Exclusive
Interview
| Crosses, Clowns
and Low-Budget Filmaking: Talking with Tommy Lee Wallace
Written by: Kage
Alan
I rented “Vampires: Los Muertos” the week it
premiered on DVD and was in the middle of writing my review when I
started listening to the commentary by Director Tommy Lee Wallace.
My curiosity grew as several questions came to mind that
didn’t get answered, so I did the only thing I could.
I dug around on the Internet, found the director’s website
and wrote him an e-mail. Now,
considering his resume (“Halloween III”, “Fright Night 2”,
“Stephen King’s IT” and a number of others) and the fact he
would probably be working on a new project, I didn’t expect that he
would be particularly accessible, but a response was waiting for me
the very next day. A
couple of conversations later, Tommy graciously agreed to an interview
to discuss his latest release.
It’s important to note here that while Tommy
speaks candidly about his experiences during the preproduction,
production and postproduction of “Vampires: Los Muertos”, it is in
the spirit of his own personal observations and not in any way, shape
or form as a disgruntled director criticizing the studio, Screen Gems.
He makes sure to point out, in all fairness, that the studio
may view events differently than he does.
KA: In your audio
commentary on “Vampires: Los Muertos”, you state that there were
things you would have liked to have done in the film, but couldn’t
due to budgetary reasons, and I believe there were things you said you
did do and would have liked included in the film that were ultimately
left out. Screen Gems
made the decision to leave that material out, but since you wrote the
script and they gave it the green light, what were their expectations
for the film versus your own?
TLW: Well, let me
give you the brief overview of how this thing works.
You’ve got a somewhat successful film in “John
Carpenter’s Vampires”, budget of 20+ million dollars, that went
out there and did enough business to warrant a sequel.
However, because it wasn’t a blockbuster hit, the way the
sequel came about was with a very modest budget of right at 6 million
dollars, so whoever is given the job of making that movie is not going
to be able to duplicate the effects and the punch of the first one.
You know, the first
people who are going to be interested in this movie are those who
enjoyed “Vampires”, so there’s an expectation level at work.
I’m going to have to develop a style that somehow, a little
slight of hand if you will, allows the audience to get into the spirit
of the original movie while not maintaining the same expectations.
For me, that meant establishing a rough and tumble style that
is fun and interesting with a good yarn and some engaging characters,
but which right away is going to have to be somewhat funkier, meaning
cheaper, but just as appealing. So
this involved the creation of a style.
Now, because I come out of really, really low budget horror
movies like “Halloween”, I’m not afraid of that.
I understand the audience.
They aren’t counting the dollars on the screen.
They just want engaging characters and a good story, so I felt
like I had a good crack at that.
It seems as though, in
the beginning, the studio and I were on the same page.
Now that I look back on it, it probably should have been a lot
messier because I have the feeling that they weren’t paying as much
attention to the script as they might have been.
What it seemed like at the time was that they were very
enthusiastic about my ideas, my input, my script, my take on the
material and they approved the script I wrote without much
disagreement.
KA: They didn’t
ask for any specific changes at all?
TLW: Not to speak
of, really negligible, the kind of things that makes every writer just
happy as a lark because what you think you’re being told is “We
approve of everything”. So, I got an approved script, which gave a nod or a tip of
the hat to the first film, but took off…
I started to say took off in a new direction, but in fact
direction was very important. When
we left the characters of the first film, they were headed south and
so I took my entire movie south of the border into Mexico so that we
could have an adventure down there.
Now this concept was built around filming entirely in Mexico
with almost everyone involved coming from the Mexican side.
This was a calculated attempt to hold the budget down, but it
was also an aesthetic choice to continue John Carpenter’s Western
concept. There are just
unbelievable locations and geographies of old forts down in Mexico
that are pretty fresh to American eyes, that haven’t been explored
or exploited yet, and this excited me very much.
I felt like that was kind of my ace in the hole.
Because Mexico affords all these colorful and wonderful and
interesting new possibilities, I felt like I was putting a lot on the
screen for not much money.
