n a bit of historical irony, British-born director Simon Wells (The Prince of Egypt) chose a new movie version of his great-grandfather H.G. Wells' classic SF book The Time Machine as his live-action helming debut. That felicitous pairing was not without its downside, however. Wells found himself overwhelmed toward the end of production, forced to drop out for a few weeks to recover from exhaustion, and director Gore Verbinski (The Mexican) stepped in to complete photography. The disruption gave rise to several rumors about the DreamWorks/Warner Brothers co-production, including reports that Wells was fired and that DreamWorks honcho Steven Spielberg ordered a month of reshoots, delaying the film's release to March 8 from the original Christmas 2001.
Wells, now fully recovered and the only director credited on the film, disputes the rumors and denies that his momentary departure was the result of anything other than exhaustion.
For his part, highly regarded Australian actor Guy Pearce (Memento) makes his big-budget SF movie debut as the star of this latest update of The Time Machine, playing a role that fellow Australian Rod Taylor assayed in the 1960 movie version directed by George Pal. He is joined by Irish pop star Samantha Mumba as Mara; The Time Machine marks Mumba's movie debut. The three took a moment recently to speak with Science Fiction Weekly about the movie. The following is taken partly from a press conference to reporters and partly from exclusive interviews with SCI FI Wire.
Simon Wells, where you attracted to The Time Machine because of your lineage, or was that purely coincidental?
Wells: A bit of both. Fundamentally, it's the kind of movie I really like seeing in the cinema. So I was chasing after it as much because [I thought,] "Wow, this is going to be a really cool movie," as, you know, I was also saying, "You do realize I ought to be directing it, don't you?"
This lineage thing was almost coincidental. I'd actually been working for Steven Spielberg since, what, 1986 [as supervising animator on the Spielberg-produced Who Framed Roger Rabbit] and over the years have had many conversations with him about doing live-action movies. I've expressed an interest in moving into that field. And there have been several projects we've talked about. And even for a while I was attached to do Casper 2. So, you know, in a way this was a perfect marrying of a long-standing kind of idea and sort of interesting family connection and coincidence.
Did you set out to adapt your great-grandfather's book or the 1960 George Pal movie?
Wells: That comes sort of down to the heart of adapting books into movies. And some books are very cinematic in the way they've been written, and [their] story structure suits, you know, sort of an hour-and-a-half movie. Other books are less directly adaptable. ... I think a Harry Potter works very well as a piece of cinema, directly translated. Something like The Time Machine, the original book is much more sort of a philosophical essay and less of an adventure story. So, yeah, I think we looked more towards the George Pal 1960 production and said, "Let us make that kind of an adventure film." There are other alterations and so on. We didn't do a shot-for-shot remake of it. But that was certainly our kind of inspiration and aim to do a ... year 2000 version of that movie.
Were there scenes that you shot for the film that did not make it into the final cut?
Wells: No, rather few, actually. There's some bits and pieces of a lot of scenes, that, you know, you trim lines here and there. But I think all of the dialogue scenes have at least a couple of lines cut out of them. But the only scene that isn't in any form in the movie is a sequence early on, actually, what used to be the opening of the picture, where Alexander is teaching a bunch of his students out in the quadrangle, out in the snow. It looked beautiful, by the way.
And he's confronted by the dean of the university, who shows him this book, this magazine, that he's found: Speculative Science. The writing's by Dr. Alexander Hartdegen, about things like harnessing microwave energy for household use, which is clearly poppycock, you know? And it was amusing stuff. And it brought up the idea of the time machine. ... "Time as a four-dimensional solid: A model for a time machine." And the dean is very dismissive of this.
So it was funny stuff, but it wasn't helping advance story or character significantly. And also it was adding six or seven minutes into the time before you got to the time machine. And really, once Emma dies, that's where the story kind of starts up. And so the longer you spend hacking around waiting for the story to start, the more you risk having the audience getting fidgety.
There are rumors that Spielberg stepped in and threw out a bunch of footage and ordered massive reshoots. Is any of that true?
