In our previous
SET VISIT report of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL
(DTESS) we chatted with the Special Effects guys, watched a scene being filmed
and addressed my two encounters with star Keanu Reeves. And now it’s off to
interview the stars
KEANU REEVES – JENNIFER CONNELLY and JON HAMM. And director
SCOTT DERRICKSON, producer ERWING STOFF. Will DTESS be the remake to end all remakes? What can we expect? And why now? Read on and find out…
Keanu
Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm, director Scott Derrickson and producer
Erwing Stoff
Can you give a brief indication of what attracted you to the original movie, it’s been 50 years or five decades, that you thought this would be something right now to bring back to the big screen?
SCOTT DERRICKSON: I’m a big fan of the original. I had the chance to meet Robert Wise before he passed away at a film festival when I was actually a film student, and he talked about this film and THE HAUNTING. And DTESS and THE HAUNTING are still my two favorite films as a kid. In the case of DTESS, I think its greatness is pretty self explanatory. It’s one of the first films that real intelligence and
legitimacy to science fiction when sci-fi was certainly less than respected and less intelligence. Also, the other thing, it was such a film of its period and dealt with the current events of its time. It had such a fantastic statement about the global situation at the day it was made. Thinking of it just as a film fan, or a film watcher, also, the whole notion of Gort and Klaatu coming out in a space suites and the ship—I just always loved how there was really a presence of an alien world in our world intermingling of these great things that belonged to each other, but not to the rest of the world. I loved that. Klaatu, his space suite, the ship that he comes in, and Gort himself, are so unreal compared to the real world and they are so tightly bound to each other. When I think about that film at that time, the image always comes to my mind of that trinity and the ship, and Klaatu. And lastly, I think the interplay of the drama in the film, it has real intimate, real sci-fi drama elements to it, but it’s also a very serious character film.
ERWING STOFF: One of the things that I so love about the original movie is that, besides some of the cinematic innovations as far as the imagery that Scott mentioned, is that it was really the only science fiction movie at the time that wasn’t a fear mongering in its themes and its connections. Because most of the other science fiction movies, or most of the science fiction movies at the time really existed to make us afraid of something, to make us afraid of the red menace, to make us afraid of all of the places that science was exploring at the time. They all kind of existed as warnings. This was really the only movie that kind of challenged mankind to be the best version of itself. That’s thematically as unique for this movie as all of the cinematic innovations.
KEANU REEVES : I think a lot of what you guys are talking about are what goes into making it a “classic,” hence, being a part of its time as a classic being able to transcend that. The original presented all of the ambitions and hopes as well.
JENNIFER CONNELLY: I thought that it was just a great idea to do it. I loved the original film. I think that the character of Patricia Neal was so fabulous and I loved seeing this science fiction that film that everyone was so committed to it and took it so seriously, and it was actually really effective as a drama. I thought it was just a really well made film. And at the same time, really fun and exciting, and all these different elements going on at the same time. I really like the way Scott and Erwing and everyone went to contemporize this version of it, I thought it was the same relevant to us today in a way that I felt was very interesting.
JON HAMM: Well, I greatly second what Scott was talking about in the sense of looking at the first film. Science fiction was very much a niche discipline, and this brought that much more to a mass audience, and demonstrated why, in my opinion, science fiction is an important niche because it enables the artist to be subversive in a way when they can’t really be if they’re just laying out stories. By capturing it in terms of aliens coming to the world, you can tell stories that aren’t as approachable and when you certainly take that in terms of the ‘50s, with all the red scare and the cult war, and all of the societal problems that we were going through then, you certainly couldn’t come out and say “Well, maybe the idea of America as the sole power in the world is the best way, maybe there’s a more of a co-operative way we could go about doing things.” But you capture that in to a science fiction aspect, and then it’s not us that’s saying it, it’s these aliens that have this other perspective, and it makes you a little more palpable to everybody. I think our version gets to that as well. It’s a little more excessive to the critical and the may be political incorrect nowadays, but I think the same vibe happens, and by capturing it with a science fiction aspect, it’s a little easier to swallow.
