Poltergeist (1982) (25th Anniversary Deluxe Edition)

[Marv Inc.]

Hooper directed the movie but he's an introvert so was happy for Steven to step in and direct the actors aswell.

On the funhouse BD one of the actors said he would mumble some direction to the actors and they would look abit unsure so Toby would turn to one of the producer's or his assistant and say "you know what i mean" and they would direct the actors on what Toby wanted from them.

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by Marv Inc.

Hooper directed the movie but he's an introvert so was happy for Steven to step in and direct the actors aswell.

On the funhouse BD one of the actors said he would mumble some direction to the actors and they would look abit unsure so Toby would turn to one of the producer's or his assistant and say "you know what i mean" and they would direct the actors on what Toby wanted from them.

Some directors give minimal instruction to the actors and in some cases rarely speak to the actors. The assistant director talks to the actors in cases like that.

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

I can only speak from my own experience and what others have told me about their experiences, but I'm not speaking in the abstract, and I'm definitely not speaking only of auteurs with contractual final cut and complete creative control.

Anyway, I wasn't looking to provide a definitive answer, only to say that this conversation will continue to go on.

But you acknowledge a historical precedent, multiple times over a case, that directors can hold authorship over a film but do not always shepherd the film through scoring. It is definitely not how it worked in the classical studio era.

Originally Posted by BPW2016

The point of my use of those quotes was to highlight that this -



- is just a load of whiny BS. Hooper clearly never fully directed the movie.

And Spielberg clearly never fully directed a single scene, not without Hooper there. Yet, once again, actors have stated Spielberg was not there as often as is said. Thus, Hooper directed much of the film, fully.

One side is simply speculating in an earnest desire to believe Spielberg has some sort of magic sprinkle dust that automatically makes a film theirs, simply due to his presence even though a fully active director was there, while the other side can outright state Hooper was fully directing at multiple points, as actors, those individuals whom a director is supposed to work with, state.

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by Marv Inc.

Hooper directed the movie but he's an introvert so was happy for Steven to step in and direct the actors aswell.

On the funhouse BD one of the actors said he would mumble some direction to the actors and they would look abit unsure so Toby would turn to one of the producer's or his assistant and say "you know what i mean" and they would direct the actors on what Toby wanted from them.

Thus, if this was the case, Hooper was still the one making the decisions.

Originally Posted by vortexx

Some directors give minimal instruction to the actors and in some cases rarely speak to the actors. The assistant director talks to the actors in cases like that.

This is also very true, and speaks to why confusion can occur from those with weak arguments.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

But you acknowledge a historical precedent, multiple times over a case, that directors can hold authorship over a film but do not always shepherd the film through scoring. It is definitely not how it worked in the classical studio era.

I'm talking of the recent past, the last few decades, the modern studio system. I'm just saying that in my experience, and the experiences others have relayed to me from their own productions, it's unusual for a director to have zero involvement in scoring their own film. That's the only stage of Poltergeist that I've heard anything firsthand about.

I'm a huge fan of Spielberg, and the film definitely has his DNA in it in many ways, which is inevitable in a film he was so close to.

I find all the films he didn't direct but was intimately involved with fascinating. For example, just last week we had The Trial of the Chicago 7, which he developed for a long time to direct. The script clearly had elements and even scenes and sequences that feel like they're based on notes he gave.

The same with the opening portions of Interstellar (less so the later portion, which was completely rewritten after the draft I've seen from when he was onboard).

There's also Memoirs of a Geisha. And two of my favorites that he developed for a while with the intention of directing, Deep Impact and The Mask of Zorro. They all bear his fingerprints, and I love looking for them

He stayed on as a producer with all of those films, some more actively involved than others, but I don't know of many other films like Poltergeist, where he was on set so much, or where his contributions were so huge, which is why this conversation is fascinating.

Even among those who were on set, stories vary, and as was demonstrated with the conflicting quotes from some of them, even their own stories often changed.

I think the danger is the solo auteur theory, I'm certainly not arguing for that, it feels reductive in most cases. Movies are too much of a collective artform. I keep the Poltergeist BD in my chronological Spielberg collection, because there's enough of his DNA in it for that to feel right to me. I'm sure many more people have theirs filed in their Hooper collections, and that's totally logical. None of us are wrong.

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

I'm talking of the recent past, the last few decades, the modern studio system. I'm just saying that in my experience, and the experiences others have relayed to me from their own productions, it's unusual for a director to have zero involvement in scoring their own film. That's the only stage of Poltergeist that I've heard anything firsthand about.

I'm a huge fan of Spielberg, and the film definitely has his DNA in it in many ways, which is inevitable in a film he was so close to.

I find all the films he didn't direct but was intimately involved with fascinating. For example, just last week we had The Trial of the Chicago 7, which he developed for a long time to direct. The script clearly had elements and even scenes and sequences that feel like they're based on notes he gave.

The same with the opening portions of Interstellar (less so the later portion, which was completely rewritten after the draft I've seen from when he was onboard).

There's also Memoirs of a Geisha. And two of my favorites that he developed for a while with the intention of directing, Deep Impact and The Mask of Zorro. They all bear his fingerprints, and I love looking for them

He stayed on as a producer with all of those films, some more actively involved than others, but I don't know of many other films like Poltergeist, where he was on set so much, or where his contributions were so huge, which is why this conversation is fascinating.

Even among those who were on set, stories vary, and as was demonstrated with the conflicting quotes from some of them, even their own stories often changed.

I think the danger is the solo auteur theory, I'm certainly not arguing for that, it feels reductive in most cases. Movies are too much of a collective artform. I keep the Poltergeist BD in my chronological Spielberg collection, because there's enough of his DNA in it for that to feel right to me. I'm sure many more people have theirs filed in their Hooper collections, and that's totally logical. None of us are wrong.

