Monster House – Director
|
Staci Layne Wilson reporting.
Q: You look like you're one of the cast kids – do you get that a lot?
Gil: [mimics baby crying] Wah, wah! [laughter] People ask me for coffee a lot. I do get that every once in a while. [Beat] Can I get you guys anything? Everyone comfortable? OK…
Q: Did the kids ever have to rein you in on the set?
Gil: There definitely was goofing around on the set, but I think part of why I was so successful in working with them in because I was so able to relate to them on a non-grownup telling them to "do their homework", but actually understanding what their story is about. I think for me it was so important that the kids and I had a rapport that was not like a parent-child but kind of a sense of play. A little bit.
Q: Your movie uses a lot of zooms – any significance to that?
Gil: Well, I'm kind of obsessed with Robert Altman's Popeye [laughs] – no one in my life understands why I like the movie, but I really think that there is an emotional power to a zoom. I feel like it adds a lot of strength, and so I don't think I got carried away… I think that for some reason in the 80s people started feeling like zoom was a dirty word, and so I'm really happy to be bringing it back. I'm proud! [laughs]
Q: What kinds of references to have to other films in the movie?
Gil: It's funny… OK, I'll throw out all of my references on the table, but none of them were spot-on in the movie. For instance, A Nightmare on
Q: Do think this movie could have that affect on kids?
Gil: I don't know. I guess all I can do is hope. But you can't think about that when you're making a movie. All you can do is tell a story and I think it's like… If I thought about that while I was making it, I would either go crazy or make something horrible. So, I don't think that that factors into my head.
Q: Do you think the movie is too scary for really young kids?
Gil: It's PG, which I guess surprised me; I didn't really think about rating when I made the movie, but I did think that I wanted this movie but I think that I wanted this movie to play for kids. No every kid; I think in order for this movie to make sense for the older kids it had to scare their toddler brother or sister too much to see the movie. [laughs] So I would say, like six is a healthy age, but then again I've been to test screenings over the last few weeks where four-year-olds are like totally kicking ass and watching the movie the whole way through. I really think that every kid is so different, that… I just haven't met a six year old yet who's been too scared during the movie. So for me, that seems like a really healthy median. It's pretty awesome to see something that I had a hunch confirmed in the screenings: kids are really brave and really smart, and they have just been like pandered to for so long that when something comes along that actually pushes their buttons and challenges to them, they totally rise to the occasion. They are so right there with the movie, it's gratifying for me to watch that happen. I knew, as a kid, when I movie didn't baby itself down for me — I knew that those movies were better and cooler. Those were the movies that I always sunk my teeth into. That just hasn't happened in awhile. For some reason, we've had this total deintensification [sic] and de-toothing of what a family movie is.
Q: So parents like it, too? Do they jump?
Gil: Yeah. Yeah, that's just like… an added bonus. [laughs] I was just really happy that I was able to make something that doesn't hold back.
Q: What does it look like in 3-D? Are the 'jumps' bigger?
Gil: It's crazy in 3-D. Especially towards the end, as the house starts to uproot in the entire battle. I'm really proud of the 3-D version for a couple of reasons. One, it's a watchable 3-D movie throughout, and it doesn't screw with your head. The other reason is, the more the story gets insane and intense, so does the depth on the screen. So by the end, by the time of the battle, the house feels like it's 100 feet tall and it's totally coming out around the audience and stuff.
Q: Obviously your producers, Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis buy into the idea that kids like to get scared in the movies; how involved were they in the process?
Gil: Well, spiritually in giving me the confidence to know that I could scare the hell out of the kids [laughs] was really, really important. Both of them, at various points, had given me that confidence, that pat on the back and saying, 'Don't hold back, you don't need to baby this, because the kids are going to love it.' That meant a lot. So that would be the spiritual involvement. The more practical involvement was like, I had a cut of this thing or whenever I had a question, they were always there for me over the course of the three years. So I would have these really amazing, abstract moments where I'd be screening this rough cut and the lights would come up in theater and it would be me, Robert Zemeckis and Steven Speilburg sitting in a small theater and we would talk about this crazy little movie that I was making. We'd talk for two hours, and I wanted to pinch myself.
Q: Did they ever make you cut back anything that was too scary?
Gil: No, that didn't happen. It think it really was about, like, they had a lot of really amazing insight about structure and stuff. I feel like I have learned so much… they really were like mentors on this film. They gave me advice when I asked for it and when I needed it, and when it was time for me to make my movie they gave the elbow room to do it. So I had a dream experience — I just couldn't imagine it being any better.
Q: I can't imagine getting structure notes from Steven Spielberg!
Gil: Whenever they would give me a note, I would pretty much absorb it and also I would just learn so much from each one. I feel like I really just got the most amazing post- film school experience [laughs].
Q: Is the movie in 2- and 3-D in different theaters?
Gil: I think the goal was to put it on as many screens as possible in 3-D, and there are 3-D screens "across the nation" [but not every theater will have it in 3-D]. We've gotten I think 80 more than Chicken Little had when it opened a year ago, and it just keeps growing. Now the digital cinema initiative is finally taking hold so by the next digital release, if Monster House is re-leased next Halloween, or the one after that, there will be 1,000 3-D instead of the almost 200 that we have now.
Q: Do you really think that 3-D could make a comeback?
Gil: You know, I don't think they movie should be 3-D. It needs to be a movie that's spectacle, that has the whole ride, in order for it to warrant being in 3-D, but I do think that everyone's looking for a reason to go to a movie theater instead of just sitting at home being fed microchip flavored movies. And so, I think that for the movies that really do demand a theatrical experience, and if the 3-D technology is available and the 3-D screens are available, it's an amazing medium. It does give you a different feeling of being in the theater; it does give you less of a feeling of passively watching the screen and more of one that you are a part of the story. So I am a huge fan of 3-D in the right circumstance. I think that Monster House definitely has to be 3-D because it's a monster movie and it's an adventure, and because it's a ride, and you know, I hope to be as an audience member watching many more 3-D movies.
