[IMG:L]It was the ultimate pre-Halloween treat: a surprise visit with one of filmdom’s leading masters of the horror genre, having directed a trilogy featuring armies of the undead and produced a new crop of spine-tinglers, and, perhaps scariest of all, shown the world a geeky, neurotic teenager with superpowers.
The always nattily attired Sam Raimi, whose company Ghost House Pictures produced the vampiric sensation 30 Days of Night, gave Hollywood.com a post-mortem on that making of that film, discussed resurrecting his Evil Dead franchise, dissected the state of modern horror films and spun some stories about whether he’ll return to Spider-Man’s friendly neighborhood–and even a possible trip to Middle Earth.
Shedding Light On 30 Days of Night
Hollywood.com: What was it about the comic book version of 30 Days of Night that made you want to produce a film based on it?
Sam Raimi: At Ghost House Pictures we’re always trying to find the next great script or the next great story, and when I read Ben Templesmith and Steve Niles’ 30 Days of Night graphic book I thought it was really gripping and powerful, both visually with the illustrations and the concept of it seemed just great. It seemed like it should’ve been thought of before because it’s so obviously great, that you go up to a place like Bear, Alaska where night falls for 30 days and you’ve got to survive that time period with vampires at your throat. Nevertheless, I’d never heard of it before. It was original. Maybe that’s how great ideas are. They just seem like someone should’ve thought of them before, but I had never heard anything like it.
HW: Did you ever consider directing the film yourself?
SM: I never thought about directing this myself. I was so busy with Spider-Man 2 at the time that I just thought the company Ghost House Pictures is really for other directors to direct their horror films, and I’m here to protect them or help get them the finances or the resources that they need and link them up with good material.
HW: David Slade’s previous film Hard Candy was a more visually stark and sparse effort than the dynamic cinematic panache he displays in this movie. What made you realize he was the right director for 30 Days of Night?
SM: I thought the acting was great in Hard Candy. The strength that I wanted to be realized in 30 Days of Night was the characters of Ebon and Stella and their love story, that relationship at the center of the piece that Steve Niles had written about. I didn’t know if I was in love with David‘s directing or the young actress in Hard Candy, but something there worked really, really well for the length of the picture. I thought, ‘That’s what I want to have work in our picture.’ The heart of the thing was working in a way. It’s hard to explain, but I just felt that things had been thought out. It led me from one point to the next to the next in a real exciting way. I thought that would drive this machine even if he didn’t have the experience with production design or FX–and it turned out that he did. When I got to know him a little bit I found out he had this great commercial background and he knew about production design, which was my very next interest. I wanted the look of the graphic novel to be preserved, and fortunately that was David‘s desire too. I never put that on him. I just hoped the director would have that desire, and he did.
HW: Does it feel like you’ve come full circle with your career in a way: you started out with horror and now here you are…
SM: [Laughs] At the end of my career?
[IMG:R]HW: No, but back deep into the genre.
SM: Yeah, I do. Actually, I didn’t always love horror films. I started out and I only liked comedies and dramas, and then I had to learn how to make a horror film because my buddy Rob Tapert said ‘If we’re going to break into the business we need to make a low budget film that’s a horror film, because we can probably only raise a couple hundred thousand in Detroit, and the only movies that are made and shown for that amount of money are horror films. So–can you make a horror film?’ So I had to learn how to make a horror film. He said, ‘Do you like horror films?’ I said, ‘No. I don’t actually like horror films. They scare me.’ I didn’t have fun being scared back then. It was just a scary experience. So I watched them to see if I could make them, and then I grew to admire the craftsmanship that went into them and then I grew to really love them after a time, watching the audience interact and react with them. Ghost House Pictures gives me a chance to dabble in horror films and not have to do the hard work of directing them, but more or less work with the great artists which is a lot of fun, put in a few cents in without actually taking the bruises myself, and so it’s lovely being a producer. It’s really a lot of fun. I get to learn a lot, too. I get to see dailies of David Slade or I get to see dailies of Takashi Shumizu and I get to see them working with the actors and I think, ‘Oh, that’s a really smart idea, the way that they got that performance from that kid. I never would’ve thought of that –’ or ‘How interesting that he put the camera there. How interesting that he doesn’t play this as a scare, but he just lets that creature quietly move out of the darkness that gives me a chill running up and down my spine.’ That’s not how I would’ve thought of doing it. I’m so much louder and brasher and uglier in my approach. So I learn a lot also in watching these filmmakers work. But yes, I feel like I’m returning to horror as I started out in it and I feel like I’m going to school again.