Whose idea was it to make this movie?
SCOTT DERRICKSON: It wasn’t the idea of anybody sitting here. It was a Fox property, and I think they struggled for years to try and find a way to make it work. And working with David Scarf the writer, and I think they really cracked it open and that was the point where they decided to move forward.
ERWING STOFF: The anecdote is this: the making of this version of it and the energy behind it initially was solely Tom Roth. He was the person that really felt a responsibility to try and remake this. He took it as a great personal interest. And I think that you’ll see that all of us find that we are too.
SCOTT DERRICKSON: On that note, one of the things that has been very pleasing for me as the director to observe and experience first hand, is his respect for the original and his respect for the film as a part of the 20th Century Fox legacy. He seems unusually concerned with the overall quality of the whole production. He understands that there’s a certain treading on sacred ground in a remake of a classic, and in this case, a 20th Century Fox classic. For me, as a filmmaker, it’s been great to have somebody up at the top of the food chain to have that much respect for the film that you’re remaking.
Embarking on a project like this, since the original film, so many sci fi movies have copied that film how difficult has it been to make this film fresh?
SCOTT DERRICKSON: It has been difficult. There was a lot of conversations about what we wouldn’t do. We have to take a lot of the familiar science fiction staples and familiar technological ideas and remove them. Ok, we won’t do this and we won’t do this, so what can we do instead? What can we replace that with? And I think we came up with some fresh and innovative ideas. If we do what I think we’re doing, I think it’s going to feel very much connected to the original, but it’s not going to feel very connected to those films that the original spawned. Because I think it is a retelling of that story, but in terms of the science fiction elements themselves, there’s a lot of originality in it.
ERWING STOFF: Yeah, the movie will 100% be recognizable in terms of the original movie. But I think it has been
re-imagined for today.
We’ve heard a little about how this is going to be a ‘green’ movie (environmentally conscious), and can you tell us about the challenges of that and how it has tied in with the methods of the film?
ERWING STOFF: The truth of the matter is, all of that hasn’t really affected our lives. I was called in to a meeting when we first stared preproduction that was a 20th Century Fox Newscorp meeting, and I didn’t realize that the company has a mandate to be a ‘green’ company by 2011. Whether it was because of this movie thematically, or because it was an accident of time or whatever, there were certain things production wise that we’ve been doing and so on, and on a day to day basis it hasn’t really affected our lives. But there are people that we’re aware of around us, saying “no, use these kinds of generators, these kinds of lights, etc..,” but as far as making the movie, it hasn’t really affected us in any way.
What rating are you shooting for?
SCOTT DERRICKSON: I assume that it’s going to be PG-13-
KEANU REEVES: NC-17…
[everyone laughs]
SCOTT DERRICKSON: Yeah, there’s this really strange Klaatu-Helen thing going on here. People will be shocked. [laughs] No, the subject has never really come up, this script has been clearly PG-13 from the beginning.
ERWING STOFF: Yeah, the real sexual tension between Klaatu and Helen—we’re saving that for the sequel.
SCOTT DERRICKSON: In all honesty, the subject has never come up. It’s not an R rated film, I can tell that just by reading the script.
Does Klaatu still say the three famous words in the film?
KEANU REEVES : Yessage. The context is a little inverted, but yes. Actually, that came up when we had the first script meeting, and I said ‘we gotta have that line.’
SCOTT DERRICKSON: I think the draft that we had of the script when Keanu came on board, the line wasn’t there. And I think Keanu was one of the people who said ‘you gotta have that in there.’
Did you look at the [original Klaatu’s name] performance at all to prepare for this role?
KEANU REEVES : Yeah, watching the film a few times in a row, yeah I did. This one is a little more—he was kind of the nice guy who carried a big stick, and I’m not such a nice guy. I’m a little more sinisterish…
SCOTT DERRICKSON: He’s more complex, which I like…
KEANU REEVES : He had such a wonderful ease about him, about that kind of I’m an alien, I’m a human, quality to him that you really believed it. But he was kind of had this amusement and this frustration about him too. You know, there’s that scene where they’re meeting and everyone’s around the saucer, and they’re interviewing everybody and they’re asking if people are afraid, and the guy’s eyes kind of gloss over, and again, that’s an example of how the film is being subversive. So yes and no.
