If you’ve watched the Academy Awards at any point over the course of the past three decades, the chances are very good that you’ve seen one of my next interview subject’s works. Chuck Workman won an Oscar in 1987 for his 1986 short Precious Images, a rapid-fire look at cinema up to that time. He’s subsequently done many montages for the telecast. There’s more to him than that, though. As head of Calliope Films, he’s helped to create scores of memorable movie trailers. His work as a documentarian has seen him take on subjects as diverse as Andy Warhol, the Beat Generation and the history of the pornographic film, as well as multiple documentaries about the medium of film itself. I was first exposed to Mr. Workman’s films in 1990 when the special Happy Birthday, Bugs: 50 Looney Years featured his short 50 Years Of Bugs Bunny In 3 1/2 Minutes. 27 years later, I got to interview him, and I hope you all enjoy getting to know this editing master.
Say hello to Chuck Workman!
Johnny: I’d like to start with this question. What inspired you toward a career as an editor?
Chuck: I worked at a film production company when I was 21. It was in the Bronx, and they did mostly toy commercials. I just did anything that they asked me. They had one editing room, and they had one editor, and that editor left. They hired another editor, and then HE left. The boss said to me, “Chuck, do you want to to help with the editing?”, and I said, “Yeah, I can do that”, because I did want to learn that. Suddenly, I was an assistant editor, but very, very quickly, I became the editor for the commercials, with the boss, that they were doing there, and that got me started. I also worked on a film at about the same time, a very independent film where, after they wrapped, the director said, “I’m going to cut the film. Do you want to come and help me?”. I became an assistant editor for him, so I kind of learned how to do it without anybody showing me. I never worked for another editor, really. I just had to kind of learn it myself, and so I became an editor at 22 or 23.
Johnny: Alright. In 1971, you directed, and your company Calliope Films produced, the short Portrait Of An Actor to promote George C. Scott’s film The Last Run. As he was a rather private man, how were you able to get the revelations out of him that you did?
Chuck: Very carefully. It was a very good assignment, and I was very happy that MGM gave me the assignment because I was just starting out. They sent me to Spain with a crew from my own company to do a kind of behind-the-scenes. In those days, you would spend four or five days on the set, not one like today, and you would really get a story. My story was George C. Scott, and the fact that he had just turned down the Oscar for Best Actor for Patton. I knew that I wanted to come back with a comment about that. I think that if you are doing something, if you need to achieve something and you really work it out, you often will get it. I know it certainly works with interviews. I don’t know if it works in life. If you say to yourself, “George C. Scott will never talk to me about this for the promotional film”, then you probably wouldn’t get it. I said, “I’m going to get this. I’m going to carefully plan the interview so I’ll ask him that last about the Oscars”. Meanwhile, he’ll do the interview because he’s promoting the movie and is used to doing that. I spent time with him in Spain. I mean, I would go sit and have a drink with him, if possible, and tell him all of the good things I thought about him, which helped as well. That’s basically how I got it. My feeling is, on most of these interviews, I put out a sort of little list to myself of the questions I’m going to ask, just like you probably do. I kind of work up to the things I think they may not want to talk about. I’m careful with it. I try to be tactful, and you can get thrown out of the room, but rarely if you’re careful.
Johnny: That’s true.
Chuck: I even teach that now when I teach documentaries. Start with a couple of softball questions before you get into the hard stuff.
Johnny: Good advice. Calliope Films has produced a lot of trailers for classic movies. What trailer was the easiest for you to create, and which was the hardest?
Chuck: The hard part and the easy part of the trailers is not the editing. The easy part is when you have a good movie…Paris, Texas…Close Encounters…Star Wars, certainly, where it’s put together in such a way that all the trailer-like scenes kind of show up and you kind of feel the sequence. The hard ones are basically when you’re working for a studio and they don’t really know how to sell the film yet, because you have to take a kind of direction from the studios. It doesn’t mean you’re doing a hard sell on the movie, but it is a promotional piece. If they say, “No, we’re selling Al Pacino here” or “We’re selling this concept: It’s George C. Scott’s first film back after winning the Oscar”, whatever the concept would be, you sort of know kind of how to do it. One of the hardest ones was Nashville, because some people liked the movie and some people hated it and Paramount didn’t know how great a movie it was. I feel it’s one of the greatest American movies ever made, but at the time, it was controversial, so they didn’t know what to do with it.
