Imagine a Poltergeist that felt as cartoony or comic-book-like or flippant as Close Encounters or Raiders of the Lost Ark. I could.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
I think Spielberg contributed very little in terms of Poltergeist's distinct stylistic elements. He may have suggested a two-shot or two and other standard practice elements of coverage, in coordination with the storyboards (in collaboration or not with Hooper), but everything in Poltergeist is well within Hooper's wheelhouse at the time, with the knowledge he is working in Spielberg's register. Probably exhausted my good will on Twitter (@jayjayabramzon) with the Poltergeist tweets, so I'm moving over here.
Imagine a Poltergeist that felt as cartoony or comic-book-like or flippant as Close Encounters or Raiders of the Lost Ark. I could.
Imagine a Poltergeist that felt as cartoony or comic-book-like or flippant as Close Encounters or Raiders of the Lost Ark. I could.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Do you think Spielberg thinks of himself as the actual director of Poltergeist, his ego preventing him from seeing what Hooper clearly contributed to the comception and ultimate realisation of the film? (Didn't the other writers on the screenplay have to take legal action to get their names recognised in the credits?) Because the power to squash the ghost director rumour was in Spielberg's hands, over the years he could have set the record straight, why not a joint commentary or joint interview for a Poltergeist special edition, something that would have shown everyone that the film exists as it does because of both of them! That this never happened suggests to me that Spielberg is happy to have people thinking he directed it.
Thanks for your willingness to discuss this topic. XD
I do not think he thinks about it that much... I don't think he thinks he directed it - I think the film before him would make it impossible for him to delude himself as much - but he acknowledges the factors are nuanced enough that the controversy still exists, and he knows nothing he can say can clear up all the details that have lead to this point of endless questioning, e.g. Hooper being a laid back presence, making so many in the crew look also to him and think Hooper wasn't doing anything. He cannot take that back, he probably cannot convince the more mistaken of outspoken crew people otherwise no matter what he says, and the best thing to do is not bring it up at all.
I think Richard Edlund is a real reason the 25th Anniversary Special Edition didn't come to fruition. He is mentioned as one of the people WB contacted and had agreed to get interviewed, and I can only imagine his interview expressed the same condescending attitude toward Hooper. I think maybe, at that point, WB decided there was no way to do this SE without all this baggage coming out. (Scream Factory would probably be more intrepid about getting the conflicting voices collected together, mixing and matching Edlund's non-diplomacy and cast members more generous toward Hooper!)
So I don't think the power is in Spielberg's hands. Or he thinks he's done what he could, and addressing it more would really just diminish his brand. "No, I swear, I did not direct this really well-directed movie!" It is self-defeating and below him. :P As for getting interviewed about it, the controversy is too real for him to come out of in a good light. I'm a firm believer there was a concerted effort in the press to edge Hooper out of credit and recognition because he wasn't of "industry metal," no matter his artistic contributions to the film, so there is too much baggage for Spielberg to speak about the film freely. I think he didn't act his best on the set (and neither did an inexperienced Hooper), and dredging that up is just not an option.
You're right, Spielberg probably doesn't think about it too much. But I can't help but blame Spielberg for helping create the controversy with his "Tobe is not a take charge kind of guy" comment. After hearing something like that how could any producer feel comfortable hiring Hooper to 'take charge' of a movie set. And Spielberg is a smart guy, he knows what a damning thing that is to say about a fellow director, especially from someone of his stature. Obviously, being a hundred times more of a Hooper fan than a Spielberg fan, I'm biased, but I think Hooper deserved more credit from Spielberg for Poltergeist than he ever received.
Yeah, the "take charge" comment is pretty crappy of him to say. Look, I totally concede the fact that maybe Hooper was a little inexperienced and needing some pushing, but obviously he pulled up his bootstraps and pushed himself through the entire shoot. Spielberg and an MGM representative both put out statements saying Hooper proved himself wholly capable and competent in the role (albeit after the fact of his PR steamrolling). And Hooper definitely deserves all the credit as the filmmaker - Spielberg was the writer and executive producer, and Hooper allowed him to contribute when he could, under the condition of realizing the film they both envisioned together. Simple as that.
Thankfully the Cannon guys didn't care about having filmmakers with the "big league" stamp of approval and gave him $25 million next. And as I've heard, Lifeforce's set was more the typical, anything-goes Hooper-circus type of set. As the IMDb Trivia page says: "Script doctor Michael Armstrong visited the set while filming, but was horrified by Tobe Hooper's working methods." And he created a bloody amazing piece of work. There's not one way to make a film!
