DVDFILE.COM: Special Report - STUART LITTLE (part 2)

DF: Were you still pioneering stuff as you went along?

RM: Yeah, because every time we saw it we went, "Oh my god that's amazing! Wow, that looks great! It looks better than I imagined it would." So, to that degree, we were in uncharted waters because again it's hard to find something to compare it to. I guess the thing that came out while we were making the movie was Star Wars and they had Jar Jar Binks, which, um...

DF: (Laughter)

RM: I don't need to say anymore.

DF: (Laughter)

RM: So that was probably the most similar attempt in the same kind of vein. And when we were working on the movie, we obviously felt pretty good about it and just holding it up to it and thinking, "Well, we're looking OK."

DF: And I thought the Oscar-nomination the film received was very well deserved.

RM: Thank you.

DF: And the odd thing was that the Oscars were before I had seen the movie so all I had seen were the clips during the Oscars. But the one clip that stood out was the one where Stuart is stuck in the washing machine and he puts his wet paws on the glass. That shot just amazed me. So now we have a talking mouse that's actually got a wet paw up against glass, and you don't even question it.

RM: You think, "How'd they do that?"

DF: Exactly.

RM: And let me tell you something. When we started the movie they would have said "Whatever you do, don't stick his wet paw up against the glass because we can't do it!" So by the end of the movie, which is pretty much when they did that shot, it was one of the last shots done.

DF: So it's as complicated as it looks then?

RM: Oh yeah. Oh yeah. So there was lots of discussion at the beginning. Also, cause it's just so difficult to do, which means it takes a lot of time and it's a bit expensive, something you can't do as much as you might want to do. You're tempted to just go all the way and it's like "sense be damned!"

DF: Well, if you've got enough time and money it seems like anything's possible.

RM: But you never have enough of either no matter what. It always seems like that's the one law of filmmaking: never enough time or money. And it's true, it doesn't matter, you could spent two million or a hundred million.

DF: And I see some of these films where it's like, maybe they had too much time.

RM: Or they noodled it around too much? What movies have you said that about?

DF: Well, the new STAR WARS films obviously. Moving on, though, you were co-director of THE LION KING. Obviously one of the Disney animated classics and I think it did alright at the box office.

RM: Last I heard. (Laughs)

DF: Did directing animation help ease you into directing live action?

RM: In certain respects, yes and maybe even more so with this movie because of the nature of the film which was like half an animated movie and half a live action movie. So maybe I was a little more prepared in some respects to handle the challenge of that over someone without animated experience. But I think more important than anything, when you make a movie, particularly an animated movie or even STUART LITTLE, which took two years to make, there's something that you have to do which is stay focused over the long haul and stay clear about the vision of the movie. Because it's going to happen over such a long period of time that in order for everything to fit together and make sense and for everything to work, you have to kind of carry it with you through the whole length of the thing and it ultimately becomes sort of a marathon.

When you shoot a typical live action movie, you're shooting for maybe four months, less or more depending on the movie, and then you're done. Then you can edit, which is a completely different process. You begin principal photography and then you finish it. In animation, it's all kind of overlapping: you're recording dialog, you're doing animation, you're drawing backgrounds, you're staging shots, you're working with the animation and the animators on one scene while you're preparing another scene. So you have to split your brain into so many pieces and always understand what the goal is. And I suppose that, going into a live action movie, is probably exactly the same as any live action director would have to do because the director ultimately becomes the only person you can turn to with the answer.

Everybody has million questions: "where does this go, how do I do this, what should this look like, do I have to use this or this, explain the story to me or tell me what the character is doing or why" and you have to really be able to understand all of that in a way that's removed from the physical film. Because you're telling a story and you always have to remember what story you're telling and you're talking to hundreds of people and they're all doing their individual thing but you have to get them all to work together. And as you said, STUART LITTLE comes across as a storybook on film so you have to coordinate as a director. You have to get everybody to work towards the same goal because the costume designer is not necessarily working with the set designer.

DF: And obviously stretching over such a long period of time. I would assume you consider the live action portion to be easier.

RM: (Silence)

DF: Or I could be wrong.

RM: Well, the live action portion is more stressful cause animation is more low key.

DF: Oh is it?

RM: Oh yeah. Because everybody's quiet.

DF: (Laughter) They're just drawing.

RM: It's so quiet. It is. It's quiet but live action is crazy compared to it. People running around, making a lot of noise, banging around and the only time they get quiet is when you scream at them to be quiet on the set. And then everyone's freaking out because people aren't being quiet. That never happens in animation.

DF: So which do you prefer?