Do you feel any sort of responsibility in stepping in the role that has already been played by such great actors?
JENNIFER CONNELLY: Actually, they did such marvelous work, and I really loved what Patricia Neal did, and I thought she was marvelous. But for me, I’m a little bit off the hook—I don’t want to be bad, but my character has been reconfigured so much in terms of my vocation and what I do and my purpose. Maybe not in the larger sense of the film, but really the character has a different kind of job in this version of it—much more character filled, and to me she feels much quite different than Patricia Neal’s character. It’s really a departure. But I aspire not to disappoint people. And I’m approaching it with the utmost respect for what she did.
The original film had themes of Christianity and the second coming of Jesus—to what degree does this version have of those themes?
SCOTT DERRICKSON: It’s built into the narrative almost inextricably to the degree that it’s in the original it’s in ours, though probably not as direct or as obvious. There’s some 400 pound metaphors in the original that we don’t have in this one. Of course, he [Keanu] has done that before, too.
KEANU REEVES : There are Christian themes throughout the film.. but it’s so obvious here. I’m not named Carpenter…
SCOTT DERRICKSON: Yeah, things like that… it’s in there in the same narrative fashion as the original, which is one of the appealing things about it. It’s one of the things that, when it was done, with the exception of the Mr. Carpenter aspect, done in a way that was pretty elegant. If you look at THE MATRIX, or ET, or BRAVEHEART, or these films that have that sort of basic Christ-myth narrative, the strong story telling narrative that resonates with people. The popular version.
Can you tell us about working with John Cleese?
SCOTT DERRICKSON: Oh, he was fantastic. We shot with him last week, he wrapped him on Friday. He was fantastic. It’s quite a thing to have such an amazing guy come to the set—everybody loved him. People were sad when he left. Literally, the crew was grieving when he was leaving the set because he is so funny, and so full of life, and yet the character that he plays was quite serious, and I think he really liked that, he’s fiercely intelligent, and he greatly appreciated the opportunity to demonstrate what he can do as an actor as well.
ERWING STOFF: It was genuinely the most difficult role to cast. He struggled casting that role for months and months, and he was the first person we offered it to.
SCOTT DERRICKSON: We never found somebody else that we wanted and couldn’t get, we just couldn’t figure out who could do it.
ERWING STOFF: It was just the most difficult role to cast. When it popped up, it was like ‘who would you rather make the argument for mankind than John Cleese?’
How has it been like working with Jaden Smith? Can you tell us about your characters?
JENNIFER CONNELLY: I love it. It’s a really difficult part. Part of it is our little story within the story, a mother and son who are in conflict, and to have stagnated in their relationship, and it begins to sort of coming to a crisis point. And something has to shift, something has to move, and we have a bunch of scenes that are filled with tension and unresolved difficulty and you want to hope that they’re going to work it out and there will be a transition. It’s a difficult to find a kid who can create that and yet you still want to root for. Who can be at odds with his mom, and be bratty with his mom at times, and for them to mix—but you always like despite it. Jayden is just so charming, and he’s interesting, and so beautiful, and he really draws you in, and you really root for him and you really like him, and you really want things to go well for him. There’s a real beautiful quality to him. He’s a huge asset, I think. He’s great. And he’s fun, he’s a real kid. He comes to work, he likes working, but he’s a real kid.
Jon, can you tell us a bit about your character?
JON HAMM: I play Michael Granier, who leads the scientist team who tries and figures out this issue that has descended up on the earth. As it stands now, there appears to be some sort of back-story between Helen and I, which plays out a little bit throughout the film, but for the most part, I’m reacting to a lot of these things that have happened, and am trying to make a lot of sense out of these things that I can. I’m standing in place of the audience, reacting to what’s going on. It’s been interesting. My time on set has been limited so far, I’ve been on an airplane a lot more than I’ve been on set, back and forth, but the whole experience so far has been pretty amazing, working with the people I get to work with—Jaden included. I can’t second what Jenn said any more, he is truly astonishing for a 9 year old. It’s been great to work with all these people, and watch all of it happen—which is a lot of what my character does, just watch all that happens.
