Sorry, still running behind.
I'd hoped to do something a little bigger for the ranty blog's 200th post. Ah, well. We'll have to celebrate #250.
Among those things that was challenging is that the whole transforming at the full moon really limits...is a real structural issue that we struggled with for a long time. How to make the plot advance quickly and turn our characters into a werewolf quickly when you're dealing with this rule of having the full moon.
-------No. I mean, Paul didn't bring it up that he'd been involved in the Ripper case previously. We added that dimension to it.
I'd hoped to do something a little bigger for the ranty blog's 200th post. Ah, well. We'll have to celebrate #250.
Here’s one more huge interview with a pro
to tide you over until I get my act back together. This time it’s David
Self, the screenwriter behind Thirteen Days, Road to Perdition,
and The Haunting, among other films. Last I heard, he was working on the adaptation
of the God of War videogame.
I got to chat with David for an hour
or so about working on The Wolfman, the big-budget reimagining of the classic Universal
Monster movie. It was definitley a
passion project for him (as you’ll see), and he was a lot of fun to speak with. Alas, monster movies don’t do that well these
days because too many people go in expecting horror and then blame the film for
these expectations.
A few
points I’ve mentioned before. I’m the
one in bold, asking the questions. Also,
a lot of these aren’t the exact, word-for-word questions I asked (which tended
to be a bit more organic and conversational), so if the answer seems a bit off,
don’t stress out over it. A long line of
dashes (-------------) means there was something there I didn’t transcribe,
probably because it was just casual discussion or something I knew I wasn’t
going to use in the final article. Any
links are entirely mine and aren’t meant to imply David Self endorsed any of
the ideas here on the ranty blog. It’s
just me linking from something he’s said to something similar I’ve said. And by the very nature of this discussion,
there will probably be a few small spoilers in here (although I did cut out one big one). If you haven’t seen the film yet, check it
out. It’s fun and you’ll get a bit more
out of this discussion.
Also, this
is one of the rare cases where I didn’t get to see the fim before my interview
(considering I was generally doing interviews two or three months before the
films were released). My questions are
based off one of David’s earlier drafts I got to read, so you’ll see some back
and forth as we establish what does and doesn’t happen in the movie, and why
some changes were made.
Material
from this interview was originally used for an article that appeared in the
January/February 2010 issue of Creative Screenwriting Magazine.
===================================
You work in a lot of
different genres as a screenwriter.
Horror, drama, political, you're doing Deathlok for Marvel, I heard...
How do you keep from getting pigeonholed?
That's just
IMDb (laughs). I haven't been working on
Deathlok in quite a long time. I
did a rewrite on Deathlok.
I guess I
actively try to avoid boredom. I want to
find new intellectual arenas to challenge myself in. I try to find projects that are different,
have a different hue to them, work in different genres. I make an effort to do that. That's my short answer, and I guess people
buy it. (laughs)
How did you end up on
The Wolfman?
This came
to me from a good friend of mine, a producer, Scott Stuber. I worked with Scott a long time ago. He brought me actually three scripts. Andy's script, a script by Paul Attanasio, and one Mark Romanek
himself had been working on. Kind of in
the fall of 2007, just before the strike.
Actually, August, late summer.
So there were three
actual scripts?
At that
point Andy had done what was the main draft.
Then they'd hired Paul to do a rewrite.
He got about halfway through and didn't continue. Mark Romanek started to work on it
himself. Paul, I think, was working at
Mark's direction at that time, and Mark got halfway through the script as well. So they had two half-scripts and Andy's
script. When I came in I really wanted to work off Andy's script because it was
the most coherent and consistent one. It
was a complete script so it was the easiest to start from.
Were you all that
familiar with the original?
Oh,
yeah. I love the original. The original film is a landmark. It was my dad's favorite film and I used to
watch it with him when I was a kid and knew it well. So there was a little trepidation in going
back and trying to come up with a 2010 version of it.
Was it tough shifting
the story to a modern day interpretation?
Were these things you were dealing with or had Andy dealt with a lot of
them already?
