Michael: That makes me feel just great. I really thank you very much. One of the reasons I volunteered to do this
introduction is because of my admiration and my respect for the person I'm about to introduce. I'm not going to tell you anything about Leonard
Nimoy, the actor. I think you all know something about that. What I am going to tell you are some things
that you may not know; that in addition to his acting, Mr. Nimoy is an author and a poet. He's the author of 6 books, including 5 books
of poetry, books of his photograph. He's a professional photographer as well. You also may have missed his hit album which
was entitled "Leonard Nimoy Sings Mr. Spock's Music From Outer Space" which sold over 130,000
copies, so he's also a musician. He's also, aside from Star Trek which everybody
knows about, a very distinguished stage actor who's done very well as Sherlock Holmes. He had a 1-man show that was very widely respected,
a show on Vincent, a show about a different type of hero. Leonard Nimoy is also, and this was most surprising
to me at all, a grandfather. He has a 3 and 1/2-year-old grandchild. He has 2 children in their 30s. I should tell you that the buzz in Hollywood
is and has been on Leonard Nimoy for some years, that when it comes to someone who gives
his time to a variety of charities, goes out of his way to help people, is a gentleman
in his work, Mr. Nimoy is exemplar. He has the kind of reputation that every actor
or actress or every director would like to have but very few of them do. Most importantly of all, and I think the main
reason that Mr. Nimoy is with us tonight, is because he is, aside from his acting background,
an outstanding filmmaker. Just look at his last 3 films and his range
as a director. Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home for which we
just saw the trailer is, in my humble opinion … and look, I'm a movie critic. I have to have opinions. I have to give them to you, right? Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home is by far the
best Star Trek of the series and one of the best science fiction adventure movies, I think,
that has come out in this decade. Then he made Three Men and a Baby, which is
one of the most commercially successful films and a completely different type of film, very
few special effects … unless you include the baby urinating as a special effect…
very few special effects and yet a charming comedy, a delightful comedy, that was a huge
smash hit, the most successful movie of 1987. Then his most recent film which is a film
for which I feel a particular passion, is a film called The Good Mother. I will tell you that long before I knew that
I was going to have the privilege of sharing this podium with Mr. Nimoy here at Hillsdale,
I was very proud to list The Good Mother on my Best of Year List for 1988. It's a film that deserved a much larger audience
than it received, a film that is as different from Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home as that
film is from Three Men as a Baby. Here's a man as a director who has shown that
he can direct science fiction adventure, an action, who has shown that he can direct light
comedy and has shown a tremendous facility for directing a drama that raises some of
the most important issues of love and parenting and some of the difficulties of a single mother
in dealing with sexuality, and with that sexuality potentially interfering with her role as a
mother. I was very proud of the fact that … Once
again, long before I knew that I was going to be appearing with Mr. Nimoy here at Hillsdale,
I said on the air that I thought that Diane Keaton's performance under Leonard Nimoy's
direction in The Good Mother was the best performance that any actress gave in 1988. I still believe that. I think it's a shame she was not nominated
for an Academy Award and, frankly, it's a shame that Mr. Nimoy wasn't nominated for
the Academy Award he deserved as one of the best directors of the year. Having said that, we have lots to talk about
concerning his films, the issues that they raised, and the entire question of Hollywood
and its role within the popular culture. To proceed to those questions, it is a very
great honor to introduce a multitalented and very gracious gentleman, Mr. Leonard Nimoy. Michael: You're supposed to take this chair
right here. Leonard: Thank you. Thank you. Michael: I think this counts as a friendly
crowd. Leonard: I would say so. Yeah. Michael: Let me begin, if I may, at a difficult
point, which is I know that The Good Mother is just out on video now and is doing very
well on video and you … It's number 10 apparently on the Los Angeles Times Video Chart. When it opened in theaters, it was not a commercial
success. Leonard: No. True. Michael: One of the things that I think some
critics, not this critic, complained about in the film was the fact that despite that
trailer which is somewhat misleading, you didn't seem to really take a side on behalf
of the Diane Keaton character who was fighting for the custody of her child that you seem
to leave some of the questions open. The question that I would have is would you
say that that was an accurate description of what you were doing in the film? Having said that, would you do anything differently
if you have the film to direct again? Leonard: Let me say that the audience response
or the lack of audience for the film was a major disappointment, a surprise to many of
us including the marketing people at Disney. When we were making the film, it was understood
that it would be a film that had to be nurtured in the marketplace, that we … you couldn't
just toss it out there in several hundred theaters and expect people to flock to see
it because it's somewhat an unusual film. We were hoping for critical and audience reaction
to build gradually to an awareness of the picture and that would hopefully draw in audience. By the time the picture was ready for release,
the Disney marketing people were convinced that this procedure was not necessary, that
there was enough anticipation for the film, enough of a “want to see” quotient, for
the picture, that they could as they say broad and open into something like 800 or 900 theaters,
and we're … we hit a disaster. We hit a brick wall when we opened it. I think the first weekend we did maybe a third,
25% of the business they had hoped to do. By the end of the first 10 days, it was obvious
the film was finished and was coming out of the theater. I am still today reviewing some of the decisions
we made including content, the way the film was made, including what's in the movie. It would probably be easy and comfortable
in the hindsight to say now that I might want to change some things for the sake of satisfying
audience, but I know … I really don't think I would. I don't think I would. I set out to make the picture in a way which
would give an audience an opportunity to respond to it based on their own prejudices, if you
will, and I think that that is still operative. I think the picture does that. The picture is kind of a Rorschach test, in
a way, and it has to do with each individual member of the audience's feelings about what
is proper, what is correct, what is morally right, what is morally wrong, ethically right,
ethically wrong in raising children and in making decisions about parenting and family. These are very, very sensitive issues and
I … What I'm surprised to find, what surprised me, is that there is that do people come out
in discuss from their own points of view what happened in the film and what … how they
feel about that and on both sides of the issue, that feeling that either that justice was
done or justice was not done. That we expected. What happens is that if they … I find that
if the film doesn't satisfy individual needs in terms of the way they felt the story should
go, they're not angry with the society that creates that condition, they're not angry
with the judicial system which creates that condition, they're angry at the film. You see? Michael: It’s easier to be angry at the
film? Leonard: Yes. That I find very, very interesting and that
surprised me. That really caught me by surprise. I thought we are doing a story about a particular
lady. We are doing a story about a particular situation
and we have established her character and we understand the dilemma in which she finds
herself and we understand the reasons for it. They're all very clear. Now, when things go wrong, the audience would
be much happier if Diane Keaton's character could function differently than she does but
she can't because that is her character. That is her nature. The audience would like to see her … In
this case, she loses custody of her child. The audience would like to see her do or try
to do something about it even though it's futile to rise to the occasion as a heroine. This is not a heroic person. This is a lady who doesn't come visually and
a particular lady with a particular background from a particular family. The message that I'm getting is that the audience
is saying, "Don't put us in that position. Don’t put us in a position where we must
experience with this lady this problem and not be able to do anything about it, even
try even though futile to do something about it." That surprises me and if one were to go back
and remake this movie in order to make it commercially acceptable and successful, I
think you'd have to do that. Michael: What you're talking about is people
used to talk years ago about the Hollywood ending that you would turn everything around
even tragic material, and I should say this is a heartbreaking movie to watch. It is … For those who haven't seen it and
everybody who hasn't seen it, go rent it on videocassette. It really is worth renting. It's a terrific film. One of the things about it is it takes you
from absolute luminous romantic high. There's a snap in the middle of the movie
where it's almost nightmarish, and yet you realize that it's mistakes that the heroine
has made, some carelessness that she's done. It's not something that comes out of left
field that is based on character which is the best kind of drama, of course. With all that, do you suspect that if you
would change the novel, and it was based on a bestselling novel, and you would give in
the film "the happy ending" that everybody wanted where Diane Keaton is reunited with
her little girl that the film would have had the commercial success? Leonard: I had no question about it. No question about it. Michael: Yet you're saying that if you had
it to do over, you wouldn't make that change? Leonard: No. That film wouldn't interest me. At this particular point in time, that film
was not interest me. I did it because I felt the film was complex. I thought it was challenging and unusual and
those are the reasons that I chose to do the picture. There were actresses who refused to play the
role for the very reason we're talking about, because they did not have the opportunity
to rise to the heroic occasion at the end and win out. I give Diane Keaton a lot of credit. She's … If you look back at the body of
her work, it is filled with complex characters, characters of humanity and ambiguity and frailties
and … Diane is not an actress who goes into a film worrying about what the audience are
going to think of her. She's only concerned about what is necessary
to serve the character in the film. If you think less of her at the end of the
movie because she's … because you associated her with this character, so be it but that
to me is artistry. Michael: What a great performance. The question … and this raises a larger
question and you'll pardon me for getting into this right away … which is who … to
whom is your highest obligation as a filmmaker? Do you visualize it … Is it to your collaborators,
is it to the novelist whose work you're adapting or is it to the audience that you're attempting
to reach? Leonard: I don't think … I think you've
left out a key ingredient and that is the studio that pays for it. Michael: That's what's a few million dollars
between friends, right? Leonard: It is. It is actually their movie. It's their film. They own it and they commissioned you to make
it. Before you set out to make it, you're going
to have some pretty intense conversation with them about what this film is going to be about,
how you see the film, how … what is your perception of this movie? In this particular case as you can imagine,
