[This story contains spoilers for the 30-year-old Sleepers.]
Nearly 30 years later, Sleepers director Barry Levinson still believes that the discourse surrounding his star-studded drama lost the plot.
Based on Lorenzo Carcaterra’s book of the same name, Sleepers begins in the late 1960s, chronicling four teenage friends whose mischievous quest for a free hot dog goes terribly awry when they nearly kill an innocent bystander. Consequently, they’re sent to the Wilkinson Home for Boys where they endure 6 to 18 months of sexual and physical abuse by four guards.
The New York-based film then jumps to 1981. Two of the four friends — John Riley (Ron Eldard) and Tommy Marcano (Billy Crudup) — spot their former lead abuser, Sean Nokes (Kevin Bacon), in a restaurant and gun him down on the spot. Their remaining friends — Lorenzo “Shakes” Carcaterra (Jason Patric), now a low-level clerk at The New York Times, and Assistant District Attorney Michael Sullivan (Brad Pitt) — vow to exonerate the imprisoned pair and expose the corrupt institution that ruined their lives.
In today’s context, a 1996 film that brings down a dangerous ring of child predators feels ahead of its time, but at the time of its release, there was more emphasis on poking holes in Carcaterra’s claim that Sleepers is based on his own true life story. The author maintained that the core of the tale is authentic despite fictionalizing names and dates. In any event, Levinson still believes that this inquisition undermined the larger point being made about institutional abuse.
“Why does film get caught in this cycle of whether something happened or didn’t happen? It’s a story. It wasn’t the craziest, weirdest thing you’ve ever imagined,” Levinson tells The Hollywood Reporter in support of Sleepers brand-new 4K/Blu-ray release. “I never quite got that noise that was made at that time. It, in some ways, took away from what the piece was. It doesn’t need to be authenticated in that regard for us to pay attention.”
The other controversial aspect involved Robert De Niro’s Father Bobby and the false alibi he gave on the witness stand to help the childhood friends he mentored. A number of critics rejected the idea that a priest would ever lie, especially after putting his left hand on the Bible and swearing an oath. But one of the film’s often-overlooked details is that Father Bobby and his best friend also spent time at Wilkinson in their youth. If Bobby wasn’t a victim himself, his friend certainly was. So his reluctant commitment to perjury was not just about helping two men get away with vigilante justice; it was equally about bringing down anyone that had anything to do with covering up Wilkinson’s ongoing abuse.
“[The discourse] got caught up in whether or not a priest would ever lie on the stand. You can certainly have that, but that’s not the point of the movie. It was a much broader piece than that,” Levinson says. “It’s not a film that was trying to advocate this or that.”
Below, during a conversation with THR, Levinson also discusses the major studios’ deprioritization of mid-budget movies like Sleepers, as well as whether he sees himself making another movie.
***
Do you remember what pulled you in the direction of Sleepers after releasing two films (Jimmy Hollywood and Disclosure) in 1994?
[Co-founder of Propaganda Films] Steve Golin gave me the book. He wanted me to take a look at it and see if I was interested in developing it. That’s really where it began.
Geoffrey Wigdor’s Young John, Joe Perrino’s Young Shakes, Jonathan Tucker’s Young Tommy, Brad Renfro’s Young Michael in Sleepers.
Courtesy of Warner Bros.
Given how heavy the material is, was Sleepers a tough sell to the studio?
I don’t remember it as being that, but I can’t give you the details thinking back 30 years.
There are countless reasons why you’d hire John Williams, but was part of the idea that he’d be able to provide glimmers of hope within this dark story?
I didn’t think of it in those terms. He’s a great composer, obviously. I thought that he could do quite well with this material, and I felt it needed a touch of [Leonard] Bernstein in a way. It needed just a little hint of it in the air, thinking of New York. So I had a conversation with him, then he responded to the material, and I was thrilled. He’s really a marvel.
Did you cast the kids or the adults first?