Chuck: Another hard film was Paris, Texas. I also loved that movie, but they didn’t have the faintest idea at Fox how they were going to sell that film. That can sometimes give you problems because you can walk in and they are suddenly seeing the movie for the first time. In one case, that was literally true with 1941 with Spielberg. At that point, Spielberg was powerful enough that he didn’t have to show any dailies. He didn’t have to show any parts, and so I was seeing the film before the president of Universal had seen it. When I showed them the trailer, they were really looking at the movie, because they hadn’t seen it. That was kind of a difficult situation, so I guess the hard ones are the political ones. If the movie’s bad, it’s not that hard to do. You can still find scenes that would work in a trailer, I think.
Johnny: Alright. Jumping into the 1980s, you’ve become well-known for your work in the realm of the montage, and a shining example of that was Precious Images, a roller coaster ride of images from American cinema. What was your favorite part of working on that project?
Chuck: I think, solving the problems. For me, solving the problems of the film is always the biggest challenge, but it’s also the most satisfying part of it. In this case, the amount of films I felt I should include got longer and longer. I thought I’d have 100 films or so, but I ended up with over 400 because there’s just so many that I felt should be honored in this film. It was the 50th anniversary of the Directors’ Guild. That’s what it was celebrating. The list became longer and longer and the shots got shorter and shorter, and I had to deal with that. It was very satisfying for me to figure out a way and to put it against the music. Sometimes I’m the first viewer, so I see all these shots working against the music, and I get the same emotional feelings that the audience gets. I stop and kind of walk around a bit, and then come back to it.
Johnny: Definitely amazing stuff…So amazing that you won the Oscar for Best Live Action Short for Precious Images. Take us back to that evening in 1987. What was it like to win an Academy Award?
Chuck: I tell people that I knew five minutes before, when I was sitting there, that I was going to win. I don’t know why. I just knew it, and the film was very popular for the whole year before the Oscars among people in the industry. People would call me for VHS or 3 1/4 inch video copies in those days. It was shown in a number of screenings. The Screen Actors’ Guild showed it. The Writers’ Guild showed it at their dinner. I knew it was very popular, so I had a feeling I had a good shot at winning. On the other hand, it was a compilation film. It wasn’t a narrative film, so it was kind of unprecedented that a film like that would win. I did feel that I had a good shot, and then, when they announced it, it was just wonderful. Suddenly you’re knighted by the industry. You’re validated in a wonderful way, and I recommend it for any filmmaker.
Johnny: Alright. You reedited and updated Precious Images in the mid-90s to include more recent films up to that point. Have you ever considered going back a third time and including films that have been released in the years since your second edit?
Chuck: Not that, but the Directors’ Guild, 25 years later, had their 75th anniversary and they asked me to make a film. I think that’s what they had in mind, and instead, I wanted to make a film that included other kinds of directing, like television directing…Live action, variety shows, that sort of thing. I ended up doing that instead, but even that film, which was done in 2011, had elements of Precious Images in a lot of the clips. Once I made Precious Images and got the Oscar, I would get calls from all sorts of places to make a similar film, to make a montage, especially on the Oscars. The idea, and often a lot of the same clips in Precious Images, was used again, but I never really wanted to do it again. I don’t know. If someone called me up and hired me to do it, maybe I might. At the moment, I don’t really see why I should. Director Robert Wise was a mentor of mine, and when people started remaking films, they wanted him to remake some of his great old films. He said, “Why? It’s already done. I don’t want to go through that again”. I say solve the problems, and I already solved the problems, so in a way, the creative challenge is not as great. I’d just as soon pitch them another film. “Let’s do a different film”.
Johnny: Going back to the 80s, you did a very different project from Precious Images when you made the film Stoogemania.
Chuck: I certainly did. (Laughing)
Johnny: What was the inspiration behind that?
Chuck: I was doing trailers at the time, and there was a company called Atlantic Releasing. They were a small company that made a lot of good films, actually. Valley Girl was their biggest hit in those days. The president of the company spoke to me and my trailer-making partner Jim Ruxin. There were four public domain Stooge films, and they wanted to put them together in a celebration or something. Maybe it was a party, a Three Stooges party, and we could show them. They were just looking for something to release. I wanted very much at that point to pursue a directing career, especially in commercial Hollywood. At the time, I was eager to do that. I just said, “No, we’ll make a movie with a story and a script, something about the Three Stooges. We’ll integrate those films”. Although it has a few fans (laughing), it’s not really what I would call my best work at all. I was basically just trying to look for interesting things. I think Josh Mostel did a very good job as the Stoogemaniac, as we called him, and we had other very good comic actors in the film, including Sid Caesar, but it just didn’t come together, really. I was kind of hoping that we were reaching what the assignment was.