So, the concept from the
get go was make a movie in Mexico.
What happened then was that it was a big roll of the dice
because that meant the entire crew, special effects, stunts, director
of photography, first AD, everybody basically but the producer and
myself came from Mexico and that meant we were throwing ourselves on
the mercy of many unknown quantities.
And, in the end, some of them worked out fine and some of them
came up a little short.
KA: Was
there a language barrier problem at all?
TLW: No,
virtually none. My
Spanish is terrible, but so many of the Mexican producers and
crewmembers were fluent in English and they helped us tremendously in
that regard. The
shortcomings that we encountered were simply issues of experience more
than any other thing. You
can take people who’ve never gone through the process before and,
given sufficient amount of time, you can train them and help them
along and things can come out fine.
Unfortunately, we found ourselves not only in a situation where
we had several inexperienced people in positions of great
responsibility, but we were under a time crunch too. It was just that unfortunate fact that something’s got to
give somewhere. For me,
where it suffered the most was in terms of getting good fun,
hard-nosed action up on the screen.
KA: I remember
during the commentary that you mentioned you had hoped to do a couple
of additional shots here and there, like in the church sequence I
believe.
TLW: I just
wanted lots more vampire burns and lots more fancy stunts and lots
more fighting and blood, guts and gore, thrills and chills and, in the
end, the budget just didn’t allow it.
We did the best we could and I think, in fact, my producer,
Jack Lorenz, said on many occasions that the studio got more than they
had any right to expect. We
were very clever and we used the money wisely.
There just wasn’t enough of it.
The ambition outstripped what we could finally come up with, so
that was a disappointment. That’s
no one’s fault, really. To
me, there was a very critical point when the studio could have gotten
a surefire feature release just by coughing up a very modest
additional amount of money. By
that point, their faith in the film was zero, so they didn’t choose
to do anything like that.
KA: When you say
that their faith in the film was zero, was that because they weren’t
happy with what you’d done or they weren’t paying attention to
what you’d done? Where
did that come from?
TLW: During the
shooting of the film, I believe they had faith in the script and I’m
sure they had their fingers crossed that Jack and I were working
miracles down in Mexico and I believe, for the most part, they liked
the dailies they were seeing. What
happened was when they saw the rough cut, because I broke my own
personal rule and allowed them to see cut material early, and lost all
faith in the film and believed that they were sitting on a turkey.
Also, because we were in
Mexico, we enjoyed a level of autonomy during shooting that many, many
films don’t get. That
has a good side and that has a bad side.
It means that Jack and I were able to make our decisions on the
fly that allowed us to get what we got, which I’m very proud of,
without a lot of committee discussions and second guessing from
upstairs. On the other
hand, that means that commitments we made to the film’s style and
the film’s way of presenting itself were deeply ingrained by the
time the studio had any notion of what we were doing.
In truth, though, I
don’t think the studio would look at it in those terms at all.
I believe their reaction was that although it was a beautiful
movie and moved along pretty well, that in the end there were several
key performances that didn’t come up to snuff.
I want to hasten to add that they were very happy with Jon Bon
Jovi. I thought he did just great and I’m very proud of him and I
think that he carried the film extremely well.
Like I said, the studio felt some disappointment in certain
other performances and I’m not going to mention names.
KA: I would think
that with your background as a director that they would have had faith
in the film based on your past and previous history as well.
TLW: They
didn’t know who I was. I
got the gig because of John Carpenter and Sandy King, his wife.
KA: I don’t
know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
TLW: It wasn’t
a good thing or a bad thing. It
was just a thing. I was
kind of surprised that they apparently didn’t know me from Adam even
though I have done several things in the horror field worthy of note,
but I was happy to get the gig and it didn’t bother me too much.
It was just a hard cold fact.
Now that same reaction and that same lack of understanding of
my filmmaking, turned out to be my undoing later on.
KA: How so?
TLW: The fact
that the people in charge of the studio had no special regard for my
filmmaking history, for the work I’d done, meant that I don’t
think they really got the kind of film I was trying to make.
