individual expression and freedom, and the alleged needs of society, which is far from the dominant culture today. The drift to religion today, fundamentalist and near-fundamentalist, is very authoritarian. Laing certainly had his mystical side, but with him it always served to liberate. In the confrontation scene, the phrase "they kill the bird of paradise..." is a direct reference to a book by Laing. I believe that Laing was of the view that even extremes of deviance such as schizophrenia were valid expressions of individual views, possibly exalted views. The film does not go that far. Society still tries to nudge the deviant back onto an acceptable track, but it does so from a far more insightful and anti-authoritarian stance than many people in authority would employ today.

SB: A lot of the dialogue between the Hitchhiker and the Committee Chairman revolves around society... interpretations, meanings, effects, etc. Despite the vast changes in the physical and material world between the '60s and today, do you feel that the same comments and ideas can be applied to today's society? If they are different, what do you think the two characters might be saying today?

The Committee DVD release.

MS: Broadly, much the same tensions exists today between individual realisation of oneself and the pressures of society. The sixties, hippydom, if you like, looks naïve today, but it had something. It was freeing. It had goals that weren't materialistic. It was sensual, and, yes, in many ways it was silly. Today it seems harder for people to think and feel for themselves. It is interesting that Tony Blair is saying now that engaging in dialogue is critical in dealing with terrorism. I think he is right in that. And of course, that is the heart of the film. The nature of the dialogue today is rather different. Many people feel they know precisely what God wants, and are prepared to do anything that favours what they believe God wants. This is a rather different discussion than in the film. There the content was largely about secular morality.

SB: Can I ask what the motivation was behind the several exchanges in the film? First, when the Hitchhiker is asking for time off from work:

Hitchhiker's Boss: I was on a committee once, years ago, consisted of eight men. We were asked to decide which of five oranges we thought was the roundest.

MS: This is a reference to 'Ash Experiments', which have to do with conformity. In those experiments a stooge is placed in a group who all profess to agree, for example, that the third line on the page is the longest, where anyone with eyes can see that the second is longer. Do you follow your own eyes, or what the group is saying? Typically, there is some vacillation on repeated trials, and then people settle down either conforming or sticking to their guns. The latter is rare.

SB: Second, during the walk around the grounds:

Hitchhiker: You could ask him, but he couldn't tell you. That's the point isn't it, he couldn't tell you.
Chairman: Can you tell me?
Hitchhiker: I can tell you this. In that car there was nothing, see nothing, just talk. It's fair to say, isn't it, that a man like that doesn't think? He doesn't really feel. He goes through the motions of being human because nobody tells him any different.

MS: This is the crime of arrogance. The film is sympathetic to the hitchhiker, but like real life heroes, he has his faults. Because he sees himself as more creative, freer, smarter, whatever, he feels he can do others down.

SB: Again, during the walk around the grounds:

Chairman: Some people think that the criminals and the mad are the real heroes.
Hitchhiker: Why not, in a corrupt world? In a pointless and vicious society?
Chairman: But in a reasonable society?
Hitchhiker: There are no criminals.
Chairman: So, one criminal act can turn a reasonable society into an unreasonable one?
Hitchhiker: And back again.

MS: There are three things here. First, the view that people are inherently good, and only evil in society makes them evil. This is wrong. To some extent, people are born with personalities, and not all personalities agree. There are situations which are inherently situations of conflict. It is not the failings of society which bear all the blame. However, when I reflect on this little bit of the film, I cannot help but think about 9/11, where to some extent, a criminal act turned a somewhat reasonable society into a somewhat unreasonable one. That is the second part. And the last part is the "back again". Do you have to step outside the rules of a reasonable society to correct some wrongs? Well, the hitchhiker thinks so.

SB: Another is in the car as they drive away:

Girl: Do you play bridge?

I've included this last quote even though the opening presumably explains it. It looks as though this opening statement is a recent addition (as it is put before the film clearance message), and therefore, why was it put in? Or was it to stop people like me asking what she meant?

And why bridge, when they play chess in the film? And why doesn't he answer? He sort of looks away. Is he cured, or is he going to end up killing her, too? Or neither: is he happy to be with someone who is content with the easy things in life?

MS: You ask some good questions! The quote was added for the DVD. I hope it helps. I love the way Tom Kempinski reads it. It actually informs the meaning. I think it should be there. I guess part of the reason for bridge rather than chess is that bridge is a team game. Also, as you rightly note, the hitchhiker is a chess player. So there is a kind of tension in that she plays a different game. Has the confrontation worked? Has the Committee succeeded in curing--or socialising--this person? As in life itself, the answer is unsure. Maybe. I believe it is sentimental nonsense to hold that people can be cured, once and for all. They might be, but they might not. That is the nature of freedom of choice.

SB: On the comical side, the whole "you look like my wife" scene is hilarious. Is this a bit of light relief or is there yet more hidden meaning as well?

