Gareth Edwards: Monsters
by Ryan Stewart for SuicideGirls (http://suicidegirls.com/)

David Spade once had a stand-up bit about how audiences shouldn’t have to cut a movie slack for having a low budget, since ticket prices are all the same. Monsters, a new indie sci-fi film made for $15,000 – less than Kevin Smith’s Clerks – passes the high-expectations test with flying colors. Filmed on location in Central America and southern Mexico with two professional actors and a gaggle of amateurs and willing locals filling out the rest of the roles, the film follows Andrew (Scoot McNairy), an American photographer stationed in Mexico to document the ‘creatures,’ a rampaging herd of mountain-sized, Lovecraftian aliens who came to our planet (in larval form) inside a returning space capsule we had sent to collect samples from Jupiter’s Europa moon. When Andrew is unexpectedly tasked with chaperoning Samantha (Whitney Able), his boss’s daughter, back across the massively fortified U.S. border, their journey threatens to take them right into the path of the creatures. SuicideGirls recently spoke with special effects wizard turned writer/director Gareth Edwards about his impressive debut film.




Ryan Stewart: There are numerous shots of military helicopters and jets flying in the background throughout this film, and they’re very convincing, but I guess at your budget level that was all CG, right?

Gareth Edwards: Yep, they are all computer generated. All the military vehicles were as well, and also all the signs. Any signs you see that say ‘Infected Zone’ or a map or anything like that, that was all a bit of Photoshop.

RS: Is there anything even more subtle, that no one would likely notice?

GE: There is, yeah: toward the end of the film there’s a lady with a trolley who is homeless and who shouts at them, and we actually shot that in Galveston, Texas after Hurricane Ike, because it looked genuinely post-apocalyptic. The idea was to not do any CG for that at all, but what happened was when we watched it blown up on the big screen for the first time we realized that behind her, in the background, there was a freeway with a stream of traffic going down it, which obviously didn’t fit into the story at all. So I had to paint out all of those cars, a frame at a time. That’s something that no one would ever notice, of course, since we painted it all out.

RS: How is it that the CG monster effects in this film look better, more photorealistic, than those in other small-budget movies, or even TV movies, which cost way more?

GE: Well, thank you. I think the most important thing is trying not to do effects when you don’t have to, trying to film everything and not relying on CG. If you can possibly film it, do it, just film everything. And there may be one element of it you can’t film. Like, for instance, I told you that the signs were done in Photoshop, but for the most part I was filming real signs that really existed, I just changed what was on the sign. The sign is really there and the light is really hitting it and I’m not having to compose the shot in a way that gets it into the shot, so there’s something inherently real about that. I’m doing the minimum possible thing of just changing the text, and the result is that it comes across as more realistic. Barring one shot, I filmed every shot in the movie as if the missing elements were already there, and then I just filled them in. And the opposite is what happens on a lot of films – if the shot they’re doing is considered a visual effects shot, they won’t film anything, they’ll just leave it up to the CG people to create every part of it. If they have a creature that you’re going to be looking at through trees, they won’t film the trees. They’ll just CG those trees and then they look a bit fake, and also the whole shot will look a bit fake because it’s essentially being framed by someone who hasn’t really done cinematography. Also, there are all kinds of things that happen in-camera that you can never predict, like the way dirt will hit the glass or the way light will do something different than what you’d imagine it would do. Those are genuine references -- they’re telling you that this is real.

RS: Did you have to construct the entire story of Monsters around the budget limitations?

GE: To some extent we were limited with what we could do, obviously – there are certain things that you simply cannot do at that budget level -- but I liked those limits. I found them exciting. I think that when you’re limited, you make better stuff. When you’re totally unlimited – and we’ve seen lots of examples of this – you make your not-so-best stuff. Even if one day I was very lucky and I ended up with unlimited resources, I would still want to somehow impose a limit on them. What happens is this: when you can do anything you want, your brain will pick the default version of everything. It’s like, ‘Oh, we can do this shot that I have in mind, then we’ll do this one and then we’ll do that one...’ But when you can’t do those shots the way that your brain wants, it forces you to do it differently. You start thinking ‘Okay, we can’t do what we had in mind, so how on Earth can we convey this without doing the thing that was obvious?’ You end up picking something that is left field of ‘obvious.’ And when you end up with enough ingredients in the final film that are all a bit left or right of where you should be, it creates something that feels unique. A lot of films that are made with limited resources end up being the ones that feel unique and good – they had to be different because they didn’t have a choice. The arguments between me and the producer were generally me trying to get him to spend less money! I didn’t like the idea that he would give us more money if we had a problem, because then it felt like things had to be perfect. One way of saying it would be that I felt like a perfect version of this film would be one full of imperfections.

RS: I read that you went through dozens of designs for the creatures, which are these immensely large, slow-moving, amphibious jellyfish, basically. Was that the original idea?

GE: While we were filming the actors would ask us what it was, and at that time it was supposed to be just their tentacles, actually. The idea was that the creatures were so big you could never see the whole of them. You would see the end of its limbs, and its tentacles reaching for something, and that was one of the concepts, but it just felt like that would never really be very threatening, because you could always just run away, you know? So I ended up not putting just the legs in, and it was a very slow process. I did hundreds of designs – a lot of them were rubbish – but I did about a hundred that I was happy with and I couldn’t choose between them, so I did this crazy kind of beauty pageant where I put all the creatures up on the wall and then brought the producers in to judge them. But they couldn’t choose either, so in the end it just kind of evolved. You start with what you have on paper, but then when you try to model it in 3D it doesn’t look as good, so you go back and forth. It took me months, but I finally got it to a point where I was happy enough.