I don't know. I think Spielberg has claimed ownership by saying that he "made" Poltergeist in interviews. When asked about making two movies close together like Schindler's List and Jurassic Park and others, he had an interview saying that he did the "same with E.t. and Poltergeist." I'd love to give the credit to Hooper but it just seems less likely. I don't see as many pictures of Tobe Hooper solo on the Poltergeist set like I have seen Spielberg.
Yeah... like we said, he's a showboat and attitudinally artless. He did do the same with E.T. and Poltergeist, since he was on the Poltergeist set serving as the Line Producer and Executive Producer. Hooper still directed it and made it his own. Now as for the promotional material, that's a completely different can of worms! I cannot discount the idea of a collaboration against Hooper in that only set photos with Spielberg were released. There's a lobby card of Spielberg directing THE RC CARS - of all the scenes to show the BTS, we choose the RC CARS SCENE? It stinks. And even if all the rumors are more true than I thought, it would not be hard to release ONE publicity picture of Hooper on the set in order to stave off scandal. Unless they wanted scandal. o_o
I regret that remark, scandal never really helps a picture. They didn't want scandal, but they did want to push Spielberg.
Hooper's always had a personality not made for the business. He probably seemed very easy to steamroll because he never put up fights... "Can we cut this guy out from publicity?" "Yeah, he's kinda slow (has no personality) and let Spielberg direct for him anyway" is how I imagine a conversation between studio bigwigs going. But I digress... He never puts up a fight - except for when he's on a set. If he's on set, he was damn well gonna make the film he wanted to make (with Spielberg as an essential cog in the functioning working of HIS machine: a machine that throws out so much of the scripted comedy relief, makes the characters feel and behave like real people and not cartoon characters/stock characters, makes the film more about ideas and visual ideas rather than plot and character and action), even if the crew couldn't see it.
Hooper comes from the experimental indie side of filmmaking where he didn't have someone looking over his shoulder until Eaten Alive. But I have heard that he had even walked off of Texas Chainsaw when they were filming. So he walked off from that, Eaten Alive, The Funhouse. Got removed from Venom and the Dark. I even heard that he didn't film all of the Mangler. So the whole thing is weird.
People dismiss his tone for a lot of movies because of the behavior of characters, who seem to reflect the horror or underlying tension of the stories, but he always did have a cinematic style that was seen in Poltergeist and some of the characters (especially the parents) do exemplify traits seen in post-Poltergeist works. It seems that when Hooper stuck around the movie set and didn't walk off it was due to stronger producers. Hooper viewed his work with Spielberg to be a collaboration and he thought it was as good as a collaboration such as Spielberg and George Lucas for Raiders of the Lost Ark. Did Spielberg steamroll over others that he collaborated with? I have heard that a lot of his decisions did but never to the point of something like Back to the Future, Gremlins, The Goonies, and so on having their directorial reigns questioned.
Hooper is a favorite of mine but it is strange how so many things are contradictory like his role in Poltergeist and the idea that Cannon treated him badly, which he says that they treated him greatly. My big question is that if Hooper was the de facto director in pre-production how did it shift during production? I don't buy that he was working too slow because all he had to do was go off storyboards.
And the only solo picture that I have seen of Hooper in this era is the one that Marty from Poltergeist put as an tribute around his death. The one where he looks sweaty and maybe a tad coked out with the chair that has his name on it.
I can go into long diatribes on many of these shows, but will try to keep it short (PRE-PUBLISHING EDIT: Nope, sorry, this is long):
Yes, he did get into a lot of skirmishes with producers. He was interested in a certain kind of filmmaking that went against the efficiency looked for by producers. I have never heard any stories of Hooper walking off 'Texas Chain Saw.' He did get into it with producers regarding his lack of a proper daily shot list. (Story goes, Hooper went home, did up a shot list, then the next day, showed it to producers to satisfy them and then went on shooting as they'd been doing without ever referring to it).
EATEN ALIVE - The relationship with his producers was incredibly strained. The original DP was replaced for working too slow - whether this was, again, Hooper's doing as an "inefficient" sort of director, I do not know, and whether Hooper was on board with the firing of the original DP and the replacing with Robert Caramico, I also do not know. I feel a filmmaker is already disadvantaged if he is not in charge of staffing his own set, but unfortunately I feel this is the trend with Hooper. But all this was better than Hooper being fired, which I think was not on the table because the producers' entire financing was due to Hooper's name on the film.