It’s a good question because I can’t remember specifically. We most likely looked for the adult versions of the characters first, and then figured out what kids could play the young versions of them.
Brad Pitt as Assistant DA Michael Sullivan in Barry Levinson’s Sleepers
Courtesy of Warner Bros.
Brad Pitt was in high-demand coming off of 12 Monkeys and David Fincher’s Seven. With Fincher being a co-founder at Propaganda alongside Golin, did his involvement give you the inside track on casting Pitt?
I don’t think it was related, as I remember. But again, looking back 30 years, I can’t give you the real scoop in that regard.
Sleepers was your first of five collaborations with Robert De Niro. Did you sense pretty quickly that you’d be working together for many years to come?
To be honest, no. I was thrilled to use him, but I didn’t foresee beyond the first time we worked together. It was great, but I didn’t know what I would be doing and how that would fit into what Bob would be up to. So it was somewhat by chance that we started to connect. And then, on occasion, he would mention something just as he and his [producing partner] Jane Rosenthal did about Wag the Dog [the following year]. So it was just something that began to fall together periodically. The work that came up just made sense for Bob.
Robert De Niro as Father Bobby in Sleepers.
Sleepers was the second of four films that you and Dustin Hoffman made together. Had the two of you been looking for the perfect follow-up to Rain Man?
No, we weren’t looking. I wasn’t looking and neither was he. When I wrote the screenplay, I just thought, “Dustin would be a good choice here. I’ll see if he wants to do it.” Again, it was so long ago, but I think we had to find this window that he could work in. He might have been about to go do something else, or he was working on something else just prior to this. But I just thought that there was something for him here.
In contrast with Pitt’s stillness, I love how he’s constantly flipping pages and walking around and fidgeting in the courtroom. It was a nice touch considering the character was in the throes of an alcoholism and wanted no part of this highly orchestrated case.
Yeah, the physicality of it — as opposed to just sitting there — shows that the guy’s got some issues. How do you do that without somehow spelling it out in some grand fashion? So it’s a physicality that seemed appropriate to what we were doing.
Kevin Bacon as Nokes in Sleepers
Courtesy of Warner Bros.
The timing of Nokes’ (Kevin Bacon) killing is such an interesting choice. Most movies would’ve saved their villain’s comeuppance for last and made a meal out of it. I’m assuming you were staying faithful to Lorenzo Carcaterra’s book, but did you ever receive a note about killing a different guard first before working your way up to Nokes?
I don’t remember that, no. When I wrote it, it somehow just seemed appropriate. You could certainly do another version, but then you would have more murders in the piece, as opposed to happenstance. [John and Tommy] happened to be in the same bar where Nokes was eating. So if there had been another killing to set up the later killing [of Nokes], then you’re going to go down the road of revenge. That cycle wasn’t the point of it all.
I read some old reviews that questioned Father Bobby’s decision to lie, and they didn’t point out that he, too, had spent time at the Wilkinson Home for Boys as an adolescent. He saw firsthand how that place destroyed his best friend. So his eventual lie on the stand wasn’t just about John (Ron Eldard) and Tommy (Billy Crudup) beating a murder charge; it was about exposing this evil institution. I think that motivation got lost in some of the reviews.
Yeah, it did. They didn’t focus on the overall piece. They went into one corner and missed the overall thematic design to the whole film.
When the film came out, there were a lot of things that came to light, in general, about child abuse at some of these facilities. But [the discourse] got caught up in whether or not a priest would ever lie on the stand. You can certainly have that, but that’s not the point of the movie. It was a much broader piece than that, and you can make your own judgment on it.
Sometimes, you do a movie, and it gets caught up in a stream of things that go all over the place, and they don’t focus on what the movie is. It’s not a film that was trying to advocate this or that. It’s an overall story that you get involved in, and you can discuss the pluses and negative aspects of what took place.