it being a Touchstone movie and I think their first that was not of the Three Men and a
Baby commercial type, they were particularly interested and concerned in what I had to
say about how … what … how I saw the film. It is to their credit that they never once
said, "Let's soften this ending. Let's not go out on this painful note. We're essentially doing a tragic story here." They never once asked me to avoid that or
change that or mitigating that in any way. In that sense, at least in the sense that
you have a conversation with them before you start to make the picture, then you owe it
to them to try to hue to that concept. Then after that, the process takes over. You're in the process now and your responsibility
is to your actors, the script, the writers, and particularly to yourself to try to see
through the … you … for me, to give the film something personal so that it is not
simply a film that anyone else could have done. It … I'm trying to read through some kind
of personal touch into these films, to remake some kind of a personal investment, and the
audience is always in mind. If I'm doing a comedy, I want to hear laughter. I want that audience laughing at it. If they're not laughing, then I failed myself,
I failed the audience, I failed the whole project. In the Three … In The Good Mother, if they're
not touched, I have failed. Now it's interesting that you asked about
the novelist. I had lengthy conversations with her, Sue
Miller, who wrote the novels, who's a bestselling novel, and essentially the film follows the
path of the novel. The novel was much more dense and detailed
which we … you don’t have time to serve in the film. I think essentially the film is truly not
what … I don't think she's seen the film yet and I can understand why. I had lengthy conversations with her during
the preparation and one final conversation the day we started filming in Cambridge, Massachusetts
where she lives and she came on the set to visit, and on that day, I said to her, "This
must be a strange experience to you. Novelist, successful first time, first novel,
now being made into a film and you really have nothing to do with it in a way." She didn’t write the script and she's not
participating into making the film, "It must seem that it is sailing away from you." She said that she had come to terms with it
and she told me an interesting story. She said that a good friend of hers had written
Ironweed and a screenplay and she said he invited her and her husband to see the film
at a previous screening and they were very disappointed in the film. The novelist-screenwriter thought the film
was wonderful. Of course, he was a novelist and a screenwriter
and he was very subjectively involved. She said what she discovered was that he doesn't
know anything about making a movie. He knew how to write the novel but he's not
a filmmaker and the film had no tension, no design, no form, no shape. It was formless. It was … Anyway, she said, "You people know
how to make movies. I don't know anything about it. You go and make the movie," and when the movie
was finished and I invited her to come to see it, she said, "I won't be able to see
it for a long time to come." She said, "I certainly won't be able to able
to see it with you in the room," because she said, "The last thing in the world I want
to do is when the lights come up, have to face you and tell you what I thought of it." She separated herself which was very comfortable
for me but, yes, she would just … finally to answer your question, yes, I was trying
to satisfy her as well. Michael: Speaking of you being in the room
when she saw the film, that's one thing you always wondered about. You've had the experience of this phenomenally
successful film, "Three Men and a Baby" which I think is your first film directed in which
you didn't appear as an actor, first feature film as what …
Leonard: That's right. Michael: With that film, was there one moment
or one screening when you saw it for the first time with an audience and you realized, "Wait
a minute, this is going to hit," what was that like? What was …
Leonard: Yes. I have a house in Lake Tahoe in Nevada and
the picture had shot well. We had finished a little bit ahead of schedule
and we had saved some money and I asked the studio … Normally, you would negotiate for
this in advance but I said, "I would like very much to take the editors with me and
go to Incline Village, Nevada for a month and edit there. We'll rent some space and create some editing
facilities and if you would truck some stuff. I have a house up there. I think it would be helpful to all of us." It costs them some money and you would say
they didn't need … they didn't owe me, but they said, "Yes, go and do that." We spent a month at the end of which time
we had a cut and we put together some temporary music tracks and so forth and we brought in
a projector, a projection system. For the dual system, it's complicated. You have … at that point, you don't have
the film composited with the soundtracks so you can't just put at your local movie houses,
take around the machine. We brought in the necessary equipment. We announced too in the village, the Incline
Village, there would be a sneak preview of a film this coming Friday night or whatever,
and the place was full, 400 or 500 people. There were lengthy periods of time where you
could not hear the dialogue because there was so much laughter and people recognized
me afterward and were saying things like, "Thanks … This was key. Thanks for making me feel so good." I knew that we had a potential monster on
our hands. People would want to come out of a movie feeling
good. Michael: Yes, they do. Leonard: That's part of the process. Michael: Speaking about that, this afternoon,
one of the things we're talking about, we're talking about Three Men and a Baby in the
context of a series of movies that seemed to come out in 1987 that sort of returned
America to its fascination and love affair with children which hadn't been seen in movies
for a long time. Were you conscious when you were making a
film of being part of that? Was that on your mind? Leonard: Yes or no. I was … The irony of it is that I was most
concerned and conscious of one other film which was starring Diane Keaton. Michael: Baby Boom? Leonard: Yes. When I saw it, I was very nervous for the
first 10 to 15 minutes. I thought they're doing the same jokes. She's having troubles diapering this baby
and so are her guys. Michael: It's funnier when guys do it. Leonard: Yes. That's true. Essentially, except for that very, very important
difference, here was a lady who was unprepared … a person who was unprepared for in having
to deal with an infant and so were our guys. I worried for the first 10 to 15 minutes. After that, Baby Boom really went off in a
whole other direction and I realized that we had two uncanny different films and they
were both successful. Baby Boom was successful. Michael: Yes, it was. Leonard: In fact, it was the success of Baby
Boom for Diane that was very helpful in getting me to … helping me to convince Disney that
I should use her in The Good Mother. Michael: Were you … I guess going back to
this question, we've been talking a lot in the last 2 days when I'm in touch being with
people here … Leonard: About the baby? Michael: … no, about values, about films
and values. Leonard: Yes. Michael: There's no question that compared
to a lot of the comedies that you've had earlier in the 80s and a lot of the films in general,
that the values that one can take away from Three Men and a Baby were wholesome, reassuring,
more traditional in terms of … was that a conscious aspect of your filmmaking at all? Leonard: Yes. It's interesting that you say more traditional
because at the end of the film, you have a very non-traditional family structure. Michael: Yes, indeed. Leonard: You have three fathers and a mother
and there's no marriage involved. Michael: Right, the mother is not involved
with any of them apparently. Leonard: That's right. You have an entirely new kind of family unit. She says … When she says at the end they've
invited her to move in, she says, "Do you have room?" and Selleck says, "I'll build
you a room." It gets a big laugh. Everybody loves that. Very fresh, I thought, the ending in that
sense. On the other hand, what I was shooting for,
what I was trying for in the development of the script and the development of the characters
was to deal with a Peter Pan Syndrome with these three guys who just didn't want to grow
up and that's not particularly new. Michael: No. Leonard: I think they did it very well. The very concept … the concept of … the
decisions of what they did, the choice of their careers, for example, Selleck was an
architect who had always been building things as a kid and was building bigger things as
an adult; Guttenberg was in cartoon line, literally playing with childish figures and
childish ideas; and Ted Danson was functioning in a profession which we literally call playing. He was playing roles. They were all children in that respect and
the structure was to put them in a position where they had to begin to feel some sense
of responsibility to something other … someone other than themselves. I think we did well. Michael: Yes. Okay, baby. It's time to grow up. Leonard: Yes, exactly. Michael: Actually, we were talking about this
also before. I know that you inherited this project, you
had mentioned before. To what extent did you change, alter, revise
the script? Leonard: A lot, a lot. The script was very French when I came on
the job. The script had been developed under a French
director. The lady, Coline Serreau, who had written
and directed the French version was on the job for Disney to … not to write but to
direct the American version. She had writers who were writing under her
supervision who were doing as what essentially was a translation of the French film. It was very far in nature. The tone of it was foreign. The nature of the characters, I felt, was
inaccessible. It might have been an enormous success but
she left the project, I came on and I had to do something that I could get in touch
with, so we changed very word of the script, just reconstructed the whole thing in a 5-week
period. Michael: In 5 weeks? Leonard: Yeah. Michael: Good luck. Leonard: Yeah. Michael: It worked out. The … Two more questions about Three Men
and a Baby. You'll pardon me, the one question that I
had about … The one thing about the film that troubled me a little bit and it's something
else that I spoke about earlier here, so I think in order to be honest, I should bring
it up with you was the subplot about the drug deal. Leonard: It would never go away. I just couldn't get it to go away. Michael: You wanted it to go away? Leonard: We tried desperately to find any
other scheme. One of the most agonizing problems that I
had to deal with was to find a way to play a scene when 2 supposedly intelligent guys
like Tom Selleck and Steve Guttenberg hand over a baby, an infant, to 2 characters who
are drug dealers, who come and say, "Where's the package? Give us the package. We're here for the package." Yes. very difficult to pull off, I thought. There was no complaint about it. I wouldn't have believed if I said … I'd
say, "Oh, no. We're not going to give the baby with these
2 obviously hoodlums." We got away with it. The audience's suspense of disbelief was enormous,
enormous. Then we re-wrote for weeks during the shooting
the picture, the whole exchange where they go finally to get rid of these guys who get
them caught by the police. We had written in … under all kinds of circumstances
including a basketball game with the 5 of them played and the drugs are in the basketball. It was … You wouldn't believe the permutations
that this went through. It was … I just … I wanted to do it as
quickly and as offhandedly as possible and be done with it. Michael: He … I guess the question and I
don't want to beat this to death, but here is a … as close as Hollywood comes ever
to a real … to a wholesome family comedy. It's really something you can take your Aunt
Tilly to see and your grandmother and little kids and everybody. Here all of a sudden in the midst of this
film is this subplot about criminals and drug dealing and it gets pretty tense at certain
moments. Did it ever occur to you or other people involved
in the picture, "Wait a minute. We don't need that. Why are we throwing …?"
