Director Breck Eisner on Reining in The Crazies and the Lessons of Sahara

Well, here's a pleasant surprise: a horror remake that's actually good. I'm speaking of The Crazies, the updating of the 1973 George Romero film about a biological weapons spill that turns the population of a rural town into remorseless killers. For director Breck Eisner, son of controversial former Disney czar Michael Eisner, it's his first feature since 2005's epic dud Sahara disappeared into a sandstorm of legal filings. The Crazies brings a measure of redemption -- it's a taut and beautifully shot horror film that manages to both honor and embellish upon the classic '70s exploitation genre to which it pays homage. We spoke this week with Eisner about staying true to the spirit of Romero, what he learned from Sahara, and the status of his dream project: a huge-budget version of Flash Gordon, based on the original Alex Raymond comic strips.

What are your memories of seeing the original The Crazies?

When they first approached me about making the movie, I had very distant memories of seeing it as a kid of maybe 14. I think a buddy had brought it over on VHS and we watched it. I hadn't thought about it since, but things in the movie definitely stuck in my brain. That idea of the people closest to you suddenly turning on you. I figured if I had remembered it this much later, there must be something to it.

To what extent was George Romero involved in the remake?

I was brought in after a draft had been worked on for about a year. They had purchased the rights directly from Romero, and developed the first draft with him. Then I came in and had a somewhat different take on the movie. The original has a bifurcated point of view, being told from the point of view of the military and the townsfolk. I wanted to excise the military point of view, and rewrite it to be just the townsfolk's point of view. We've since finished the movie and shown it to Romero, and I talked to him after we screened it in Toronto, and he seemed quite pleased with it. So that was a nerve wracking call, but one that seemed to go well.

Beyond the shift in points of view, how different is your film?

There's no question it's a very different movie. When I think about making a movie, and think about a year to three year commitment of my time and life and all that effort, you really need to be sure of why you're making the movie and why you should be making the movie. For me, there was a massive limitation in The Crazies, in that he had only 200 grand to make the original. And this was a movie that had some scale to it. It had the military invading and occupying a town, and those things can be expensive. And so I think his version's shortcomings suffered somewhat from lack of funds. So that's one of the big differences. It's not a big-budget movie at all, but it is significantly bigger than what Romero had. So we could get really great actors like Timothy [Olyphant] and Radha [Mitchell], we could scale up the movie and have a military presence, and spend more time on some of the horror-action set pieces, and really build the world we wanted to build.

Did you find a way to modernize it, and perhaps tie it in to more current themes and issues?

Romero's original was from the tail end of the Vietnam War, and it was definitely a response to that. This movie takes place in the present day, but it is very much a response to the post 9/11 world under the presidency of George Bush. It's a commentary on the use of military by politicians to forward their own means, and the idea that the populace of this country can't just blindly trust politicians to use the military in ways that are always best for the greater good of the country. In remaking Romero it felt important to me that the message of the movie be part of the design of the movie, because the message was always part of the DNA of his movies. But it needs to be somewhat in the background -- a modern day audience doesn't want to be lectured to.

Will fans coming to The Crazies in hopes of finding "fast zombies" be satisfied with what they find?

It's not a zombie movie, even though it's a Romero movie. They're not zombies. They're similar. But these people are not undead. Zombies act in a cohesive way -- they all want to eat brains and have the same goals. But when people get infected with the toxin "Trixie," it reacts differently in everybody. It creates a rage that boils deep within, but their actions are based on the people they were before. So it's not like the people are completely lost -- the individuals are still very much there. They're just acting out their innermost demons in very rage-induced ways. To me the real scare of the movie is that concept of your best friend, husband, wife, father going crazy and going after you. It delves into a very primal fear that develops at a very young age -- that perhaps your family or best friend will turn on you. It's a primal human fear.

Is it at all exploring the primal fear of actual mental illness invading your family or private sphere?

No, it's not supposed to be relate to mental illness. It's way too aggressive and active, and comes on too quickly. It's definitely a toxin that infects everyone who comes in contact with it. It's not akin to mental illness, no.

Pages: 1 2