Johnny: Fair enough. As I mentioned in my initial e-mail to you about an interview, my first exposure to your work came via the short film 50 Years Of Bugs Bunny In 3 1/2 Minutes. With all the Bugs Bunny cartoons made up to that time, how difficult was it to winnow it down to the clips you chose?
Chuck: I worked on that quite a bit. They gave me every single one to look at, so I had them, and I just had to go through and find moments just as if I were doing a trailer or a film like Precious Images. I certainly was a Bugs Bunny fan as a kid, and I kind of knew all the cliches of Bugs Bunny. As I was watching the material, I was learning more about it. I just had to go through one after another after another. I remember going to do something in Europe, and it was for a studio, so they sent me first class. I was sitting in first class with a Hi-8 viewer, which was way before laptops. I was sitting there in my first class seat, looking at Bugs Bunny cartoons, and wondering if people thought this was some eccentric millionaire, and this was what he liked to look at. I was actually going through the material, as I’ve done for years and years, picking out scenes I liked. I would have a bunch of scenes, and then whittle them down to an hour, or half-an-hour, and then try to make a three minute film. A few months later, after I finished that film for Warner Brothers, I got a call about a Michael Jackson video that they were considering me for. They said, “Can you send me your reel and we’ll show it to Michael?”, and I’d never met Michael. I sent them my reel, and it turned out that the Bugs Bunny film was his favorite of all my films, and I got the job.
Johnny: Alright. In 1990, you directed the documentary Superstar: The Life And Times Of Andy Warhol. Had your path crossed with Warhol at any point before his passing?
Chuck: Well, there was a restaurant in the 20s on Park Avenue somewhere, called Max’s Kansas City. I’m trying to remember the name of it and I can’t. Warhol used to hang out there, and I would go there, too, sometimes. I would see him two tables away, and I didn’t know him. I would just see him as a personality, and then he died. He also made a lot of films, but I found out that, even though I was working in film production in New York at the time, they used different laboratories. They used different sound people. It was never the same kind of crews or facilities that I was using, so I never even knew him in a professional way as a filmmaker. I didn’t hang out at the Factory or use drugs, so I didn’t really know too many people there. It turns out later that I did know some of these people. I didn’t have that much of a relationship with him, and I wasn’t even sure about the films, or that I would like the films. I was telling that to somebody yesterday, one of my clients, that, at first, those films where the people just stared into nowhere for three minutes? I didn’t get it. Chelsea Girls, which was probably the most commercial of all the underground films of that time, I never went to see. I didn’t really get into it until I got the job, and I guess it’s a pattern with me. It’s work to be done. You have to solve the problems of the film, so when someone said to me, “I want to make a film about Andy Warhol”, I said, “Yes, I want to do this”, and then I had to deal with these films. I found an aesthetic that I’m still talking about, and I was talking about it yesterday, as to why his films made no sense at first but really said something important about art and film. Eventually, they did make sense to me, and I was able to do the film. I had always liked his material. The problem was he just died two years before, and no one really knew how much, exactly, his work was worth. We now hear about something selling for a million dollars or several thousand dollars, but in those days, he would toss off a portrait and give it to you…Not to me, but he’d give it to the person. He didn’t care. He never thought about it. He was making enough money from rich people who would hire him to do a portrait or something like that. His art wasn’t really as evaluated as his films. His estate was very wary about any exposure at that time, so I kind of had to go roundabout in many ways in order to pull this thing off. Again, as with the George C. Scott interview, that was the job to be done. I had to kind of figure out ways to solve that, and in every film that is worth watching, there’s a problem that you have to solve. I mean, there’s just something that you have to figure out. “How do I do this?”. “How do I get this done?”. “How do I get access to this?”. That’s part of your job, I think, as a filmmaker.