Leonard: It's not that we didn't need … we needed some kind of device. We needed a device where they mistakenly give
the baby away and that's what we represented with it. Under the circumstances with all of the other
facets of the film having to be changed, we just … we ended up having to live with it. It was the best we could do. We should have done better. We simply couldn't. Michael: It worked out okay? (laughs)
Leonard: Yeah. Michael: The one last question about it, the
famous scene … Leonard: It's interesting that you say that
this is a wholesome film for which you can bring your Aunt Tilly. Stop and think about what that says about
what's acceptable today in a movie. Here is a child born out of wedlock, and the
father doesn't even know the child exists. The father comes home and says, "That's not
my baby." Here comes the mother … and the mother has
dropped the baby off on the doorstep without a face-to-face confrontation, you see, just
drop that baby off and walk away. All things are kind of shocking if you look
at them in terms of what's acceptable behavior. Michael: That's today. Do you know that today statistically 20% of
all American babies … all American babies are born out of wedlock? Leonard: I'm not surprised with that statistic
because during my research for The Good Mother, I discovered that something like 50% of the
children in the United States today are in single-parent homes and growing. Michael: Last question about Three Men and
a Baby to get us on a happier note, the famous scene where the three guys are singing "Goodnight
Sweetheart," was that scripted? Was that your idea? Leonard: Yes. No, it was script- yes. No, it wasn't my idea. No, it was … I've forgotten whether it was
in the original version or not but it was in the script that I inherited. Yes. I thought, "How corny." Leonard: We did it. No shame. Michael: Listen, we're talking about movies. It's not … Speaking of no shame, so just
to cover so that we are doing justice to everything, to cover Star Trek for a moment. A vastly entertaining film, another very successful
film with a message and the message being, to simplify it, "Save the whales." Leonard: Save the world. Michael: True. True. To what extent was that message important
to you as a filmmaker while you were doing the picture? Leonard: That was very important. It was very important, but I wanted to … I
wanted it to be a fun adventure. I didn't want to be hammering people over
the head with a problem. We had done 2 pictures, Star Trek's 1 and
2 … or 3 pictures, Star Trek's 1, 2, and 3, all of which were pretty intense. There was a lot of dying. There was death and resurrection, if you will. Michael: They didn't get rid of Mr. Spock? Leonard: No. It was intense stuff and I thought it was
really time to recapture some of the fun that we'd had making the series, which we'd had
brought a little of in the 3 movies. I also wanted very much to do a film in which
there was no particular nasty villain that … again, circumstances, lack of awareness,
unconsciousness, whatever would create the problem. Given that we were going to do a time travel
story and given also that we're coming back to earth now to find a solution to a problem
that's taking place in the 21st Century, the question was what to come back for, what is
it that's missing in the 21st Century that we need. I'd read a book called Biophilia written by
a Harvard biologist in which he talked about the fact that by 1990, we will be losing something
like 10,000 species per year off this planet, many of them never having even been recorded,
discovered or recorded. Then when you start to lose species in that
large a number, you have to be consumed with what they call the "Keystone Species Theory"
which is that … It's like a house of cards. You can take a card away here, you can take
a card away there and the house stands but eventually if you continue to take cards away,
you will finally get to a card that was a keystone card and that card will cause … the
loss of that card will cause others to collapse and others to collapse and so forth down the
chain. The idea was that we would … we have hit
a keystone and we now have … and the problem is developing in the 21st Century, we have
to come back to the 20th Century to find that thing and solve the problem. You're going to come back for a mosquito. You're going to come back for a plant. None of those seemed particularly interesting
visually cinematically. When I struck on the idea of the whales, not
only the size and the grandeur of them, but also the mysterious song that they sing that
has never really been quite explained. We don't know exactly why they do it. That led me to another interesting subject
which always intrigues which is communication or failure in communication. I was just taken with the whole thing. I started doing a lot of research. I'd looked at a lot of films with whales and
I'd contacted all the whale institution … but you see, my consciousness had already been
raised by the Greenpeace people and I give them the credit. They're the ones who first put me in such
the idea that people must do something about this. I was … I thought that it was great drama
years ago when they got up in their rubber boats and planted themselves out in the ocean
between the whales and the wedding ships and were in danger being harpooned. Boy, that's dramatic stuff. They made me conscious of this concern. Michael: Have you had any indication from
either the Greenpeace people or anyone else about the film's impact and …
Leonard: Yeah. Boy, I hear from them all the time, all the
time. Michael: What do they tell you? Leonard: That there's a big awareness that
I have … auditioning to raise consciousness. I was invited to Russia when the film was
finished, let's see, about a year and a half ago. No, after the film was released ago, about
a year and a half ago, I was invited to go to Russia to show the film in Moscow to help
celebrate the event when the Russian government declared a ban on all commercial whaling. There was an awareness even there. Michael: The Soviets were quite late in declaring
that ban too, I think, yes. Leonard: Yes. That's right. Michael: You haven't been invited to Japan
which is still doing commercial whaling, right? Leonard: Yes. No, that's right. Michael: That's the next step. In terms of your work as a filmmaker and as
an actor, are there certain kinds of issues, certain kinds of aspects of human life that
you think movies, Hollywood does not handle well that simply don't lend themselves to
effective treatment on screen? Leonard: I don’t know if I can answer your
question directly. It does seem to me that because of the nature
of what the film is and what the concerns are in making the film, particularly those
concerns that I talked about with The Good Mother and the audience, that we too often
find it useful to distort subject matter. I think Mississippi Burning is a big distortion. The picture was offered to me and I couldn’t
do it. Michael: The picture with the Chris Gerolmo's
… with the script, the drama script? Leonard: The job was offered. The Chris Gerolmo's script. Yeah. Michael: Wow. I didn't know. Leonard: The job was offered to me and I couldn't
do it. Michael: Why couldn't you do it? Leonard: I really didn't think that my presentation
of the film, my vision of the film was what the company and what the audience want. Michael: How would it have been different? Leonard: I just couldn’t do it. It would have been an entirely different movie,
entirely different movie. Alan Parker who made the film has said that
the only way the film could be made is the way he did it which is to make the film about
white people doing the job and that admission in itself tells me there's a major distortion
because that's not what the Civil Rights Movement was about. Now, given that statement, there is this ongoing
discussion about should one make the movie then and, of course, a lot of people say yes
because the film finally does say that repression is wrong, and that's a good thing. That's a good statement to make. I take issue with a television miniseries
that was done called "Holocaust" a few years ago. I did not like it at all. I thought it trivialized. I thought it reduced to a pathetic level this
gigantic event. There are others who said and I'm sure that
there's a truth in it, that getting it on the air was important because there were millions
and millions of people who would not even have been conscious of what the event … that
the event took place or what it was all about or what was involved if they hadn't seen that
miniseries and I'm sure that's true. You have to finally do these things on the
most personal level. The question is how … will I feel comfortable
spending the next 7 or 8 months of my life making that film and the answer was no, I
don't think so because I would be unhappy about some of things that I would have to
do to make the film work. Michael: Would I be … would it be accurate
to describe your position or your decision to turn down that film which I had no idea
about? Was that a political decision? Leonard: I would say it was of social decision. I suppose political but more social. I'm more concerned about doing justice to
what the event … what eventually took place. I think we all know that the FBI was not that
literally involved, that Diego Hugo was not that happy about having FBI and men go down
there all, that his hand had to be forced to send the first FBI man down, and now the
picture, they make it seem so simple. When they run through a problem, they go with
a phone booth, they need 100 more men and the next day there are 100 more FBI men down. That simply was not the case. There were no blacks in the FBI as we know
except for Hugo's … Michael: Driver? Leonard: … driver, his chauffeur. When they do bring down a black agent, he's
a terrorist. He comes out with a razorblade and he's going
to do terrible things to the mayor of the town if the mayor doesn't give him the information
he needs. He becomes a vigilante. I just think it's a distortion of what's right. Michael: Just a couple more questions and
then we'll turn it over with… Leonard: The picture was well done, and I
mean that. It's very slick, good filmmaking and it pleases
audiences because right wins out at the end of this. Michael: We have just a couple more questions
and we'll turn this over to the panel. Is there a dream project that Leonard Nimoy
as a filmmaker would like to do and has dreamed of doing but hasn't gotten together yet? Leonard: I wish there was because I'm in a
position today and I don't know how much longer I'd be in that position to probably get it
done. Michael: You could do whatever you want, sure. Leonard: Probably, probably. I really wish there was some very specific
and wonderful dream project that I've had in many, many years and now finally I have
the cache to get it made. The answer is no. I'm reading a lot of scripts. We read several scripts a week in the next
… so they could be made into movies in the next 4, 6, 8, 10 months. I haven't made a choice yet. I have several projects as we say in development,
3 or 4 ideas of mine that are in development in various places and in various stages, any
one of which could become a movie or any 2 or 3 of which could be made into movies in
the next 2 or 3 years, but I don't have 1 dream all-time project. No. Michael: Let me ask a more general question
then. Is there some overwhelming statement, some
kind of social cause … Leonard: Not any one. No. Not any one. I'm at the mercy of what happens to me on
a week-to-week basis, what I read on a week-to-week basis, what I'm exposed to, and for that reason,
the development process, I find very painful and very difficult because on a given day,
I may read about an idea or see or be told about an idea or experience something which
I decide would I really want to make into a movie that's a terrific subject and important
and worthwhile, worth making the investment and expending the energy, let's do it. You go to the studio and say, "Here it is
and this," "Oh, yeah," and they see your passion and they see what you're after, they'll say,
"Okay. We will put up the money and we'll get a script