Q: Please talk about working with your DP, Xavier Pérez Grobet.
Gil: Yes! Javier is a genius. I hired him specifically because I wanted to bring someone into the critical… Javier was my director of photography. And the reason I brought him on, was because he'd shot one of the most beautiful, emotional films, Before Night Falls. It was shot in
Q: Was Nick Cannon's character scripted, or was it mostly improvised?
Gil: His stuff was actually always really funny on the page; it's not like it said, "Officer Lister says something funny here, fill in the blanks on set." It was just about what we were able to do with his process, because I had all the actors physically there in the space playing off of each other. It meant that I could be looser when the scene called for it. Nick Cannon got a lot into the character, and definitely created an alter ego on the set which was pretty hilarious to me. But that sense of exploration of character is a big part of how we made the movie, so it's hard to answer that with a straight answer.
Q: Your movie The Lark has to do with a spirit embodying a building. Do you think that can happen?
Gil: Yeah. In The Lark it's a little bit more than a metaphor than an actual spirit; the house is just a physical extension of the emotional state of one of the characters who lives in the house. And I definitely believe that's the case. I believe that our houses are players in our life. You can't spend so much time in something without it having a really huge weight on who we are as people. I really, truly believe that. And I do believe that the idea that a house can take on the personality of a person and vice versa is absolutely true.
Q: What about a haunted house?
Gil: Yeah, but I'm kind of less interested in the idea of the shackle wearing, candelabra carrying phantasm.
Q: Like Edgar Allen Poe?
Gil: Well, The Fall of the House of Usher is so amazing because it doesn't have the spirit with a clinking metal cup around the hallways. It's very much a physical embodiment of the people who once lived in this house. For me, that story is more effective than one where you have a see-through, bluish, ghost-y thing.
You know, you asked me last time when you came to visit the set a year ago about Amityville Horror. I don't know if I answered it back then, but I'll say it again: to me - and I haven't seen the remake yet; I'm talking about the original - what was so amazing about that movie only happened for thirty seconds, and the rest of it was so disappointing for me, and that was right at the very end when the walls start bleeding. It feels like, holy crap, there's actually some life to this house! This house has actually absorbed some of the pain and suffering that has gone on inside of it. I wish that had been the very first attack of the house; I wish that the house had actually done that in the first act, because to me that movie would've been a masterpiece had it just gone from there and built the horror of the actual place. But instead it was just cheesy glowing eyes outside in the night. I guess as an audience I always look for something more; I always look for a new sense of a new kind of possession. And that's why that movie held just the faintest glimmer of hope.
Q: Was there any concept art for the other biological functions of the house?
Gil: Yeah, I had a few other sequences. I had a scene in Constance's bedroom upstairs - it only made it to the concept art stage - where I used a part of the canopy of her bed to create the brain matter undulating. It was kind of cool, but it didn't deserve to be in the movie. And I also had a little bit in the kitchen where the pipes on the floor were intestines, but I felt that was handled by the pipes at the top of the basement that are kind of moving around. It was really important for me to stay manmade materials with the way that the house bent. Like, for instance, I don't think seeing a bunch of mucus and fleshy walls would've felt right for me. I really wanted to get a sense that it was wood and wallpaper and mortar and brick that was being manipulated by the spirit into the form of the house, and not that it brought in some Zuul-like element.
Q: You do have some huge set-pieces and major action sequences, but one of the scenes that really stuck with me was when DJ's little bunny gets attacked. What were some of your favorite quieter moments?
Gil: My favorite moment is one that comes between the two loudest moments, and it's the moment between Nebbercracker and Constance in the alleyway in the middle of the chase right before the big construction battle happens, because for me it's the most direct expression of the human... just a man and his wife having this really intense, but quiet moment. I, at least, as an audience, when I watch it, am able to see
Q: Do you have plans to stay in the horror genre?
Gil: I think it's going to be very difficult for me to subtract that side of me in movies. Even if I make a Telletubbies movie. [Laughing]
Q: Do you have plans to make a Telletubbies movie?
Gil: No, no, no. No plans as of yet.
Q: What, no Videodrome hand coming out of one of those little tummy TVs?
Gil: [Laughing] No, no, no. (Gil laughs as reporter mimics inserting a videotape into his stomach.) Alright! Let's get a piece of paper! We're going to write this movie right now!
Q: Just so long as we get the Deborah Harry bit in there.
Gil: The potential is limitless. But I think that once your dark side is awake, it's difficult to quiet it down again. For me, the most important thing is great, weird stories, and I like the idea that genres are this shapeshifting thing that's at the service of the story. I really think I'm just going to follow stories around, and the technology and the genre and the way I make the movie are just going to be questions that I ask after I've sorted out the story.
Q: Is there a conscious effort of bringing back that 1980's Amblin feel?
Gil: I think Monster House, for me, was so very tied to my sense of growing up, and it just happened that I was growing up in that period where those movies were created. For me, Monster House was just an extension of growing up, and that's why it had to look this way. And I think, once again, the look of every movie is going to be dictated by what it conjures up inside of me.
Q: What do you have next?
Gil: I'm doing a live action film next called City of
Q: What's it about?
Gil: You know how Monster House is about a house that's a character in the story? In City of
= = =
Staci Layne Wilson reporting
Don't forget to read HORROR.COM'S REVIEW OF MONSTER HOUSE and stay tuned for red carpet premiere video!