Johnny: Alright. That’s very good advice, not just for film-making, but for life in general. The first Academy Awards ceremony I watched was the 66th Oscars in 1994, and I loved the work you did in helping to create the opening number, Stephen Sondheim’s rewritten version of “Putting It Together”. I’ve interviewed several talents who have performed Sondheim’s works, and as your film was kind of a performance, in that it illustrated Sondheim’s lyrics, what was it like to him?
Chuck: Oh, he was great. Sondheim was terrific. He was very cooperative. He was very open to changes. He rewrote some of the lyrics. I had to run Bernadette Peters by him, but of course, he had worked with her a lot. Originally, the idea was to use Streisand, and the producers said, “The only problem is, she might accept”. (Johnny laughs) That would’ve been a bigger problem in a way. Years later, I did work with Streisand, and it was a wonderful experience, but a tough one. Sondheim made it very, very easy for us, and Bernadette also. Debbie Allen did the choreography, and she was great. I was kind of able to be the Vincent Minnelli, if I may use that expression, of the piece. In other words, I was kind of rounding up all the music and the look of it and the art direction, and shooting it. It was hard, and I was cutting in all these other inserts, but it was terrific to do. Gil Cates, the producer, really loved the idea of going from film to live in the middle of the show, which is what we did. I had to kind of figure that out, and that transition was a difficult thing to do, but worth taking the time to work out. I’m very happy with it and proud of it. It was different from the kind of stuff I had done. It was great that Cates and ABC and the Academy had confidence in me to do it, because I had never really done much of that. I had directed musical things, but not to that extent. I was very happy with how it worked, and Bernadette was great, too, so everything kind of came together on that, and it was called “Putting It Together”. It was about all the crafts and how they have to work to make movies, not just the star and the director, but everybody else, so that was sort of the way he wrote the lyrics.
Johnny: Definitely that was an extremely impressive number. I loved it. One of the things that made people laugh in that opening film was a clip of Arnold Schwarzenegger praising the script for Last Action Hero. How did Schwarzenegger react to you using that clip?
Chuck: He didn’t like it. His manager called the producer after the Oscars to complain about it, and the producer was not defensive at all. He said, “Oh, that’s something I asked Chuck to do”. He unusually took the blame. He said, “I asked him to do that”. We thought it was funny. I never worked with Arnold again so I never really got to talk about it with him. I know that he wasn’t happy with it, at least for that moment, enough to make a call about it, or somebody that worked with him was mad. That happens, too. Sometimes you make a joke at the Oscars, and people are watching very closely. They might react in one way or another, but usually, the stars that are put into the Oscar shows, or that I’m asked to put in, are really great about it. They love being in the Oscars. They understand it’s supposed to be fun, and you can see just the way the jokes that contemporary hosts do with people in the audience that they’re kind of used to that. I think Arnold got over it pretty fast, and probably enjoyed it.
Johnny: Alright. I read in the book The Big Show, which was a compilation of stories about the making of the Oscars from 1994 to 2004, that you said that the opening number for the 67th Academy Awards, where you set comedy clips to a rendition of “Make ‘Em Laugh” by Tim Curry, Kathy Najimy and Mara Wilson, was not one of your better works. What would you do differently if given a chance to redo that number?
Chuck: I thought it was too busy. I was trying to top the Bernadette Peters piece, also with people jumping in and out. I was just throwing in everything, and it was a lesson. I nearly asked Gil Cates to take it out, and he was having a lot of problems with Letterman at the time. It wasn’t that Dave himself was giving him trouble. It was that often when a host comes in, they have his or her own writers, as well as the writers of the show, and those writers with Letterman weren’t really sharing much with the people in L.A who were producing the show. Gil didn’t know what he was going to get, and he was very worried about that. He kind of let me go do whatever I wanted to do, so he just said, “No, we’ll run it. It’s okay”. I think he, in his mind, had kind of written that show off. I think it’s probably the only weak show of the 14 Gil Cates produced. One could say it didn’t quite come off, and the same with me. I just got it too busy. You can’t win ’em all, I guess. There are times when you do things and you’re very proud of them. In that particular case, there wasn’t much that I liked about it, but I tried to be professional about it and do what they wanted. I liked that we got Donald O’Connor into it, especially because we were using “Make ‘Em Laugh”, and so that was that. I could tell even then that it wasn’t working, but that’s what happens sometimes. The ball is starting to roll, and you’re there, so you do the best you can.
Johnny: Yeah, I get that.
Chuck: They hired me the next year anyway, so it was all good.