written on this subject." Now from that point on, it can take several
months till the time you get the story laid out, you get the writer you want and he gets
started on or she gets starting on the script, and in the meantime, you might go up and do
another movie. While you're doing another movie, your life
is changing drastically. You are … I am deeply affected by each movie
I make. I have literally waken … awaken and find
myself in tears as a result of a scene I'm shooting this week in a movie. I'm deeply affected by it. By the time that picture is finished, I'm
a different person. I may be so different that I'm no longer at
all interested in the subject that I just put into development 4 or 5 months ago. I may look at it and say, "Why didn't I want
to do that? It's … that's over. That's done. I've touched on enough about in this film
or whatever." It's a tricky process and I'm new to it. It's only been in the last 3 or 4 years that
I've been involved with this particular kind of process and I'm learning as I go. Michael: Do you feel that on balance if you
look at the body of work that's coming out of Hollywood that that work is having an elevating
effect on American society, a negative effect or basically is just a relevant entertainment? I'm not trying to say choose one of the above,
but how would you describe the impact? Leonard: I don't … I can't … Look, I try
to be loyal to my industry and my friends in it. I cannot honestly say here tonight and say
to you, "We are helping the world with our movies. We are bettering mankind with our movies. We are in touch with all the things that we
should be giving with them and they will … that they're being dealt with." I can't say that. It's … On the other hand, it's too easy
to Hollywood-bash. It's always been easy to Hollywood-bash and
to blame Hollywood for our ills. I think there's a mutual problem here and
I don't know how well I can express this tonight but let's see. I do believe that there's a mutuality of failure,
that the audience is not demanding enough and … nor are the studios reaching high
enough in terms of the products they want to deliver. I do believe that audiences do want to … not
to be challenged but to be told what the problem is and to be shown a hero or heroine fixing
it, dealing with it, so that in a sense they have a … they empathize. They have a catharsis. They go through the problem without having
dealt with it themselves and come away feeling, "Wow, that's … I'm glad that problem is
solved. I'm glad … "
Michael: Yes, Spock and Kirk have. Leonard: Yeah. I'm glad they did that. Boy, I feel a lot better about that and it
was fun and that kind of thing. I don't think any of us will rise to the occasion
frankly. Michael: Do you … Of course and you're right
about the audience. Do you feel that the values within our community,
if I may say that, within the filmmaking community, within the creative community in the film
industry, that those values accurately reflect or reflect in any way the values of society
at large or they had variance somehow? Leonard: I think you have an extraordinary
range. I think that there are some people in our
industry who are simply want to hit the homerun ball every time up if possible and that means
cookie-cutter kind of movies, formula movies, movies that do exactly what the audience wants
them to do, and they will be repetitions of previous films. For example, after 48 Hrs. was success … I'll
go back to Beverly Hills Cop, a more obvious choice. After Beverly Hills Cop was so successful,
a black gritty Detroit cop comes to clean, sanitize Beverly Hills who worked with the
police department there. Fish out of water story is what we call it
in our business. I must have read a half dozen scripts of cops
who are in the wrong city (laughs) including what's on my desk right now of a … 3 cops
who are sheriffs and brothers in Texas who go to Monte Carlo. I could go on with variations on the scenes
that are being made. These movies will be made. They've already been … they're being made
all the time. Then you got the odd couple buddy cops like
48 Hrs. which was Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy, people who really don't like each other but
are forced to work with each other. Then a couple …
Michael: Like Mississippi Burning? Leonard: That's right. Michael: Same movie? Leonard: Exactly, exactly. At the end comes a kind of a mutual respect,
you see. They discover the values in each other. There's just a lot of that stuff going on
and there are people who are going to make that stuff because it's … it can … it
will be programmed that way. You will get out there and there'll be an
audience who'll come to see those. There's very little risk in that kind of stuff. Michael: We were talking earlier today about
the most frequently used machine in Hollywood obviously is a Xerox machine. That's it. Two final questions here. What do you …
Leonard: To be fair, I didn't say that on the other end of the spectrum, there are people
who are doing unique material and dangerous financially. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't,
but there are people who are committed to that kind of work. Michael: If I may say so, I think The Good
Mother is a very good example. It was not a film that was a safe commercial
bet, by any means. Leonard: Yes, it was dangerous. Michael: Two last questions. Number 1, what do you think it is … you're
doing what almost every actor or actress that I know wants to do, what you're doing right
now. They would rather be directing, making movies,
shaping movies. What do you think it is that it takes for
an actor to make this transition as wonderfully successfully as you have done from acting
in front of the camera to serving behind the camera? Leonard: In my case, I was a lot better prepared
for the job than most people were aware. I had already made a sizeable investments
in energy, time, study. I had done a lot of theatrical directing. I have been on sound stages for almost 40
years in one capacity or another, mostly acting, but I had been doing it. I had spent a lot of time in editing rooms
on various projects, watching of film go together piece by piece from a footage that's been
shot. I had thought acting classes for 5 years so
I really was in touch with how to help an actor or an actress in a scene. I had a lot camera work. I had done a lot of my own camera work so
I was very much in touch with lenses and composition and so forth. I was very well prepared. It takes a sense of theatricality. It takes a sense of the dynamic of how 1 scene
forms another in film. It takes a sense of what to do when a scene
is flat on a sound stage and nothing's happening. The actors are doing it but there's fun in,
there's no drama, there's no tension in it. They've missed the point perhaps or perhaps
the scene is badly written and needs to be rewritten. Some sense of the drama. For me history of drama helps because the
roots are there whether it's in Beverly Hills Cop or whether it's an Oedipus Rex, the roots
are there. Directing is a … For me, a great challenge
because it draws on every skill, every sensibility, every bit of education you ever had in your
life, drawing all of it. Michael: Final question and we turn it over
to the panel group, give you a rough time I know. Is there one movie that you've seen recently
that you looked at it and you said, "Gee, I wish I had taken that script. I wish that was a … that was a movie I wish
I wo- had done or could have done." Anything that sticks in your mind? Leonard: You tend to go to the big hits. I'm jealous of Barry Levinson's work. I think he's a good filmmaker. Michael: He is. Leonard: I don’t know if Rain Man is his
best but he certainly … successful in handling that material in terms of what the audience
can take with that material. I think one can find flaws, one can find fault
with the way that Dustin Hoffman character is use almost to the edge of exploitation,
almost. His problem is almost exploited but the film
is successful. It's good filmmaking. On the other hand I'm frankly disappointed
on Mike Nichols. I think Working Girl is a good film. It's solid all the values there, but I think
that Mike Nichols should do better somehow. I don’t think I'm as good a filmmaker ever
will be in terms of social vision as a Mike Nichols because has been at it for so long
and he has his own perception and somehow I don’t think there's anything unique with
Mike Nichols about that movie. It's a successfully made put together film,
good carpentry. I don’t know. I'd have to do some more thinking about the
films that are out. I have not seen, I haven’t seen it so I
don’t know. I have … I'm looking forward to that. People whose taste I respect tell me that
is a very good picture. I don’t have a really good answer to your
question. That's the best I can do at the moment. Michael: Let me conclude my section of this
by saying that I know that you're always looking for material. I know that a very inspiring story that you
may want to consider is the Hillsdale College Story which is full of …
It's full of drama, it's full of controversy and full of heroes who win. Leonard: That's right. Michael: With that, having said that, let's
turn it over to Mark and to the panel for …
Mark: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mark Evans. I'm moderating the panel this evening. I'm a composer and writer and I have a newspaper
column in the New York City Tribune called Mark My Words. My colleagues on the panel this evening will
include to my left, Chuck Moss, of the Detroit News. Next to him, Steve Advokat, staff writer for
the Detroit Free Press, and finally, Jim Lyons of the Hillsdale Daily News. Michael, before going over to Mr. Nimoy, I
might add that apropos your remark about the Xerox machine being the most used one in Hollywood,
this has been going on for times even before this invention of Xerox. Dorothy Parker way back when said the only
ism in Hollywood anyone cares about is plagiarism and some of that still true today. Mr. Nimoy, the name of this event, this conference
is Popular Entertainment and its impact on society and one of the subjects that we've
been pursuing is an interesting one the extent to which the values that appear in popular
entertainment represents an influence on our society or a reflection of that society. There have been certainly cases, a study recently
by the National Institute of Health thy suggested that television provides role models for both
parents and children who acknowledge deriving much of their sense of values from the entertainment
industry. We know that people are interested in what
actors wear, how they behave in their personal lives and also the sense of right and wrong,
the sense of meaning, the sense of moral worth that appear in films or lack of moral worth
on occasion and there is a running debate going on. You mentioned those people who are cultural
critics. Who place a lot of blame on Hollywood and
on the entertainment industry, there are defenders of course of the industry who would say that
the industry is merely reflecting that which already exist in society. Others would say that the industry is not
just a mirror but it is in fact the primary stimulus and a prime mover. I've suggested on occasion I'd like to ask
you to comment on this. That in fact both realities are in to a certain
extent true. That the industry certainly is a tremendous
influence on society but also given a period when family has declined and there is something
of a vacuum in our society for other reasons people within in the industry are also a part
of our society and reflect the values that are evolving within it. I'd like to ask you how you see a question
of Hollywood and the entertainment industry has either a stimulus or as a reflector and
whether you feel that your view, I'll ask this in 2 parts, your view and whether you
feel that your view is shared by the money people, the executives, the governing board
if you, decide what pictures are made, which networks are going to produce which products. That's essentially the essence of the conference