Anyway, yes, he did numerous times "walk off the set," but, per Hooper's words, he would get "as far as the door," then would be brought back by the producers. "Maybe I made it to my trailer once," he added. Yes, stories abound of Hooper not being present shooting certain scenes - the climax, the bedroom T&A with Janus Blythe - but I do not think he ever abandoned the picture. He would make a show of walking off set in order to ascertain his authority, to protest the impositions of the producers, but he always came back, he said. This is also something not to blame Hooper for: these producers were negatively trying to influence the film. We should be very happy he put his foot down and walked off the set on occasion. He called them "children having ideas" and that they wanted to end the film with Judd blowing up the gator's head!
Hooper also was present for the last day of the shoot (on-location shoot at the bar) and scored the film. Hardly seems like he relinquished creative control. But as we've established, the point here is that Hooper is an artist and this will create friction in a business-minded industry. Nothing "weird" about it, nothing to cast aspersions on him or assume he couldn't handle 'Poltergeist.'
THE FUNHOUSE - I have never heard anything about Hooper walking off the set of The Funhouse or not finishing it.
VENOM - This is a difficult one. The main alleged reasons behind his firing is either 1) The producers and stars (Kinski, likely) did not like what and how he was shooting. He was filming it like a film noir with lots of low lighting and Kinski in Nazi-like garb; or 2) Kinski and Reed drove him crazy and Kinski lobbied to get him fired.
Again, Hooper just has an artistic temperament that is easy to be disregarded or be taken advantage of. He does not immediately garner trust from people, unless circumstances and persons are ideal and open to him. We can hear praise for Hooper by actors on the sets of SALEM'S LOT, POLTERGEIST, LIFEFORCE, etc. - though they will still call him a quiet person, an introverted person, and always a little strange.
THE DARK - Yes, the producers had issues with him taking too long to shoot scenes. He is an artist and there was a lot of ideas he was putting into 'The Dark.' Producers ambushed him, though, because they didn't want an artist. This is the story of Hooper. He was not "competent" in the ideal sense that producers want. Doesn't mean he can't make a film under flexible, supportive circumstances.
He filmed part of 'The Dark' in Fall of '77, then went on to successfully film SALEM'S LOT in '78 - a three-hour film in a shooting time frame of a month and a half. I think he was getting the hang of the professional film model.
THE MANGLER - No, I've never heard a corroborated story about him being replaced by Anant Singh. The fact that is on IMDb as Trivia is a crock. Don't give that any extra notice.
So yes, good producers are there to help the filmmaker. Hooper had no (relative) trouble on the sets of SALEM'S LOT and THE FUNHOUSE. I've heard Kobritz was a pretty "strong" producer. But no, there's no reason to think Hooper would crumble without someone there being a "strong" hand. I mean, is that not what Assistant Directors and Line Producers are for on a set? 'Poltergeist' is unfortunate because the Line Producer is also the Executive Producer and the writer, and he was the Steven Spielberg, so Hooper was in trouble from the get-go for giving Spielberg even the slightest say on the set.
Hooper loves collaboration. He is not a firebrand or egotist. He will sacrifice whatever he can do create a good film. If this meant letting Spielberg be there to contribute ideas, then he'd allow it if it was going to help the picture. I don't believe he would allow, though, feeling as if he was not contributing the lion's share of Poltergeist's stylistic and aesthetic DNA. He owned the picture, but he was not going to sequester it from Spielberg, his happy collaborator on it from the story idea on.
Now I am ignoring the story of Richard Edlund saying that producers forced Spielberg onto him when he was not working in a productive way on the first day of shooting. But then that's the can of worms I've already opened before, in that this was a bad faith production full of industry vets who PANICKED the moment Hooper set foot on the set. No, even the AD and DP won't be able to create a positive working relationship with this weird, quiet guy who does't realize he's on a Hollywood set, we gotta call in Steven! Spielberg himself said that if Hooper had told him to go, he would have gone and left the set. But Hooper didn't. Hooper allowed him to be on set, but not to the hindrance of his artistic involvement - unfortunately the crew did not see it this way. This was his big mistake, thinking people would understand his point-of-view even after he let Spielberg be an on-set creative presence.
So, long story short (too late!!), Hooper's creative contributions cannot be derided, discounted, or disproved just because he is not exactly "industry metal." I did not say I think Spielberg "steamrolled" over Hooper, I said I think the PR department steamrolled over him in marketing and Hooper did not put up a fight! If Spielberg did steamroll over Hooper, Hooper accepted it as the relationship between him and his producer who was also a line producer, there to delegate much of the logistics. I do think Hooper would have walked off the set if he felt Spielberg was directing the film for him and if he thought he could not get his ideas into the film.
Hooper's feelings on Cannon group are a little contradictory, but I think that is again the result of lots of hearsay. Hooper loved Menahem Golan and Yoran Globus, their spirit and love of film, calling them supportive of the art of making a film. That does not mean they didn't cut his budget a couple of times and put producers on him that constantly complained about going over schedule. I think Hooper is being as honest as he can about Poltergeist without seeming petty. It's my film, sure Spielberg decided this and that, but it's my film.
