Journeymen: FFC Interviews Eric Brevig and Brendan Fraser|Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D (2008)

Apparently the first live-action feature-length film shot entirely in Digital 3D, Eric Brevig's Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D is loaded to the gills with bells and whistles rendered in bright primary colours that are pleasing enough to the eye–with the added bonus that new technology allows you to wear those glasses for longer than ten minutes without getting a migraine. It'll keep the kiddies quiet, all right, but with WALL•E around to resurrect the idea of cinema as a medium of memorable faces and small, unforgettable gestures, it seems like a cheat to tell the young'ns that movies are only worth a couple hours of cheap, mind-numbing escapism.

Still suffering from nightmares involving his long-lost brother Max, pariah scientist Trevor (Brendan Fraser, in full gee-whiz mode) is forced to look after his nephew Sean (Josh Hutcherson) for a few days. Sean's arrival coincides with the discovery of some strange seismic activity in Iceland; taking a quick plane trip across the world and bringing a mountain guide (Anita Briem) along for the ride, Trevor and Sean discover that Jules Verne's eponymous novel was based on true events. Journey 3D then sends the trio through a procession of rampaging dinosaurs and giant waterfalls and floating rock bridges, though for some reason the film never gets terribly excited about any of it.

I'm not complaining about Journey's dearth of plot, mind you, but the film is ridiculously straightforward, essentially stating that the fact of these fanciful scenarios is enough to quicken the pulse. (Not even the discovery of Max's corpse is given much consideration after a brief mourning period.) Journey features far too few scenes of emotional connection to its characters or–here's the operative word–peril to understand a basic level of cinematic spectacle. Unlike last year's Beowulf, neither does Journey offer any indication of potential stimuli beyond the particulars of its creation. I suppose credit should go to Brevig for not assaulting his audience with the excessively in-your-face special effects of Robert Rodriguez's traditional red-and-blue disasters, yet there's no avoiding the fact that 3D has always been a stupid gimmick that mainly serves to distract from the inherent wonder of the silver screen.–IP

FILM FREAK CENTRAL: I have to kick this off by saying that Hook was one of the films that got me into films.
ERIC BREVIG: Great. It hooked you! That's how I got into the business, I saw films as a kid, and I thought, Wow, that's really magical, I want to learn how to do that.

What did you watch as a kid?
Let's see, um… It was like the Disney movies of the '60s, and they would reissue Ray Harryhausen stop-motion–like Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts–kind of movies, and so I would go see those and just be really fascinated, and think, I wanna learn how to do those too. And now I get to do Brendan and dinosaurs. If you try long enough, you get to do it.

In your twenty-plus years, what has changed in terms of your responsibilities?
Well, everything. Certainly as my job title changes, I take on different responsibilities. The first movie I worked on I was the guy who carried the camera magazines and held up the slate, and as I progressed onto visual effects, not only did my role change, but all the technology that we were using changed. Back on Total Recall and Hook, everything was shot on film–all the visual effects were done on film. And then, not long after that, we started getting digital tools. The last several movies that I worked on as visual effects supervisor, no film was used in any post-production part of it, although we shot it on film. And on Journey, I used–as the director–new technology where no film was used in the entire process. I captured the imagery in High Definition Stereo–meaning 2i high-digital–and it stayed digital until, in the 3D theatres, it will be projected having gone nowhere near a piece of film. It's really cool.

In considering something like that, how do you strike a balance between reality and fantasy?
Well, I spent a lot of time working on films like this, so I've developed some pretty strong opinions, which seem to have been proven to be true. The secret is if you're going to take the audience somewhere that is completely unbelievable–like in Journey, and this amazing fantasy place that they go to–yet you want it to feel somehow credible, you do a couple of things: you try and make all of the actions that the people do seem authentic. And if the people seem real, and their reactions to what's going on are genuine, you go, "Yeah, if that were me there, that's what I would say," or, "I'd be yelling just like them," or whatever–it gives an integrity to the story that as you ease them along from the real world into the unbelievable fantastic situation, you're able to take the audience along with you. So that the things that happen in this movie are way over-the-top–if you just walked in at the middle of this movie, heaven help you, because there's just crazy stuff going on. But if you see it from the beginning, you're brought along to a place where it all seems like it's possible–and it's, for me, so much more fun that it could happen to me. There's nothing about this–it's not set on a distant planet, it's not a fairy tale, it's slightly possible science all the way through, and I could be along for that same adventure if I happen to be at the right place at the right time. So for me, that's the important way to set it up.