Wells: This is hearsay and rumor. I found myself reading these kinds of reports on the Internet and stuff, and thinking, "How the hell do these ideas come up?" When we first started shooting ... the stuff with Alexander recovering in Mara's house, we shot for a couple of days and looked at it and said, "You know, we don't like the art direction. We don't like the costumes. We don't like the hairstyle on Mara." And we chucked three days of material, and we negotiated getting two days to reshoot it, because by then we'd cut it down and knew what we really needed. And so we reshot all that material in two days.
As far as I know, Steven was no part of that decision. ... It may have been that Steven looked at the stuff and said, "OK, I agree with them. I want them to reshoot it." [But] the story that somehow the whole Eloi storyline and 30 days of shooting got redone is simply not true. And I don't know where that comes from. But I do remember that right around the same time, Steven saw the first act of the movie all cut together and was actually very happy about it. ... So he was on set a couple of times at that time talking about stuff. So I don't know whether that's where the rumors started.
So the reports that the movie was delayed to accommodate this reshooting aren't true either?
Wells: The push-back was kind of a marketing decision, to be honest. By that time, we could finish the film by Christmas 2001, which was the original release date. But we were going to be right up to the wire with visual-effects stuff, and, in particular, the really impressive visual-effects shots wouldn't be coming in until literally the last couple of weeks before release. And the marketing department said, "We won't have anything to put into the trailer. And we've got have to have a kick-ass trailer if we're going to be coming out in the shadow of Harry Potter and up against Lord of the Rings. You can't put us out there with ... none of the real eye candy to slap in the trailer." And actually, I'm glad we did this. The choice was, let's have a kick-ass trailer come out with Lord of the Rings and have the movie come out a few months later. And realizing just how damn good Lord of the Rings was, I'm very glad we did that.
As for your leaving the movie during production?
Wells: The trouble is, I was learning on the job. I was learning how to shoot a live-action movie, which I've never shot before. And also, in this particular case, an extremely complicated one. And just the stresses of that, and I simply wasn't sleeping enough. And that builds up on you. And eventually, I was looking into this dark pit of total despair and not even able to get out of bed. And thank God that DreamWorks is run by people who are filmmakers and creative talents themselves, because they understood. Many of them have been in these kinds of places themselves. They said, "It's all right. We've got a way of working around this." And also thank God for Gore Verbinski, who ... was prepared to come in and essentially fulfill the creative vision that was being planned and was himself happy to service that creative vision, rather than try to take it somewhere else. But, yeah, it was a tough time, and I am immeasurably grateful to DreamWorks, because by all reasonable rights, they should have fired my ass. And they didn't.
Does it bother you now that the press seems to focus on this part of the filmmaking process?
Wells: No, I think it's reasonable. It's an interesting story. I think it happens far more than people know.
And you feel confident that The Time Machine reflects your directorial vision?
Wells: Oh sure. Look, I've been on the film for, what, 20 months. And spent a few weeks out in the middle of that. So, sure, there are scenes that I didn't say "action" at the beginning.
You're an artist. Did you contribute production design sketches or designs for the machine?
Wells: Yes. Actually, just about the first thing ... I came on the production and started having meetings with [screenwriter] John Logan and [producers] Walter Parkes and Laurie MacDonald about script. But I also met with [production designer] Oliver Scholl, and we sat down to sort of start up an art department to, if you like, prove visually proof-of-concept [designs], as much to Warner Brothers as to DreamWorks, to say, "Look, we've got this movie into a sort of shape where we can shoot it in 2001." So, yeah, Oliver and I sat down across a coffee table and started drawing sketches of the time machine and passed them back and forwards and came up with the sort of basic idea, if you like, the central ball, the emanating time field, the spinning disks that channel the time field. ... I didn't sit down and do the kind of nice illustrations that Oliver is capable of and other members of the art department. And I did sketches, a lot of sketches, early on, for the Morlocks, which I shared with [Morlock makeup-effects creator] Stan Winston's group. But, again, they have better illustrators.
The Eloi in this version of the story are very different from the blond and blue-eyed Eloi of the 1960 movie. Was that intentional?