Andy had
really introduced a lot of the new elements that are in our version of the
film. In terms of the father-son dynamic
and also, well... (David and I talked about a bunch of spoilerish stuff here that I'm not going to repeat for those of you who haven't seen the film yet) ...That's a major change from the original, obviously. That idea was an idea Andy introduced. Going back to your question--- that was dramatically
the biggest adjustment.
So what were some of
the issues they brought you in to address?
Was it director requests, studio requests, straight script problems?
I think one of the things... In keeping with the original,
Andy did well preserving the werewolf lore that the original film introduced to
our sense of werewolves. Changing at the
full moon, being bitten. Some of the
rules we take for granted now. Silver
bullets killing werewolves. There were a
couple older films... you'd have to do your filmography... that this film all
pulled together. Those elements Andy was
very particular in preserving, which I think was really important.
Among those things that was challenging is that the whole transforming at the full moon really limits...is a real structural issue that we struggled with for a long time. How to make the plot advance quickly and turn our characters into a werewolf quickly when you're dealing with this rule of having the full moon.
Yeah, you get four
weeks between each action scene.
Exactly (chuckles). So by nature, the earlier drafts of the
script had a very extended amount of time before you got to see Benicio del
Toro turn into the wolfman. That was
really the largest issue that I was brought in to solve--how to speed things up
a bit. It was still a very challenging
thing, given the rules of our film. That
was the largest note that I had to contend with coming into it.
Let me bug you with a couple of process questions before we dive into any more specifics about the
film. How do you normally approach a
script? Are you an outline guy, a
notecard guy?
I generally
like to outline, and I try to do the outline in one sitting, so it feels
organic, to one moment and impulse. The
length of it can vary from a page to ten pages, depending on how much detail
I'm seeing right off the bat in my head.
I just try to catch the organic impulse of the movie in one moment. And then it mutates from there.
Now was it a lot
different for you when you're coming onto with an existing script, rather than
starting from scratch?
Yeah, this
is a very different process. It's a film
that is sort of a flashing green light to go.
There's a lot more collaboration.
You're working with a director, a producer, a studio, that all have
things they need to achieve to get to where they're confortable making the
film.
Was everyone
attached?
Benecio was
attached and Mark Romanek was attached.
They attached Tony and Emily Blunt after the draft I did in
November. And Hugo Weaving. Those guys all came on after. Although Benicio was just sort of... he
wasn't actively involved in development at that point, he was just waiting for
us to do our job. ----------- I turned
in my draft the night before the strike started and that was what they cast off
of. And then I was out on the lines
Do you have a lot of
writing habits? Do you write so many
hours a day or only in the morning?
I've become
more nocturnal with the advent of four of my children in the past couple years.
Prior to that I was more of a workday type of guy. I sort of now have a patched together day,
where I work half of the day-day, and then after supper in the eveneing, after
the kids go to bed, I have another work period where I tend to be pretty
productive. It was different when I was
younger.
Do you have a page
count you're trying to hit each day?
More of a
scene or sequence objective I set for myself.
Not so much a page count. One of
the other things I like to do... I get slower as I get closer to the end of the
script, because basically I read the script from page one again every day
before I start writing again, so I can get everything in my head. It helps me
with consistencey issues and voice issues.
I don't have as much reading to do on day two or three, but when I'm
getting down to the end I'm spending an hour and a half reading befoe I start
writing new stuff.
So was this more of a
page one rewrite or a scene-by-scene?
Several
scenes, like the sequence in the asylum, I just loved those. There were pieces of Andrew's writing that I
just loved that I just cut and pasted those into the script I was writing. I would tweak a word or two just so it made
sense with what came around it. I did
start with an empty script when I started rewriting, but I had his sitting next
to me the whole time as a reference.
Now, Lawrence would
be kind of a grim, haunted figure in this even if he wasn't bitten by a
werewolf. Why change him so much?
Yeah. It's interesting, the character Andy
----- along was a haunted guy who had
this sort of gothic, dark back story that preceded the film and becomes
uncovered during the course of the film.
So he definitely structured that sort of psychological drama in that
mode. It was an important decision. It'll be interesting to see how it translates
in the final version of the film, but the notion was this was a guy who had
lost himself in theater and burned himself out.
