The Oscar-winning filmmaker who thought Paul Newman was better at directing than acting: “It may even be his biggest talent”
Paul Newman is still one of the most famous movie stars of all time. It wasn’t just his piercing blue eyes and matinee idol bone structure that made him such an unforgettable screen presence. He had an indelible coolness punctuated by a vulnerability that distinguished him from the intensity of Marlon Brando and the aloof toughness of Steve McQueen. With films like The Hustler, Cool Hand Luke, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, he helped define an era of filmmaking that still stands the test of time.
Newman had many passions outside of acting to keep him busy. Racecar driving was perhaps his greatest love, and he threw himself into it with a seriousness that sometimes detracted from his duties as an actor. Later in life, he started a salad dressing company that remains ubiquitous on grocery store shelves. But another one of his pursuits was closer to his theatrical roots. During the peak of his career, he directed his first film, a drama called Rachel, Rachel, and it proved that he was a remarkably gifted filmmaker.
Released in 1968, Rachel, Rachel starred Newman’s wife, Joanne Woodward, as a schoolteacher in a small town who undergoes a sexual and personal awakening. Newman was adamant about making it, telling editor Dede Allen that audiences had never gotten to see the scope of Woodward’s talent as an actor. “And so, therefore,” he told her, “Even though I maybe shouldn’t direct, I’m going to.”
It wasn’t the type of film that any studio would make of their own free will, but Newman got them to do it by promising to act in a film of their choosing. Allen, who edited Bonnie and Clyde, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, and The Wiz, to name a few, called the film one of her greatest working experiences. Estelle Parsons and Frank Corsaro, who played supporting roles in the film, were equally effusive in their praise of Newman as a director.
“I’ve never seen so much finesse,” Corsaro said. “His extraordinary sensitivity came through… As a director, Paul made very specific demands on the cast in areas of feeling and playfulness that very often were missing in his own work as an actor.”
Perhaps the greatest praise came from someone who wasn’t affiliated with the film. Elia Kazan was one of the most respected directors in Hollywood in the 1950s and ‘60s, having made On the Waterfront, East of Eden, and A Streetcar Named Desire, and he was deeply impressed with Newman’s work on Rachel, Rachel.
“Paul’s an excellent director,” he said. “He’s sensitive, tough, and strong… It may be his biggest talent. Maybe five years from now people will say, ‘Boy, Newman was a good actor, but when it comes to directing, he’s better.’”
To hammer the point home, Rachel, Rachel was nominated for four Academy Awards, including ‘Best Picture,’ ‘Best Adapted Screenplay,’ ‘Best Actress’ and ‘Best Supporting Actress’. Although it didn’t win in any of these categories, Newman ended up taking home the Golden Globe for ‘Best Director’.
Given how well the film was received, it’s surprising that he didn’t take a more decisive turn toward directing. He made four more features after that – Never Give an Inch in 1971, The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds, Harry & Son in 1984, and The Glass Menagerie in 1987. Perhaps he simply had too many other pursuits at that point to make it a regular part of his profession, or perhaps he just preferred to take it up only when there was a project he felt particularly passionate about. Either way, the evidence of his talents as a director is still out there for everyone to see.
