Talking Triumphs and Tragedy: An interview with Paul Kendall about his new documentary on the life of Gene Clark
Interview with Paul Kendall, October 2013
Q. Notwithstanding his tenure in the Byrds at the height of their
popularity, Gene Clark isn't exactly a household name. Why did you decide to
embark on this project now? Was this essentially a labour of love?
A. A labour of love is exactly what
it was. I’d come to the end of the full-time career/family-raising part of my
life and was vaguely looking for a project that would allow me to merge my
interests in music and filmmaking. I’d been inspired by two friends who’d made
a great documentary about Arthur Lee (‘Love Story’) and thought I might be able
to do something similar, if I could find the right subject. Two of my sons are filmmakers, I
still had contacts from my Zigzag
days and I’d got a bit of spare cash, so I thought I had the resources to at
least get something started. I’ve been a big fan of Gene’s music
since the first Dillard & Clark album (I was aware of The Byrds, but not of
him as part of the band) and I’d met him, while he was on tour in the UK during
1977. I’d always felt he and his music should be much better known. I was given
the John Einarson biography as a Christmas present in 2010, which really
fleshed out what I knew of his story, and immediately felt I’d found the right
subject. I was surprised to realize no one had done a Gene Clark documentary
before and started thinking about the possibility of doing it myself. The first thing I did was talk to the ‘Love Story’ guys about their experience of making that film. By a happy coincidence, it turned out that they’d been considering doing something on Gene as a follow-up (they did Mott The Hoople instead) and were able to put me in touch with his estate. From that point on, the whole thing just snowballed. I first contacted the estate in March 2011. Come September 10th, we were on a plane to L.A. to shoot the thing.
Q. What was the hardest part of assembling and telling Gene's story?
A. The whole project has been a
rollercoaster ride, between moments of elation and moments of despair. But the
most challenging bits have probably been getting it started and getting it
finished. We wanted to do it with the blessing and involvement of Gene’s family
and estate, not least because we knew that getting interviews with the likes of
Crosby, Hillman and McGuinn would be difficult without it. But getting that
approval wasn’t straightforward. A number of people had approached them over
the years, about doing a Gene Clark film, but nothing had ever come of it. So
they were, understandably, skeptical when we first got in touch. Especially as we had no reputation or
credentials or backing. Fortunately for us, Barry McGuire and John York were
coming to Europe in May 2011 to do some dates in Holland and Germany, and we
were able to meet up with them in Frankfurt to shoot interviews. We edited the
Barry interview, together with some archive material that we’d found, into an
early version of the New Christy Minstrels chapter of the film. I think this
showed Gene’s sons that we were a) serious and b) competent, and we were up and
running from that point.
Q. How many interviews
were conducted?
A. We shot 30 original interviews, mostly in the States with a
few over here, and got access to a number of archive audio interviews – with
Gene, Doug Dillard and Tommy Kaye.
Q. How many people worked on the doc with you?
A. It’s really all been done by
myself and two of my sons, Jack and Dan. I’ve covered all aspects of
production, from doing the research and setting up the shoot through to sorting
out all the admin side, as well as co-directing with Jack. The three of us did
the shoots – Jack and Dan filming while I did the interviews. Jack has done all
the editing (a mountainous task, as you can probably imagine). Dan was
responsible for lighting and cinematography on the shoot and has done
retouching on archive photos since. The only outside help we’ve had, on the
actual film production, has been with grading/colouring.
Q. Is there anyone you would have like to have interviewed but
couldn't, for one reason or another?
A. We drew up a wish list of
interviewees at the start of the project and the great majority happened. A few
of the names on the list were optimistic – Bob Dylan, for example, and Tom
Petty, who we nearly got. Of the more realistic ones that we didn’t get, the main
disappointments were Jim Dickson, who sadly passed away while we were still on
the drawing board; Doug Dillard, who was too unwell to be interviewed; and
Bernie Leadon, who initially was going to take part but then changed his mind –
apparently he hadn’t enjoyed reminiscing about Gram Parsons for ‘Fallen Angel’
and didn’t want to go through it again.
Q: Tell me about your interviews with the surviving
original Byrds.
A. We
knew, right from the start, that we had to get access to all three, if the film
was to have any real validity and weight. Fortunately, once they knew we had
the blessing of Gene’s family, they were very happy to participate.