Exhuming Evil Dead
HW: On the subject of your horror roots, you’ve mentioned you’d be interested in revisiting the Evil Dead franchise. Any progress there?
SM: We currently don’t really have a plan for Evil Dead. I know I’ve talked about finding a young filmmaker to re-imagine that and remake it at some point. Rob said to me, ‘Look, the movie came out in 16mm and was a blowup to 35mm. We only had 60 prints. No one ever really saw it in the theaters. Why don’t we make a big screen movie of Evil Dead in 35mm with really great actors and a great director, real cameras, a great soundtrack.’ I thought that was maybe a great idea because it was so crudely made that a new filmmaker could do a great job, but it’s just that once we said that publicly we haven’t spent any time looking for people. It’s all just been talk and it’s still just talk right now because I’ve been so busy. But we would like to do that at some point.
HW: Do you still speak to Bruce Campbell and would you like to do another project with him?
SM: I love Bruce. I don’t speak with him enough, just occasionally. He’s up in Oregon. I’m so busy with my kids and making my movies that I usually just get a chance to see him when I give him a part. Then he’ll hang around on the set and I get to talk to him for a day or two. I’d love to work with him again and I’m definitely going to. I don’t know what it is yet though…Me having these five kids. I mean, every night is about, ‘Did you brush your teeth? Are you sure you did your homework? You’re hiding your homework sheet from me. I know.’ That’s what I’m spending my time. That’s how I spend my evenings. So our different lives have led us apart a little bit. I’m still crazy about the guy though. I miss him. I scold myself often for not taking the time and going up and spending a few days with him. I just don’t want to miss any days with my kids, though.
HW: In the decades since Evil Dead debuted, there’s been what might be called an evolution–or de-volution–in the horror genre, particularly “torture porn.” Using today’s technology you can show things that you could only hope that the audiences imagination could go to in the earlier days of horror films. What do you think about that? How graphic do you feel comfortable going?
SM: Well, it’s always been an element of the horror film, to show us the gross-out. I mean, that’s one option for all filmmakers making a horror film. It’s not something that I’ve found myself above either, so I don’t want to speak like I’m some big shot. I definitely want to get the ‘Ew! Oh, gross!’ reaction to some crowds at the drive-in. That’s an element. Really, I want to do a lot of things like build suspense, build scares, do laughs, create some really scary sound moments where the audiences uses their own imagination, but a gross out is not beneath me or a lot of filmmakers for a horror film. That’s one tool in the arsenal. I don’t know that it’s a new thing either. Way back when, by showing the Wolfman change, Lon Chaney, his hair dissolving and the makeup effect of the Wolfman back then, just like Night of the Living Dead back in the ’60’s by George Romero showed a lot and it freaked me out as a kid. Cannibal Holocaust showed some intense sites and so when I think about the new ones it’s just the latest incarnation with probably better technology, like you’re suggesting – better CGI and better makeup FX and maybe showing more and more horrible stuff, but once we’ve seen the last stuff, these filmmakers have no option if they’re going for the gross stuff but to push the next thing we haven’t seen. So I think it’s natural.
HW: What about the sub-genre of the comedy horror film, like Shaun of the Dead? That style, which Evil Dead pioneered, has become really popular. Does it make you think about how to do an Evil Dead differently at all?
SM: I don’t think about the other pictures when I make Evil Dead. I just think about the character of Ash and how dumb he is and how low and cowardly he is and what dumb things he wants to do when he should be thinking of more noble things and what misinterpretations he has. I’m just thinking about him and feeling bad for him and disliking him and wondering how we can punish him a little bit more in the future.