He was a guy waiting to be saved.
In the original,
Lawrence Talbot is an astronomer, now he's an actor. Why the change?
That was
Andy. He was a guy who was haunted, who
lost himself, was estranged from his family and has to come to home. He's taken on the least manly profession
(laughs) in contrast to his father, this big-game hunter, depraved nobility
kind of guy.
Was Ben's murder in
the beginning an added scene? Why?
Yeah, we
had several different versions of that.
I think it was challenging because------
A lot of that changed because of the physicality of the location that we
had to work with. There were a couple
different versions which we had worked out, given the contingencies of the
set. This is the one Joe settled on at
the end of the day.
Right in the
beginning of this story you've got the old man on the train with the silver
cane. Why this odd device of a complete
stranger who never figures into the story again?
Yeah, that
version hasn't made it into the final film.
We had a notion that this was not just an old guy, but there was this
sort of implication that the creepy old guy could be Satan passing the cane
along. It didn't make it (laugh), he
just has the cane in the current film. I
thought it was just a good idea, it's just his from the start now. With the 2010 kicker of it being a
sword.------I definitely tried to find a few places of connection for little
spiritual totems of the original.
What about the
connection between Aberline and Jack the Ripper?
Yeah
(laughs). Aberline was introduced in
Paul's draft as a pursuing character that then we fleshed out. He chose the name Aberline. I didn't really connect that with that notion
when I first read it, but then I looked up the name and said 'Oh, this is the
guy from In Hell!' (laughs) We thought that was a fun grace note to
have.
-------No. I mean, Paul didn't bring it up that he'd been involved in the Ripper case previously. We added that dimension to it.
Benicio Del Toro has
been known to rewrite a script or two.
Did he have a lot of notes for you?
(laughs). No, he didn't. Not the script. Benny is sort of... the process in
independent films is a little bit different than this sort of film. He didn't rewrite anything but we had lots of
conversations about his dialogue. He
certainly wanted to plumb his lines and stuff like that. Not rewriting per se, but he had a lot of
'Could I say it this way...?' He's a
real professional.
Without giving too
much away for the readers... there's a big switch in how Lawrence becomes the
werewolf.
I think as
soon as you see Benicio del Toro and Anthony Hopkins are both in this film...
(laughs). I think the audience gets some
satisfaction about having their suspiciions confirmed. I think his sense of betrayal is a good
thing. Rather than it just being (chuckles) Bela Legosi, just some guy who
randomly bites him. I thought this was a
good, meaningful melodrama.
Is it tough to do
spoiler-dependent films these days?
Knowing that you're going to be outed? (chuckles).
Yes and no. I think it'd be much
harder to pull off a Sixth Sense-style film these days that really depended upon that surprise. I think
that would be very difficult to pull off now.
On the other hand, if you're creating enough engagement and suspense in
the moment, you can know the outcome of a film.
Something like Thirteen Days.
You're sitting in the theater so you know the world hasn't blown
up. But you can create tensions and
suspense, and if you're doing your job, in the moment people will forget that
fact. --------
---That's the magic of it, that you can suspend disbelief
there. Watching something that's
well-told you can forget that you already know certain aspects of it. There's something anthropologically
gratifyying about that to me. The
yarn-weaving and the storytelling is the social, fun experience, not the
knowledge itself.
Would you say this film is horror or more of an action-adventure story?
I think it's a classic Universal monster movie. I think there's a little bit of difference between a horror film and a monster movie. This has got that broader pallate that you're talking about. I think it straddles that. It's got horror elements in a bigger action-adventure film.
Last question. I know this sounds silly but... why one
word? The original Chaney is two, The
Wolf Man. Is that just some oddity
that cropped up?
By the production! I'm so
furious! (laughs) Every single draft and
every single email I write to this day, I still write two words,"Wolf Man,"
because I just can't accept the fact that they've condensed the title. I don't know how it happened. I don't know where it happened. It just was a spiral thing that began, I think, in the production. Somebody compressed it and I've fought against it. It's not a silly question, it's my pet jihad!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.