Moving from THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE to DTESS, can you talk about why you chose this film? How do you go about choosing a project?
SCOTT DERRICKSON: I have a simple thing in mind to
whatever the follow up film would be. I wanted to do something that wasn’t
either really in the fully commercial realm or the really commercial realm. You
know, it wasn’t just a commercial money making venture, or an independent
personal artistic merit movie. I really wanted to find something that I felt
people would go see and would be a commercial film, and that would some creative
and artistic merit to it. So the projects that I’ve developed, and the stuff
I’ve tried to put together, and everything that I’ve worked on since have been
that, and this film is really the impediment of that. Because it’s obviously a big movie and would be a very commercial movie and people will want to see, but when I read the script, the general approach of it is about some important things, and there‘s no greater argument for remaking the original than the fact that the original was such a product of it’s time, and we’re in a different time, and we’re in a different time, and updating it for this time is a really worth venture. And so the combination of the meaning of the, the aesthetic reasons and the thematic possibilities were so rich, and at the same time, it’s a big movie that people will go see. And I found that
so satisfying that it was not a hard choice to do.
Do you take any lessons from other remakes that didn’t fare too well, like THE INVASION?
SCOTT DERRICKSON: I can’t take any lessons from it because I didn’t see it.
ERWING STOFF: I didn’t see THE INVASION either. But, having said that, the one thing that you want to be sure of with any movie, is that you’re not simply building a house, that it’s on a foundation, that it rests on a foundation that is solid and that has a reason for existing. Those movies that are built don’t come out. The lesson period, is know why you’re making a movie, and there’s always been, on a difficult day, which exists on any movie, that there’s always something to go back to. And that you can always go back to the reason that got you to do it in the first place. And that’s the thing that gets you through a difficult day.
SCOTT DERRICKSON: That’s interesting too. I didn’t see THE INVASION because I think we were already in prep on this movie at that point, but one of the things I remembered saying to Erwing, is that I felt that a fairly worthy target for this movie as a remake of Philip Kaufman’s remake INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. I didn’t see the original until after that, as a kid at the drive-in. Made a huge impression on me, it was a strange and creepy movie for me for how ever old I was at the time. So I watched it again since and then I saw the original film, and Kaufman’s remake was a great update of that original film in terms of taking the same original story and retelling it for it’s time. I had that updating in mind for the comparison of this film.
Jennifer, how has it been working with Scott? Have you made a lot of suggestions as to how some scenes should play out?
JENNIFER CONNELLY: Usually it pertains to me and to understand what I’m doing. And the goal of reading the script is to always to convince myself and be convincing on screen. So in that instance, there are things that aren’t fully articulated in the script that Scott will have in mind, so in that instance there was a time lapse that I didn’t know and plan in-between, and sometimes there are things that are changed slightly. So I was just checking with him about what we were cutting to make sure, so that I knew what I was walking into and to what was in-between. But I think that we’re all pretty collaborative. I do get pretty excessive when I’m working, and I can’t stop reading the script, and so I do often come up with thoughts that are really horrible, and sometimes they’re hopefully constructive, but of course, I approach everything from my character’s point of view, which is a different way than Scott might. And Scott has been really marvelous in entertaining those thoughts, considering and having a lot of discussions and making some interesting choices in that collaboration.
ERWING STOFF: One of the things that has made this fun and great and less stressful than usual is weirdly, for some reason, the larger the movie is, the greater the chances the script isn’t done by the time you start shooting. It’s completely counter-intuitive. It just seems that the more a studio spends on a movie, the more flux the script is in, and more is being written on the fly and so on and so forth. For a number of reasons. A) cause a great job was done on the script, B) because of the impending writer’s strike, we were dealing with an absolute deadline. We actually had the enormous advantage and pleasure that, by the time we started to shoot, we had a finished locked done script. And so for a movie of this size, it’s completely counterintuitive, that’s a very unusual thing. And since we had a script that was done, it freed everybody to ask a lot of questions ask more questions, because we were working within a structure that was really full and complete.
