Elfman: Interview and Short Film

FirstShowing.net has an interview with Danny Elfman. The composer discusses his creative process, working with Tim Burton, his future projects, his inspirations, and more.

Also, Elfman fans might appreciate this stop-motion animated short film: DemiUrge Emesis by Voltaire, which was narrated by Elfman, and features music by Voltaire and Rasputina (and Burton-alum writer Caroline Thompson gets a "Special Thanks" shout-out, too):




Here's the interview:

I'm very fascinated with the process and the technique of scoring and I wanted to focus on that. Starting at the top, I was wondering if you could walk through a little bit of your scoring process. Do you read the script at the beginning? And what comes next in creating the score?

Danny Elfman: No. I don't actually start with the script. I'm sometimes sent a script. And I actually — believe it or not, I try to avoid getting any ideas or taking any ideas seriously from the script. And what I discovered over the years is that every time I started early and wrote music, none of it ever survived, not a note, when I actually saw the movie. Because what I came to understand is that there's so many ways to shoot the same script. And depending on how the director decides to shoot that script, really, will have a lot to do with what kind of music [I create]. You can take the same script and shoot it very theatrically, with the lighting and the sets, or shoot it very raw or more naturally. And if the cuts are quick and jarring, if the cuts are smooth with lots of dissolves, they just really want a completely different kind of music. Not to mention the huge factor of the performances. And the performances are really– for me, it just so changes what I imagined in my head. I've never seen a movie that ended up like what I thought it was going to be from reading the script.

So it sounds like your process comes from actually watching the finished product, or close to a finished product?

Elfman: Yeah, exactly. It comes from the visuals. Sometimes it's finished, sometimes it's unfinished. On one extreme, you've got a movie like Batman, where [Burton's] only halfway through shooting. He brought me in to sit in with them for a few days on the Gotham City set. And really, between looking at, maybe, 30 minutes of footage that they'd roughed together and walking around the set, I really did, in fact, on the way home from that trip to London, get the whole Batman theme worked out in my head, what became the main title. But that was the type of theme where 30 minutes was certainly enough to get the tone of it. So you have to see something– or rather, I have to see something. I think everybody works completely differently. But for me, as soon as I have a picture, whether it be rough or finished, in front of me, I start hearing the music. It's just an immediate response to image. And so I'm definitely image driven.

Now, it could be a polished, finished film, which happens sometimes when you step in at the very end. Or, more likely, it's just a big rough mess with huge gaps not there. That doesn't matter. You still get the tone and the feel and the performance and the story enough to get started moving. So it all starts with looking at picture, no matter what form that picture is. And then I just start immersing myself in it, really. I get into it a lot, and I try to write down my initial impulses.

I mean, the best way to describe my process is I'll try to pick three or four scenes that I think are crucial turning point scenes to the movie. Maybe, something in the beginning, something in the middle, and certainly there's always some major moments towards the end that define the bigger or more important moments in the film. And I'll put an inordinate number of hours into those scenes. Sometimes, I'll even add the main titles to that. The main titles may not seem important, but they often are to me. Because that's, again, very often how I'll define the tone of what I'm getting into and how it's all going to work.

So if I've written a main title, and I've got three or four or five scenes leading up to a finale. And I feel like I've got those nailed, and I can understand in my head where the themes go and how I need them to behave for me — meaning, do I need them to: If I have a theme I like, do I need it to get whimsical? Do I need it to get heroic? Do I need it to get serious? Do I need it to get mocking? Do I need it to get sarcastic? You know, what do I need it to do? And I need to know that it's going to do all those things I'm going to ask it to. So it's kind of like the theme become an animal, and I've got to make sure it can do all these tricks that I'm going to demand it to do. Before I, then, go about the process of starting the rest of the score.

Do you do a lot of revisions on a particular theme or a piece of music in the film? And how many revisions usually are there? For example, on the theme for Alice in Wonderland, how many different revision did you go through until you got to the final theme we hear in the movie?

Elfman: Well, I mean, there's two levels to that. But in the beginning, when I'm playing music, let's say on Alice for Tim, it's very common that I'll have half a dozen pieces worked out first time I play music for Tim on a particular scene. Because early on, I'll have a lot of ideas. And I'm not sure exactly what my main themes are going to be. I have pieces that I like. So I might try an approach to a scene that I like. And I might try one or two variations to that approach. And then, I might walk away from it, come back– in fact, that's what I try to do. And then approach the scene completely separately again from a totally different perspective. And then, if I can, to even do that a third time.

So whatever I've been working on, whatever I think, "Oh, that's interesting," I'm going to intentionally go back. Leave it for an hour, come back, and then try to write music for the same scene again and do something totally different. That's the kind of variation process when I'm first bringing the director into my world. When we get to the point where, okay, we've got all that stuff nailed down. We've got the big scenes nailed down, and I start scene by scene, there's really no limit to the number of revisions I can do. I mean, there are scenes — there's one scene I know I wrote 23 pieces of music before the final one actually got in there. That's kind of extreme on Alice. Others might've been three or four revisions.

Where does your biggest inspiration come from in composing in general? Is it other musicians or artwork?

Elfman: I don't know. I still think I'm inspired by what I grew up on, in a way. That's a hard one to answer. I grew up as a film music fan, as a young man, way before I started scoring or even was interested in the possibility of scoring. I was a huge fan of Bernard Herrmann and Nino Rota. And I could tell, listening to an old movie, was that a Max Steiner score? Was that a Franz Waxman score? Korngold? Tiomkin? And I loved playing the game of tuning into a movie, an old movie on television, and then trying to guess who the composer was on old stuff, then seeing if I was right. I was definitely a film music nerd, but it never occurred to me to actually do it. So I liken myself to a fan that got pulled into the game, like a basketball player that suddenly gets thrown the ball.

Can you still do the guessing game with today's movies? Can you watch something on TV today or go to another movie now and guess who the composer is from today's movies as well?

Elfman: It's much, much harder today. But there are certain composers that have a real clearly defined style. I might be able to go, "Oh, that's a John Williams score. That's a Tommy Newman score." And there's certainly a lot of composers that surprise me. I go, "Wow. That's really good. I don't know who that is." And then I'll find out. But much more today than back in the old days, you've got a lot of very successful composers who really make their living by imitating other composers.

Of course.

Elfman: In that sense, it's really, really hard. Because I'll go, "Well, am I hearing — is this Jerry Goldsmith? I don't think so. I think it's somebody doing Jerry Goldsmith. But now, they're doing John Williams. And now, at this point in the movie, it seems like they're doing– oh, look at that. They're doing Danny Elfman. Hmm. Interesting." They sound a little bit like a smorgasbord of composers. So in that sense it's harder to tell. Because composers, back in the old days, they didn't freely, in the context of the same move, borrow the style of two to three other contemporaries of theirs and mimic them. But that's a big chunk of film music today.

So then how do you differentiate yourself? How do you continue to stay original and fresh and unique in the scores that you create, so that you can stand out from the others? It seems like that would be a challenge for you, at this point and time, to do that.

Elfman: Well, I mean, it's always a challenge, and I can't say, for a fact, that I do sound original or stand out from the crowd. I mean, that's for others to say. I try to just approach things the best I can. And I hope that what I'm doing is, to some extent, original. You know, nothing's totally original, of course. And believe me, it's also hard not to rip off ourselves. At a certain point, once we have a certain kind of style, there's always a temptation to fall back and do something exactly like we've done before, as well. And that's always a heavy temptation, even if a director doesn't tell us, "I want this style for this scene, and this style for this scene, and this style for this scene." Because I think the biggest difference in composing today and the old days isn't so much the composers — it's the way films are made.

