
Diary entry, 3 May 1971, reflecting on O Lucky Man! and the difficulties faced by the auteur in the Hollywood system (LA 6/1/64).
I reckon that at least now in scope and ambition, and at least partial eloquence, this is a work, this film [O Lucky Man! ], which incontestably sets me more prominently than Humphrey Jennings . IF.. somehow by its very circumscribed nature (part of its virtue of course) remains a minor achievement - (even if 'masterpiece'!) . But this is still of course unresolved with great problems - the central passage: prison: Frank's confession? Or the necessity to invent an expressive passage? I have no idea: and here I feel keenly the loss, the lack of a creative writing collaborator. I really don't know how to solve this. I just don't seem finally to work in a style that permits the disjuncture of parody. This is the penalty of my pervasive realism . I reflect also on the enormous strain imposed by this attempt to straddle the world of 'personal' (auteur if you like) cinema, and that of widespread acceptance as popular and therefore commercial entertainment. Anglo-American cinema is essentially organised for the production of pre-planned narrative cinema, and anyone who takes on the risk of personal, poetic, changing and developing film-making exposes himself to enormous problems, strain and conflict. And this is true of Kubrick & Schlesinger and even Pekinpah as well as myself - and it is why the commercial cinema creates monsters of paranoia, because only they can survive within it. And it also explains why I shall not survive within it - whatever the success of this project - because such is not my nature, and even if I wished it to be (which I do not) it never could be.
© University of Stirling 2004