They certainly didn’t get my quirky approach to horror films,
my insistence that a horror film be fun, my insistence that a horror
film bring with it some kind of twisted sense of humor.
They didn’t get any of that.
KA: They were
looking for more of a straight up piece?
TLW: When I
mentioned that I thought it was important that the film be fun, the
response was: “This film is not supposed to be fun.
This film is just supposed to be scary.” I knew I was in
trouble right then. Real
horror fans know that the two work together.
Even very serious films, I mean films that are deadly, deadly
serious, have comic relief. The
thing that they apparently did not understand was that it helps to
have a thread of humor to help set up the scary stuff.
You see, in the end, I was on very thin ice with a film that
had several shortcomings in terms of performance, we were very thin in
terms of the action we had to work with and action scenes we had to
work with. What we had
going for us was a powerful leader, a good solid story, a wonderful
villain and a fantastic setting with several interesting gimmicks,
including the whole idea of vampirism as a blood disease.
These were the elements we had to work with and I needed
complete freedom to present my little patched together creation with
all its strengths in the forefront and all its weaknesses pulled to
the rear. The people I
was answering to hated the film, hated the performances, hated
everything about it and therefore their strategies for presenting it
were very different than mine were.
KA: Which is a
shame to hear. I think I
ended up watching the film three times while writing my review and I
couldn’t pinpoint any one absolutely terrible performance in it.
You had the strong leader you were talking about and you had
the female vampire lead (Arly Jover) who I though carried her weight
very well. She was very
physical, she had the walk down and she had the act down.
As far as his crew went, I thought Diego Luna was very
watchable too.
TLW: What
you’re telling me is encouraging because it means not only did my
efforts pay off, but the studio’s efforts paid off.
Their greatest concerns were to protect the performances and
make all the characters come off okay.
I’ve seen many films which were fine, which parts of might
have even been excellent, but I’ve seen many films marred by
insecure postproduction, where someone in charge feels uneasy and
doesn’t have the patience or the confidence in the film to let it
find its own natural rhythms and to stand out there on its own.
As a result, you frequently get lots of hard cutting and
bombastic music that’s inappropriate in places.
Now, I’m speaking in generalities here about lots of film
that strike me that way and when I see it, I point at the screen and
say “That’s insecure filmmaking.” Someone wasn’t sure or
wasn’t confident enough to just let the film play and I think there
was some element of that here. How
much of it, only the audience can say. I would be the worst critic, naturally. Perhaps it plays okay for an audience.
KA: You
mentioned that you felt the film was thin on action.
Going into watching it, I knew that this was direct-to-video,
it’s not going to have the kind of budget the first one did, but
when you got to action sequences, it seemed you made up for them in
other areas. For
instance, the eyepiece that Jon Bon Jovi uses to detect if a person is
human or a vampire. That
was clever.
TLW: Yeah, fun
stuff, interesting stuff that created this unique world.
KA: And I
thought that helped because when you did get to an action sequence, it
was like “oh, this is really cool”. When it was over, everything
was leading up to the next one. You
spaced it out enough, you kept things moving forward and that worked.
Was anything left out?
TLW: There were a
couple of real gorefest scenes that were not included.
The studio was uneasy about them, not because of the gore, but
because of the phony factor, the uneasiness with a rubber head for
example or that sort of thing. I
didn’t share their uneasiness.
I really wanted to go ahead and play a couple of gorier scenes.
In both cases, they were designed to underline how ferocious
these vampires really were and I think they could have worked out
fine. I believe horror
audiences, in fact, are quite forgiving if a thing is done with some
style. Hey, we all know
those are rubber heads even when it’s “Alien”, even when it’s,
you know, Coppola’s “Dracula”.
We still know it’s fake.
It’s just how fake does it look?
If it’s a major distraction, okay fine, better not put it in
the movie. But on a
low-budget horror film, I maintain that the audiences are pretty
forgiving if it’s pulled off with some panache and style and a sense
of fun and that’s where the studio and I really differed
dramatically.