When Alfred Hitchcock made a film with Bernard Herrmann, he wasn't telling Bernard Herrmann, "I really want this cue to sound like this Korngold score. And I really want this one to sound like this Alex North score. But for this cue, can you please give me that thing from, you know, whomever?" He hired Bernard Herrmann to do Bernard Herrmann. And they hired Alex North to do Alex North. The directors didn't get that involved in the music. It was a completely different system. In fact, the director frequently moved onto another film and the editor and the composers were just left to do their work. So it was just night and day completely different. And I'm not saying that that's better. It's just very different.

Now, you have directors who frequently will insist on different scenes in their moving sounding like something that they've already got in their head, or something from another movie. So I'm not really– I'm not trying to blast other composers for being derivative more than they should be or need be. It's really about the filmmaking process. Because I've been there, and every composer goes through this problem of a director's got something in their head. And it's just really hard to shake them out of it. It's the fact that directors are who they are, and their own personalities cause that. Composers, like everybody else, we have to– at a certain point you have to give them what they want. Or you have to, at a certain point, turn your back and split. It's a very difficult process.

So in terms of where it is and where it was and where it's going, it's really hard to say. But in the process of knowing that directors can be very, very picky and very difficult, I try, as all composers that are worth anything– and there's a lot of really good composers out there today. You try to keep your own voice. You try to sell it to the director from the perspective that you think makes the most sense. And sometimes you have to pick your battles. Sometimes it gets really bloody in the process. And sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's really easy.

So you never know what to expect. Every movie is like walking out onto this landscape. This is the best way I can describe it. Each film you start, as a composer, you're walking out onto this huge landscape. And you can talk about music until your blue in the face with a director. It doesn't mean shit. Because when you start actually playing stuff for them, it's never going to be what they're expecting. Because there actually is no way to describe music. And you can't show a picture of it. You're going to talk about it in an abstract level. At a certain point they'll hear it. And they're going to respond the way they're going to respond. And often, they don't even know why they're responding the way they respond. It's just how they're emotionally responding to the music. And that landscape, sometimes, is like this lovely bucolic stroll, where it's like being on a boat and gliding down a river. And sometimes that landscape, you find yourself in the middle of World War I. The army's tanks are coming from every which direction and gas grenades are getting thrown. And there's shells coming from everywhere. And you really put out your energy and try to keep your head down and not get hit.

So the crazy thing about it is that you often just never know what– you open a door, and you start into this landscape. And you take a few steps, and you really have no idea what that landscape's going to become. So that's really the best metaphor I can describe for what it's like starting a new film. Sometimes, you finish a film, and you go, "Man, I was expecting that was going to be so difficult. And it was just so smooth, such a lovely experience. And it was such a nice, straight, easy path." And then, sometimes, you know, you get to the other side really feeling like you just survived a war. And that can feel good, too, by the way.

Yeah. With Alice, you've, obviously, worked with Tim Burton I think more than any other director. And that must–

Elfman: Well, yeah. Yeah, 13th time, and I have to say I can't predict him any more now than on Pee-wee's Big Adventure.

So he's just as unpredictable?

Elfman: Yea, completely unpredictable. People think we have some kind of shorthand, that I know what he's going to be looking for. And he knows what to expect. He really isn't that way, at all. I appreciate and understand his sensibility. But how he's going to react to a particular piece of music, I have no way of predicting.

Does he want something new from you in every film he does? Or does he even reference his own films and say, "Oh, I want the sound from this one, or I want the sound from this other one?"

Elfman: No. He'll never say from anything. He'll really just say, "This music makes me feel this way." And I don't know why, but it does. And then, I have to sit there and go, "Okay. What is it? Is the orchestration? Is it the melody?" And so I'll, then, do a lot of trial and error. I'll take the same piece– sometimes, I'll write something completely different. Sometimes I'll take the same piece and just change a few things. Change the tempo and change the orchestration. And suddenly, he really likes it.

So there's a very tricky intuitive process of what's making the director feel this way. Is it this instrument? Is it the sound of the trumpet? Is it the sound of the clarinet? Or, really, is it just the melody? Or is it just this turn in a melody? And if I take this turn and change it, suddenly, it's feeling completely different. And so very often, there's a lot of experimentation, changing it, rearranging it, re-orchestrating it. And if it's still not working, at a certain point, you have to abandon it completely, and just go somewhere else. But sometimes, it's also surprising what an impact a small adjustment can make to a piece of music and in the actual orchestration of it.

What are you working on at the moment. Do you have anything else coming up? I think you're on The Green Hornet, right?

Elfman: Not quite yet. I'm doing Restless, for Gus Van Sant. And then, we move on to The Green Hornet with Michel Gondry.

How are those two going? I mean, I look forward to hearing all of your scores, but it's always exciting to know so early out how they're coming along.

Elfman: I don't know. I've really just written a little bit of music for Gus. I haven't presented him anything, yet. I know Gus well enough to know that we'll take a journey together. And I'll try lots of different things. Gus will encourage me to try lots of really radically different things. You know, approach it from completely different angles. And it'll be interesting. I've never worked with Michel, and I'm really looking forward to it. I'm a big fan of his. So I have no idea to expect from that.

I think that's a perfect place to wrap up.

Elfman: Well, great.

Thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate it.

Elfman: My pleasure, totally. I'll talk to you again some day.

Filming of Stop-Motion "Frankenweenie" Soon?

Ain't It Cool News caught Don Hahn down at the SXSW festival during a Q&A for his new documentary, Waking Sleeping Beauty (which looks at the Disney renaissance of the 1980s and early 1990s, and features Tim Burton as a young animator). Hahn will be an executive producer for Tim Burton's forthcoming Frankenweenie, and mentioned the animated film.

Harry Knowles paraphrases Don Hahn, who said that "the puppets are ready, the script is done and now that Tim Burton is clear of Alice in Wonderland... he's set to helm Frankenweenie in 3D."

Tim Burton has been wanting to adapt his live-action short film Frankenweenie for over 25 years. The stop-motion version will be released in either 2011 or 2012. Filming will take place in London.

Burton Denies "Addams Family" Report

There has been a lot of talk of Tim Burton approaching various film projects, either as a director or producer. The latest of these reports were of Burton directing a 3D, stop-motion adaptation of The Addams Family.

MTV News decided to reach out to Burton's people, but they stated the following after directly contacting the filmmaker:

"There is no truth to the story. Tim has not lined up any of his upcoming projects."

Perhaps Burton was merely pitched by the studio as a possible candidate to direct a new version of The Addams Family. But for now, nothing official has been made, and there is no substance to the claims.

Tim Burton's Stop-Motion "Addams Family"?

Deadline.com has stated that Tim Burton might be directing a 3D, stop-motion animated adaptation of Charles Addams comics, The Addams Family.

Illumination Entertainment, the Universal-based family film unit headed by Chris Meledandri (who has produced Ice Age, Horton Hears a Who, and is producing the forthcoming Despicable Me and Flanimals), has acquired the underlying rights of the Addams drawings, once a staple of The New Yorker magazine. Burton is reportedly being considered as a director by the studio.

Meladandri will produce the film. Kevin Miserocchi of the Tee and Charles Addams Foundation will be executive producer. A writer will be hired shortly.

If these plans come to fruition, this new Addams Family movie will be the second stop-motion feature coming from Tim Burton. Burton is still directing his feature-length animated adaptation of Frankenweenie.