RS: It’s funny that the public hasn’t given a name to the creatures in the film. I think they’d acquire a nickname pretty quickly.

GE: Yeah, I actually didn’t want that, I wanted everyone to avoid even mentioning them by name. No one uses the word ‘monster’ in the film, for example, and I didn’t want them to say ‘creatures’ – you’ll notice that they mostly hesitate before they go to say it. They don’t know what the name is. Instead, they’ll just say “Are you here photographing those things?” Or they’ll say “We better go soon, because it will be dark, and, you know…” The actors also felt weird saying ‘creature’ because it feels like something from a stupid movie, but I imagine that, yeah, there probably would be a nickname for them. There’s actually a phrase that I came up with – sub-terrestrials – just meaning things that live underwater. And on one of the signs – you can probably only see this in hi-def – there’s a logo for a pretend conservation association and it’s called the Sub-Terrestrial Research Association. We even designed a little logo with a planet and a little tentacle on it, and we had bracelets made up. I wanted the actress, Whitney Able, to wear that as a fake charity bracelet. I had them printed out – there was a minimum order of a hundred – and we gave them out to the crew during the shoot. I’ve still got mine, I’ve never taken it off. It’s been on my arm for, like, two years now!

RS: If you didn’t want the creatures referred to as monsters, how did you settle on that as a title?

GE: It’s meant to be kind of a question. What is the nature of a monster? Who are the monsters? Is there such a thing as a monster? Are they really just animals? Are we the monsters? It’s like, if we had made a film that wasn’t science-fiction, like, let’s say a film about Nazi Germany and we just called it Evil. Well, a whole nation can’t be evil. What really happened there? What’s going on there? It’s the most simplified term possible to serve as a starting point for asking what a monster is, and how you define that. People have said to me “There are no real monsters in your film” and I think they’re right, these are just misunderstood aliens. I don’t really see them as monsters at all. I hope that people go in, maybe having seen the poster on the way into the cinema and thinking ‘Oh, monsters, I know what this film is about’ and then they go on a journey that is 180 degrees different, and by the time it’s over they have their own idea of what the title is about. It’s up to the viewer; it should work on a few different levels.

RS: Whitney is a real find, by the way. Does she speak Spanish for real, or were all her Spanish line readings phonetic?

GE: Yeah, that was all her. When we were first talking, she was like ‘I speak fluent Spanish.’ She actually grew up in Spain, and that was just such a bonus. It created a great dynamic, because she’s supposedly the damsel in distress and Scoot is there to help her, but he can’t help her at all – she’s the one who helps him. It equaled out the dynamic between them, which was a good thing.

RS: They have a great scene at the hotel room door, where he’s trying to get into her room for the night.

GE: Yeah, we did about three or four takes of that, and a lot of it was ad-libbed. A lot of the stuff that Scoot is coming out with is based on stuff that actually happened to us. Remember when he talks about how dolphins are mammals and all of that? A day before that we had a day off and we went swimming with dolphins and we learned all about dolphins that day. And there’s another story behind that: I had a bad back because of the camera and I went for a massage. And while it was going on I was thinking about the ending of the film, trying to decide whether it would be a happy or a sad ending, and as this was happening the massage lady leans down and whispers in my ear: “Happy ending?”

RS: You’re kidding.

GE: It’s all true! And these little stories worked their way in – it’s why when Scoot is at the door he says “Do you want a massage?” and throws in the stuff about marine biology, because these were sort of the jokes of our trip, you know? And Scoot is just a really funny guy. I said to him at the start of that scene “I challenge you to get in her knickers, you’ve got ten minutes.” Then I said to Whitney “Do not let him past this door no matter what happens, but make sure to do it as politely as possible because he’s still got your passport and ticket.” And then they just went for it. The first cut of that scene was probably like ten minutes, and I had to get it down to somewhere around two.

RS: I love the way he tries to use ‘There are rampaging monsters everywhere..’ as a line on her. It’s a great way of fusing the monster story with the love story.

GE: Also, when she then goes inside and turns on the telly there’s a natural history documentary that’s talking about the creatures’ tentacles and the [phosphorescent light they emit] and the female trying to find the male in the darkness; it’s about the creatures of course, but it’s really talking about Scoot and Whitney. And then at the end of the film there’s one of the more surreal sex scenes you’ll ever see.

RS: The press materials talk about them being a real-life couple, but I also heard her referred to as his former girlfriend – did they break up during the shoot?

GE: She’s his wife now!

RS: Oh, very cool. So, do you consider your feature directing career launched?

GE: I hope so. When this winds down, I’m going to start writing the next one. It’s going to be developed and financed by Timur Bekmambetov, the Russian filmmaker, and it’s going to be science-fiction. It’s more ambitious than Monsters, and there will be more money, obviously, but again I don’t want so much money that it restrains us from doing the kind of film I want to do. The tagline we’ve got for this one is: “An epic human story, without humanity.”





Monsters opens in select cities on October 29th.

web address: http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Gareth+Edwards%3A+Monsters/