RM: I'd have to direct another movie for me to know because I worked in animation for so long and that STUART LITTLE is really my first live action experience and it was kind of altered in some respects by the fact that it was partly animated, partly live action and it was a first experience for me so that it was... It's being thrown into the deep end really. So I think by the time the movie was finished I had kind of perfected doggie paddling, so I'm kind of prepared to go back in the water and see how well I do.

DF: I thought the live action stuff was really well done and I was surprised, I really expected it to be kind of sappy and it really wasn't. It wasn't "swell the music..."

RM: That's a personal...I'm not a big fan of that. That's one movie flavor I'm not fond of.

DF: It probably would have cheapened...

RM: Well, there's a difference between sentiment and sappiness. Cause you can be sentimental without being sappy. I'm always a little put off by a movie that goes there and it was very difficult to keep this movie from going there because it was so, like any moment it could have gone over the edge.

DF: Now, you had originally participated with the special edition of THE LION KING on laserdisc. Was that experience what led you to want to do something with STUART LITTLE?

RM: Yeah, because of THE LION KING I just figured it's part of the deal, it's part of the job. It feels that way to me probably more so than some people.

DF: Was there anything you wanted to do with the STUART LITTLE DVD that you just couldn't because of technical considerations or space issues?

RM: Well, I had an idea, which is sort of a complicated idea, but I wanted to create an HTML document with the script, with the final draft of the script and you'd be able to click on the lines of dialog and find out who wrote it and when.

DF: Wow!

RM: So you'd have a whole history of the script. Cause if you've seen a shooting script, if they're more than one writer on it, it ends up look looking like a rainbow of colors because each revision is printed in a different color. That way people can keep track of it and this was a particularly colorful script. And I thought, and I was the only person who knew or who could remember who wrote what when, including the actors who came up with lines in the recording sessions or sometimes in rehearsal or on the set. So I actually remember where all the dialog came from and I thought it would be fun to create and HTML document so you could click on the specific line and have it give a credit. Now I don't know if it's a space issue, I just think that no one was really keen on the whole idea.

DF: I think that would be interesting. You could give credit where credit is due.

RM: Absolutely. I think that the Writer's Guild might get involved with that.

DF: Maybe that was the consideration. Maybe it was nixed because of that.

RM: Maybe.

DF: Columbia is doing STUART LITTLE a bit different than the usually do, offering separate widescreen and full frame versions for sale.

RM: On DVD? Is there just so much material that they just couldn't put both on?

DF: Columbia in the past, the direction they've gone is that generally family films get full frame treatment while everything else gets widescreen treatment. It may have come from the fact that with all the extras they couldn't do both versions on the same disc but they did make the decision not to delete one version or the other and instead you'll have both versions available, both with all the extras. My question to you is, which is the director's preferred version?

RM: Oh gosh, that's easy. What do you think?

DF: Well, we just want to stress the importance of the widescreen, especially in this case.

RM: Well yeah, the full frame version is, well, you know.

DF: I received email wondering if the full frame version is actually a 1.85 hard matte or something else.

RM: No, it was shot full.

DF: So the full frame version will actually just remove the mattes?

RM: Well, it depends. It all depends. Usually for the full frame you have just tweak every shot. Depending on whether the full frame is going to work or, because of the effects shots, you can't use the full frame. Because all the effects shots are hard mattes. Cause when you do a film recorder output you just print out only what you have to print out.

DF: So it was shot full frame, but the effects were hard matted?

RM: Correct. And there's so many effects shots that STUART is arbitrarily in and then he's not so it sort of screws everything up. So a lot of times you'll just crop it. So for a full frame, that's actually quite a bit of work.

DF: I'm happy that they're offering the option for families, but...

RM: Got to get the widescreen!

DF: Even if you don't care which version you get, get the widescreen.

RM: People just need bigger TVs.

DF: And luckily STUART LITTLE is a 1.85 film so a widescreen version isn't going to...

RM: It won't be super-wide.

DF: When can we expect more with STUART LITTLE? I've heard that they are going to be doing a sequel.

RM: There's talk about doing a sequel. I think a script is being written.

DF: Will you be involved?

RM: As a director? I'm not sure yet. It's just "to be announced, in development" right now.

DF: What do you have coming up soon? Or are you just going to be taking a long, computer free vacation?

RM: Exactly, a computer free vacation. There's a number of projects I working on, one of which is coming together fairly rapidly. I'm keeping busy.

DF: Not that it sounded like you needed to. STUART LITTLE seems like quite a massive undertaking. I congratulate you on the film. It's an excellent film and an equally excellent DVD.

RM: Thank you. Well, I hope everybody goes out and buys a DVD player so that they can go buy a DVD of STUART LITTLE!