in which we've been engaged and we would appreciate very much you sharing us your view of that. Leonard: I think you're right. I think it operates in both directions. I think life imitates art and art imitates
life. There's no easy answer here. I'm sure we must all accept that. You can discuss but there is no easy answer. One of the reasons that there's no easy answer
is because Hollywood is not one mind nor is television even one mind or motion picture's
one mind. There's a very wide range of taste, attitudes,
needs, perceptions and so forth. I have a project which I've brought to one
of the networks about 2 years ago and they agreed that they would develop and go ahead
with it. We have a script. I was just told about 2 weeks ago that they've
decided they don’t want to do this project and I'm not frankly not sure why. It is of a kind subject matter. I don’t want too much detail about it, but
I did, having let out the word to some people I'm connected with that this project is now
available. I'm no longer connected with that particular
network. The word comes back to me that network X is
interested in doing some good stuff meaning something of social importance, quality. That makes a statement about … that I think
speaks to some of these issues. What is said is that network Y has chosen
not to but network X is interested in that right now. Network Y may feel they've enough good stuff
this year and now they're looking for something like a Naked Lies starring James Farentino
and a girl who plays a hooker. I watch about 5 minutes of that about 10 days
ago. I was amazed. I don’t watch that kind of stuff. I don’t have time frankly. It's not a question of taste. I don’t have the time, because I do have
this television project I wonder what they're buying, what are they doing. In the first 3 or 4 minutes I see a judge
played by James Farentino involved with a prostitute played by Victoria Principal and
down to his G-string I was amazed at the semi nudity, not to his G-string. In walks a guy with a camera start shooting
pictures, out comes a gun and the next thing you know somebody's dead and the judge is
… Great exposition done, "Bang. Bang. Bang." You got a judge in front with a prostitute
being brought and somebody's dead. Mark: All the elements. Leonard: Yeah. Right. It's like 3 minutes and I got that much of
the story out. it was amazing storytelling. There's that kind of taste. They'll probably get very big numbers doing
that kind of thing. Why is that? Who wants to see … There must be people
who want to see that stuff. On the other hand, last night I watch for
quite a while the TV piece about the development of the bomb and I don’t know it was sensationalize
or trivialized at all. There was remarkably in-depth study of all
these characters and their motivations and the politics of the case and the science of
the case. We're looking at a very wide range of stuff
and I can't tell you, I'm not an authority on what the numbers were last night as compared
to Naked Lie with James Farentino, I don’t know. One would hope that there are a lot of people
watching last night and really interested but I can't guarantee that. There are a lot of different kinds of work
being done for a lot of different reasons and at a different time and I do believe that
there are times when you can go to a network and say, "I have an idea and I can … I can
show why this idea has merit on basis of the numbers because X number of millions of people
are involved in this kind of activity and this is the film about that activity so they
will be interested." And that wasn’t bad on the one hand. On the other hand, there may be some new idea
that is bubbling on the edge of social consciousness that you could take to a network or to a studio
and they might say, "Yeah, you're right. I think that's an idea whose time is coming. Perhaps it's not yet come but it's coming. Let's investigate that. Let's explore to do it." I think there are all kinds. I think the individual finally has to decide
for him or herself which way do I want to go? Why am I in this thing? Michael: I think one of the interesting things
to observe here, you'll pardon me, is that the series that Mr. Nimoy is talking about,
about the development of the atomic bomb was produced by Aaron Spelling who has given the
world Charlie's Angels, the Love Boat and other important contributions to western civilization
in the past. Sometimes, quality product from surprising
and unexpected sources. Speaker 4: Mr. Nimoy, I'm going to drop the
dirty boot and mention the science fiction angle, hopefully, without inducing you to
jump off the podium and begin throttling me. I'm 35 years old, I remember growing up in
the 50s and 60s and one of the staples of popular culture was the world of the future
was this confident bright happy future a better world which we would inevitably create generally
by this far future date of around 1979. Now, here it is. It's 1989. This must be the world of future and yet as
you said, "Here we are and all the … all the audience seems to want is reassurance." As you said, "Certainty." You want the good mother to confront the situation
and win or fight nobly. The audience it all seemed to be any images
anymore of a confident better world, at least I don’t see very many of them, even in the
Star Trek extrapolation, it's kind of fear of ecological disaster. My question is, what does that say about the
condition of the country or the mentally of people today that instead of a confident vision
of where we're going, people want reassurance. Leonard: We've been through some devastating
times I think as a civilization in the last couple of decades. I think we've been shown the frailty of the
society and the planet and I think we're looking for some kind of reassurance that both will
survive. When I was in the research that I did for
Star Trek 4, I talked to a lot of scientist about their concerns or expectations or hopes
for immediate future. What exciting breakthroughs you think might
happen in the next 10 or 15 years? What great problems do you foresee in the
next 10 or 15 years? I had a wide range of answers including a
very highly respected scientist who told me that he expects that we will make contact
with another intelligence by the end of the century and I was quite startled by that and
he's very serious about it. I wonder whether that's good or bad. I don’t know how we'll handle that. Speaker 4: Do you think they're getting our
television up there? Leonard: I don’t know. My point is this, that science is a concern
for example that there is a feeling that things aren’t good with the planet. There's a sense that we cannot deal with all
of the problems simultaneously that therefore there's a question of priority that there's
the politics of the situation and the economics of the situation that the politicians have
to decide at some point, yes, there's enough … I have enough of a mandate from my constituents
that they want that fixed. They want that problem stopped and if we announced
that we're going to spend a lot of money to fix it, my people will go for it because they
feel we've gone as far down the road that we can with this. The scientist are concerned in a given day
a problem that they have been talking about, complaining about, concern about will reach
a point, will reach that point where the citizenry says, "Fix it." The politicians will say, "Right." And they’ll turn to the scientists and say,
"Fix it." The scientists have to say, "We can't anymore. It's gone too far. We don’t have the means right now. We can start working with the money you gave
or whatever." You get the point that the prioritizing of
our concerns has become a concern and there is a sense of uneasiness. You're reading the newspaper suddenly that
there's a ozone problem. That the layer is disappearing rapidly and
now there's a report that there's a major international conference which says, "Yes. We agree. Let's fix it." It feels like a band-aid to me like just in
time, just before the patient gets seriously ill and perhaps unredeemable ill. I personally feel that way. I have that concern. I don’t have that sense of, "Oh, boy. We can do anything." Having lost a war for the first time, I think
our citizens feel less than unbeatable obviously. These are concerns that I think have affected
all of us and maybe in all fairness to our society that's why we want to be told, "Hey,
everything's okay. Go see a movie. Enjoy yourself and watch they'll probably
be fixed. Go home feeling better. Don’t take the problem along with you, we'll
fix it at the theater for you." Speaker 4: the 1930s. Leonard: Yeah. Exactly. It is historical that when times are bad films
do well particularly escapist films, when people have problems they want to go see a
movie and be made to feel good. Speaker 5: Good evening Mr. Nimoy. Leonard: Have I depressed all of you? Speaker 5: There was a woman recently from
a Detroit suburb sat down with her 3 young children who watched Married with Children
was incensed by it Leonard: I have to plead ignorance because
I have never seen this show but go ahead. Speaker 5: It's about. She sent her children out and she watched
it and it's an adult comedy on the Fox Network and she thought of the one woman led a writing
campaign to get that show and others that she finds objectionable off the air. Last year Martin Scorsese has released a film
about Jesus Christ that offended many people who picketed the film throughout its theatrical
run. My question is, how do you balance making
projects which on the one hand may offend people with at the same time trying to raise
consciousness? Are there any topics that Hollywood just should
not touch? Leonard: No. I don’t think so. I don’t think there's any topic that should
be taboo, censored, you don’t talk about that or deal with it. Particularly in television and films the individual
has the right not to buy a ticket, not to go see it, turn in to another channel and
I believe that. I think it's an easy out and I think some
people take it as an easy out but I think it happens to be true. You don’t have to buy that book. You don’t have to read that book. You don’t have to watch that TV show. The question is at what point do you have
the right to prevent others from seeing, hearing, experiencing that thing that you find objectionable? Society sets standards and there are community
standards as well and in some communities the standards are different than others. I think that's valid. You establish a community where you chose
your community, you're entitled to have some sense of expectations on what the experience
is going to be within that community and if you don’t like it, you move it to another
community but … We're still a democracy and must be and I
think that's important that somebody have the right speak out on an issue as they see
fit and nobody has to listen if they don’t want to. It's difficult, I sympathize with both sides
but I finally come down with the side of they must allowed to do it. That's my sense of it. Michael: Follow up question on that. Would you be interested if someone approached
you to direct the movie version of the Satanic Verses? Leonard: I don’t think so. That's a sad terrible problem. Michael: It's terrible. That's awful, yeah, but …
Leonard: Terrible problem. No. The answer is no. Michael: Because of concerns for your own
safety or because of concerns for … Leonard: I'd say the first place I haven’t
read it and when I do read it, if I do, it's going to take me quite a while to understand
what it means to those people who are offended by it. I may have … I will have an entirely different
reactions to it than they and I will have to … I would have to make an intense investigation
of what concerns them before I … in order to make an intelligent decision about whether
or not to do it. Interesting way if I may say so. I find it fascinating that Mississippi Burning
was made by an Englishman, Alan Parker. I don’t know where he was in the 60s. I was here, you see. I don’t know where he was and maybe that's
the way it had to happen. Somebody who was from thousands of miles away
and from a different society, different … was not emotional involved, subjective and physically
involved, maybe he could make it, I couldn’t. Michael: Well see, my rather flipping question
