|
|
|
 Banner by Wes Vance |
||
|
Frank Darabont took a dollar and turned it into one of the most acclaimed careers in modern cinema. The screenwriter/director took part in author Stephen King's "Dollar Baby" project, adapting King's short story THE WOMAN IN THE ROOM. Acclaim from King himself led a friendship and the start of a screenwriting career in horror, taking part in the scripts for A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3 and THE BLOB. It was in 1994 where Darabont joined the elite in Hollywood with the release of the King adaptation THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, critically hailed as one of the best films of all time and earning Darabont his first Oscar nomination. Now, Darabont adapts the first horror story based on a Stephen King work with THE MIST, and getting rave reviews for its multi layered look at the world we live in today as fear and paranoia strike everywhere. Darabont took part in a special press weekend for THE MIST and sat for a roundtable interview that the Colonel's Crypt was a part of. The following are highlights from this discussion.
How did THE MIST come together? FRANK DARABONT: Well I first read the story in 1980 when it was originally published and I didn’t even have a film career at that point but I remember thinking even then “I’d love to make this movie some day.” Right after I completed THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, Stephen was very happy with the results of that and said is there anything else you want and I said “Yeah, I would love to do THE MIST.” He’s been patient for 13 years now waiting for me to take it off the backburner and get the thing going. Other things did arise and got in the way I guess you can say, like THE GREEN MILE and THE MAJESTIC. It’s interesting. I look back at when in my career I’ve done certain things. The planets align and you get a sense of “Now is the right time for this.” You seem to wander into every genre willfully. Is that a choice, to try different genres? FD: You always try to go where your passion takes you, if those are different approaches to telling a story so much better because the guys I’ve admired are the most versatile. It always blows my mind that Steven Spielberg made both JURASSIC PARK and SCHINDLER’S LIST and they were released in the same year. You look at that and go “How is somebody that versatile?” I love those kinds of artists. I’ve always wanted to make one of everything if I could. I’m still looking for that great Western (Laughs). A lot of great writers are so disillusioned by Hollywood where they feel their work never comes out right or is distorted, yet now this is your fourth project with Stephen King, who has articulated his frustration with some of his adaptations. Where is the comfort zone for you? FD: I presume that a lot of films have been made by people who are hired to do a gig, I seek these out because I love them. I love his voice as an author and I try to do right by him. I’m driven to make these movies but my passion is for the stories that he has told. I try to focus on those things which are what makes the stories great. Was there a case where Stephen said to you “I have a great story for you to film?” FD: THE GREEN MILE was that. I remember we were on the phone one day having a conversation and this was a few years after THE SHAWSHANK, REDEMPTION, I haven’t made a film since then. He said “I have a story. I know you don’t want to make another prison movie so the answer’s probably no but let me tell you this idea I have.” So he pitched me the idea of THE GREEN MILE and I said my response was “You’re probably right, I probably don’t want to make another prison movie but do me a favor, if you ever write this, let me have the first crack at it because it sounds amazing.” Cut to the first volume gets delivered to me by Fed Ex by the publisher, I read it and I committed to do the movie then and there. Having a sense of Stephen’s work as a storyteller, I knew he was onto something special. Is it about timing because you optioned THE MIST in 1994 and it would’ve played differently had you filmed it then, because so much of what this film is relevant to what is going on in the world right now? FD: Yes, I don’t think it was ever not relevant but it has become extremely relevant in this century. It’s become particularly timely, which is one of the things that spurned me to take it out of the backburner, where it was simmering for so many years. It really does wind up being a pretty potent metaphor. Of course the issues we’re dealing with go back to Greek Tragedy, so it’s as classic a story as LORD OF FLIES, but sorry to say now it’s particularly a good time to be telling a story like this. Is the timeliness also what prompted you to deliver this ending? FD: Oh heavens yes, absolutely, ultimately the ending was suggested by Stephen’s material. There was this little seed planted for this in the book. I don’t think Stephen saw the ending coming when he read the script. It came as a surprise to him. He would always tease me though, through the years he would say “So have you come up with an ending yet?” I think he knew that there needed to be something conclusive for purposes of a film than what was in the novella. I was very curious to see what his thoughts would be when I sent him the script and he loved it. He said if he thought of it, he would’ve done it. I thought that was a tremendous endorsement, I felt like I was on very solid ground then because I wanted to do right by his work. I don’t want him to feel used like he has sometimes in the past, but these are not optimistic times and I’m not feeling particularly optimistic. How cathartic is it for you with this film in that you are putting on the forefront this fear of mob mentality and and us versus them approach? FD: The us and them mentality and the exploitation of fear is something that’s always been with us, it’s particularly a potent, social force today and I think all it ever does is take us off the precipice, so it is very cathartic I have to say. Thanks to Bob Weinstein for being the only one with the balls to make it this way. Did you have to fight for the ending? FD: No but I had to make it more cheaply than I might have otherwise. I had one independent producer who offered to write me a check. Before I walked out of the room, “Here’s the budget, go make the movie” with the string attached that I change the ending. It was over twice the budget than what I wound up shooting it for Bob. Was THE MIST the most fun you had shooting a film? FD: Oh completely, not just in the difference in story