Martin Grove’s Filmmaker Focus – 01/24/11 Alister Grierson – “Sanctum”

Alister Grierson on the set of “Sanctum”

3D took Hollywood on a pretty wild rollercoaster ride last year. Thanks largely to higher pricing for 3D tickets, the boxoffice was down just 0.3 percent from 2010 although admissions slid nearly 5.3 percent. A big part of the year’s success was James Cameron’s “Avatar’ which did about 80 percent of its nearly $750 million in domestic initial release grosses from 3D theatres.

On the heels of “Avatar,” moviegoers were flocking to anything released in 3D. It didn’t take them long to realize that not all 3D films are created equal. In fact, they found out that some 3D films weren’t actually created in 3D at all — like “Clash of the Titans,” whose conversion to 3D was widely criticized. Quickie 3D conversions fooled audiences at first, but when word got out as to what they really were like, the party was over.

On the other hand, last year saw domestic success stories for genuine 3D films like “Toy Story 3” with $415 million, “Alice in Wonderland” with $334.2 million and “Up” with $293 million.

For films designed to be made in 3D the market remains very promising. A case in point is the new 3D action thriller “Sanctum,” opening Feb. 4 via Universal. The Universal Pictures, Relativity Media and Wayfare Entertainment presentation is a Great Wight Production directed by Alister Grierson and written by John Garvin and Andrew Wight. It was executive produced by James Cameron, Ben Browning, Michael Maher, Peter Rawlinson and Ryan Kavanaugh. Starring are Richard Roxburgh, Rhys Wakesfield, Alice Parkinson, Dan Wyllie and Ioan Gruffudd.

Cameron handpicked Grierson, a native of Australia, to direct “Sanctum” after seeing his first feature “Kokoda,” which was made on a $2 million shoestring and became one of the top five grossing films Down Under in 2006.

Not only was “Sanctum” created for 3D, it was shot — on location at the Goldcoast Australia and Warner Bros. Studio Queensland — with the Pace–Cameron 3D fusion camera system that Cameron developed for “Avatar.” Because “Avatar” was a mostly CGI movie, “Sanctum 3D” is the first live action film to use that system.

The Story (studio synopsis): “‘Sanctum” centers around a team of underwater cave divers on a treacherous expedition to the largest, most beautiful and least accessible cave system on Earth. When a tropical storm forces them deep into the caverns, they must fight raging water, deadly terrain and creeping panic as they search for an unknown escape route to the sea.”

Cameron, Grierson and Wight discussed the making of “Sanctum” on camera at a recent press conference at Universal Studios in Los Angeles. To see video of that event click here for Part 1. Click here for Part 2. Click here for Part 3. Click here for Part 4. Click here to see “Sanctum’s” trailer.

I was happy to catch up recently by phone with Grierson, who was back in Australia by then, to talk about the making of “Sanctum.”

Q: “Sanctum” uses the camera system James Cameron devised for “Avatar.”: A: We’re literally using the same cameras that Jim used on “Avatar.” The cameras are called the Cameron/Pace Fusion 3D Camera System. But we’re a hundred percent live action whereas 70 percent of “Avatar,” of course, was CGI.
Q: How did you come to make this film?: A: I’d made a film in 2006 called “Kokoda,” which is an historical war film. It was a very successful film in Australia, but not much heard of in America. A producer of “Sanctum,” Andrew Wight, saw “Kokoda” and saw something in it that he loved and thought would work with “Sanctum.” I think there’s some similar thematic territory. “Kokoda’ was only a $3 million film and created an illusion of it being a much bigger film. It was a very arduous shoot. We were 25 days in the jungle in North Queensland shooting on location.

So he screened the film for Jim. Jim was making “Avatar” at the time. They’d made the decision to make this film in Australia about 12 months beforehand because the Australian government introduced a new taxation rebate on film production and it felt like an attractive way to finance the picture. As a requirement of that taxation rebate they needed to have a very strong Australian credit in making the picture.