is getting into an important point. You would then agree that there are certain
kinds of material that would be so deeply offensive to some people that you would decline
to participate? Leonard: Why did he rush to write it? That's the question. Michael: Well that's his prob- I mean I'm
not sure. Leonard: If it is his problem, yes, you're
right. Michael: Major problem. Leonard: It is a problem but what I'm saying
is that maybe there's some passionate filmmaker who believes in that particular piece of material. You have the right … I think … I'm really
speaking out of ignorance here, I haven’t read the material and I don’t know … obviously
some people are deeply, deeply offended by it. Michael: I would say so. Leonard: Including Cat Stevens, but, there's
an interesting incident in LA, have you heard about it? Leonard: About Jeff Edwards, you know about
that? Michael: Yes. Leonard: There's a TV-radio personality in
LA on a particular radio station who is one of this garbage kind of guys who in order
to get some heat going has decided that he was going to have all his listeners send in
their Cat Stevens records and they would burn all this material and there was going to be
a public burning of Cat Stevens record because Cat Stevens agreed that that Rushti should
die and one of his colleagues on the station has a talk show and on that colleague's talk
show there was a promo for this other talk show host record burning and his colleague
Jeff Edwards refused to have it aired on his spot because he said that's terrorism and
I won't have it. I won't promote his burning of records even
though I agree that Cat Stevens is wrong. He had to leave the station. Gave up his job at the station. Well that's a question of personal choice. Jim: Jim Lyons from the Daily News. Thank you for coming tonight by the way. Now we used to sit down with Catholics a little
bit in this country. We used not see their way as a general population. There was the wasp view. Now, we are seeing that we have a very mixed
country and Rushti is a good case of it. we are not looking at his book from the point
of view of a man who is breaking away from his religion as many people have done here
in the United States. I was wondering, we were talking earlier and
I was listening to these guys this big important news men that we've got Clint Eastwood and
we've got all of the white male leads who do fantastic things, never get shot or if
they do they struggle through, but we just don’t seem to be able to produce a hero
or a real survivor for many other race. It seems we've narrowed our point of view
through television. I don’t know … and through movies. Michael: I'm sorry to jump in. What would you call Eddie Murphy? What would you call Danny Glover in Lethal
Weapon? Jim: I think we've integrated in a lot of
ways but I also think a lot of it has been token. I think Eddie Murphy just loves to … He's
a different character. He's always enjoyed that playing with the
white guys head. Michael: Does pretty well with it. Jim: Yeah. Leonard: I think the answer is … I'm not
sure you're absolutely accurate really. I understand the question. The question has validity but I'm not sure
it is really, really true. I think, again, it feels like those guys out
there can't do anything but make a white man hero. I'm not sure that's entirely true. I'm very curious about this. I've just received a project, an offer of
a project called Judge D. There in Chinese history a very famous judge who was a kind
of a Sherlock Holmes detective on his own, who went out and investigated his own cases. Very famous in Chinese history and there was
been some books written about him and I have been submitted this project and I say to myself
… Either acting or direct. I said to myself, "Do we … Do we want to
see a Chinese judge in China in the period 1600s or whatever investigating cases?" I think the answer is if it's well done, yes,
but one has to stop and wonder. I don’t know. I don’t have the answer to that question. I do think that we've had … There are exceptions
to your rule though. Not a lot, but there are some. Michael: That raises another interesting question. You've obviously played people from another
planet, a person from another planet, would you feel … You were offered this to act
in, would you feel comfortable doing a makeup transition in playing an Asian …
Leonard: Physically comfortable, no. I wouldn’t. Michael: But would you feel comfortable as
a … Leonard: It's a good question. Michael: … a white person impersonating
an Asian person? Leonard: Good question. There is also a project called Black Elk Speaks. With Black Elk is … I'm just getting to
know a very revered figure in Indian history. He is … He was a religious leader of the
Indian people and there's a play called Black Elk Speaks and there was a script for a film
called Black Elk Speaks and have been asked to play the lead and I had this intense discussion
with the people who brought it to me who claimed to speak for the Sioux Nation. Who claimed the Sioux Nation said, "Yes. If he plays it that will sit well with us." He's saying. Now, I find that very flattering but I don’t
feel too terrific about it. I have played Indian. I don’t know if this audience is aware. I played Indian. I played Indians in Gun Smoke, in Wagon Train,
in a number of television westerns and even in some films. Up until the early 60s and somebody raised
my consciousness and said, "Hey, that's too terrific. You know there are Indians who are out there
who'd like to have the job." Maybe do a better job of representing their
raise than you are. As a matter fact, the very first job that
I had as an Indian was in 19- Don’t laugh. Michael: I'm sorry. It's just in the phrase. My first job as an Indian. Leonard: Yes. It was in 1950. It was in a picture called the Old Overland
Trail with Rex Allen, the Arizona Cowboy. His wonder horse Coco and the Indian was a
savage Indian that I was asked to play and the reason I got the job was because it had
been offered to Iron Eyes Cody, an Indian actor who refused to play it, and I got the
job. I wasn’t thinking about, "Well, gee, I shouldn’t
be playing nasty Indian." Michael: It's better than playing the wonder
horse, Coco. Mark: We have an additional member of our
panel who arrived a few minutes late will ask you, sir, please identify yourself and
ask your question and that's not supposed to sound like a message that would be coming
out of an congressional committee. You're welcome here. Mike: Mr. Nimoy, I'm Mike Rosenbaum from Detroit
Jewish News. I want to get back to something you mentioned
before about how deeply you were affected by the idea of directing certain scenes. Did you go through the same process as an
actor and if not, why not? Leonard: Yes. I do go the same process as an actor. I tend to assimilate the condition that I'm
dealing with. It tends to become part of me, I live with
it. On one of these jobs you're on it maybe 12
hours a day physically, maybe 16, 18 hours a day mentally and I can't help to be affected
by it. I'm in a much better mood when I'm doing comedy
than I am doing when I'm doing tragedy. I was aware … Particularly, when we're making
the Star Trek series where we went months at a time, many months at a time of shooting
on the films which it's 10 weeks and you're done, but particularly on series I was conscious
of the fact that on Saturdays I would still be in the Spock mode on a day off. Sunday afternoon I would start to relax a
little bit, a little loose but on Saturdays I was still quite rigid and I was still doing
Spock in my personal life, for better or worse. Michael: It must have been a lot of fun for
your family. Leonard: No. Yes, it does happen to me. I get deeply immersed in the process, yeah. Mike: As a director, do you get immersed in
the different characters maybe on different days depending what scene you're going to
shoot or do you identify with one character? Leonard: No. As a director, I think my connection is with
the overview. It's not with anyone particular character
at any one time. It's with the sense what the nature of the
material is. It's been widely reported I told a reported
about it 3 or 4 months ago and it was widely printed that during the making of The Good
Mother, I woke up one night in tears and grabbed for a piece of paper and a pencil and I wrote
down 3 words and the words were it's about lost. I had gone through some very personal loses
around that time not long before that and I suddenly realized that that was what this
film was putting me in touch with, was my own sense of loss so … It was a very moving
experience for me. On the other hand I felt good about the fact
that I was so much in touch with the process and aware of the fact that I was in touched
with the process. It's a creative life. Mark: I know that we have some questions from
members of our audience. Again, we should remind you that we are videotaping
this and in order to hear your question, we'll ask you to please raise your hand but wait
until someone approaches you with the microphone. If you ask your question and no one is near
you with the microphone, we won't be able to hear you or if we if we hear you, it won't
be preserved for posterity on videotape. Please raise your hand and wait and someone
will be over with a mic. Speaker 8: I'm curious about your feelings
toward the Walt Disney company with respect to their rather unique image in Hollywood
of … or to the public of high morals and ethics. Secondly, what is attributed to their great
success in comparison to ... Leonard: The Disney Company. That's a multi-level question really. The people who are now managing the Disney
Company, the people I deal with—current management, were the management of Paramount
when we were making the first 3 Star Trek films there, Eisner and Katzenberg with the
people who actually hired me to the direct Star Trek 3 and hired me to direct Star Trek
4. Then they left while we were making the Star
Trek 4 and they became the management of Disney. They hired me to do Three Men and a Baby and
The Good Mother. Now, they're extremely hardworking. You asked about their success. They're extremely hardworking. They're very bright. I think they have a great sense of audience,
great sense of an audience. They are trying to broaden the nature of their
product in films. The Good Mother was, I think, probably the
first step in a direction to get away from a certain kind of movie, get away from ... and
identification with a certain predictable kind of movie and a movie and some other kind
of territory. Not successful unfortunately and I just hope
it doesn't cause him to pull in their wings and go back to the more reliable kind of product. On another level, it's Michael Eisner who
is now in charge of all the Disney Parks and so forth and that sort of thing. That's an incredibly successful, incredibly
popular part of our culture and not just the American culture but the world culture. They're opening parks in France and with great
success and Mickey Mouse has just been to China and Russia and being well received wherever
it goes and it's an incredible thing to me to be around that. I went last week to Disneyland in Southern
California because there was a program for the families of the Challenger Shuttle that
was destroyed in an accident and they were being honored and may have started up an educational
program in connection with the Challenger and they were there and had asked me to come
and introduce them. I went through the park. I haven't been to the park at some time and
I'm in awe of that kind of commonality of sensibility of entertainment, what people
want to see, what people enjoy. There's no question about it. They have something that people want. They're in touch with something that people
want and will flock to see. There's a magic about it that draws people
like a magnet. Incredible. Walt Disney did have that sensibility, that
sense of taste. Speaker 9: Considering the fact that Star
Trek was cancelled and then went on syndication to become one of the most popular television
series of all time and that we see more and more people turning to public television and