The
original plan was to shoot each of them in their own homes – as we did with
nearly all the other interviewees. As it turned out, we only did this with
Chris. We went to Florida to interview Roger and had to find neutral ground for
the interview. After looking at various possible locations around Orlando, we
ended up turning our hotel room into a makeshift studio. We had just enough
room to set up the lights and cameras. I had to talk with Roger from a
crouching position in a broom cupboard in the corner of the room. Perhaps
that’s why that interview doesn’t have quite the same relaxed feel as most of
the others.
David was
coming to the UK, on tour with Graham Nash, immediately after we got back from
the States. He said he rather meet us then, so we arranged to shoot his
interview before their gig at the Colston Hall in Bristol. That fell on the day
after we came home and we almost blew it. After a month of everything going as
well as we could have hoped, during our very crowded shooting schedule around
America, we came within minutes of missing our flight back from Orlando.
Thankfully disaster was averted. We got there, got it done and – as many people
who’ve already seen the film have commented – David is one of the stars of the
film.
All three
spoke about him with a mixture of fondness and sadness, as you would probably
expect. Chris was, by far, the most frank and open in his reminiscences and
insights. Roger, in particular, was more guarded. He and David were both very
comfortable on the subject of the creation of The Byrds and Gene’s role in
their success. What happened thereafter…less so. I got the sense that Gene was
a bit like the black sheep of the family, who they felt a bit awkward talking
about. They must be very conscious that they’ve taken flak over the years, for
their perceived mistreatment of Gene, so you can see why it’s a sensitive
subject.
Q. There doesn't appear to be
much footage of Gene after he left the Byrds, apart from some TV appearances.
How did you deal with this issue?
A. Gene
Clark archive material of any kind, between The Byrds and McGuinn, Clark Hillman,
is in short supply. Our best efforts couldn’t turn up any video footage from
those years, and people who’ve spent far longer than ourselves on the quest
haven’t found anything either. We realized early on that this was going to be
the case, but we’d already decided that we wanted to make more use of location
footage than is usual with this type of film. My feeling was that the places he
lived in were more meaningful to Gene, and more influential on his work, than
the times he lived in, and we wanted to get a sense of those places into the
film.
Before
going to the States, we did as much research as we could into the places where
he’d lived – with his family in Missouri, in LA and Mendocino. Quite a few of
the significant buildings in his life no longer exist – his grandparents’ house
in Tipton, where he was born; the first family home in Swope Park; the house in
Sherman Oaks, where he died. But others do – we were able to film at the Bonner
Springs house, where the Clarks moved during his teens; at Doug Dillard’s house
on Beechwood Canyon, where Dillard & Clark came into being; and, most
importantly, at the farmhouse just outside Mendocino.
We also shot a lot of general atmosphere footage,
to get a feeling of those three very different locations: the down-to-earth
simplicity of the rural Mid-west, the full-on rush of Hollywood, and the
serenity (spirituality, you could even say) of Northern California.
Experiencing them all, in concentrated form, made it easy to understand why
Gene spent much of his life being pulled in conflicting directions.
Q. As you dug into his life and
spoke to people who knew him, did you find out anything that you hadn’t known
before, either positive or negative?
A. From
what I already knew, and from reading the John Einarson book, I was quite well
immersed in Gene’s story before we started making the film, so nothing really
came as a shock. One thing I was pleasantly surprised to find was a universal
affection for Gene, across everyone we interviewed – a sense that, for all his
faults and the upsets he caused, he was ‘a good guy’. The one piece of
genuinely new information, which we couldn’t make room for in the film,
concerned Gene’s father, Kelly Sr. It’s well known that he played guitar and
was an early influence on Gene’s interest in music. But, according to David
Clark, Gene’s younger brother, he was a very good musician and was invited to
join the Gene Krupa Orchestra. He was about to get married, however, and Jeanne
wouldn’t let him go on the road. Who knows what would have happened, if he had.