Johnny: Right. Jumping into the 00s for a question, at the 78th Annual Academy Awards, host Jon Stewart said after one of the montages, and I quote, “I can’t wait till later when we see Oscar’s salute to montages. Holy crap, we’re out of clips. We are literally out of film clips. If you have film clips, send them please. We have another 3 hours. I don’t care if they’re on Beta, just send them”. Honestly, although that was intended as a joke, I found it kind of insulting to your work for the Oscars. How did you react to that line?
Chuck: Of course I didn’t like it, but he’s going to tell jokes about anything. Billy Crystal would do that. Maybe Jon noticed himself, or one of Jon’s writers noticed backstage while he’s out front doing the show, “Hey, there’s a lot of montages in this”, which there were, by the way, and they wrote him a joke for that, then he decided to do it. He wanted to be an iconoclast. In 2008, he hosted again, and I asked him, “You’re not going to make any more montage jokes?”. “Oh, of course not, Chuck”, and of course he did (laughing). You’re fair game for someone to make fun of it if you want to do things like that.
Johnny: I see. Going back to the 90s, you created the short 100 Years At The Movies for the launch of Turner Classic Movies. what was your favorite part of creating that short?
Chuck: The favorite part for me, and it was an editing job like others I had done, was when it premiered. When it showed, we were in Times Square at what they used to call the Jumbotron. I don’t know if they still call it that. It was the beginning of Turner Classic Movies, and Ted Turner was there, along with a whole bunch of other executives, standing outside with me looking up at the Jumbotron. Turner Classic Movies began at Noon on that day, and it was the opening piece that played on TCM. It played on the Jumbotron so they could get a lot of press out of it. Most of the people who worked for Turner were watching Ted. They weren’t watching the movie. They had seen the movie. Ted was watching the movie for the first time, and he started to cry about 6 or 7 minutes in, which is apparently something he would do on occasion when he was touched by a film. He loved the moment from Network, “I’m as mad as Hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore”, and the way the music worked with that, et cetera. That was a great moment to see the client, in a way, so touched by this in such a huge setting. It was very validating. Making the film was more of the same, and there’s always a new challenge, but the idea that it was shown in this terrific setting was just wonderful.
Johnny: Definitely. It was another impressive piece. In 1998, you directed Playboy: The Story Of X, a documentary about the history of pornography. What was your favorite memory of that documentary?
Chuck: I didn’t want to make a pornographic film. I wanted to make a compilation film, and Hugh Hefner agreed. Okay, it’s not going to be a raunchy film. Although it’ll have all the sex, and all these shots, it’s not meant to be erotic or to arouse people. It’s just to tell people about what he felt, and I felt, is an amazing genre that is going on all the time. I think getting into that industry, and seeing how extensive it is, and how people are committed to it…I went to a convention of X-rated filmmakers, and we shot that, and that was educational. It was so interesting the people who showed up, and who were involved in that. Just the way that industry worked was interesting to me. People that worked on it all said the same thing. For the first 10 minutes you’re working on filmmaking, it’s compelling in an erotic way, but after that, it’s just more film clips that you’re playing or have found. I was happy with the film in that I was able to run the gamut from Jean-Luc Godard’s Weekend and Last Tango In Paris, those kinds of films, to, you know, the most horrible 3 minute 8MM porn that was sold in the 40s and 50s, and that Hefner, by the way, had a very big collection of, or somebody at Playboy did. We had access to that. The funny thing was I sent one of my assistants over to where these things are kept, with a little machine that could videotape all these 8MM films, and he sat there for three days, shooting it. I said, “What kind of experience is that?”. He said, “It was boring”. It’s an interesting thing and an interesting genre, and I’m happy I made that film.
Johnny: Alright. Beat culture has informed several of your works, from the 1999 documentary The Source to the 2004 short A Kiss At Kerouac’s Grave. What is it about that culture that appeals to you?