videotapes and cable these days, do you think that the networks are doing justice to the
American public in the context of an entertainment industry? Leonard: Help me. How do you put Star Trek in a context? Where does it fit in the question? Speaker 9: The fact that it gained such great
popularity after it was cancelled. Leonard: I don't think they knew what we were. I don't think the network really understood
what we were. I think the audience was ahead of the network. On the other hand, there were certain I think
technical factors and historical factors that help Star Trek to become eventually the tremendous
syndication success that it was. In 1966 when we went on the air, we had not
yet put a man on the moon. We were cancelled in 1968 after 3 seasons. In 1969, you could walk out of doors of your
house 1 evening as I did and look up at that planet up there and know that there was a
human being standing on that planet for the first time. I think that really changed the American audience's
perception of science fiction. I think it affect the Star Trek a lot. The other major factor and it was technical
and perhaps we were more in touch with our time was around 1971, '72, the show was being
syndicated and that meant that local stations could put it on at the time of their choosing,
at the time that they felt that there was an audience for. When we were on the network, the stations
couldn't do that. They had to put it on the hour of the network
fed it and those hours were not well chosen. The network's taste for the show was not right. The very first step so they put on the air,
they chose a creature episode which we gave some sense of what they were hoping for. They were hoping for a monster show. The show was anything but a monster series. We're out of sync with them right from the
very start. I think eventually, the audience told the
stations that they wanted to see the show and when they want to see the show and you
could watch their show at Sunday afternoon at 3:00, Saturday morning at 9:00, every night
at 6:00, that kind of ... Suddenly, the audience was there. Michael: While we're providing the next question
with the microphone, just to make a brief comment about your question, you're absolutely
correct that the networks are losing total share of the audience and it's going to cable
into an independent stations into Fox but you also mentioned public television. Now, I work on public television. I host the show on public television. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on
your point of view, our audience is not increasing. In fact, I think people have suggested very
rightly that given the problems that Mr. Salman Rushdie has at the moment, if he wanted to
hide out where no one would find him, he should host a weekly series on PBS, he'd be safe. John: I'm John Sherwood. I'm with the Battle Creek Enquirer. In view of the fact that you had somewhat
criticized Mike Nichols for his failure to bring out a real social vision or what you
perceived as his social vision in Working Girl, I wonder what your perception is of
the duty of the individual artist be he director or actor to realize what he defines as a social
consciousness within him so that the audience perceives it. How far must that go with each project? Is that his responsibility to choose such
projects, for example? Leonard: Yes. Obviously, the ideal would be that every time
that person gets up the bat, he hits the ball well. It doesn't work that way in baseball. It's not going to work that way in the arts
either. Your greatest homerun hitter doesn't do it
every time. There is a question of percentages involved. I don't know what the origin of that project
was. I'm probably being unfair to Mr. Nichols for
sitting here speaking ill of his work. I admire. The problem is I admire him so much. Here's a film that's perfectly workable, perfectly
acceptable but I'm just ... I don't think it really gives us anything special or exciting
about Mike Nichols's view of the world. Michael: Which of his films would you say
do that? Leonard: Carnal Knowledge, for example and
so many others. Let's face it. This is a formula movie. This is a female Rocky comes from across the
river and comes into New York and makes it. I could have made it. Therefore, I say might do better because you're
a better film making than I am, more experienced, wiser, more sophisticated than I am. It's an anomaly. It's just one of those things. He'll probably come up with a brilliant film
next year and that would be that. He's done great work and I certainly don't
want to denigrate his career based on this successful movie. He's made a successful film. Speaker 11: I'd like to ask your opinion on
a subject that we've touched on a lot in the last 2 days. I'm going to use for an example, The Last
Temptation of Christ. This is a ... obviously offends a lot of people
but taking that totally not considering that at all the fact that it offends people, the
people that I've talked to who have seen the movie everyone of them have told me that it's
a totally boring movie in itself not to mention the fact that it did terrible in the Box Office. Now, what I want to know or is your opinion
on why does Hollywood do movies like this with ... They have to have some idea that
it's going to bomb when they're doing it. Leonard: I remember what I said before, the
Hollywood is not a person. Hollywood did not do this movie. A certain particular group of people said,
"Yes, we will give you the money." Others said no. That tells you immediately that Hollywood
is not a person. It is not Hollywood that did the movie. Some men, some place who had the authority
to say, "Yes, we'll do that movie," made a personal very human decision. That project was a Paramount and in pre-production
with Paramount. They decided against going forward with it
for whatever reason, they either they thought it was too controversial or too risky financially
or whatever. Somebody in Paramount said, "No. We will not go forward with this." Martin Scorsese had that project in hand and
begging for the money for some years and from a number of sources. It wasn't Hollywood that decided to make it. It was a human being on a given day made a
decision. I'm sure that that person felt a number of
things, that person or persons felt a number of things that Scorsese is a good film maker. Scorsese has a passion for this subject and
that passion will probably be reflected in the film. The title is a well-known title. It was a successful book. They may very well be an audience that wants
to see this film. Michael: I can add just a little bit to that
because I've done quite a bit of research about this film and how ... We know from having
heard me last night. The fact is that not only was that film at
Paramount. It was not only turned down in Paramount. It was also turned down at Warner's and Universal
greenlighted it, went ahead with the picture because Martin Scorsese was hot coming off
Color of Money which was quite a successful film and they made it as part of a package
deal. They wanted to get Scorsese's next 2 pictures
and as a condition of getting those pictures of Scorsese, he the director insisted, "Well
in that case, you got to give me $6 million and that's all they took to make Last Temptation." They did based upon the director and the idea
of getting this package with him. Leonard: Let me just say this. I can understand why some people would be
offended by that film and I can understand why some people would be bored by the film. I can understand other people saying that's
a great piece of work and the man should have the right to do it. What troubles me is people condemning something
that they have not had seen or read. That troubles me a lot. There was a lot of that on that film. People refusing to see it because they found
it offensive. I don't understand that. Michael: Mr. Nimoy, I should tell you that
last night when I spoke about the film, I asked if there was anyone in the audience
who had seen Last Temptation of Christ, only 1 person raised his hand and he was wearing
a Roman collar. It was a priest who was here on campus. Thought that was an interesting ...
Leonard: Now understand me, if one chooses not to see it, that's one thing. If one chooses that others should not see
it because I have not seen it but find it offensive. That troubles me. Speaker 12: Rumor has it that Alfred Hitchcock
in directing the famous shower scene in Psycho, in order to get the facial expression that
he wanted from the actress, he made sure ... He couldn't get that facial expression that he
wanted and in order to do so, he made sure that when the water came out, it came out
ice cold. I was curious if you ever manipulated an actor
or actress or scene in the similar fashion. Leonard: He's a cold director, mean, mean
direc- No. I have ... I haven't done that kind of thing. Directors work in various ways. Hitchcock was never known to be an actor who
cared a lot about the ... A director who cared a lot about the art of acting. The actors for him were tools. They provided a service, a function that he
found necessary in order to make his film. I don't think he really had a serious or important
relationship with actors on artistic level. I'm very much in touch with actors coming
from the persuasion and having taught actors a lot and understanding what kind of vision
an actor can make given the opportunity. I'm very much in touch with opening up an
atmosphere which the actor feel safe to make a large investment and take chances. Speaker 13: Recently in Detroit, a young hockey
player named Bob Probert was arrested at the border for attempting to smuggle cocaine into
Canada and he's already been expelled from the National Hockey League and possibly will
never be able to play Hockey again. Do you think that the actors and actresses
in the screen guild which I think is a union for actors and actresses, do you think that
they should adopt similar very stringent standards because as we've all heard tonight, there
is such a strong impression of actors and actresses can make on us as a country and
wouldn't that be a wonderful statement to make our country if they would voluntarily
adopt standards that's stringent themselves? Michael: Good question. Leonard: The movie stars through the years
have come in a lot of different shapes and sizes morally and ethically as we know. In some cases for whatever reason, some stars
have found themselves in obscurity for having gotten involved in some questionable moral
situation or situations the audiences found questionable morally or ethically. Other actors and actresses have seemed to
thrive on it, flagrant about their personal lives and what their personal lives are about
and develop enormous followings. I don't think you can legislate that. What I find terribly painful is the growing
knowledge that athletes who participate in a foot race, which should be the most equal
kind of competition. The most basic kind of competition. One person running against another at given
distance have cheated. That I find so painful and I think is part
of this conversation we had earlier about our view of the world in ourselves these days. What can you believe in if there's an extra
meter or an extra foot or an extra leap available as a result of steroids and one is using them,
the other isn't. We suddenly discovered that the competition
wasn't real. It wasn't real and we invest so much emotion
in the effort of these people in their training and of the progress of their careers and in
the event, we make such an investment in the human effort to be the best watching a human
makes his effort to be the best. I find it so painful to discover that there's
kind of cheating going on. I think in athletics where there are people's
career's at stake where there's money at stake where there endorsements on ... Obviously,
I think some things got to be done to clean up that act. I don't know if you can do it with actors
and actresses. Michael: Let me be a pain in the neck and
do a followup on that. Given everything that you've said, given everything
that you've said, wouldn't you agree that actors particularly the very successful screen