Wells: We chose to go a very different direction, in that we wanted it to be kind of a melding of many races. An example I always used was Tiger Woods, you know. Is this guy Asian in origin? Is he African? You can't tell. But he's got a fascinating look. Very attractive, interesting, but vague ethnicity. So we wanted the Eloi to have that. Plus, I mean, we also wanted our Eloi to have kind of more about them that makes them worth rescuing. Because, frankly, George Pal's Eloi—bunch of morons, you know? And I always found myself thinking, "Well, [1960 star] Yvette Mimieux's very sweet, but what's Rod Taylor's relationship with her going to be like in about a month's time when, you know, all of her depths of intellectual rigor have been kind of plumbed, shall we say?" So, yeah, the idea that the Eloi are something worth saving, that they have a culture and philosophy and understanding of stuff [that] goes beyond the sort of primitive stone age.
Guy Pearce, can you talk about the challenges of shooting The Time Machine?
Pearce: I guess the obvious stuff was the physical work. You know, ... that hunt scene ... physically was quite demanding. And I actually broke a rib during that scene. So that became a little tricky then. And then all the scenes after that became quite challenging. Breathing and laughing. But I guess generally on a whole the challenge for me was to try and maintain some consistency through the story with the character, even though the character changes through the course of the film quite dramatically. I mean, I find everything in every film quite a challenge, you know? For various reasons.
There was a lot of green-screen work that we had to do in the film. Sitting in the time machine in ... essentially, what ... is a large, green room, with then the background put in later through the technology of CGI and visual effects. It's not something that I've dealt with before. So looking at marks on the wall and imagining that it is the New York skyline changing or whatever. It's quite challenging. I had to rely on my imagination quite a bit.
Is it ironic that you and Rod Taylor are both Australian?
Pearce: It is quite ironic. Maybe it's something about Australians not being happy with where they are [laughs]. Insecurity complex of their being at the bottom of the planet.
That's why I wanted to be in this film, actually, because of being such a fan of the original film, the George Pal version. And I guess what it conjured in me, ... you know, the child within oneself ... just to sort of get back to that again is something that I found quite appealing, really. This is not normally the kind of film I would be drawn to doing, I suppose.
What was it like working with Jeremy Irons, who plays a villainous Morlock?
Pearce: Well, it was just funny watching him trying to deal with all that makeup. ... He was an incredibly relaxed guy. He was really only there for a week. And really someone who was a gentlemen and an extraordinary actor, and it was really interesting, I guess, to see somebody like that, who you would see in more classic work, donning such an incredible outfit, as well as the thick white makeup. ... He has a great sense of fun and enjoyment, and I think that's something I found quite inspirational on this film. Because for me I had to really tap into that in order to really choose to do this film. So knowing that Jeremy was doing it was quite an inspiration. It was just funny trying to film that bloody fight on the time machine. I think the stunt person said it's like trying to choreograph a fight on a motorbike, you know? It's impossible.
What did you find attractive about this story and about the idea of time travel?
Pearce: Possibly that notion that as human beings we tend not to want to concentrate on the present moment. We would always rather fantasize about the future or dwell on the past or actually allow ourselves to feel very anxious about what possibly could happen in the future or dwell on sort of negative things that have happened in the past. And that's just our ego trying to sort of trying to create some identity for ourselves. We allow guilt and fantasy and all of these kinds of things to identify us. When really we would do ourselves a much greater service if we could actually exist in the present moment.
And obviously this is a philosophical perspective that I probably didn't have when I was 8 years old, watching The Time Machine originally. But that whole notion of turning those fantasies we have about wanting to go somewhere into the future or wanting to go into the past, turning that into a tangible prospect, is just the most fascinating concept in the world, I think. And so it certainly inspired a great deal of thought in me when I was a kid. ... On television in Australia they probably play it once a year, you know, so I probably saw this film probably eight years in a row and then hadn't seen it for a really long time. And then when the script came along for this, it just brought back a great deal of memory for me in regard to what effect it had on me when I was a kid. And I guess I then started to think about perhaps what effect this film could have on kids in this day and age, you know, and perhaps kids in the future as well. And as I say, it sort of conjured the child within me, and I guess that allowed me to let go of some of the precious aspects that I have whenever I usually go to make a film, and go, "Well, this could be fun, you know, why not?"