Is that how Brendan Fraser came on board?
Well, Brendan brings two things to the movie: he's amazing at the sort of big, physical adventure stuff, and he's also such a charming, funny guy to watch for the normal–just being a human character that you empathize with. And you're rooting for him at the beginning at the movie because his life isn't going very well, and then over the course of this amazing adventure, it all comes together, he meets important people that fill voids in his life. So you've got a human story to root for while all the crazy, big-deal visual effects stuff is happening. It's kind of the best of both worlds.

In that vein of "slightly possible science," how can you strike thatbalance–how can you do that without being too didactic?
Yeah, it's tough, because these kinds of movies need a certain amount of exposition at the beginning to set up why these things are going on, and we worked very hard on the characters of the screenplay to give just enough information that there was a logic to everything that happened, but not so much that it became boring–or if you get too scientific, some of the stuff doesn't hold up. So my solution there was, give enough of the practical science that says it's just possible, and then get to the fun and the adventure as quick as possible, and don't let the audience ever have too long to just sit there and analyze what you're doing. Because the goal is to just have fun, and once you're into the second part of the movie, it's like a series of amusement park rides, hopefully each one is more fun than the last one–and by the end of it, you know that the filmmakers were in on the secret that we're just here to have a good time. And the audience–the adults in the audience, anyway–they totally get it. They're having a good time, and that's all that you ask for in a movie like this. And when we've had test screenings and word-of-mouth screenings, the adults enjoy it as much as the kids, which is great.

The film plays on a childhood idea that the events of a fictional book could have really happened.
It's really a fun premise…The idea of developing a movie based on Journey to the Center of the Earth, Jules Verne's 120-year-old novel, was something that Walden had in development when I came on the project. And my goal was to figure out a way that you could take the spirit of the book–because I read the book and I thought, "Oh this is going to be a tough sell." Because 120 years ago, what Jules Verne wrote into it as amazing adventure was, "And then we went to Iceland, and it took months to get there." And it was just amazing, because we actually went to Iceland! I thought, well, that's not going to be very fun. We'd better do something to update it so that we can have something that still has the sense of adventure and wonder but is placed in a modern-day world, so it's more accessible to modern-day audiences–and also the fact that we know a lot more about the science of what's going on, geology, plate tectonics and so forth. So the conceit was, let's take a modern-day geologist and have him suspect that the science in the Jules Verne might actually be based on something real, go and investigate it…and get into this calamity where he retraces the steps of the characters in the book. But he knows about the book, so he can refer to it to sort of solve the mystery and use it to get some good help on how to get the heck out of there.

How do you make the transition between a very broad task like second-unit direction to concentrated direction of such a small cast?
That's not necessarily the logical career step, nor is it necessarily a good idea. Because a lot of people I know who are brilliant at second-unit directing and big stunt stuff may not be interested in the nuances of the emotional arcs of three characters. For me, over the years, as I've done lots of big effects sequences, it's been obvious to me that what really makes them powerful is not what you're doing on the screen in terms of fancy CGI, because audiences are aware that you can do anything right now. I look[ed] at it, and I said, "Why do some scenes have so much more impact and resonance with the audience than others?" And the answer was so obvious: it's because we care about the characters that are going through those giant effects moments in some movies more than others. If you're invested in the story of the people, then what happened to them is really important. And if you're not, if for whatever reason you're not engaged in that, it's just a show-off real of fancy visual effects. Audiences don't respond as well, those movies are not as successful.

Because of my background in visual effects, it was logical for me to go through, nail all the effects sequences, and then I handed them off to the team people that I hired who were now going to be in charge of that. [Then] I, as the director, met with the actors and I said, "I don't want you to worry. I've got a technical background, and you must be worried that I'm only going to be thinking about the bluescreen issues. I'm not. I'm here to make sure that the characters that you guys are portraying have depth and resonance to the audience, that there's some story arc to each of them. Because that's what this movie's really about. It's got lots of real cool window dressing, but it's not about all that stuff. It's about you three characters." And I insisted that I have two weeks of rehearsal time before we started shooting with the three actors. [W]e literally met in an empty, sort of like a warehouse space with tape marks on the ground for all of the sizes of all the sets we'd be working in when they were built. And we just focused on character and story, and went scene by scene and we played out the scenes, and we talked about 'em. "Does this feel real to you?" So the actors had time to say, "You know, I don't believe my character would do this," or, "It's awkward for me to do it this way–can I say this, can I do this?" And those are like, those magic times where you can really make a difference in what you're going to see on the screen later and there's nobody else around.