KA: If this
does well for them on video and DVD, was there anything ever said or
mentioned that they might perhaps revisit it and give you a
director’s cut of it?
TLW: No.
You know, anything is possible, but with the people responsible
for getting it out there, I wouldn’t expect so.
KA: Did you
ever have your first initial cut of it?
TLW: Oh, yes, and
the first cut actually was still too long.
It needed trimming and the studio and I collaborated on a lot
of trims, which really helped the film and lifted it and gave it a
great deal of energy. The
disappointing part came really toward the very end of the editing
process when I had a cut I was happy with and the powers that be
agreed with me that we would preview that cut and try it out and then
they reneged on that promise.
KA: Did they
give you a reason for that?
TLW: No.
In other words, at the 11th hour, they decided to
pull rank instead of following through with the more time honored
filmmaking process.
KA: Out of
curiosity, had Executive Producer John Carpenter seen your cut of the
film?
TLW: John saw my
cut and was very supportive, really enjoyed it and would, I believe,
have gone to bat for my cut over the studio cut, except for the fact
that… Well, timing is
everything and “Ghosts of Mars” came out at a critical moment in
this drama. When
“Ghosts of Mars” came out and didn’t do well at the box office,
the studio was no longer interested in what John had to say.
Remember too that “Ghosts of Mars” was also a Screen Gems
film.
KA: I’m glad
that he would have gone to bat for you.
The fact that he suggested you for directing the film and has
the faith in you says a lot about the friendship.
TLW: John and
Sandy have both provided me with several opportunities along the way
for which I’m deeply grateful.
KA: Going back
to your commentary, you state that you and other directors don’t
like the word “sequel”.
TLW: Other than
the fact a “go” picture is always a good thing for a film
director, having a Roman numeral after the title or having some
indication that you’re doing a sequel does put some kind of asterisk
next to the movie that no director is in a big hurry to embrace.
That’s just a fact. Name
your favorite sequel. I’d
say mine was “The Godfather Part II” and why was it so great?
Well, it was so great because the entire talent pool that
created “The Godfather” went and did a second part.
That’s generally not the case with sequels.
Sequels are looked upon
most of the time as kind of the stepsister, the stepchild, of the
first one. They’re not
going to get as big a budget and almost never will they be provided
with the same tools that the first filmmaker was given and, as a
result, why should it be any surprise that they are usually not that
great? There are some
notable exceptions of course. I
think the “Alien” series is a place where there were some pretty
worthy sequels. There are
studios who have understood certain franchises.
I guess it wouldn’t be fair to call the James Bond series a
bunch of sequels because each one is a title in its own right, but I
think there are sequels out there where they’ve gotten the formula
down, they’ve figured out how much money they need and they provide
it. You get an
enthusiastic filmmaker and you can come up big, but I think that’s
the exception rather than the rule.
Generally, studios are out to make a buck and a sequel is
generally a guarantee for of a good couple of weekends at the box
office.
KA: I think
the recent “Halloween: Resurrection” did $30 million at the box
office.
TLW: The
“Halloween” franchise will never die as long as Moustapha Akkad is
around. I was talking to
him on the phone some time back and I said “My God, haven’t you
had enough of Michael Myers?” and he just chortled and said “Hell
no! ‘The Shape’ will
never die. It’s a
goldmine.” I think those were his exact words.
“It’s a goldmine.” You know, it’s a funny thing, but I
think there will always be an audience of some kind out there for
movies in which the point is to scare the hell out of you.
KA: Yes, but
at that point, though, with 10 in the “Friday the 13th”
series and 8 in “Halloween”, is it really still scary anymore?
TLW: Maybe not to
you, but, I don’t know, who’s going to see these movies?
Maybe it’s a new audience?
I mean, after all, there are rock n’ roll groups that might
as well be called sequels because the personnel have changed so much
and they’re playing to brand new audiences, people who are sixteen,
eighteen-years-old who weren’t there for the first go round.
KA: Do you
think Screen Gems is hoping to make a franchise out of the
“Vampires” series?