Would you want to travel back in time?
Pearce: I've been asked that quite a bit. And I think I've said in the press notes that I probably wouldn't, that, you know, we would be better off, you know, just sort of hanging around in the present. But I'm sure it would. Because it would be fascinating to go back, wouldn't it? ... I was born in 1967, so I'd actually love to go back to the late 1960s and see what it was like around that whole Woodstock time, but as an adult, you know? I missed all that stuff.
Had you read the book?
Pearce: No, I hadn't read the book until we shot this film. I read the book prior to shooting this film. ... It's obviously quite different from our film. [The new movie is] more in line with the original George Pal picture. So it really just sort of solidified some of those memories of the original film, I suppose, more than anything else. Because we were creating a new impetus for the time traveler to actually travel.
Your character undergoes a lot of changes in the new movie, starting out as a bookish professor, then becoming an obsessive man and finally kind of an action hero of the future. How did you deal with that as a performer?
Pearce: I'm fascinated with that whole notion that we as human beings have the potential to change. Whether it's a negative change, a positive change, or whatever the change is, I think that we're incredibly malleable creatures. And I think we would do ourselves a great service to actually realize that. And so it was kind of difficult, but at the same time, it sort of made sense to me as well. I think that we're given these opportunities in life to learn about ourselves. ... In going through ... that sort of repression that Alexander endured or that he sort of placed upon himself in not wanting to deal with Emma's death ... allowed me to sort of justify the change that he eventually went through.
And it's weird, too, for me in this film. Because I've never really looked at films before as mythical stories. I always look at films as real stories with real people in real situations. And that's why I struggle with the whole notion of calling someone the good guy or calling someone the bad guy, because I think we all have the potential to do good things and all have the potential to do really bad things. But for me, in doing Count of Monte Cristo and then going on and doing this film, I really had to be able start looking at films in more mythical terms, I suppose. And that's what allowed me to sort of see this character as someone who was able to become what we quite often call the hero or the rescuer. So it was an interesting experience. I don't know that I'll keep on doing it.
What was it like seeing the machine itself?
Pearce: I was just astounded. And I just saw dollar signs, really. I mean, you're just really reminded in this country in studio filmmaking how much money they have. Because in Australia, it would have been made out of papier mache and Icy Pop sticks, you know? [Laughs.] So it's quite astounding to see such an extraordinary-looking machine. And my immediate thought was, well, where's it going to end up when we finish making the movie, you know? Whose lounge room is that going to end up sitting in, you know?
Samantha Mumba, you had to perform on an Eloi cliff-dwelling set that was built on the side of an artificial 65-foot sheer cliff. Was it shaking doing that?
Mumba: They were very, very sturdy, so they're fine. It was just the initial getting up there and looking down and it being so far away. But when you're up there all day, you just kind of forget about it, actually, so it's fine.
Was it useful to be on a real set?
Mumba: I found it very, very helpful, because I think a lot of people actually thought it was mostly just done all on blue screen and that we didn't have anything, really. So it made it a lot easier for me. And they were beautiful sets, they really, really were. They built the river and hand-planted the bamboo trees. It was really breathtaking.
What do you think of playing the model of the race of the future? Do you think that's how people will look 800,000 years from now?
Mumba: I haven't a clue what's going to be in the future. I mean, I thought it was quite clever, because it's the actual opposite of what the future race was in the original movie, so I thought that was quite a cool thing to do. I thought it was an interesting concept, definitely.
What was it like working with Guy?
Mumba: I really went into the movie blind, because I knew the name, and I couldn't put a face to the name. And then when I saw Guy, I still didn't recognize him. So, you know, I didn't know anything of his past work, really. I mean, I'd heard of it, but didn't remember it. I mean, he's a fantastic actor and great at what he does. And it was very, very relieving to have somebody that I could kind of go, "OK, what do you think of this?" and "Did I do that OK?" I mean, he was wonderful, absolutely.
Back to the top.
Also in this issue: Ray Bradbury
.