[S]o we sorted it out, and we had my script supervisor come, and she took notes and that way, when we got to the shooting portion of the movie, we're on a stage with fifty technicians and giant bluescreens and 3-D…the three actors and I knew what we were doing, what the story was about, what was important. So they had really good confidence that I was telling their story in a great way, and since I did know how to handle all the visual effects stuff, that was kind of a no-brainer. The result was that we've got a movie that's got a great balance. The characters are significant and sympathetic and I think you like to watch them when you see the movie. And the stuff that they're seeing is just amazing.

Isn't 3D something of a distraction from that?
You know, I don't think it is. I think 3D has been used as a gimmick by people who are making films that are essentially gimmick films–you go to a theme park, you see a fifteen-minute movie, you want stuff flying off the screen every thirty seconds, because that's the fun of it. You go see a ninety-minute movie, and it has to be an authentic story that engages you. It can't cause eyestrain because you're sitting there watching a 3D film for much longer, and if there's anything about the process that's causing eyestrain, it'll build up over that amount of time. So my approach was, you put the glasses on, it makes you feel like you're there with the characters, but that everything else that's going on is going to be a serious movie. So when you see the movie in 2D, it plays just great, it doesn't seem like there's anything missing. When you see it in 3D, it's that much more fun because I've staged some things that are clearly there to delight the audience.

I did like that the first obvious use of 3D was being spit at.
Yeah, that's not only a lot of fun because audiences don't expect it and it's a good 3D moment, but it also sets the tone. It's to say, to the adults, at least–hey, we know what we're doing. We're having fun. Just chill out and come along for the ride, because we're gonna knowingly have a really great time, and you guys are lucky enough to be seeing it in 3D, so there are special things in it for you.

I certainly appreciate that you didn't assault me.
(laughs) There was a lot of discussion between the studio and myself about how many overt 3D moments to put into the film, and we finally compromised. I was very cautious that I not put them into the scenes that had any serious drama or emotion, because they do take you out of the movie. But I also was able to structure some of the more emotional scenes…so that I could, within the organic nature of the scene, have a lot of fun [with the] 3D experience. Like the scene where they discover these glowing birds, it's fun, it's magical, the music's amazing there–and I positioned the camera there so that anything that's near the camera, such as a lot of birds flying, it happens to be in the theatre with you. It's like the best of both worlds. I don't think it takes you out of the movie, but it actually brings you into the movie.

With all of the visual effects at play and you directing the thing, how much do you have to delegate to others?
Well, I delegated the non-directorial jobs. I hired a visual effects supervisor who had worked with me when I was working with visual effects, so I knew his skill and taste levels were very high. We had a lot of shorthand. I hired a director of photography who I had worked with for twenty years doing very complicated bluescreen work, because seventy percent of the movie has bluescreen somewhere in the frame. And by doing that, I trusted them to do a really good job with their area of expertise, and I was gonna focus on mine–and this being my directorial debut, I wanted to overcompensate and be completely there for the actors and not worry about any of the technical stuff before post-production.

Being a director's not easy, that's for sure, but doing visual effects at the level I was doing them, I had already had to face the issues of how do I help the actors give a more credible performance…and I had to learn how to help actors know what to do when the things they're reacting to aren't there. That was a skill set I had already developed, and when I brought it to directing, I think they were probably very relieved that I said, y'know, "In my experience, here's the kinds of things that [will] help you guys look great on camera, look like you're completely there and you know what's going on." And I did animatics of all the sequences that had effects in it–little cartoon versions of the movie–that [were] going to going to be starring them when we shot it. And it had dialogue, it had music, and it was edited…I would say, "Okay, here's the sequence of Brendan running from the dinosaur, or the fish jumping out of the ocean–here's you right here, this is what's gonna happen. This is what it's gonna look like when done." So they got it. It wasn't this mysterious thing where I'm the only one that knows, we're on a bluescreen stage. I also, from experience, knew what impetus that I needed to give them physically when they're acting. And if it's me yelling in a megaphone, you know, the roar sounds of a dinosaur or a light bulb on a string–so that everybody's eyes are exactly at the right line-up point for following something like a flying bird–I just told my guys ahead of time I'm gonna need this, this, this and this. Or I need a big X on the ceiling forty feet above the floor, so when they all turn to look up, they all have something to really look at. And that worked out great. They were so appreciative that I was looking out for them and giving them something that an actor would need to give a credible performance. Because they're really good actors, I think what you see in the movie is people that look like they're completely in the scene with all of these fantastic things.