MS: I think it is pretty funny, and beautifully acted by Sammy Daniels and Tom Kempinski. There is a sort of a point, as well. Hopefully, it helps to establish the character Tom plays as a natural 'victim' more or less wherever he goes. Because he is like that, we are tempted into unfairly laughing at him.

SB: In the documentary you say the film is best suited for repeated viewing to really appreciate and enjoy the ideas. So I would say that makes it a 'thinking person's film'. In this modern world of The Matrix (your comparison), do you think you would make it different today to cater for that 'entertain me here and now' market as well as the 'thinking' market?

MS: I would not want to rely on special effects to keep people watching. And I would like to steer clear of phony mystery. But I think a less linear film, with more cutting back and forward in time, and a film with much more agility, would be better.

SB: A contemporary review of the film (by Joel W. Finler, writing in the International Times) highlighted the obvious lack of controlling technology in this society (compared to other films and stories mentioned such as 2001 and 1984), equally highlighting the very human response in The Committee to dealing with problems. Is this something you clearly aimed for as a key difference in your writing (and a real solution to societies problems)?

MS: Very much so. In the 'controlling technology' story, and I would put Total Recall in that group, it boils down to adventure. Can the little guy outsmart the machine? We hoped to address a more serious, and indeed, a more relevant question. What are the 'rights', if you will, of society, and at the same time, how might an ideal society deal with deviance? In my view, even 'best practice' will not give us something we could call a solution. But it still is worth aiming for.

SB: The review also describes disappointment that the "most successful and dramatic scene" is in the opening sequence (presumably the beheading). You say as much in the documentary, discussing a possible re-edit with flashbacks. Was this discussed much at the time, or was the film always going to be a chronological telling of the tale?

MS: As I say, it could have been edited in a way that put more of the punch, or the hook to use a musical expression, closer to the end. We did think about it. At the time, there was a Bergman film which consisted almost entirely of something like the confrontation scene. My Dinner with Andre, one of my favourites, also does not rely on the usual movie methods for being entertaining. If I did it again, yes, it would be a lot more fun, hopefully, without losing the point. But it would never be as much 'fun' as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, both actually being torture for me. Maybe it could be as much fun as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

SB: So in an overall way, what was the motivation for making the film? Negatively, was it a warning about society to society, or positively, was it a teaching tool designed to encourage society to do a better job?

MS: I think we should not get too carried away with the didactic aspect of the film. The heart of the film is a kind of stylised 'psychoanalysis', or at least a psychological exploration. This is essentially an emotional things, carried out through all the 'words' about society and the rest, but on another level telling a tale of a particular kind of two-person interaction. There is a sort of satisfying resolution to it.

SB: From the documentary, you and Peter Sykes clearly love the end product (as you explain, it was just as much for yourselves as it was for the wider world). Is there anything that you might change in hindsight?

MS: You are right. It was great to do. And it was self-indulgent, to a degree. I am sure a much better movie could be made by thinking all the time, every nanosecond, about what the audience is experiencing rather than about what we are doing.

SB: I notice this is your only film writing effort. Have you written others that didn't make it to production, or was The Committee a one-off?

MS: The Committee, for all its problems, came from the heart. After that, I was asked to write a commercial film. It was a struggle. I worked all summer nine to five, like having job, and gave up my holiday. Oddly, when people read the script, they loved it, without exception. I hated doing it, and it certainly was not from the heart. There is a lesson here. The Italian film company behind the project went under shortly after the script was finished, so that was that.

SB: How did you get involved in producing The Committee? Was Peter Sykes a friend of yours at the time and so it was a natural move for you to work on that part of the film as well?

MS: No, I did not know Peter before. A group of us put on the twenty or so short plays that occur in Kafka's diaries. These are the only actual plays he wrote, most having four lines or so, and ours was the only production ever done, to my knowledge. Meghnad Desai directed. Some members of that project wanted to go on to making a film, which gradually became more and more professional, so that by the time shooting began, very talented and able people were making the film.

SB: In the documentary you describe the not-so-ideal situation of your writing day by day as it were. But it is a credit to Peter and the cast that it comes across all very smoothly etc. Do you feel a sense of achievement in this, or do you wish you could have written it first, then tweaked it when needed?

MS: My wife tells me that a lot of productions are like this, with writers just meeting the deadlines of the next day's shooting. It is nerve wracking, but maybe it is a good way to work.

SB: Apart from the writing, do you have many memories of the day-to-day work on set?

MS: Absolutely. I loved everything about it. I am sure I slept less in that year than any year of my life. I remember being exhausted and exhilarated much of the time. Seeing actors at work was impressive. When we saw rushes in the early morning, I was often surprised even though I had been present at the filming. It is a great skill to know how a scene will look. Nowadays with digital equipment, directors do not need that skill. They can see what they are getting as the shoot. Peter was great in that regard, as in many other ways.