Hooper was de facto director during pre-production, and it only shifted in that he let Spielberg be a strong producer to help handle the enormous amount of moving parts that were on that set. I feel he let Spielberg handle much of the "technical" deliberations, and it seems pretty clear he let Spielberg just go off and determine most of the ILM special effects. This will lead people to believe, wrongfully, that he was directing the picture. He was not. Hooper worked off the storyboards, but he also contributed to storyboarding.
Regarding the set photo of Hooper, it's nice we have the one PR photo that was probably never printed at the time because marketing wouldn't let Hooper do any interviews for the film! :P And hey, I bet most artists and crafts people at the time were doing their work a little coked out at all times, too. And only "a tad" is the pivotal point there! We don't need to worry - Poltergeist is his.
Valid points you make, sir. I believe that it was in a commentary on Texas Chainsaw as stated by one of the cast members that during the scene where the lackey is washing the window at the gas station that the shot wasn't working out and that is when Hooper left.
The Funhouse composer never met Hooper, same as Goldsmith claims for Poltergeist. But I don't think it's that uncommon for producers to supervise the score and editing if you don't have final cut. And in another DVD extra for the Funhouse William Finley does say that Hooper walked off the set at some point.
I have read before that Hooper did go to the DGA in regards to Poltergeist's publicity for having Spielberg's name more prominent. So was the DGA involved twice due to an investigation of authorship?
Where do you get that marketing wouldn't let him do any interviews? There is one from Fangoria around that time and that addressed the directing issue and they made mention that there were limitations on the interview placed by producers.
This is spirited debate, is it not? :)
It seems like you know more than I do in some of these cases. A director/filmmaker is allowed to walk off his set for a little bit. Did it continue shooting without him?
I recall in the Fangoria Funhouse release interview with Hooper, he speaks very proudly of the film's score and how it was a multi-piece orchestra brought in to record. Where did you hear he never met John Beal? I guess it might be not absolutely uncommon that a director doesn't score his film... or maybe at least not uncommon for Hooper...
Man, now I'm gonna have to dig up my 'Funhouse' Blu-Ray! I'll take your word for it, as I sort of recall Finley having some scandalous things to say. I don't know, perhaps it was more cases of producers rushing him when he didn't want to be rushed and trying to change things. In any case, Hooper completed a cut of the film. Anything producers do after that point, I don't mind.
The DGA investigation confuses me also! I don't know if the DGA investigation ever involved them actually inquiring whether Spielberg took over the film. I can't imagine that being the case, because it would mean Spielberg would have his head on the line! I don't think the DGA got involved until Hooper sued over the publicity. I think there was only one investigation and it was over whether Hooper should be recompensed/reparated for his director credit being derided.
Yup, I made a great deal over that Fangoria interview. My remarks are refer to that very interview, and only that, where the first two paragraphs are devoted to describing how the writer had been trying to track down Hooper for weeks but for some reason was told he was away by studio representatives. When he finally talks to Hooper, Hooper first statement is essentially, "I wasn't away. Isn't that weird of them? *wink* *wink*." Later on in the article, the writer says: "Having accepted without question what we'd been told by Poltergeist's agents and producers, we didn't expect that Hooper would be very willing to speak about the film, or that he would have much to add to previously published reports.
But Hooper did have a great deal to add to what had already been said in print by Marshall and Spielberg. It wasn't exactly a "fun" topic for either of us; the smile went out of Hooper's voice during this part of our conversation, and I had to abandon the list of questions that we'd prepared on Poltergeist. Based on what we thought we knew about Poltergeist, our questions simply didn't relate to Hooper's conception of hi rle as the film's director."
Whereas Spielberg, he was in the major newspapers and Time Magazine!
The interview with John Beal where he states he never met Hooper was on the Scream Factory DVD. Even with Eaten Alive I was under the impression that he left and never came back but you say different so I'll go with that. There was a horror convention interview with Martin Casella and he said that the DGA talked to him and others about what went on the Poltergeist set in terms of directing.
I think it's fair to say Hooper has a "completion" problem - he really is an on-set director, first and foremost - but if he shoots it to the end and doesn't disown it, I'm happy to go with it. Eaten Alive is clearly compromised, but I'm sure he shot the majority of it.
Even better regarding Poltergeist, if the DGA said Hooper deserved credit following their own inquest.