TLW: I don’t
know how to answer that. I
think the ideal was that it would be a sort of anthology series with a
vampire hunting team that you could spin out for years and years and
years. “Vampires: Los
Muertos” was supposed to be a feature film and it was supposed to go
out there and do at least a couple of weekends of decent box office.
Now that this is the way it turned out, I don’t know what
their plans are. I would
imagine that there’s not a great deal of enthusiasm now.
Maybe later.
KA: I would
even think that the studio would approach a channel like Sci-Fi that
thrives on these kinds of movies and do a premier of your film at some
point.
TLW: Of course.
I don’t really understand how it all works or how it all fits
together, but definitely the 500 channel universe has a huge impact on
decision making these days.
KA: And
aren’t you working on a new project for the Sci-Fi Channel?
TLW: Yes, indeed.
I am adapting a wonderful novel that would be familiar to
Science Fiction fans. It’s
called “The Left Hand of Darkness” by Ursula K. Le Guin and I’m
just thrilled to be involved in this project.
For anyone who hasn’t read the novel, it’s a complete world
that Ms. Le Guin creates off in outer space and everyone who lives
there is a hermaphrodite, meaning a person of both sexes, and it’s
just amazing and quite intriguing and very special and I hope I can do
it justice. It’s going
to be a 2-night mini-series and I don’t want to say too much more.
I am being considered to direct, but no guarantees.
We’ll see.
KA: You’ve
had good luck with mini-series so far.
“Stephen King’s IT” scared the hell out of me, even for a
TV movie, which is pretty rare.
TLW: Good!
My daughter says I helped to ruin clowns for a whole
generation.
KA: And the
Sci-Fi Channel has really been getting into the mini-series format
lately, especially with “Frank Herbert’s Dune”.
TLW: It’s very
difficult to make television, even if it’s present day just ordinary
sets and ordinary exteriors. To
try and do something special with creative effects and futuristic
ideas is just an extraordinarily difficult effort and I know Ian
Valentine and all the people at Sci-Fi are working very hard to pull
all these things off and more power to them.
KA: Do you
find that working in television is a little easier than doing a film? I noticed you have a number of television credits.
TLW: It’s
faster. Decisions are
made quicker and it’s more satisfying from a point of view of
someone who’s impatient and who wants to get a movie started and get
underway. It’s much
faster, but easier? No. It’s all very difficult. Generally, a feature film gives
you more time, what every director wants, more time and perhaps a few
more toys to play with, more tools.
More time both in shooting and planning and, of course, in the
cutting room, so it’s a trade off.
KA: Wrapping
up the conversation about “Vampires: Los Muertos”, at the very end
of your commentary, you say somebody would have to be crazy to want to
get into the film business. You’ve
been doing it for 20 years now. What
keeps you going?
TLW: Well, when
everything is working, when everything is firing on all cylinders,
it’s just the greatest thing in the world to make a movie.
Many are the times I’ve leaned over to a colleague on the set
and smiled and said “Do you realize they’re paying us for this?”
because it’s something most of the people I know who are involved,
if they could afford to, would do for free because.
It’s fun and it’s exciting and it’s creatively
challenging. It’s all
the wonderful things. Having
said that, those moments I’m describing are exceedingly rare and so
much of the rest of the time you’re dealing with colossal mountains
of bullshit and that truly is what they’re paying us for.
I’m staying in it
because I don’t think I’ve done my best work yet.
I’m hoping fervently to keep going and get two or three of my
favorite projects, my most heartfelt projects, before the public.
If Tommy Lee
Wallace maintains the same kind of persistence and quality of work
that audiences have seen from him so far, there’s no doubt that he
will continue to succeed and eventually see his favorite projects
given life on the big screen. I
would like to extend a sincere thank you to him for taking time out of
his busy schedule to indulge my questions and shed some light on a
side of filmmaking that many of us may never be lucky enough to
experience ourselves.
COMMENTS
Date/Time of Posting: Nov 17 2002 / 14:48:12
IP Address: 12.249.8.40
name = ML
where =
comments = Excellent interview. Intelligent, insightful questions.
Keep up the good work.
|