D23 Interview with Tim Burton

Disney's D23 website has a very indepth interview with Tim Burton, talking about Alice in Wonderland. The director discusses working on the technology-heavy film, working with various actors, the appeal of the strange characters and world created by Lewis Carroll, and much more. Here's the entire interview:

What appeals to you about this story?
In any fairy tale land there is good and bad. What I liked about Underland is that everything is slightly off, even the good people. That, to me, is something different. It's so much a part of the culture. So whether you've read the story or not, you'll know certain images or have certain ideas about it. It's such a popular story. The reason we did something with it is that it's captured the imagination of people for a very long time.

Why do you think Alice in Wonderland is still popular, more than 140 years after its publication?
It somehow taps a subconscious thing. That's why all those great stories stay around because they tap into the things that people probably aren't even aware of on a conscious level. There's definitely something about those images. That's why there have been so many versions of it. As a movie, it's always been about a passive little girl wandering around a series of adventures with weird characters. There's never any kind of gravity to it. The attempt with this was to take the idea of those stories and shape them into something that's not literal from the book but keeps the spirit of it.

How old were you when you first read the books?
I was in school, maybe like 8 or 10 years old. I have a weird connection with the books. The house where I live in London was owned by Arthur Rackham [famous English book illustrator who created the iconic color plates for the 1907 edition of Alice's Adventures In Wonderland]. I live and work out of the studio where he did some amazing versions of Alice in Wonderland. So I felt there was a connection to the material and me. And that always helps, somehow.

When you were first approached to direct, what was your reaction?
They gave me a script and they said 3D. And even before I read it, I thought, that's intriguing, and what I liked about Linda's script was she made it a story, gave it a shape for a movie that's not necessarily the book. So all those elements seemed exciting to me. What I liked about this take on the story is Alice is at an age where you're between a kid and an adult, when you're crossing over as a person. A lot of young people with old souls aren't so popular in their own culture and their own time. Alice is somebody who doesn't quite fit into that Victorian structure and society. She's more internal.

Why did you decide to make this particular version of the story?
Well, there are so many stories. It's not like it's a new story. If you read the books, there are all of these weird little adventures. So I think the goal of Linda Woolverton, the writer, was just to have the story and use the characters. Look, there are so many things — there is always going to be a character that is somebody's favorite. Someone will miss the Lobster, or whatever. You have the Red Queen and the White Queen, the March Hare and the White Rabbit — there were iconic ones that we knew we had to have in there. But then, we thought, let's just let the story play and see.

Which characters in Alice appealed to you more?
I like them all. And that's the thing with these. I think this material suffered in the past because all of the characters are just weird. Okay, Hatter's weird. Cat's weird. Rabbit's weird. We tried to give each one their own particular quirks, so that they each have their own character.

Growing up, did you have a favorite children's book?
I was a Dr. Seuss fan. It was easy to read. I liked his drawings. But, the reason I wanted to do Alice is that it was a really interesting challenge. I didn't feel personally, like I might on another project, like, oh, there is one great version out there, so to try and do another one, might be a problem. But with Alice, there are some interesting ones, but I don't know if any are completely successful.

What was your approach to the film?
I was much more fascinated by the iconic images — I think people are always surprised when they go back and read the stories, because they don't have that Lord of the Rings sweeping narrative. They're absurdist, surreal. But those characters are in our dreams, our tales. Those things that stay in your brain. Why do all these musicians write songs about it? Illustrators are recalling it all the time. You see it in other imagery. It was key to try to make that world. The things that I felt were unique to Alice, they're unique because they're so different. Like the bizarre size changes? And where you have some animals that talk, some don't. It seems quite random in what Carroll did. But, at the same time, it's not. There's something very deep. Things that seem random maybe aren't? The goal is just to try and capture that.

What do you like about this version of the story?
What I like about this is that it's more of a personal journey. These are the things that are actually the most important in life. That moment where you make that important choice. Maybe it happens to everybody. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it does a couple of different times in your life, where you learn something, you grow. You know, it's like you've got two sides of yourself in conflict. Emotionally conflicted. And then, when you make that personal growth, it's quite an amazing thing. Quite a strong thing. It's reconciling within yourself who you are, becoming the person you're going to be, a human being. It sounds light, but it's important.

Why couldn't you do a re-telling of the books?
The thing that fascinated me about Alice is that its iconic images have been absorbed by our culture. I probably knew more about Alice from listening to bands and songs — so much of the story's imagery comes into play. So, that's the thing that was always strong about Alice. It was never the plot points of the story, because they were absurdist tales — they didn't really have a certain narrative dynamic. I think that's why those other versions, to me, were always lacking, because there was this little girl observing things and saying, oh, that's weird. There was one weird character after another, without much of a context to it. So, we tried to ground each of the Alice in Wonderland characters. We tried to give them it a bit more depth, and to give her a story. There's such a mystique about Alice in Wonderland. I just felt that it would be more appropriate if we tried to be true to the spirit of what those characters were, and then, just give it all a bit more of a foundation.

Why did you make Alice 19?
That age just seems to me to be a crossroads. There, I think you're entering a culture where you're pressured into society, or getting married, or some other thing. And she just seems to me to be at that point where you're at an emotional crossroads. I just felt like Alice is an interesting character, because she's at that age, and she's got both a young person's and an old person's soul. There's a dynamic — at odds feeling both the young and the old, and then reconciling those two things. It just seemed like the classic structure of fantasy — go back to The Wizard of Oz. Or any of a number of fairy or folk tales — these adventures are always to work out the character's emotional problems. That's why I've always been intrigued by the poetry and the purpose of such stories — myths and things. They mean something. And, so, her adventures are her coming to terms with who she is and gaining her personal strength. Those are the journeys that are made in these stories, but they're quite private, too. It seemed like the right age to explore that dynamic of somebody, at a moment of change.

What is Johnny Depp's approach to playing such a vivid character as The Mad Hatter?
It is an iconic character and it's been portrayed in animation, in live-action. I think Johnny tried to find grounding with the character, something you can feel, as opposed to him just being 'mad.' With a lot of versions, it's just a one-note character, and his goal was to bring out a human side to the strangeness of the character. I've worked with him for many years, and he always tries to do something like that, and this time was no exception.

Do you consider Johnny Depp as a muse?
Nah, he's just a piece of meat [LAUGHS]. All these actors were great, because they weren't dealing with a lot of stuff — sets, props, other actors. So, a lot of it had to be inside of each person's mind. You can't really work with method actors too much on a movie like this. You need people to go out on a limb and just go for it, without a lot of material. So, yeah, Johnny's good at that. And I was lucky with these other actors, that they kind of went for it, too. And, you know, for me, too, I think it was really hard, because I'd never really done a movie like this. And it's quite eye-opening. It's a whole different process. I would think for an actor, it's really challenging.

How close do you work with Johnny in creating his characters?
Well, I'll do a little sketch, he'll do a little sketch. We'll talk. It always is different. With him, we use references, but they're never specific references. Because he never wants to feel like he's doing just one thing. So, we use a lot of abstract references. But I'm always excited to see what's gonna come out it.

Do you let him go as far as he can and then reel him back in?
Yeah, but he's pretty good. You never wanna go so far that you're missing some emotional beats. So, we've tried to make the Hatter mad, of course, but also give him a certain emotional quality under the surface. Johnny's pretty good about trying to find the reality of something unreal.

Can you talk about why you chose Mia Wasikowska for Alice?
She has both a young quality and an old quality. Very grounded — some people are just all over the place. But some people, they have that old soul quality. And that's what we felt was important for this Alice. But, at the same time, to be young — there are people with old souls who are also naïve at the same time. There's a certain slight passiveness to Alice that's always in the material. So we wanted to give her more of a quiet strength, which Mia has herself — just as a person. I just liked her quality. I always like it when I sense people have that old-soul quality to them. Because you're witnessing this whole thing through her eyes, it needed somebody who can subtly portray that.