HW: The film business, and the horror genre in particular, is all about franchising right now. You were at the lead of some of that early on. How do you feel about it now?
SM: I’ve always made sequels, even when I was making Super 8 movies if the audience liked it. We made The Jimmy Hoffa Story back in 1976 in Detroit where Jimmy Hoffa disappeared. Because it got some laughs from the kids, even though Jimmy Hoffa died at the end of it, we made Jimmy Hoffa 2. It didn’t make any sense, but we also made Jimmy Hoffa 3. We also made James Bombed, which was a James Bond spoof, and James Bombed Again. We’ve always made sequels, myself and my friends Scott Spiegel, Bruce Campbell, Rob Tapert. Making the sequels to the Evil Dead movies were nothing new, and to me it’s always just been a return to familiar sets and approaches and working within that known setup. It kind of saves time in storytelling. The stage is already set and the audience knows what type of thing to expect and you can just go for the gags sometimes. So I’ll probably always be making sequels, and maybe that’s why television seemed like a good fit for Rob and I when we did Hercules or Xena or American Gothic – just a continuing story with the same characters is real natural for us. I’ve been raised on comics, which has always been the same too, I guess.
[IMG:L]From Shockers to Spider-Man Sequels and, maybe, The Hobbit?
HW: Speaking of sequels and comic books, do you have any update on the status of Spider-Man 4, and your possible involvement in it?
SM: Right now Sony is meeting with different writers to try to bring a fresh new story and approach to the Spider-Man franchise. So I’ve been in meetings with Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin, our producers and Amy Pascal. Different writers have been coming in and spinning different tales of where Spider-Man could go from here.
HW: Does that mean a total reboot of the Spider-Man franchise like the current Batman films, or a direct sequel to Spider-Man 3?
SM: I haven’t heard the reboot idea yet. I’m actually not writing it. Different writers are coming in and I have not heard a reboot idea yet.
HW: It was recently announced that Tobey Maguire is going to be producing and probably starring in the film version of the Robotech franchise. There’s speculation that that means he’s moving on from Spidey. How would that impact your involvement with the future films?
SM: I didn’t hear about Robotech. That’s cool…I don’t want to speculate for Tobey, but it sounds like a cool series that he’s in. I don’t know, though, actually what that would mean.
HW: Do you see yourself personally directing a smaller independent project next, or are you thinking Spider-Man 4 might be your next project?
SM: I think that’ll depend a lot of things. Sony would have to ask me to do it and the story would have to work because I don’t think I know the answer to that right now, except that it would be great because I love Spider-Man when we can find the right story. Whatever it is I’m sure that it’ll be a great story and a lot of people are working really hard on a great story right now. It is a lot more fun though to work in a much more free atmosphere where there are pure expectations, and it’s kind of a dastardly fun thing to do, like being in a spook house.
HW: If Spider-Man 4 is a ways off, have you started thinking about the next project that you’d be in the director’s chair for?
SM: I think it’s too early for me right now, because I’m still so busy with the producing duties on the Ghost House Pictures and finishing up, believe it or not, all these DVD details. Just like two weeks ago I finished up all the last of the Spider-Man 3 DVD details, and only now am I unemployed for a brief period of time. So I’m trying not to look at anything just now.
HW: Do you see yourself ever directing another comic book-based franchise?
SM: I would absolutely consider directing another comic book story, if they’d have me. Yeah. In fact, if I had the love of the character and the knowledge of the character and thought that I could do it better than anyone else, that I knew the guy or girl who was the star of the thing and really understood what they were and what I had to bring that to the screen, I would fight to do a different comic book.
HW: Any comic book property that’s close to your heart, besides Spider-Man?
SM: There are a lot of them. I love Bruce Wayne, but that’s been taken and done and it’s in great hands right now, so I’m really enjoying watching those. Superman, I feel the same way. Bryan Singer is doing a great job with that. There are a bunch of them actually.