So they (were looking for) an Australian director. They cast a wide net. They watched “Kokoda.” Jim invited me to Wellington where he was just coming off the Wellington shoot of “Avatar.” I spent a week with him on set and looked at what he was doing and got a sense of the 3D and how the 3D worked. And at the end of the week I had the job. That’s almost three years ago now.
Q: You must have felt good after that!: A: (laughs) It’s been a rollercoaster ride, I can tell you. Of course, it’s very thrilling. It’s what I call my “entourage moment.” You know, you get the phone call, “Mr. Cameron would like to see you in Auckland.” So, look, it’s very, very exciting. That was three years ago. We took a year to get financed. And then, as often happens with filmmaking, right at the time we were ready to go the global financial crisis hit. Everybody got very scared and our money evaporated. Meanwhile, I’d committed to move my family up to Queensland in preparation for the film and I’m sitting up in Queensland without a job and thinking, “What happens now?” But miraculously we were able to get the finance moving again and then before we knew it we were shooting.

It was a tricky shoot. It was a very, very complex film to make. The 3D was the least of my worries at the end of the day. There’s water in almost every frame of the film and it’s complex shooting with water, you know. You’ve got to shoot safety and just dealing with equipment and the complexities of working underwater. Plus, we shot in a cave, which means lighting becomes a complex (challenge).
Q: Working with someone as notable as Jim Cameron could pose challenges, too. Did he interfere or was he too hands on? How did you guys work together?: A: Jim was still making “Avatar” when we were really getting into the swing of pre–production on the film. So obviously he was very, very busy. And we were in Australia and he was in Hollywood. Basically, I worked very closely with my creative team here in Australia and with Andrew, the producer. When I felt like I had something that I wanted to communicate to Jim I’d send it across (by) e–mail or on the telephone. He was always the right guy I had in mind (to go to regarding) pre–visualization, imagery and the 3D modeling that I was doing in preparation and various clips that I would make of scenes.

If he had any comments he’d get back to us and say, “Look, I like what you’re doing here, but have you thought about this and maybe this could be another option or what have you.” The first thing he said to me was, “Look, this is you’re picture. I’m just going to help you make your picture the best that we can.” And once we were shooting, we were on our own. Jim had been heavily involved with Andrew, the producer, in the development of the story and the screenplay.

Once we were shooting, really, we were entirely on our own. Jim actually came to see it on set the final week of the shoot when we were shooting underwater at the Warner Bros. Studio in Queensland. Perhaps Jim’s biggest influence was actually in post–production when I was able to take assemblies of the film to L.A. and we’d sit down and watch the film and he’d just give us sort of a gut–feedback at the end of the screening. We’d get back to Australia and have a look at changes to try and incorporate some of those ideas.

He really is a master storyteller, Jim. People often think he’s just all about high tech gizmos and toys and things, but his real skill is being able to tell a story well and look at other people’s work, like mine, and give suggestions. I mean, they weren’t orders. It wasn’t, “You must do this.” It was, “Have you thought about this?” And quite often we’d come back and I’d looked at the note and worked very closely with my editor and look at a way to realize what the suggestion might be.

And sometimes we didn’t feel like it worked and so we’d either go back to what we had or in the process of doing that discovered something new — which is really what filmmaking’s about. It’s really about trying to discover the film that you have. You’re always trying to discover a better way to tell your story. The wonderful thing about having a director as (a producer is that) he understands the process so well. He knows it’s not his job to tell me what to do. It’s to support you in what you’re trying to do.
Q: I don’t have to tell you that in the past year 3D has gotten a terrible reputation because studios have made 3D conversions of films that weren’t shot in 3D and they’ve shot some films in 3D just for the sake of being able to charge higher ticket prices for them. Obviously, your film is designed to be in 3D and stands out because of the unique camera system. What are your thoughts about 3D?: A: That’s a good question and a common question that we’re getting asked. My take on it is that you’ve got to look at the 3D in an historical context. It’s something that’s been driving filmmakers since we invented film with Edison — to try and capture reality. I think stereo (3D) is another step forward to trying to get closer to replicating the human experience. There’s no doubt that some people have tried to exploit the concept of 3D to get bottoms in the seats. But exploitation is also the history of cinema, as well, you know.