How did Mia, as a relatively new actress, handle the role?
Well, she's great. This'll probably be the most abstract movie that she will ever do, let's hope. Like I said, it was new for me. In dealing with all the green screen and obstacles she had to deal with, she took it all in stride. She always was trying to remember the character and just go back to that place within herself. That was helpful, because it could be a nightmarish process. It goes against all of your instincts, I would imagine, as an actor — you have nothing to work with. The guy standing there with a green stick is not really that inspiring, you know.

You go way back with Crispin Glover [who plays the Knave of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland], right?
I first met him in the early '80s. He's a very unique individual. He's a real Renaissance man. There are not many people who do movies and then do their own films and do their own art and live their own lives in the way that he does. But he's great. He's got such a pleasant visual presence.

Your cast is full of British character actors, performers who can disappear into the character.
I love working with people like Matt Lucas, who do characters, because I think they're great actors. They're fun to watch. Matt did one character then slipped into another; that to me is the sign of a good actor, and it was really great to work with him. Also, it was important to me to have a real, heavy British flavor. There are lots of people I've always admired. I wanted to try and make the animated voices not overly animated, so they all felt like they were in the same world. I didn't want them to feel like live-action characters in a completely animated world, so I tried to make the live-action a bit more extreme, and then with the animation, I tried to bring it back. I was lucky enough to get really great actors who — if they had done it as humans would have been great — brought the animated characters up to the level of the live-action.

How did you get your actors into character?
Well, it's difficult when you don't have a lot of sets and you are dealing with a lot of technology. I tried to keep it as lively as possible and as fast as possible, so that they could interact with each other as much as possible. So speed and energy were important. You just try to keep moving and grooving.

How did the actors in Alice in Wonderland approach the dialogue?
The kind of actors I like to work with bring something to it — like if there was a line or something from the book that they want to be in the script. If an actor connects to something or feels passionate about something, that's always nice, and you might get something better from them — it's something meaningful that they can grasp.

Is it Underland or Wonderland? What does it look like in this film?
It is Underland and has always been Underland, but according to the film version, when Alice visited as a child, she misheard the name and called it Wonderland. Everybody's got an image of Underland. I think in people's minds, it's always a very bright, cartoony place. We thought if Alice had had this adventure as a little girl and now she's going back, perhaps it's been a little bit depressed since she's left. It's got a slightly haunted quality to it.

Are you taking a unique approach to technology with this film?
Well, [senior visual effects supervisor] Ken Ralston's done this. I haven't done this before. It's a puzzle, and the movie doesn't materialize until the end. What's been the most difficult thing is, after production ends, you usually have a movie — you see the shots and then you spend six months to a year cutting it. This doesn't work that way. It's a very Alice in Wonderland-like process. It's a little backwards.

How did you incorporate available technology into this film?
Our approach to this was a bit more organic, in the sense that Ken Ralston and I discussed what we liked and didn't like about animation, live-action and other technologies. We had that conversation. We decided on a mix — we'll have real people, but also animate characters, and then manipulate them. So, we just tried to pick and choose what we used with each situation. That's the thing about technology. There are so many ways to use it.

How did you come up with the concept for the design of this world?
We looked at a lot of great artists on this one. In some ways, it ended up being more like an animated movie, in terms of the structure and how it got done. We had lots of designers. Everybody chipped in. It's been a really organic building process.

What inspired you most in terms of the visuals?
We didn't choose just one thing — there are so many different things. We looked at pictures of trees. We'd get some good concept work that we liked and then latch onto that. The goal at the end of it all was to be true to the essence of the story and make it feel new. Make it feel like it's a different thing. But yet, there's a reason why I like the Cheshire Cat or the Caterpillar or the Mad Hatter — those characters are in people's consciousness because they're strong images. It was key to do that justice.

Why did you choose to make the film in 3D?
Well, 3D is not a fad. It's here to stay. It doesn't mean that every movie's going to be made in 3D. But at the same time, Alice in 3D, just because of the material, it seemed to fit. So, instead of it just being a given, we tried to treat it as though it was a part of Wonderland. Matching the medium with the material.

Did you shoot in 3D or was it part of the process after filming had finished?
We didn't do it with the 3D cable. With the techniques we were using — the pure animation, live-action and manipulating that — shooting it traditionally gave us more freedom to get into the depth, the layers, that we wanted in the time that we were dealing with. And also, I can't really see the difference. I'm sure that there are people who say 'it's more pure this way or that way…' But this seemed like the right approach. After seeing the conversion job that was done on The Nightmare Before Christmas, I found no reason to do it any other way. We were trying to do it faster and at the end of the day, I didn't see any difference in quality.

Does using 3D affect the story?
In the old days you'd put the glasses on and walk out of the theatre with a splitting headache. And that's no longer the case, it's a much more pleasant experience. And I'm personally not out to make a gimmick, so I believe that it enhances the film. It puts you into that world. And with the Alice material — the growing and shrinking of characters for instance — and the special spaces and places that you're in, it just helps with the experience. Obviously, these films not only have to work in 3D, but they have to look good as a movie that you'd want to see. I think the gimmick element of 3D is falling by the wayside, and it's more about an experience that puts you into the film. When Nightmare was converted to 3D, I felt it was the way it should have been. You felt the texture of the puppets more, you actually felt like you were on the set. And I think that enhances the experience. This seemed like the right kind of story to do in 3D. I always try to say, 'Is it the right medium for this?' and not just do it because it's a gimmick or it's fashionable now, and it did feel like it was the right kind of material. So seeing it come to life in 3D supports the material. It gives you that kind of 'out-there' feeling that was a very crucial element to the film.

Where do you see the future of movies going, now that you have this mixture of 3D and live-action?
I was in animation several years ago. It was pronounced dead, and then they stopped doing hand drawn. So, the good news is that there are more forms for everything, which is great. There should be 3D, drawn animation, computer animation, stop-motion. It's all valid. It's all great. And it's better now than it's ever been. I was struggling for 10 years to get a stop-motion movie made. Now, you can do it — no problem.

Are you fascinated with special effects?
I'm not a special-effects-just-for-special-effects kind of filmmaker. I try not to treat it like that. Even with all the stuff in this movie, we always tried to go back to the simplicity of it being one person's journey. It's Alice's journey. And that's it. It's a very simple thing — and that's what we always tried to keep it.

An Interview with Tim Burton

An interview with Tim Burton from Wired, in which the filmmaker discusses the new generation of 3D cinema, original ideas vs. remakes, his creative process in creating characters, and anthropomorphic objects, among other topics:

Wired: How did you find a life’s worth of work to give to the MoMA?

Tim Burton: I’m not a very organized person. Luckily I had a bunch of stuff that had just been moved to England from a warehouse in America. I don’t really go through things very much, so it was interesting for me to go back through it all.

It was an interesting process. It helps ground you and gets you to remember what interested you to begin with. It’s you, but a different you. You can look at yourself objectively.

Wired: Not many directors have retrospectives of their artwork and illustrations. How did having a fine arts background influence your directorial visions?

Burton: The films I grew up loving were very visual. They were the kinds of things that get etched in your memory. To me, film is a very visual thing, so I’m very grateful for my animation background. It’s kind of everything. It’s art, it’s design, it’s film. At that time all I wanted to be was an animator, but through the backdoor you learn how to do everything else. When you make an animated film you have to act it out, design the layouts, shoot it, and edit it. It was a great overall experience.

Wired: What’s your creative process? Do you find yourself doodling and suddenly you’ve got a character for a movie?

Burton: The whole sketching and drawing process to me is the equivalent to how some people write notes. I’ve never really felt like a writer. It was always a visual thing for me. With Jack Skellington, for example, that was just a doodle I kept drawing over and over and over for no apparent reason.