HW: Your name has been brought up in connection to possibly directing The Hobbit. Now it seems like Peter Jackson and New Line might be mending their fences on that. Can you update us on your feelings about that project?
SM: I think there’s no better choice to direct The Hobbit than Peter Jackson. I’m a giant fan of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and Peter Jackson is a brilliant filmmaker. He would be the guy, I think, everybody would like to see direct it. I hear that they’re talking, too, from reading the trade magazines, and I don’t really know firsthand, but that’s good. Hopefully he will direct it and give us his great version of it.
HW: And if he doesn’t direct is that something you’d like to do?
SM: If he doesn’t direct it and decides just then to produce it I’d love to be considered as the director. I don’t know if that’s being talked about. I don’t presume to know what’s happening in those rooms. I mean, I know that Peter Jackson always loved The Hobbit. I’m assuming that he would want to direct it, but I wouldn’t want to make any claims that I don’t have any knowledge of.
HW: Can you talk about the pressure of doing blockbuster movies, in comparison to the projects at Ghost House? Do they even compare? Is it easier to do a lower budget horror film compared to the massive blockbuster spectacles?
SM: Yes. It’s much more fun and relaxing making the pictures at Ghost House, because really that’s about just working on a limited budget and relying on the smarts of the filmmaker and the craft of building suspense and scares. It’s back to pretty much the old-fashion formula of making a horror movie. Sometimes we fail and sometimes we succeed, but I really like that back to the basics approach without the big budget. Although, I’m not the directors on those and the work is usually put upon the directors. I enjoy watching them work in the genre though and I like the reactions the audience gives us when we’re successful.
Parting Shots
HW: What was one of the horror films that frightened you the most?
SM: Sure. I think the film that scared me the most was Night of the Living Dead, George Romero‘s classic zombie movie. I was brought to the theater underage. I was 10 years old. My sister, damn her [laughs], brought me to that thing, snuck me under her coat or something. I was never so scared in my life. I thought that a crime was being committed against me as I was watching that film. It was so awful and terrifying. It was a nightmare come to life…When they’re battling near the muffin monster and they throw that bald creature into the grinder and not only that moment, but then the fella turns around, the deputy, and he’s missing his arm. It’s just awful. It’s like, ‘Oh, my God!’ I don’t know why it’s that one, but that is really a freak out for me. It just becomes a nightmare at that point, a never-ending nightmare after a while. I like that.
[IMG:R]HW: What’s your advice for that kid in Detroit and wants to be a filmmaker now, and has that much more technology in his hands than you did when you were starting out?
SM: I think you’re right, that kids right now have a great opportunity in Detroit and elsewhere to make films. They’ve got free editing programs on their computers, a lot of them with Macintoshes and PCs will have a simple editing program or you can go to the library and use a simple editing program that you can have or at a school. So you can cut for free and even build soundtracks. Usually in a school library you can borrow a camera for free or a public library or you can get a used camera for $30 and some videotape. It’s a great opportunity and the tools are in everybody’s hands right now, all across the world. So I think we’ll see an explosion of these young filmmakers hit the scenes any minute now who have been training and practicing and my advice to them is make a movie everyday and show it to groups of people and charge money because once you charge a quarter for your show, like in the school auditorium, you get a real critical reaction. ‘This sucks!’ or they’ll laugh if it’s funny, or if it’s slow the next day you show the movie you’ll end up cutting out that slow part and re-shooting the gag so that it works a little bit better. That’s what we did. It really helps to show your movies everyday to a paying audience, keep reediting them and keep re-shooting them, and be in an interaction with the audience every day. Then you’ll know what the audience wants better than anybody…Young filmmakers have to be able to show things, realize things aren’t working, try and understand why from the audiences reaction, make the changes and show them again. I’m not talking about the screening process in Hollywood, but just the learning – how does the audience react to this? How do they react if I hold on that close-up longer? Does it have more impact with the audience? As a process of learning I think that you’ve got to be able to show your movies again and again and be able to enact changes and understand how those changes are going to effect the audience.