You're right and always have a very thorough and scholarly approach to this greatly misunderstood horror cinema maestro. It's just stuff that production people involved with Poltergeist downplaying Hooper is what bothers me. Also there is an interview with editor Michael Kahn where he says that "Spielberg shot a lot of Poltergeist" and I never know what that means. Of course there's second unit but the "a lot" is troubling.
Michael Kahn wasn't on set, was he? ;)
Thanks, man, I appreciate the appreciative words. I may be grasping at straws and filling a lot of blanks with wishful thinking, but I really think history will come out in vindication of Hooper on Poltergeist. (Not even John Leonetti and Rubinstein could or would say Hooper wasn't there every second of every moment.) Don't know how, don't know why, but if anything, it would just be in the acknowledgement of Hooper as a constantly misunderstood craftsman, and a stylistic study of Poltergeist's restraint and subtlety as opposed to Spielberg's technical rigidity and visual micromanagement.
Who knows if he was on set on not but the guy has been an established editor for many years and has no reason to lie or make stuff up. The interviewer even said something in regards to the directing controversy and Kahn even said that there wasn't a controversy. As a kid I put no thought to who directed it as I was terrified of the movie but saw little Spielberg details as I got older, which would show collaboration.
Well, no, I’d say pretty confidently he was not on the set! It would be less that he’s making things up, so much as he is simply a talented editor and does not have specialized insight or hasn’t spent years thinking about the nuances and caprices of the creative process of a film director. We forget this about our establishment creatives, but they are just people, living normal lives with normal pressures outside of their work. Short of him having thought long and hard about the styles of these two directors and/or having been on the set, he has little stakes in the matter. It’s not surprising, then, that, with little thought, he would side with all he’s heard about Spielberg (his benefactor) having taken over the set. Hollywood has always been an oftentimes superficial industry driven by biases and rumors, and there’s no reason to believe the people inside of it are any less susceptible to its superficiality of thought. Edlund, similarly, could not have been present during all filming of scenes (especially ones sans FX), as he had to have been doing FX work. Yet he touts the rumors when Spielberg himself denies them. These people talk without knowing, I suspect.
I see collaboration, but stylistically, I only see Hooper with the freedom and resources that Spielberg gave him. My confidence equals your doubt, so I guess we’ll just have to wait for any more evidence.
I say that the lighting of Poltergeist is very much like Hooper's. I think that it also says something when some of the SFX crew from Poltergeist went on to work with Hooper on Lifeforce. I heard a story on a podcast that interviewed Lou Perryman a long time ago. Perryman asserts that Hooper directed it but said that Spielberg was always throwing ideas around for him to use. One of the ideas was a shot of JoBeth Williams holding the dead bird over the toilet. Supposedly Spielberg wanted a silhouette of himself on the toilet. Hooper refused and it was never added. The production of Poltergeist is something that I am fascinated by immensely.
Dude, I want to hear that podcast! Is it Google-able? Gonna find out once I write this. Probably doesn’t exist anymore... but I appreciate hearing your info...
Me too. The details must be juicy...
It was two yokels who host a horror podcast called Deadpit Radio. Perryman was murdered some time ago so I would say that the interview was from 2008.
Thank you! Found itttt. And yes, they were quite yokel-ish... not entirely unpleasant, though. Fascinating.
Anyway: you know what, shock, I believe him (Lou P., sad about his death...). He has no reason to lie, he says he hadn't kept up or talked with Tobe in 25 years. As for that bird/toilet shot story, that is just... bizarre. Anyway, yeah, Spielberg was a little buzzing fly, Hooper was a diplomatic person who didn't want to be ungrateful to Steven, and while Steven did flex his muscles on set, Hooper was there to make his. film.
I've beat that perspective into the ground enough, though. But thank you for that Perryman/bird story tip-off, truly - I'll be wielding it like a cudgel soon enough, I'm sure, even though, again, it's totally minor hearsay.
And also the fact that James Karen worked with Hooper again says a lot because why would he want to keep working with someone who was such a lousy director that they had to be replaced?
Here's what Karen had to say about it:
https://s22.postimg.cc/if770jtq9/Screen_Shot_2018-06-29_at_11.33.44_PM.png
Plus Oliver Robins' comment, for good measure.
Though we have to remember Karen was there that first day when apparently Hooper lost all credibility, according to two separate accounts (Richard Edlund and an anonymous crew member, who said following Spielberg's executive decision-making that day, "immediately and forever" became the one "answering all pertinent questions from both cast and crew" - me: *eyes roll to the back of my head*), and his answer is a bit cagey.
But it seems we can relitigate this topic endlessly. I think Karen definitely got lots of direction from Hooper, and yeah, they also got along very well and Karen valued his work with him.
Post a Comment