Things can grow from an image that keeps coming up, like the Scissorhands image. They just come as ideas or thoughts, and sometimes they go on to something.

Edward Scissorhands came from a feeling that became a sketch of different forms over the years. It was an idea from when I was a teenager, so it had been in my mind for a long time.

Wired: A lot of your films are original ideas, but you have dabbled with remakes, such as Planet of the Apes and now Alice. Is it easier to get support from Hollywood to remake a film than to start something from scratch?

Burton: There’s a trend right now, where every TV show is remade, and there’s a certain idea of safety in certain properties. At the same time, they can be equally as dangerous. Something like Alice in Wonderland, with the opportunity to do it in 3-D and to experiment, it actually feels like a completely new property.

Wired: Is it more intimidating to take a story people are familiar with and make it your own?

Burton: The reason Alice in Wonderland isn’t as daunting as past productions is that every version I ever saw of Alice in Wonderland was of a girl walking around passively with a bunch of weird characters. It never really had any feeling or grounding to it. It felt like a new challenge to me. There isn’t a great version that I have to live up to.

Wired: Did you feel like Alice was the perfect story for you to debut a live-action movie in 3-D?

Burton: The element that intrigued me was Alice in Wonderland in 3-D. Nightmare Before Christmas was converted to 3-D, and it was really good. I was really amazed. It showed me that this was exactly the way Nightmare was meant to be seen. Now, 3-D just seems to really lend itself to the Alice story. The thing about Alice for me was not so much the literalness of the story, but the trippy nature of it and still trying to make that compelling.

Wired: How hard is it to continue working in more traditional special effects, like stop motion animation, when the rest of Hollywood is drinking the CG Kool-Aid?

Burton: I think stop motion has proven itself as a valuable art form, as has animation. A few years ago it was a dead medium, and while there’s still a lot of uncertainty, there’s enough diversity now. If people like the movie, it doesn’t matter what medium it’s in. It’s actually better now than it was a few years ago, when CG was really kicking in.

Wired: You love stop motion. What’s your fear of CG?

Burton: Take Nightmare Before Christmas, for example. I was offered to do it in drawing animation and I held out for stop motion, because that was the right medium for that project. It’s up to each project and what you’re technically trying to achieve that decides what medium should be used, whether it’s stop motion, animation, or CG.

Wired: From Pee-wee’s Big Adventure to Beetlejuice, furniture, inanimate objects tend to come to life in your films. Do you anthropomorphize objects on a daily basis?

Burton: Well, I’m lying in bed here with my coffee pot… That’s where you need free time to space out. People don’t do that enough in life. Those are the moments where a tree turns into a little character.

Wired: Are you excited about the retrospective?

Burton: It’s such a strange and surreal event to me. I haven’t quite grasped it. I might as well put my dirty laundry basket in there as well.

"Frankenweenie" Character and Plot Details Revealed

Casting has begun on the new stop-motion animated version of Frankenweenie. Right now, Disney is looking for voices for characters between the ages of eight and eleven years old. Bloody-Disgusting.com has provided some information from an official fax. There are a few minor SPOILERS, but it gives you a good idea of how the new film will differ from Burton's original 1984 short:

[EDGAR] A Caucasian Male 8-11 years old. Edgar is a needy little kid who wants desperately to be accepted by the cool kids in his class. Naturally a little nerdy, he gravitates to Victor and basically annoys him until he agrees to let him be his lab partner. He is more than a little gullible and is easily tricked into giving away Victor’s precious secret and unwittingly starting the whole mess with the other monsters.

[TOSHIAKI] A Japanese Male 8-11 years old. Toshiaki is the natural leader of the cool kids in Victor’s class. He is a good athlete, and an avid little league baseball player but Toshiaki has a mischievous side. He is the one that ultimately manipulates E into giving up the secret of Sparky and it is his idea to turn the other animals into monsters. He is Japanese and his monster creation is a little Godzilla lizard.

[BOB] A Caucasian Male 8-11 years old. Bob is the dumb, jockey kid. He has more brawn than brains. He follows Toshiaki and Nassor around even when it means that he has to be the one to test the home made jet pack that Toshiaki has created.

[NASSOR] A Middle-Eastern Male 8-11 years old. Nassor is the star of the little league team and just goes along with Toshiak’s plan. He is a bit more serious than the others but still doesn’t see the impending chaos when he chooses to bring his hamster mummy back to life.

[WEIRD GIRL] A Caucasian Female 8-11 years old. She has a very dark and ominous take on even the most mundane occurrences and jumps at the chance to bring some dead animals back to life.

[ELSA] A Caucasian Female 8-11 years old. Elsa is a sweet girl who likes to follow the rules and not cause too much trouble. A bit of a “goody two shoes,” she is not afraid to speak up and even corrects the teacher when he makes a mistake. She is excited about the festivities planned for the town’s Dutch Day parade and even has a solo dance number in the show.


A shooting date has not been announced yet. John August (Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) will be writing the screenplay.

The Making of Tim Burton's MoMA Spot

From MoMA's Inside/Out blog, written by Julia Hoffman:



To help promote MoMA’s Tim Burton retrospective, we asked Burton himself to animate the MoMA logo for a thirty-second video that would be used to promote the exhibition on television, at the Museum, and online. Tim quickly came up with a concept utilizing stop-motion animation, and he asked Allison Abbate, his producer on Corpse Bride (2005) and the upcoming full-length version of Frankenweenie, if she could help pull things together.


Tim Burton's original robot design

Abbate turned to Mackinnon & Saunders, a U.K. firm that designs and builds animation puppets, models, and maquettes and produces TV commercials and entertainment programs for children’s TV, because they had worked on past Burton projects, including Corpse Bride. Company heads Ian Mackinnon and Peter Saunders pick up the story: “For the promo, Tim had designed a cute and quirky little robot character whose job was to inflate four typically Burton-esque balloons spelling out the MoMA logo. The whole premise sounded very simple, until we found out the timescale. We had just three weeks to create the character, the balloons, animate them, and get the footage out to Los Angeles for post production.”


The robot model and storyboards

Mackinnon continues, “Tim was very keen for the whole piece to be rendered in stop motion. For the robot character this wasn’t so much of a problem, Joe Holman, one of our lead sculptor/designers, broke all records to get the character fully sculpted and broken down into his constituent elements, head, body, arms, legs ready for moulding.”


Sculptor/designer Jo Holman renders the Robot in modeling clay

At the same time the problems of creating the illusion of four balloons being inflated in stop motion was being addressed. “The first thing we did was buy some large foil balloons and blow them up just to see what dynamics we were dealing with. We considered creating actual rubber balloons and inflating them with helium and shooting them time lapse but in such a short time if we hadn’t got it right the first time we would miss the deadline,” says Mackinnon. The team also considered replacement animation, a technique whereby each stage of a balloon’s inflation would be rendered as a separate model. “Again time was against us and there was no way we could produce the literally dozens of stages we’d need in time.” adds Saunders, “For all these reasons we decided to go with CG for the balloons and called our friends at Flix Facilities to create a test shot of the 3-D balloons for us.”



Lead CG artist Simon Partington took up the challenge. Within a day he had a beautiful bobbing balloon for us to see. “It was gorgeous,” says Mackinnon. “A bit too gorgeous. It didn’t have that quirky stop-motion feel that Tim was looking for so we asked Simon to try again.” Sculptor/designer Noel Baker quickly produced plastercine sculpts of the balloons and painted them to match Burton’s designs. These were then photographed and shipped over to the Flix team. “We reproduced the shape of Noel’s fantastic sculpts as closely as possible in CG.” explains Partington, “We then took Tim’s actual drawings and textured them onto the balloons before adding some of the same imperfections such as fingerprint detail that Noel had deliberately left on his sculpt. This all helped to recreate the sense of realism that stop motion provides.”