How are you approaching the technology aspects of this movie? Can you tell us a bit about the space ship and the alien technology?
SCOTT DERRICKSON: I wanted to avoid making this movie about technology, or at least technology as we think of it. I think that science fiction, certainly for the last number of decades, has been fixated on that. This movie isn’t about laser blasters and high tech versions that take our current technology to its furthest imagination, as far as the imagination can carry it. We went in a direction that was taking the science fiction more seriously and more biologically and try and think of it as a more naturalistic term. That an advanced civilization would move beyond hardware and that spawned a lot of interesting ideas that ended up forming the aesthetic of the movie. That’s where this film, as a science fiction film, has the most uniqueness to it, there’s something that separates it from the other films.
Where does Klaatu get his ‘human’ clothes and look?
ERWING STOFF: It’s what the guy who he appropriates was wearing. So, you have to start with the reality of what would this public servant be wearing. And, as in the original, he appropriates his suit and that’s that, and it’s the suit that he wears throughout the entire movie.
How is Gort used in this film?
ERWING STOFF: He’s used to the same ends as he is in the original movie. Again, it’s the one thing that I don’t really want to get into cause I think it’s really one of the smart and ingenious things that has been done in the reimagining of Gort. But having said that, he plays the same role that he does in the original, in terms of what his power for destruction is, and he has the capability to end it all. And also, one of the things that’s great about the original, is there’s actually a physical relationship that exists between Gort and Klaatu. In watching the movie when we began to talk about Gort, we realized that it was actually a part of the time, it’s the tie and relationship that exists between them—in a more simplistic level, he’s Klaatu’s muscle, standing there behind him. In that sense, we’ve re-imagined him in terms of what’s possible to do today, and also the other thing we also did, we realized that Gort, Klaatu, and the Space Ship, those are the three entities that all exists from a different planet, they all have to have a relationship with each other—both in terms of technology, they’re texture, they’re materials, everything about them, very much like they do in the original. It’s sort of hokey when we look at it today, but the production designer of the original knew that these three things had to fit together, and in that respect, we did the same thing.
How big is Gort? Will he still be a Cyclops?
ERWING STOFF: He is large. But he won’t be a Cyclops. But again, like many things in this movie, Gort will be recognizable to you from the original movie.
Have you shot any scenes abroad?
ERWING STOFF: Yes. We are shooting sequences all over the globe.
Does this version of the story closely related to the original short story that the original was based on, or is it solely a remake of the film?
ERWING STOFF: No, it is not. We really just dealt with the existing movie and screenplay. The funny thing is, when somebody was asking about the inception of this, it was absolutely Tom Rothman was the motor, and the funny thing is, about 15 years ago when Keanu did SPEED for Fox, there was a different head of production at the studio at the time and he had a poster of DTESS behind his desk, and the weekend after SPEED opened and it was a big hit, and everybody was celebrating and patting each other on the back, and so on, and I looked up at the poster, and I said to the then president at Fox, ‘we should remake that with Keanu playing Klaatu.’ And then it was sort of one of those things, he wound up loosing his job, everybody got busy, etc… and it was one of those weird thing that all of these years later it came to pass. It’s just one of those funny things.
What does Keanu bring to the role of Klaatu that makes him perfect for this role?
ERWING STOFF: Obviously, I thought he brought something very specific, because I said it 15 years ago. What I thought it was, was a sort of innate curiosity/naïve take that is tempered by a certain degree of
cynicism and spirituality. You know the guy knows way more than we do about we do about the large picture, but way less than we do about the world that we’re in. And I thought those were qualities that would be interesting that could be brought to the character.
I’d like to thank Melinda Wood for setting up the set visit, as well as the whole cast and crew of DTESS who were cool enough to let us
interrupt their daily routine to ask a bunch of questions. Watch for THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL in theaters everywhere December 12th, 2008!