SB: With the upcoming release of the DVD, you would have no doubt paid a lot of attention to it in the recent past, maybe after a long gap since 1968. Do you feel the film stands up as a film, as a message for what you were trying to say, and do the other parts (music, direction, acting, etc.) still support that?

MS: It ages well. In many ways, it is better now. In addition, now it captures a period.

SB: Turning to the soundtrack, did you have any say in getting Pink Floyd involved?

MS: We started by working with Syd Barrett. Alas, this was not a viable option. Roger Waters heard about these efforts, and suggested the Floyd could do the job. I am so glad he did. It was absolutely wonderful working with them, and the outcome could not be better.

SB: According to some researchers, the initial meeting to involve Pink Floyd was a lunch in 1968 with yourself, someone else involved in the film, Roger Waters and Syd Barrett. Is there any truth to this?

MS: I do not think so. As you may know, Pink Floyd was managed for a time by Peter Jenner, who was a lecturer for a time at the London School of Economics, where I work, and worked at the time. So there is a sort of natural connection there. Apart from that, I was an enormous Floyd fan right from the beginning.

SB: The story I've heard is that you initially wanted Syd Barrett to do the music for the film. Apparently Roger Waters and Syd Barrett went into a studio that day and recorded a lot of strange music. When Peter Jenner heard about these sessions he took the tapes. The soundtrack then came from a second session with Pink Floyd. Is there any truth in this?

MS: Roger was not involved at all in that first try with Syd. Syd read the story and said he would do the film. This seemed fine by me. He asked us to book a very expensive studio, and showed up an hour and a half late, and without a guitar. He asked Peter Sykes and me to get lost, which we did. We came back a few hours later to find a trio--drums, bass, and guitar. They finished a bit and lased it up backwards. Syd thought it was a good start. It cost too much money, and would have sunk the film. Somehow, Peter Jenner got that tape. Peter, give me back my tape!

SB: In the documentary you explain that the Pink Floyd recording session for the film took place in 1968 in your basement, over a period of four days. What do you recall about this session?

MS: The address was 3, Belsize Square, London NW3, the basement flat of the painter Michael Kidner and his wife Marion. (Both have small parts in the movie). There was no furniture in the living room, which was large. We started at nine each morning and did twelve hours or so. Roger was always there at 8:30, David Gilmour shortly after, then Nick Mason, and Rick Wright just before nine. It was amazingly professional. The road crew set up the first day by 8 o'clock or so. The van you see on the Ummagumma album was parked outside.

Much of the time was devoted to working with the soundtrack, no pictures. When the music was recorded they had both the dialogue in their cans and the film on the screen. There was a lot of discussion. My input was minimal, other than to say 'OK' when it seemed to me to be OK. Just at the end, when the mixing was going on, Roger asked me which of two alternatives I favoured. I said, 'What do you think?' He said, 'You are the governor.' I never forgot that. It was great knowing these musicians for a time.

SB: In the documentary, you mention the death of Martin Luther King (April 4, 1968)... do you recall which of the four days that was?

MS: When we went into the studio, typical of the professionalism and helpfulness in cutting expenses, we all met for breakfast opposite the studio at least an hour before it opened. It was during that breakfast that the paper came around with King's assassination. We had to put it out of our minds and just get on with the job.

SB: In the documentary, Peter recalls that "there were some problems" with Pink Floyd at the time. Do you recall what they were, or was Peter talking in general terms about the band, and not specific to the film?

MS: I do not think Peter meant anything. He probably was thinking about Syd.

SB: With three days of rehearsals, how much of that was recorded and do you think that may ever see the light of day?

MS: Nothing was recorded from rehearsals. The nature of the music, apart from the bit near the beginning and at the end, is purely to interact with the actors. There is no sense in which the music can meaningfully exist without the film. This is the real interest of it. Usually, or often, music is just laid on a film. This was something else, something quite unique, and in my view, extremely effective.

SB: From the documentary, it's made relatively clear that the music of Arthur Brown is limited to just that one scene when they perform live at the evening party. So I take it all the other music is Pink Floyd?

MS: Yes, apart from the sound over the opening title, which was done by a sound engineer, just for the hell of it.

SB: Was Arthur Brown considered for anything else, such as the incidental music, but you later went with Pink Floyd?

MS: I think Arthur and the Floyd are quintessential men of the period, and of lasting importance. We wanted the "Fire" number and I am so pleased that Arthur agreed to that. What a performance! It was never envisaged that he and his colleagues would do anything other than the party sequence.

SB: How did the DVD come about?

MS: Two DVD companies, one in Australia and one in the UK, approached Basho Ltd., who acquired The Committee from Craytic (the original producers), and made offers for the DVD rights. The directors of Basho decided to go ahead with the DVD rather than sell the rights.