Read the article HERE |
A. Of all
the artists I interviewed during my brief stint as a music writer, only two
struck me as people I’d have liked to know better as fellow human beings. One
was Lowell George and the other was Gene. I went up to either Leeds or
Liverpool to do an interview with him for Zigzag,
in the bar of the hotel where everyone was staying. But the gig (in fact the
rest of the tour, if I remember right) got cancelled, so after I’d turned off
the tape recorder we just kept talking through the afternoon and into the evening,
over a few quiet beers. From what I’ve learned since, I got very lucky – “a few
quiet beers” doesn’t seem to have been his usual style. My impression of him
was as a deep, gentle soul, but naïve – not in the sense of being dumb – far
from it – but unworldly… marching to a different drum from regular folk. The
other thing that made a particular impression, was that he genuinely seemed as
interested in the life and thoughts of an unknown rookie writer as I was in
his. Sadly my tape of the interview got lost somewhere along the way through
the years, but fortunately we were able to access some others from the same
period.
Q. The title of the documentary
refers to the “Triumphs” – plural – and the “Tragedy” of Gene Clark's life. The
tragic aspects are obvious. Bearing in mind that Gene Clark never had any
commercial success as a solo artist, what in your view are the triumphs?
A. Commercial
successes and artistic triumphs are by no means the same thing…as I’m sure you
know. I would consider the first D&C album, White Light and No Other to be
artistic triumphs in their own right, in addition to his work with The Byrds. I
would also say that, considering the various personal difficulties he faced
throughout his career, his ability to rise above those difficulties to create
such a body of work should also be considered a triumph.
Q. What do you believe was the
essence of Clark's uniqueness as a songwriter?
A. A
god-given flair for melodic invention and lyrics, which, at their best, come
from another place. (The word ‘visionary’ has become wildly over-used, but in
Gene’s case it can be applied quite literally.) All delivered, of course, in a
uniquely wonderful voice. There have been many fine covers of Gene Clark songs,
but no one does them better than he did himself.
Q. Finally, are you pleased with the results of the documentary?
A. After more than two years of
immersion in the project, it gets hard to be objective about it and you tend to
focus on the things you’re not happy with. But we’re generally pretty pleased –
and the reactions of people who’ve seen it suggest we’re right to be.
DVD available from http://foursunsproductions.com/Gene-Clark-Documentary/ |
Comments
I was wondering if you have any information regarding any unreleased Gene Clark songs(studio or live)featured in the documentary?
Hi Rufus, I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't answer that question for you.
There was an interview in a 1977 Dark Star around the same time as the Zigzag interview when he was in England just before the McGuinn-Hillman-Clark was official.
For Gene I hope its a success,well done to the guys for doing this .
Craig
Gene is one of favorite artists of all time.
Steve E in Colorado
-Ingrid
"However", if any of you have read Johnny Rogan's "Requiem for the Byrds" and its companion book just released (2017), you should recognize immediately that there is a significant "disconnect" between the film and the written, researched account provided by Mr. Rogan.
Rogan makes clear a reality which if correct, explains why Gene Clark couldn't go on working with his "bandmates". And it ain't pretty. The film "glosses" over all of this, and I suppose if it went into too much detail, might never have gotten the interviews with Crosby, McGuinn, and Hillman, or worse, been sued by them for something. It would have been stunning to listen to even one of these old men finally come clean and fess up to the fact that they were jerks to each other. Maybe Clark was also, (we all have been at one time or another), but he apparently was the wind underneath THEIR wings, at least in the formative years of the BYRDS. Without him it is VERY doubtful they would have "taken flight" at all.
The other item I picked up on in Rogan's book was about Gene's relationship with Terry Messina, apparently his "lady" after the breakup with his wife. That too was reported on by Rogan in detail, and it wasn't pretty towards the end. In fact, Ms. Messina reportedly committed suicide some years after Gene's death. LOT's OF DRUGS, BOOZE, PILLS, etc, for both of them. Sorry, "recreational" use of this crap is still VERY different from degenerating into hard core addiction. And that apparently is where Gene Clark wound up at the end.
I realize that a filmed account of someone's life is much more constricted for various reasons (time, money, intent, etc) than a full blown written account like Mr. Rogan's. And I also acknowledge that the aim or purpose may be different as well. A "tribute" for example, can be significantly different then an "expose' ". But somewhere in all of these formats, if the production is faithful to reporting on the "facts" (as best as can be established), then these have to be dealt with in either case. And IF Mr. Rogan reported these "facts" accurately, some of the most important parts of Gene Clark's life were completely ignored, or worse, left on the cutting room floor.