actors are even more role models for people than athletes followed by even more millions
of people than hockey players and that if you're going to have this kind of standard
which you apparently support for people in athletics what about the star ... Let's take
and extreme example. Motion Picture actor of some success who was
arrested selling drugs to someone else, would you say that that person should be terminated
as a working actor? Leonard: I'm going to plead ignorance here. I don't know. Speaker 13: What studio? Is that… Michael: The point is ... The question was
very well asked. It is possible that SAG, Screen Actors Guild,
could impose a standard where he would lose his membership in the guild. Leonard: Then, the question becomes a legal
question, doesn't it? Does the Screen Actor Guild have the legal
right to do that and whoever the actor ... Michael: They can throw you out for breaking
a strike. Leonard: I think that's quite different, quite
different. You have broken the rules of the union and
there is a rule that says if you break that particular rule, you're going to be expelled. Michael: What if you have a rule in the union
that says it's against the rules… Leonard: Now, you start to legislate that
rule and you start to put that rule into effect and find out what the legalities are. Somebody's going to come along and say, "Well,
wait a minute. I'm not sure we can do that because ..." You're
going to have to work out the question legally and the question will be worked out legally
based on the consensus of opinion in our society today in terms of what we want. Do we want that rule, that new rule? Do we feel it’s necessary? Then it would become part of a society. I'm not sure that I could speak to the issue
of whether it's legal right now. That's why I have to plead ignorance here. Michael: If I can suggest to the questionnaire
and I'll shut up on this, you should ... We have a new drugs czar in this country named
William Benet and I think you should write to him with that suggestion. I think he would have a very interesting time
with that. Leonard: It's obviously a very provocative
question. I would remind you that there was a time when
a career of a luminous star lady was destroyed. Her career was destroyed because she had an
extra-marital affair. Michael: Ingrid Bergman. Leonard: That's right. Michael: The product of that affair is today
one of the leading stars in movies. Isabella Rossellini. Leonard: Isabella Rossellini. Ingrid Bergman was at the height of her career
when she had an extra-marital affair with Rossellini in Italy and she was out of the
movie business. Unusual, unhireable. Audiences refuse to see her. Times changed. Speaker 14: Mr. Nimoy, I'd like to change
the subject completely and address the issue of creativity in Hollywood and in society
in general. Leonard: Question? Speaker 14: It's going to be different. It seems to me the product that Hollywood
sells is not only entertainment but creativity and there's been a lot of discussion in recent
years about how TV has a negative effect on children, for instance, in society in general
because the viewer is viewing and observing as opposed to engaging in a creative and productive
activity themselves. I'm wondering what your view is of Hollywood
kind of being the electronic fireplace that your product is really being the devil's advocate
and negative one in a sense that it has a negative impact on people and I guess my question
is by sitting in a theater watching a movie or sitting in front of the TV and watching
TV, our people not engaging and being creative themselves and to Hollywood's credit ...
Leonard: You're absolutely right. I think ... Yeah. I would say you're absolutely right. There is nowhere near enough really creative
work being done. There is too much non-creative work being
done. There is too much kind of dumb stuff being
done. There are dumb television shows. There are dumb movies which are extraordinarily
successful. I agree with that 100%. On the other hand, the question is should
the kids be sitting in front of TV watching that and are they, because the parents find
easier to let them do that than to insist that the set is off during the week, you must
be involved in some other kind of creative or educational process. You cannot watch that tonight. Now that becomes a tug of war and battle in
the house which is a tough and painful battle I know that. I know that. It may be just easier to give in. If bad television programming exist, does
that mean Hollywood is it fault for not educating your children? Where is the responsibility for making the
choices? It's not easy. I know that. It's in the home and you got the set or sets
and the VCR or VCRs and the discs and all the rest of it, it's all there. Are we really doing a proper job in our homes
of saying you can only use that for this purpose and at this time and this other time must
be set aside for what you're talking about, the education and the creativity. Michael: You used a phrase and I'm just coming
out briefly, video fireplace. One of the most alarming things that I have
read and heard about recently is there was a best-selling video cassette called video
fireplace where it is a 120 minutes of a crackling fire in a fireplace and you plug it into your
VCR and there you area. Wherever you are in your condo or your apartment,
you have a fire. This is the extent to which we become dependent
on this machine. Run out to your stores and get it. You can also get video dog and you can also
get video baby which has a little baby crawling around and going gugu cuckoo but not doing
anything nasty. Speaker 15: Mr. Nimoy, I want to change the
subject even further than she just did. I remember you did a series called In Search
Of. I was just wondering whatever happened to
that? Leonard: Whatever happened to it was we did
7 years of it. We did about 160 or 170 episodes. It was extraordinarily successful television
series sometimes informative, sometimes silly, sometimes hokey. I was thinking that I … knowing that I was
coming here about an interesting phenomenon that I heard about while I was doing that
series. There was a scientist named Allen Hynek who
was part of the Air Force Blue Book Commission assigned to investigating UFOs, supposedly
the scientific inquiry into the question. Allen Hynek when the Blue Book was published
went out ... came out with a book of his own which disproved the existence of UFOs. He went out of the road to publicize the book. During the course of his trip around the country,
you got a call from his publisher and he told me the story. His publisher said, "The book is not selling. We have a problem. The problem is that people don't want to hear
the UFOs don't exist. People are much more interested in the possibility
that they do exist." Is it possible that in your public appearances
on the subject of this book you're going to leave some room for the possibility that UFOs
do exist? In Search Of was an extremely successful show
which left that possibility open. We discovered that the audience really did
not want to have any of that stuff disproved. What they wanted was stories from people who
claimed of seeing UFOs. They want a discussion about why people think
UFOs exist and all that sort of thing. We always take pains to say we don't have
any physical evidence that they exist. Here's a person who claims he was on one. Let's talk to him. I had a good time on that show. Michael: I think you'll be delighted to know
and this is no joke that Big Foot has recently been sighted here in Hillsdale, Michigan. Leonard: We did a show about Big Foot. Now, I'm delighted to discover that in some
counties in Washington State, it's illegal to shoot Big Foot. Michael: With the camera. Denise: Hello, Mr. Nimoy. My name is Denise Walton. I'm a sophomore here and I understand that
this will be the last question for the evening. My question stems from some studying I've
been doing in an English literature class. Recently, my English literature class read
words with poem entitled Michael. The fulcrum of that poem was the building
between a father and a son of a pile of rocks which would be a sheep trap when the sun returned
from the city in an attempt to save the family from financial ruin. This pile was a sacred covenant between the
father and son. To simplify the poem, subsequently what happens
is this covenant was broken. The experience of reading this poem was at
in the future, whenever I'll walk through the woods, I guess I'll never look the same
way at a pile of rocks. Earlier, during the course of the interview,
you alluded that your work with The Good Mother puts you in touch with your own sense of loss. My question is two-fold. What experience of a role as an actor or a
director has the biggest impact on your personal life? It touched you or changed you so if you never
perceived in a situation the same way and also, what experience of a role as an actor
or a director had you hoped would have an impact on society? Leonard: Thought-provoking. I've had some extraordinary experiences as
both actor and director but I think I would be evasive if I didn't talk about the Spock
experience because of all the roles that I've played, all of the jobs that I've had as actor
or director obviously has had the most profound effect on both my life and career. The longest lasting effect and very dramatic
the changes that I've experienced as a result of it. It changed me psychologically playing the
character, changed me psychologically. Certainly changed my lifestyle a lot, very
simply it was a first steady job I ever had in my business. I have been making up a living as an actor
and as a teacher for some years before Star Trek came along in 1966. I have never had a job that lasted longer
than 2 weeks. I was a freelance actor meaning that you job
around. You go from job to job. I had never had a job where my name was painted
on the parking space. In most cases, it's put on with chalk if at
all. I starred in a movie in 1951 a little B movie
that was made in 9 days and my dressing room had Jane Nigh's name on a door. You don't even remember who Jane Nigh was. It had a profound effect on me in a lot of
ways and still does. Still does. Coming to the point of this evening, the impact
on a society I think was enormous. I still constantly come up across people who
tell me how much they were affected by the series or the character or both. It's a very proud thing because I think the
effect essentially had been positive. It is sometimes still overwhelming when I
see ... Last night, I was watching 60 Minutes and there was a segment on television over
the years. Here were these very brief flashes of historical
events in television, a historical character in television and there was Spock, my old
buddy like a bang on 60 Minutes. You understand who that is and people understand
where that character fits in the culture and what's that all about. You see Spock for president bumper stickers
during presidential campaigns and people understand that and beam me up Scotty there's no intelligent
life down here that sort of thing. We understand that. It's in the culture. It is in the culture and not necessarily in
a bad way. I think a lot of it is fun, a lot of it is
very healthy because it stands the ... The character stands for I think the dignity for
self realization, for achievement, for intelligence, logic, compassion, a lot of good things. It's had an enormously profound effect on
my life and I'm sure it will indefinitely. Michael: To conclude, to take advantage of
my position here, I want to first of all thank all of the questionnaires as I sort of indicated
to you privately, this is an extraordinary group at Hillsdale. The questionnaires are people who dared boldly
go where no questionnaires had gone before, and obviously not only an extraordinary group
of questionnaires but an extraordinary guest in the presence of Leonard Nimoy ... in the
person of Leonard Nimoy and speaking as a friend of Hillsdale though not quite a member
of the family, I'm sure that I speak for everyone here and expressing thanks to you and the
hope that this will by no means be your last visit to this part of our planet. Leonard: Thank you very much.