Chuck: I’m interested in counterculture, and I was originally offered to make a film about Allen Ginsburg. I said I’d like to make a film about the whole counterculture that I saw somewhat growing up, although it was a little before my time, that became the hippie culture, and how it absolutely changed the world. For people my age, in the late 60s and early 70s, you watched the world change. I would go to talk about the film at film festivals, and I would say, “Without these people and that counterculture, I couldn’t say ‘fuck you’ out loud like I’m doing now”, and that was very true. People were really repressed. Women were repressed, blacks were repressed, gays, and they kind of opened everything up. I was really happy to make a film like the one I made about Andy Warhol a few years before, which was also about a counterculture. I’m very interested in that. Later on, I made a movie called Visionaries, which is about the film counterculture, and all these experimental films that were being made. I think these people are in the vanguard. That’s why it’s called avant-garde. They were ahead of me somewhat, and I wanted to catch up with that. I wanted to learn about that, and I wanted to show others about that. I always sought after those kinds of jobs, and I think they’re my best films.
Johnny: Alright. One of your more recent projects is a documentary called What Is Cinema?, where filmmakers spoke on that exact question. What would you, yourself, say that cinema is?
Chuck: I think it’s a way of using pieces of reality. As Jonas Mekas says, “When you paint on a film, the paint is real”. When actors act on a film, they’re real people acting. It’s as if you were shooting a documentary, but these were actors and you were giving them their lines. It’s pieces of reality that you’re arranging in any way you want, and so cinema is using those tools to do that. What does that do? It creates a tremendous art form because you can do anything you want. What happens normally is people exploit it, and make kind of sentimental melodramas. Hollywood certainly does, and everybody loves those, but really it hasa tremendous reach and ability to become an art form like painting or architecture or serious music. People, I don’t think, are using it enough. They are starting to use it a little bit in that way, but cinema really is just arranging all these pieces of reality that we can play back and look at and combine with other things. I think that’s what gives it the potential of being one of the strongest art forms.
Johnny: Definitely. Alright, this is my final question. This is only the second time I’ve asked this. The first time it was asked, it was of Alan Heim, like yourself an Oscar winner and an editor, and it’s this: If you’re included in the Oscars In Memoriam when you pass, what clip do you want to have accompany you?
Chuck: What did Alan say? He probably said the Fosse film.
Johnny: Yes, he said All That Jazz, which he won the Oscar for.
Chuck: One of the great editing jobs of all time, yeah, and Alan is a great editor also. I don’t know. Now those idiots are not even showing clips in the In Memoriam. They show a picture of you. I have so many films where I’ve used other people’s images, so it would be hard for me to say which clips to use. When I won the Oscar almost 30 years ago, the guy who made the clips asked me, “If you win, what clip do you want me to show as you’re walking up?”, and I discussed it with him as part of Precious Images. I really don’t know. I assume it would be part of Precious Images, because I was known mostly for that. I have no preference. I hope it’s not soon, but I hope they show me. I don’t mind saying this in public. The Academy is so odd right now in terms of how the show works, and one never knows what they’re going to do.
Johnny: Yeah. I’ve actually written two articles for Pop Geeks where I’ve memorialized Oscar winners who weren’t included in the In Memoriam despite winning Oscars. It’s really disappointing. I think the ultimate insult was when the producer of Chicago, Martin Richards, was not included in the In Memoriam, despite winning Best Picture for that movie, and I heard that the rumors were that Zadan and Meron excluded him out of spite since they felt they should’ve gotten the Oscar for the movie, but then again, I did read that in the New York Post, so I don’t know…
Chuck: I wouldn’t say that. That’s not the way it works here. It’s just something as silly as “he was a Broadway producer and he didn’t really do that much on the movie”, or whatever they said, and the fact that he accepted the Oscar, and they didn’t show him, shows they don’t even give much credit to their own award. Obviously, if someone wins the Oscar, they should be in there, but they’re constantly fighting to do that, and now they use a lot of the slots for diversity, not that it’s the wrong thing, but that does use up a lot of space.
Johnny: well, that about does it for my questions. I thank you for taking the time to speak to me.
Chuck: Okay. Great talking to you, and very good questions.
Johnny: Oh, thank you very much.
Chuck: I loved the Bernadette piece, and I also liked the Bugs Bunny piece, so I liked the ones you picked.
Johnny: Thank you very much, and I’m flattered by that. I hope you have a good afternoon.
Chuck: You, too, John. Thanks very much. Bye.
Johnny: Okay, bye.
I would like to thank Chuck Workman for taking the time out of his schedule to speak to me. Coming soon to the Flashback Interview, we’ll be hearing from actress and author Shari Shattuck, actress and voice-over artist Holly Fields, and actress and singer Audrey Landers. Thanks as always to all of you for flashing back with me.