John Whittington maps the Burton design onto the 'M' balloon

Over the course of two days Partington and his team nailed down a technique that not only gave the light, fluffy feel of big rubber balloons but also had the slightly staccato feel of stop motion. The tests were rushed over to Burton, who was deep into post-production on Alice in Wonderland. “There was a huge sigh of relief when Tim gave the thumbs up. In all honesty I don’t know how we’d have got this done in time without the Flix team’s work,” MacKinnon smiles.


The Flix CGI team: Simon Partington, Neil Sanderson, John Whittington, and Mike Whipp

Meanwhile, head puppetmakers Caroline Wallace and Richard Pickersgill completed mold-making and cast out body parts for the robot character in fiberglass, rubber, and silicone, while at the same time constructing the intricate metal skeleton, which fits inside the puppet and enables it to hold any pose during the animation process.


Richard Pickersgill adding the finishing touches to the robot

“Typically a puppet character can take anywhere between twelve to eighteen weeks to produce,” says Pickersgill, “But Tim’s design lent itself to a very economical build and we put the puppet together in just ten days, probably something of a record!”

Pickersgill completed the final paint job a mere twenty-four hours before photography was due to begin. “As he was a bit of a beat-up looking little fellow, I decided to add streaks of rust around joints and arms. We sent pictures off to Tim and the only change he made was to remove the rust—so there was an eleventh hour (literally!) repaint.” Pickersgill chuckles, “I think the paint was possibly still tacky when we put him on the set!”


An arm is released from the mold

With the delivery deadline only four days away, lighting cameraman Martin Kelly and animator Chris Tichborne took over. “Our set was very simple,” says Kelly, “Tim wanted the robot and the balloon against a flat grey background. It was great because it further emulated the look of his original pen-and-ink drawings on a plain sheet of paper. We had three days to shoot the whole piece and my first take had to be right. I’d spent a day the previous week videoing myself performing the robot part. You feel a bit silly but Neil Sutcliffe, who edited the footage into his animatic, was very kind. He didn’t laugh too much!” Even for such a short piece, Tichborne tried to cram in as much in as he could. “Richard and Caroline had included a hinge top to the robot’s head which bobs open and closed as he walks. I also had in my mind Charlie Chaplin when the robot walked—not directly copying him but more just how he would create an idiosyncratic walk.”


DOP Martin Kelly slates a shot

CG lead Simon Partington was on set the whole time doing test composites of the balloons and the animation, just to make sure everything was lining up in terms of lighting and the timing of the dynamics. “The CG and stop-motion animation had to be delivered simultaneously; there would be no time to fix things later so we were literally doing the CG renders and the animation at the same time. Seeing it come together shot by shot was fantastic!”

Although the shoot took three long days over a weekend, the team’s experience and preparation paid off and the shoot went off without a hitch. The precious footage was beamed off via a high-speed data link for Tim Burton to oversee the final post-production in Los Angeles.


Chris Tichborne helps the robot pump it up

“Tim and the folks at MoMA seemed very pleased with the results,” says Ian Mackinnon, “It was a great little project to have been involved with and we hope the audiences at MoMA like it too!”


Final robot on set

Tim Burton's MoMA Spot

Here's a fun little spot for Burton's upcoming MoMA exhibition, featuring stop-motion animation:



Directed by Tim Burton
Produced by Mackinnon and Saunders
CGI Animation: Flix Facilities
Animation: Chris Tichborne
Lighting Camera: Martin Kelly
Music by Danny Elfman

Producer Abbate Tells Few "Frankenweenie" Secrets

Animation veteran Allison Abbate gave a few bits of information on the stop-motion adaptation of Frankenweenie, which she is producing.

Abbate told HitFix.com that production will commence in early 2010, likely in the spring. The production time frame is "two years", said the producer, and will hopefully be released around or before Halloween 2011.

Previous reports stated that the film would be shot in stereoscopic 3D. But Abbate now says that that idea is actually still up in the air. Executive producer and Disney veteran Don Hahn and others have stated that the film will also be shot in black and white, but Abbate was more hesitant. "Maybe," she said. "That's one of the ideas that is being put up. I think it would be really cool." It might be a hard sell for a Disney animated film. But neither the 3D nor black and white possibilities have been entirely ruled out yet.


A still from the live-action short film Frankenweenie from 1984.

Abbate remained secretive, noting that Tim Burton is working on several films. "He's got to get through 'Alice [in Wonderland' first]," she said, and Burton will also be directing a cinematic version of Dark Shadows.

But the producer did confirm that the film will be entirely stop-motion animated. (Although a few CG or traditional cel animated elements as seen in Corpse Bride are possible, we're guessing.)

Abbate is also a producer on the stop-motion The Fantastic Mr. Fox, directed by Wes Anderson and based on the Roald Dahl book of the same name, as well as Brad Bird's The Iron Giant and Tim Burton's Corpse Bride in the past. She was also an artistic coordinator on The Nightmare Before Christmas, her first assignment on a Tim Burton film.

Frankenweenie will be shot at Three Mills Studio in London, CinemaBlend.com reports, just like The Fantastic Mr. Fox. Anderson's stop-motion film was also made on a similar two-year time frame.

It's Alive! "Frankenweenie" Rises from the Dead!

Tim Burton's stop-motion animated, feature-length adaptation of his 1984 live-action short Frankenweenie is coming! And executive producer Don Hahn has provided some details at Disney's D23 Expo to SciFi Wire:

1. It will be in black and white. An animated movie in black and white? Was this not a hard sell? "It was and it wasn't," Hahn said. "I think now, with Tim working at the top of his craft, the top of his game, on movies like Alice in Wonderland, I think Dick Cook really felt like if you're going to take a risk on anybody, why can't it be Tim Burton? A Tim Burton movie in black and white based on Frankenstein, how cool is that? Dick was very supportive of it." [Dick Cook was the chairman of the Walt Disney Co. until a few days ago. It is unclear whether his abrupt departure from the company will affect the film.]


Don Hahn has been in the animation industry for a while.


2. The new script will include more Frankenstein and more of the dog. And the screenplay is finished, Hahn confirmed at the press conference. "It's Frankenstein mixed with a boy-and-his-dog story, very much like the original one," Hahn said in an exclusive interview after the conference. "What's great is Tim grew up in Southern California, in Burbank, and the movie itself kind of takes that California suburban look at a monster movie story. I think that's what we're trying to do."


3. The Frankenstein family tree is growing. Bigger movie means more characters. "There are a lot of great new characters in it, really great new characters," Hahn said in the exclusive interview. But who will be among the cast? "It's the ensemble. It's the Tim Burton ensemble." Many of the actors from Burton's 1984 short film are still alive, such as Shelley Duvall, but which collaborators of Burton's may be on board? "The neat thing about Tim is he can pretty much call up anybody he needs and they'll be happy to work with him," Hahn said.




4. Now Tim Burton can do what he wants. Disney wasn't very happy with the original Frankenweenie, deeming it too scary for children. But now, with Burton's bankability, Disney is letting the creative filmmaker unleashed (relatively speaking). "Unlike Tim's recent stop-motion movies, he's designing the characters himself," Hahn said in this exclusive interview. "So you really get kind of the hand of the artist in it and get to see Tim's work itself. It's Tim Burton at his best. I think that's why he leapt at it, because when he started out making movies, it was his first choice for a live-action movie. I think he felt like, 'Gee, I wish I could've made a feature back then.' So now to come back and revisit the material is pretty fun for him, I think." Indeed, Burton has been wanting to make a feature version of Frankenweenie for 25 years -- a quarter of a century.