approach but in the technical approach for me. It allowed me to put aside Mr. Elegant, Mr. Classic Filmmaking. I grew up watching Stanley Kubrick movies, that very precise and thought out approach and going to something that was much more ragged, much more immediate, kind of documentary in the moment type of feel. All the camera work was improvised while we were shooting, nothing was thought out in advance except for the screenplay. That was so liberating in so many ways because you get to a point where it was worth getting out of your comfort zone and shaking things up. This was a great opportunity to do that, the material certainly lent its way to this approach. I don’t know if I would do it quite this way again but it certainly gives you a greater relationship with your instincts to shoot this fast because you do not have time to over think or second guess. In any decision you make you just have to keep moving and it’s great. Which scene do you think will freak the most people out? FD: The little scene with the spiders really freaks people out. That’s the one that really seems to get people going. I love that all the story mechanisms are really working. They’re dead silent when they’re supposed to be. They’re laughing when they’re supposed to be. They’re cheering when they’re supposed to be, jumping when you wanted them to and that’s tremendously satisfying because ultimately we’re trying to provoke response as storytellers. Being you’re such a fan of the horror genre, what do you think of the horror genre today and do you think THE MIST may start a trend in terms of intelligent, thought provoking horror. Do you see it going in that direction? FD: I don’t know. I don’t know if I’m particularly the standard bearer of anything. I wanted to make an honorable horror film in the sense that it’s just not pandering to another trend. I wanted to do something that was original that felt like it had greater reason verbatim than the immediate effect of what the hell they were trying to do. I was never a fan of the slasher films and certainly not of the torture porn thing. I think that these things take the horror out of the vast spectrum out of the stories we can tell, and it puts into a little ghetto, a sub genre. Back in the 1980s if you said horror movie, people immediately thought slasher film. Now you say horror people immediately say torture movie. There’s so much more to it than that I mean going back to Greek mythology, Mary Shelley, THE EXORCIST, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, and I hate these trends that narrow the perception of what the genre can be. I don’t think they’re socially helpful, these movies. They don’t give you anything productive at all. They don’t give you anything to think about. They don’t give you anything to work out. It’s just antagonistic behavior. This is why I don’t like them. Not to say the original HALLOWEEN was a great movie, it really is, but here’s a great scary movie that comes along and then what happens? All people try to do is copy that formula and the definition of horror gets narrower and narrower. How do you present these types of bugs and invaders in an original way that we haven’t seen before? FD: That was the question that Greg Nicotero and I were dealing with. He’s a very good buddy of mine. He spearheaded the creature design and is the special effects makeup part of the equation. The other half of the equation was Everett Burrell from Café FX who did the CGI work on PAN’S LABRYNTH. I was introduced to them by Guillermo Del Toro, who’s another friend of mine. I had asked him “I know you didn’t have a lot of money. That was awesome work. Who did that?” On the other side is Greg Nicotero. He’s the first call I made. He’s like me. We speak the same language, we have the same references. We grew up reading FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND. It’s like the secret handshake, we watched ATTACK OF THE PUPPET PEOPLE because we stayed up until two o’clock in the morning when we were twelve years old to see it. And I said “We’ve got to design some monsters.” When you get to take delight in that process with a friend who is like minded, it really is a lot of fun. We brought some design artists into the process, and the big question becomes “How do we do something that is going to feel unique to ours.” What Stephen King suggests was very generic. There’s a pterodactyl thing, a spider thing, a tentacle thing, and a bug thing. We’ve seen these paradigms on screen before. How do we make ours different so it doesn’t remind you of somebody else’s dinosaur or dragon? Having the knowledge of what’s been done, being steeped in the genre really helps you weed those ideas aside and do something that’s hopefully unique. A lot of monsters and creatures have been made over the years. It’s not easy to come up with something that feels specific to our film, but I think we got it. I think we did a pretty good job that way. You did a draft of INDIANA JONES 4? FD: I did a draft for Steven Spielberg. I don’t know how much has been used, I’ll find out in arbitration. How does it feel to be on strike? FD: It’s never fun. It’s no fun for anybody and it’s certainly the issues that are on the table are important ones. I certainly support my guild, I wouldn’t dream of doing otherwise. I really hope they figure this shit out soon. I hope both sides go to the table and just find whatever the middle ground so everybody can get back to work because it’s really not good for anybody. Everybody gets a little crazy when they don’t do their jobs. What’s next for you other than FARENHEIT 451? FD: ANDY & RED: THE MEXICO YEARS (Laughter). SHAWSHANK II, they’re back and they’re pissed! On FARENHEIT 451, how will it differ from the Truffaut film? FD: In every way because I don’t like the Traffaut film. I think it missed the intention of the book by a very wide margin. I think Trauffaut was a great filmmaker, I just don’t think it was one of his best movies. The book is a passionate piece of work and that was a particularly cold piece of filmmaking. If it were a wonderful movie, I wouldn’t dream of doing it again. What stage are you now on FARENHEIT? FD: Wrote the script and am trying to get the project mounted, which is another reason why the strike is such a pain in the ass, because there’s so much uncertainty. Nobody knows when schedules are going to work so everything’s on a hold basis, but wish me luck because that was the one I have also wanted to make for a long time. Good luck. FD: Thanks everyone. Special thanks to
Heidi Martinuzzi at
www.pretty-scary.net and to
|
HOME
BLOGS
|
|||