But how did youget used to that over your career?
…Well, that was my passion, getting into visual effects–I wanted to know how to make it completely, magically real to an audience, and a lot of times it was watching it not go well, or actors have a real hard time doing something, and me having to go, Well, what can I do to help this person out here, because they're floundering? I know, I'll put myself in this scene and I'll play the other character. It was just problem-solving, and over the years, I came to understand what is it that an actor needs to be able to give the best performance he can. Some don't need much. Brendan is like the Marcel Marceau of these kinds of movies. You just tell him there's a big thing over there and he will go over there and–he'll believe it. And other actors that I've worked with in prior movies need a lot of help because they're great on camera, but they're always reacting to something that's there. [S]o I think about what is it they need. It's like, if you're supposed to flinch at a gunshot, the best acting in the world isn't as good as firing off a blank when the guy doesn't expect it. My job is to look at what is it that I really need to do to help them be credible on camera, [and] they always are better because of it.

FILM FREAK CENTRAL: You knew Tim Russert?
BRENDAN FRASER: No, but ah… I felt like I did. (pause) He just reached out to everybody on a level that seemed so human. But let's talk about 3D. (He sits down on the couch, hiking his leg up onto a pillow.) Let's find a human way to talk about that.

As someone well known as an Everyman actor, a kind of surrogate for the audience, how do you react to things that aren't there? And after doing this for so long–it's been almost ten years since The Mummy–how do you constantly build back up to that sense of surprise?
Well, I've had an unusual education in the time that I came of age in filmmaking…and I've seen quality turn into quantity in visual effects. In the early films I made–School Ties, Encino Man, the first two films I ever made…they didn't have monitors for playback. (chuckles) If they did, it was one of the black, sort of like barred screens that they'd use to line up a shot, and that was it, there was nothing there. It evolved quickly, we all know that. Doubled, quadrupled, et cetera et cetera–exponentially. And along the way, I think I received an education as [that] technology took place. And being asked to interact with so-called 'things that aren't there' is for me a collaborative challenge that I've always enjoyed being a part of. [I] do my best to make sure that everyone believes that it is there, and that's music to the CGI artist's ears, because they're working electronically from an organic performance that an actor is giving. As long as an actor believes in that, whether they're fighting something–it's a mummy trying to rip your head off your shoulders (he crosses his arms, simulating a struggle)…and it's not there, 'cause I'd prefer to do it by myself so I really don't have to strike a stuntman in the head wearing a green [suit] or whatever…to simply following a fixed point in space that in some cases can be, for people who don't have the ability to look at something, see it go through a room without looking at a green ping pong ball as a point of reference, which is a way to do it… um… (pause) Call it an unusual gift or talent that used to get me sent out of the classroom for some hallway time to sit by myself and chat with my imaginary friends.

What I can say is, is that the technology has come to this place, that I wonder if–this is just me talking, it's a personal view–if audiences, myself included, have, here in the year 2008–let's date this interview, it's June–have come to a point where they're not as impressed any longer in a way that I remember being when I saw the Stained-Glass Man climb out of the church wall in Young Sherlock Holmes and get into a swordfight with him. I was like, "Wow!" That was the reason to go the movies! That was it! That's what I remembered about it! Hadn't been done before! Where are we now?

Well, I guess we're at this point in time where we're kind of expecting everything. We know everything, but we're still expecting you to do something, I suppose would be the typical audience reaction.
You mean me personally?

I mean, you personally and you in a broader sense.
(sotto voce) I have this theory that I'm trying to work up to–it may not agree with you, but I think that there's a saturation point that we've reached. Because in those last ten, twelve, whatever years that I've been working in those effects films, an entire generation of audiences has…come of age. (even quieter) They don't know [anything] different, unless they're watching films that predate the last ten, twelve years. There is a way of maybe becoming a bit blasé about it–and the success of how you judge the quality of a film relies on are you there to see the visual effects, or are you there to see the characters within the world of that film?

Sure. Especially with this new generation growing up, this has already happened. I grew up in a transitional period in terms of–y'know, I played the NES, onward. I witnessed that evolution–but now we've got a very different viewpoint, just because we're here, and there's no changing it.
There's no looking back. And what's the next step? Well, we're making a bold choice in taking the best of what technology has to offer right now, and incorporating that with the best of what other digital cinematography has to offer, and that's 3D. It's not what you may recall…you wear the glasses, and there's a thing that says, y'know, "put 'em on now," and then, oh, I lost 'em underneath the seat, or whatever–or they're red and blue-eyed and make you feel a little queasy. Or you're going to an amusement park and putting those polarized lenses on and you get ten, fifteen minutes of something that just goes 'whiz-bang' makes your eyes blink and water a little bit. But that's why you're at an amusement park. And that's been the CGI experience, with the exception of one or two… (chuckles) There's this very bizarre attraction at Universal, it's got the guy from The Terminator–it's got Schwarzenegger–it's T2—