3D in a way is still a great mystery for many (filmmakers). When you’re a filmmaker and you’re thinking, “I’m going to shoot a big picture,” the last thing I want to be worrying about is that I’ve got to learn to reshoot it all again because it’s in 3D. I think that scares people off.

I can’t imagine not having done it in 3D now. I mean, I’ve watched my film “a million times” in 2D and in 3D and the thing you discover is that it’s just that much more satisfying in 3D. It really is. Particularly our film, which is set in underwater tides. The subject matter lends itself so well to the idea of seeing it and experiencing it in stereo so that one’s anxiety and fears and joy and terrors and excitement are really amplified.

We’re seeing that people want to see things in stereo. We’ve seen that they will pay a premium for it. We’re seeing that if you have a film (in 3D) more people will go and see it at a 3D cinema than at a 2D cinema. We’re a drama with action adventure elements. We’re the first real (live action) drama to be shot in 3D. I think it’s really going to surprise people. And most of the rollout and the exhibition is in 3D. Something like 80 percent of our screens are going to be in 3D whereas with “Avatar,” which is only a couple of years ago, a significantly larger amount of its screens were 2D.

The real achievement of “Avatar,” in a way, was the rollout of digital cinema. It was basically getting so many exhibitors to gear up and get digital technology so the real impact of that is now that digital distribution (is being done). It means that anyone who’s got a digital cinema can very quickly have a 3D cinema, as well. I mean, there are a few issues involved — more than that — but that’s the impact of “Avatar.”
Q: I’ve always heard that 3D cameras are large and hard to move around to set up for shots. Is the system you used like that?: A: We had a different system for underwater shooting. At that time there wasn’t a Fusion camera available for us to work underwater so we shot with what we called a side–by–side rig.

But 3D was the least of our problems. It was the water (that was the most difficult). You’ve got to imagine a soundstage and literally filling up the entire soundstage from wall to wall — except for a little walkway area, a fire regulation area where we couldn’t film. It’s a massive swimming pool, say a meter and a half high and on each side of that swimming pool built onto the bottom of the studio floor is one of my cave sets, which is going up about, say, 12 meters high. We actually dug into the studio floor another three meters at either end of the stage so that I could flood the stage to about four meters.

And the cave sets were rock so they’re jagged and ragged and concrete and beautifully crafted by Nick McCallum, the production designer. You can imagine trying to get your crew on and off the set. So every time you go to do a set up you’ve got to move 30 people on set to block out the shot. So what we did was, basically, lift our camera on a crane, which regardless of whether we were shooting in 2D or 3D we’d have to do anyway because it was a very clever strategy to give us complete access to the set. Every part of the set we could get to very quickly by just moving the crane in and out and down and so on.

We took this rig and cameras into the worst kind of conditions that you want to shoot in — a lot of water, a lot of heat and a lot of cold, underwater, the whole kit bag of problems that you have. The 3D wasn’t the issue at all.
Q: What was the film’s budget to make all this happen?: A: It’s $30 million Australian. It’s hard to put your finger on what that actually means anymore. Now $30 million Australian is almost exactly $30 million U.S. But when we fired the picture, $30 million Australian was probably only $20 million U.S. So over the last three years that’s kind of fluctuated. It’s gone up and down.
Q: When did you shoot?: A: We finished shooting in March of 2010. We started shooting in December of 2009. It was probably about 70 days — shooting days, not consecutive days — including our second unit stuff that we did.