5. It has begun. And it's set for a 2011 release. "I'm not sure it's a 90-minute film," Hahn said. Burton and his team have already built maquettes. "We're underway on it, and I think the most important thing is it has to be a good movie," Hahn said. "So if it's not ready for 2011, then we'll let it drift into the next year, but we're up and running already." Like Corpse Bride before it, Frankenweenie is entering production in London. "The primary reason to go there is Tim lives there, and there's a great group of talent over there also that is really into stop-motion animation," Hahn said. (So a 2012 release date is not unrealistic.)


More exciting news to come in the future! Stay tuned!

Burton Makes Special Appearance

Tim Burton made a special appearance at Disney's D23 Expo on September 11th, promoting Alice in Wonderland. See more pictures here. He briefly mentioned Alice in Wonderland and gave a bit of official news on Frankenweenie...


Tim Burton and Dick Cook, Chairman of the Walt Disney Studios

When Burton was asked why he wanted to make an adaptation of Lewis Carroll's Alice, Burton replied, right in front of Disney big cheese Cook, "I never saw one... I know you already made one... that did justice to the material."


Tim Burton and fellow director Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, A Christmas Carol)

Burton confirmed that a stop-motion, feature-length adaptation of his 1984 short film was in the making, and is currently set to be released in 2012.

Shane Acker Talks "9"

The animated science-fiction epic 9 is hitting theaters on Wednesday. (I saw it a few days ago at a special pre-release screening, and I'd definitely recommend it.) In recognition of the film's release, director Shane Acker talks about his first feature, his influences, and what his next projects might be with Animation World Network's Bill Desowitz:

A new era in animated storytelling begins with the release of 9 on 9/9/09 (from Focus Features). Shane Acker, the celebrated UCLA alum, whose imaginative 9 short was nominated for an Oscar, has been hard at work for the last four years or so making his post-apocalyptic CG adventure into a feature. How 9 got set up is fascinating. It was first shepherded by producer Jim Lemley (Wanted), who got the short to super agent Mike Simpson, who then approached Tim Burton, who helped set it up at Focus. Then Lemley approached his directing partner, Timur Bekmambetov (Wanted, Night Watch), who was helpful with, among other things, recutting. Acker tells us in this exclusive interview about his experience making his feature debut with Starz Animation Toronto, as well as his recent artist in resident gig at The Gnomon School and two upcoming features he's trying to set up.


Elijah Wood (left) and Shane Acker

Bill Desowitz: How did you first approach making 9 into a feature?

Shane Acker: When I made the short, I really didn't have a longer form script or idea, but I did have a lot of ideas about the world and the backstory to help me design the short and the characters. We just kind of started there, relooking at all those ideas I had behind the short and how those characters came to be and what happened to the humans. And then started cracking the door open a little wider and tried to piece together a story from that. But this was my way of diving back into another four years of a project that had already taken me four-and-a-half, with the possibility of who these other characters are, who the other numbers are. They are just suggested in the short.

BD: So you got to unlock a lot of doors.

SA: Yes, exactly. And that's a lot of fun, both in designing the characters but then trying to figure out who they are, and their personalities and who their maker was: a Geppetto/Oppenheimer-like character connected to the downfall of humanity and how they represent a new beginning and vessels for the human spirit to carry on in this world. And that they're all facets of that one individual personality/identity. They're all inclined in different ways, so they all have different strengths and weaknesses. And through this coming together, they form the whole -- they put together the individual once again.

BD: And where did you set up your animation initially?

SA: You must know the story: It was Attitude Studio, which had a studio in Paris, but we set up in Luxembourg. And so we worked on the film for about seven months over there in Luxembourg before it became really apparent to us that we were never going to get the movie done with that studio. I mean, they have a lot of talented and dedicated artists, but the pipeline was just not set up [for our needs]. They were adapting a motion capture pipeline into a character pipeline; we sort of discovered through the process that we just didn't have the tools and wouldn't be able to get the tools together in time…

BD: So how did you end up at Starz?

SA: Yeah, so the thing was set up as a negative pick up, and when we had to go to the studio and tell them that we wouldn't be able to guarantee that we could get this movie done on time, then the bond company came in and did a whole audit. And, as part of that audit, they brought in Jinko Gotoh, who is an animation producer. She worked on Finding Nemo and a bunch of Disney projects, so she became a champion for the project. She wanted to find a way to keep it going, even though it meant setting it somewhere else and spending more money. So I really credit her for keeping the project alive and finding a new home for it at Starz Toronto, which turned out to be a wonderful experience with a really great team. And really smart artists who understood the vision and were really collaborative in finding ways to make it work and get the most bang for the buck on screen for a really modest budget. They come from experience where they're working with big studios, but they're up in Canada and finding ways to cut corners and tweaking and refining their pipeline all down the line.

BD: And obviously it stepped them up and prepared them to handle bigger features.

SA: And we took a creative team there and just kind of vetted and bonded with the artists… and there's something about the material and the world that inspired the artists. They got to flex [new] muscles and that helped push the quality of the film.


BD: Talk about developing the look of the characters and the world -- the "Stitchpunk" that borrows from stop-motion.

SA: When I was doing the short, what I felt was lacking in a lot of the CG projects out there were a real texture and grit, as well as a cinematic approach to the storytelling. And I was finding that in stop-motion films, whether it was the Brothers Quay or Jan Svanmajer. I drew a lot of inspiration from them. There's a kind of believability because they had to mechanically work the puppets and armatures that they created for their stop-motion characters. So there was a truth through materials and a grit and grime and texture on the world.

BD: Very tactile.

SA: Yes, very tactile, that drew you in and you believed it.

BD: And how did you make this work in CG?

SA: When I was first doing the short, I was thinking that I would do it as a stop-motion film, but found that it was very limiting in what you could do with the camera to tell the story visually, So I decided to take this sensibility, this interest, this design idea and bring it into the CG world where I can move the camera any way that I want. But at the same time, adhering to the cinematic language of how you move a camera, which, I think, is what Pixar has done.

BD: And the environments, which have a very Eastern European painterly influence?

SA: We wanted it to work on lots of different levels. So when you get close to the characters, there will always be more detail revealed to you. We knew that we would be spending a lot of time with our characters and so we put a lot of detail and texture into them, which make them believable. And then on the environments, we were able to take other liberties with them, based upon the camera and things like that. We did a lot of painterly things with that. But somehow it works because when you're close, the characters feel believable and tactile, and then when you're in the vista, it feels like they're moving through these paintings so it feels more romantic, lyrical, like a fable. It is this alternate reality world, this ruined "Stitchpunk" world, and it becomes a dark, urban, post-apocalyptic fairy tale. Plus you'll get there so much quicker by doing a painting then by putting all the details in for one rendering.

BD: And what was it like having Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov shepherding your movie?

SA: Tim Burton coming on the project when he did and validating it and putting his name out there and supporting the vision that we had, as well as finding the writer [Pamela Pettler] and getting the studio, too, to buy it. And then as we went, just having that support team there, where whenever we got a big mouth done or we got a new cut of the film, we would present it to them and they had this critical distance from the film, because I had been in the trenches for so long and could see it with fresh eyes and talk about the larger ideas or the big picture notes. This allowed me to step back and see it through their eyes and strategize and go back into the trenches and to know how to push from the inside out.

And in the end, they were both making films, but then Timur finished Wanted, so I got to spend more time with him, which was an amazing experience.

BD: What was he like?