Oh, T2 3-D. Yeah, I've seen that.
You know what I'm talking about. Okay, well, that's sort of it in its infancy, and that was actually (spoken in a humorously obvious conspiratorial whisper) Eric Brevig behind a lot of that. So let's just put it this way: this is the first preconceived, pre-digitalized, narrative-driven, live-action, feature-length action-comedy-adventure in the long run that's shot entirely in HiDef, and being delivered to an audience as a 3D film. Will it be able to make it to every audience in 3D? No, because there's not enough [digital] theatres in the country, but that's another industry question. If you want some insight into that, I can refer you to a really good article that just came out in CONDE NAST PORTFOLIO, it's on stands now–and they explain about converting from analog to digital, digital putting in extra box office, and all the economic things like that…I mean, I can tell you what time it is, I can't tell you how to build a clock. What I do know is, after all of that's done, all the homework, you want a piece of entertainment. And that's what 3D is gonna be able to do, and so far it has. One of my favourite things to do is watching the audience watching this film. I don't care if you're 8 or you're 88, everybody does their reaching: to try and catch a glow-bird, or help Sean get his pocket-knife, or, or duck when the T-Rex shows up, and you see grown men leap out of their skin! It's just part of the thrill of it, and that's the in-your-face stuff that happens that people think, oh, that's what 3D is. Well, in a way it was, 'cause it was gimmicky, but the other two elements of it are this: it's an immersive experience. The audience is required–they're not invited–they are there to be in a world that shows those three characters inhabit along with them. I'd say the third dimension…is the depth of field that you've never really ever seen before. The horizon line in the raft sequences, the curvature of the ocean–it's just remarkable, and that's just a testament to how good the creative artists were in their imagination and how well they can hold this together.

"Will it be able to make it to every audience in 3D? No, because there's not enough [digital] theatres in the country, but that's another industry question. If you want some insight into that, I can refer you to a really good article that just came out in CONDE NAST PORTFOLIO…"

In reviewing your films over the past few days, I watched, back-to-back, Blast from the Pastand The Quiet American. Very interesting contrast, right there. So when you mention a straight entertainment…how do you return to something like that, when you play someone like Alden Pyle in The Quiet American, which basically states that the Everyman is a lie?
(secretively) Who was the man behind that mask? You only get a glimpse of him in the last few moments before it's too late for him. That's the creepy part of that story. So the whole performance is about a guy who's trying to pass, and you've gotta keep that in sight. 'The other hand, Blast from the Past, Adam was an innocent. A naïf in the truest sense of the word. You've got that upstanding gentleman [who] believes that chivalry's not dead–there's a way things are done and a way things just aren't done, and, "Darn it, I'll get things done that they should be done, and then I'm gonna take you back into my bomb shelter." (laughs) "What?" Y'know, enter the situational comedy of it all. I love to work in contrasts, I've been so lucky to have diversity…and work with interesting directors and actors.

But is it difficult to work between those contrasts, just to make those transitions?
(very quiet) It should be. Otherwise there's no risk…You do learn more from going towards a little bit of the uncomfortableness, or, you know, that feeling of, Oh man, they're gonna confiscate my SAG card after this movie. (loud laughter) And it turns out to the one picture that people respond to in a way that's very–but inevitably, my friend, nothing ventured, nothing gained. And I don't know an actor who isn't happy to be working–I don't know any of the idols well, I'm not among them. And being interested in a collaborative process–and being, for instance, in Journey 3D, the privilege of being named a producer, cared with the responsibilities, that meant that I had to bring the sum of what I know about how to get from the page to the screen. I know that by the virtue of having done it frequently enough that the voice can be heard.

In watching some of your films, what I've really admired about you is how facially expressive you are. How much do youhave to centre on your face?
(very quiet) Gosh, y'know, I think one of my favourite college professors was a guy called Hal Ryder–no, I know he is–and he's a wonderful guy. He's still teaching, he's in Pakistan right now, teaching there–very interesting guy. And he was constantly, y'know, training us in our late teens, early twenties: "Brendan, Brendan–don't mug. Don't mug. Just be there, just think it, just believe a situation. No matter what it is, you don't have to more than what's on the page. For you, that'll come naturally." I don't think I've ever walked away from not having…hung on to a piece of advice and then gone back to it: that you need to just remember that if you just believe in a situation, then your audience will, too. And if you're not, you're not doing your job.