Since you're into Spielberg, have you seen this original script before?

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by vortexx

Since you're into Spielberg, have you seen this original script before?

Never even heard of that, I'm assuming it's one of his early projects?

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Never even heard of that, I'm assuming it's one of his early projects?

Yes. It came with a letter from his lawyer that if we were to film it, we couldn't use his name to promote it.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by vortexx

Yes. It came with a letter from his lawyer that if we were to film it, we couldn't use his name to promote it.

Interesting! He writes so rarely now, it's amazing to think of the period in the late 60s and early 70s when he was writing so much.

[BPW2016]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

And Spielberg clearly never fully directed a single scene, not without Hooper there. Yet, once again, actors have stated Spielberg was not there as often as is said. Thus, Hooper directed much of the film, fully.

One side is simply speculating in an earnest desire to believe Spielberg has some sort of magic sprinkle dust that automatically makes a film theirs, simply due to his presence even though a fully active director was there, while the other side can outright state Hooper was fully directing at multiple points, as actors, those individuals whom a director is supposed to work with, state.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

And Spielberg clearly never fully directed a single scene, not without Hooper there. Yet, once again, actors have stated Spielberg was not there as often as is said. Thus, Hooper directed much of the film, fully.

One side is simply speculating in an earnest desire to believe Spielberg has some sort of magic sprinkle dust that automatically makes a film theirs, simply due to his presence even though a fully active director was there, while the other side can outright state Hooper was fully directing at multiple points, as actors, those individuals whom a director is supposed to work with, state.

[Matt89]

Didn't Spielberg fully direct the face ripping scene? I mean yes this debate will go on forever as to who "truly" directed the film, but the fact that Spielberg wrote the story, the screenplay and was a producer on the film, he clearly had a ton of input on the direction the movie took. To me, it feels like much more of a Spielberg film (the neighbourhood, for example, has some serious ET vibes about it). Feels much more in line with him than films like The Funhouse, Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1 and 2, etc. And before someone goes off on the darker aspects of the movie, remember that there's some pretty dark sh*t that goes on in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Also some pretty f*cked up stuff happens in Jaws.

The fact that it was a Steven Spielberg production was THE main selling point of the movie lol. I highly doubt the film would've done nearly as well if he wasn't attached to the project. Watch the original trailer, the first thing you see is "A Steven Spielberg Production". Spielberg was what got people to see the movie, not Hooper (and I love Tobe Hooper).

~Matt

[James Luckard]

I truly don't have a horse in this, I just enjoy watching the film for the clearly Spielbergian elements, but others can watch it for anything of Hooper's that they see.

However, there are not many other films where authorship is so hotly disputed, and still discussed this many years later.

The only similar one I can think of is Superman II, and interestingly on that film Lester was on set almost the entire time Donner was shooting, but I've never heard anyone suggest Lester bossed Donner around, even though the Salkinds basically brought him in to control Lester. In general, Donner's footage is quite clearly his, and Lester's is clearly Lester's

[BPW2016]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Didn't Spielberg fully direct the face ripping scene?

Not only did he direct that scene but those are his hands ripping the face apart.

[vortexx]

Something some people seem to be missing is that almost all films have a separate 2nd unit director. Most of the time the 2nd unit does less important stuff but they often fo scenes involving stunts or effects. A 2nd unit director is never assigned a co director credit. The real director is usually not present when the 2nd unit is shooting. Even if Spielberg directed 10% and maybe more of the film, regardless he wouldn't get listed as a director. He could have taken a credit as 2nd unit etc but he doesn't need to. There probably is a formal 2nd unit director in the credits.

People bringing up the look of the film should consider that it is a Steven Spielberg production and the producer can dictate such things. A producer has more power than a director. The producers of the Funhouse randomly ripped 10 pages out of the screen so it wouldn't go over budget. Just an example.

Spielberg is a huge Texss Chainsaw Massacre fan which is why this collaboration happened.

[BPW2016]

Something some people seem to be missing is that almost all films have a separate 2nd unit director...but that 2nd unit director doesn't tend to be Steven Spielberg.

Another thing that people tend to ignore that it's not normal for the 2nd unit director to ALSO be hanging around almost constantly with the main unit, lining up shots, directing the cast and generally hanging over the nominal director like a big shadow.

[lesco]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

However, there are not many other films where authorship is so hotly disputed, and still discussed this many years later.

Well, there's the whole Hawks/Nyby affair for THE THING, but I don't think that's disputed so much. And then there's MY NAME IS NOBODY. No-one's gonna tell me that's not a Sergio Leone film.

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by lesco

Well, there's the whole Hawks/Nyby affair for THE THING, but I don't think that's disputed so much. And then there's MY NAME IS NOBODY. No-one's gonna tell me that's not a Sergio Leone film.

Funny thing - Universal approached Tobe Hooper to do the Thing remake in the late 70s. He and Kim Henkle wrote a script but Universal didn't care for the direction the script took and put it aside.

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by BPW2016

Something some people seem to be missing is that almost all films have a separate 2nd unit director...but that 2nd unit director doesn't tend to be Steven Spielberg.

Another thing that people tend to ignore that it's not normal for the 2nd unit director to ALSO be hanging around almost constantly with the main unit, lining up shots, directing the cast and generally hanging over the nominal director like a big shadow.

Al Adamson often used Bud Cardos to do 2nd unit and he was always there as he was also acting and doing stunts.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by BPW2016

Not only did he direct that scene but those are his hands ripping the face apart.

LOL and I've always thought that was the most "Hooper" scene of the film.

Nobody is going to tell me this wasn't the Steven Spielberg show featuring Tobe Hooper. The most I'll allow for the latter is a co-directing credit, and that's extremely generous.