The film ends with a legal disclaimer that calls into question the validity of what we watched. Do you still believe the author of the source material?
I think for the most part. But why does film get caught in this cycle of whether something happened or didn’t happen? It’s a story. It doesn’t need to say “this is a true story” at the beginning, but that was from the book. It didn’t have to have that. But to say that none of these things could ever happen? It wasn’t the craziest, weirdest thing you’ve ever imagined. So I never quite got that noise that was made at that time. It, in some ways, took away from what the piece was. You don’t have to agree with it. It’s not advocating anything other than, “This is the story that’s being told.” It doesn’t need to be authenticated in that regard for us to pay attention.
Even if it’s not literally true, there have been countless cases of institutional abuse to where it’s spiritually or emotionally true.
Right. Films get caught up in certain things, periodically, for reasons that you question, and that happened when Sleepers came out. It still did very well here. In Europe, it was huge because it didn’t get caught up in any of the controversy. I’m still not even sure why there was a real controversy.
The majority of your films including Sleepers fall in the mid-budget range that the major studios no longer make at the volume they once did. Has it been tough for you to watch your bread and butter disappear over the years?
Yeah. In general, taking me out of the mix, what’s happening right now is that there’s too much emphasis on the blockbuster, as opposed to, This [smaller] movie can make some money for us, and we can keep moving along. Instead, they’re going for the extravagant piece that costs $150 million or more, but that zone of movies around $40 million can ultimately succeed. It can also expand your audience rather than sharpening the audience to a smaller number. So my take on it is that I don’t think you can survive by just working in one area predominantly. It narrows your audience year by year. That’s a mistake.
I’m just somebody who’s trying to write and do movies. I’m not an executive who has to look at the economics of the business. But certain people I’ve spoken to haven’t been to a movie in four years because they’re not interested in the movies that do well. Therefore, they’re looking for something else. So there’s pros and cons, but I just don’t know how you survive when you start limiting your audience.
The loss of the mid-budget film has also been cited as one of the reasons why younger movie stars haven’t emerged in droves. That range used to be a launchpad or proving ground for a lot of future stars. Well-established stars like Pitt still have their place, but now the IP or the high concept is the star.
I think that’s a good argument. I mean, what’s the other reason? I’m not sure. There are television people that emerge, as opposed to in the past, but it’s true. Where’s a breakout movie star? There are not many compared to what there used to be, that’s for certain.
The movie business is also facing [streaming series] and the internet. Those are two other entertainment areas where a lot of people spend hours and hours. And they’re not paying close attention to whatever they’re watching or doing on the internet [due to cell phones]. You’re not going to get storytelling if you’re texting for hours at a time. Sometimes, you go into a restaurant, and you’ll see two people on their cell phones at the same table. They’re with each other, but they’re elsewhere at the same time. So I can’t figure out that whole behavior, and we’re looking at a breakdown of sorts.
Hollywood, in general, has a problem with all of those other devices at work, but I still think you cannot function in one [budget] area alone, which is where the emphasis is.
Do you have another movie in you?
Yeah, there’s two or three projects that I have. We’re ready to go out and see if we can make them. They’re not particularly expensive films, one is probably $20 million and the other is $15 million. I can work quickly. I made The Humbling with Al Pacino for $2 million, and we shot it in my house. I shot another film, The Bay, for $2 million. So I have no problem working in all ways as long as I know the story that I want to tell. So we’ll see what’s going to happen. The business is going through a radical shift, and whether or not all these takeovers take place, it’s a big guessing game of what’s beneficial or not. These are the times we’re in.
There’s a notable director who insists that filmmaking is a younger man’s game. I presume you reject that notion?
Well, I don’t think age is the issue. It’s the ideas. What ideas do you want to do? Are they completely out of fashion? But if you’re basically dealing with the world we’re in, what’s the story that you want to tell? I don’t think it’s based on anything other than that.
***
Sleepers is now available on 4K/Blu-ray.