SA: He's like this unedited stream of crazy and inventive ideas, so he's like this endless well, where, if you have a problem, and he'll constantly come up with ideas. Some work, some don't. But while some may seem crazy, when you step back, you realize there's something to it. And so it was fun having that crazy spirit. And then doing recuts with him, seeing how even in editing if you massage it a certain way, you can change the perception of the characters, you can make them stronger, you can make them more vulnerable as well as upping the ante and the excitement of the film.

BD: So, let's switch gears and talk about your becoming an artist in residence at Gnomon.

SA: Yeah, well Alex Alvarez and I have had a loose connection for a while and he approached me before I started 9 about being an artist in residence at The Gnomon School and developing short films with the students there, which I thought was an amazing opportunity. And then when 9 was wrapping up, I called Alex and said, "Hey, do you still have that position over there?" Because there's something very liberating and you always want to keep developing stuff and broadening your horizons as an artist. These feature films take years and years and they also take a lot of time to set up, so the opportunity to go and make a little short where the stakes aren't as high and you can take more risks and explore and push yourself as an artist was really appealing to me. So when he said that the position was still open, I leapt at the opportunity. You know, you always have these stories rolling around in your head and spending four years on 9, I certainly have a backlog of ideas for shorts. And I had one ready-made that I pitched, which fits the aesthetic of the school, so it felt like it was right up their alley.


A storyboard of 3 and 4 drawn by Acker himself.

BD: What can you tell me about it?

SA: Well, it's really short: I think it's going to be three or three-and-a-half minutes. And, again, it's returning to my roots as a non-verbal storyteller. It's real character-based. Gnomon is sort of known for their visual design and effects work but not so much for character animation, so it's bringing something new into the school. But it's this tale that takes place above the planes of hell in like this Dante's Inferno world. There are these two demons that are biding their time and they're caught in a struggle of miscommunication; they're both missing vital pieces of themselves, important for communication, but they each contain the piece in their possession that will complete the other. But somehow, because they can't communicate, it just turns into this terrible battle that ultimately leads to their fate, and you get the sense that this is something repeats endlessly, and that's their place in hell. It's a pretty neat little story with some interesting character designs, so I'm excited about working on it.

BD: And you get to collaborate with the students.

SA: Yeah, which is great, because I spent time as a teacher all through my education. At UCLA, I was a teaching assistant and I really love working with artists in general, especially young artists, and see what they bring to the table and how excited they are to learn and be a part of it. And, again, looking for this unfettered imagination that is not tarnished at all by production experience and all these kinds of things that can bog you down after a while and limit your vision.

BD: So, when do you start?

SA: It's happening now: I've storyboarded it and we've been cutting it and I think the end of September we'll start producing it.



BD: And what about any potential features in the works?

SA: There are two projects: a live-action that hasn't been announced that we're trying to get a development deal on, kind of a fantasy world, based on a young-adult novel series out of the U.K., which will be a lot of fun because it has this very interesting core of characters. And then there's an animated film that we're pitching to the studios right now that's based on a graphic novel -- a kind of Secret of NIMH meets Dark Crystal meets Lord of the Rings. It's all told deep in the unforeseen forest and it's a dark, dramatic, epic adventure film.

Bill Desowitz is senior editor of AWN and VFXWorld.

-----------------

IMDb.com lists the release dates of 9 per country:

France 19 August 2009
Canada 9 September 2009
Cyprus 9 September 2009
Czech Republic 9 September 2009
Estonia 9 September 2009
Greece 9 September 2009
Netherlands 9 September 2009
Russia 9 September 2009
Singapore 9 September 2009
South Korea 9 September 2009
USA 9 September 2009
Ukraine 10 September 2009
Belgium 16 September 2009
Brazil 18 September 2009
Poland 18 September 2009
Finland 27 September 2009 (Helsinki International Film Festival)
Iceland 9 October 2009
Portugal 29 October 2009
UK 30 October 2009
Argentina 5 November 2009
Spain 1 January 2010
Taiwan 19 March 2010
Australia 21 September 2010

Q&A with Tim Burton

Metromix covers a lot in their Q&A with filmmaker Tim Burton. In the interview, Burton talks about the various films that he's working on (and even mentions the status of the stop-motion adaptation of Frankenweenie), his thoughts on the Oscars, the current state of animation in the film industry, and much more:


You came aboard 9 as producer after Shane Acker had made his short film. How'd that process work out?
I liked his short film, and he had a certain sensibility that I felt close to. Because I had gone through the process and made animated films…I always know what I wished I'd had, which was somebody to bounce things off of: first cut, the first draft of the script, some design notes.

What drew you to the story?
I liked the short film. It just seemed like a piece of a larger picture. It just needed to be fleshed out. The thing about a short is, you can keep the kind of mystery and the kind of personal quality to it. And I think the key was to keep that feeling, but on a bigger scale. You see a lot of personal films, but you don't see a lot of personal animated films.

Well, the number of Oscar nominees for Best Picture has now been bumped up to 10…
10?!

10!
Wonder why they did that? I had heard talk of it but didn't know they actually did it. Wow.

With more nominees this year, people are predicting that a film like Up could land a spot as the first computer-animated Best Picture nominee.
Animated films…they're films! I think it's good that now, most people are not looking at them as [just] animated. They're looking at them as films, like the Pixar people. You can categorize [animation], but it shouldn't be limited by that.

But the Best Animated Film category is still there. Do you think that ghettoizes these movies?
Maybe it does. But at the same time, most people recognize—certainly the studios recognize—the economic potential of animated films. Family films, animated films—[they're] much more of a sure thing than any type of film at the moment.

What's your favorite animated film?
[Long pause] I'd have to pick something that had a lot of impact, which was Jason and the Argonauts [by] Ray Harryhausen. That really had an impact on me. The stop-motion animation and the kind of reality and scale of it at the time when I saw it was really amazing.

Would you ever want to remake that film? They're remaking Clash of the Titans.
[Chuckles] I know. Nah, I think it was good.

How are things coming along with Dark Shadows?
I haven't really started that at all. I still have to finish Alice. So that's a big job ahead of me. It's way too early. [Laughs] Probably in a year's time.

Any ideas that you've already been thinking up for it?
Well, just to try to capture the tone. It was a strange show, it has a strange vibe to it. And that's, I think, key to it.

Alice has been all over the place, with photos and trailers and you guys at Comic-Con.
Usually I don't talk about something before it's done. So it's been an odd situation because I [still] have so much work to do. I'm not scared of [all the special effects], per se, but I'm a bit daunted by the time and the unknown quality of it. But that makes it exciting as well.

What about Frankenweenie?
Still early. Like I said, the focus I have is Alice. It's hard to think of anything else that requires a large amount of work.

But that's on the table.
Oh yeah, afterward, yeah. Exactly. Slowly get started.

I saw the latest "Harry Potter" last night, which stars your partner, Helena Bonham Carter. She makes a pretty mean baddie.
[Jokes] Yeah, she's a good witch. She had a lot of practice. She's good at that.

Does she ever come to you for tips on how to channel all that darkness?
No, she keeps it all personal. She keeps it all for her own uses, yeah. Witchcraft uses. [Laughs]

New York's Museum of Modern Art is doing an exhibit on you later this year. That was a little unexpected.
I feel like it's a weird dream—I'm not sure that it's real. But it's very exciting. That's probably more scary than a film, in a certain way. It feels a bit more exposing. I'm trying not to think too much about it. I'm trying to remove myself a bit from it—a bit of an out-of-body experience.

Your films have such a consistent, dark vision. Do you ever wake up wanting to do something crazy like a romantic comedy?
[Chuckles] No. Well, I thought Sweeney Todd was a romantic comedy in my mind. So, I think I've already done it. [Laughs] But not the way you're thinking, because that would be scary. But some of those are so scary, they're like horror movies anyway. They don't need my help.