Connect with us

Interviews

Interview: Jonathan Liebesman, Cast Talk ‘Battle: Los Angeles’

Published

on

Releasing everywhere this Friday is the highly-anticipated sci-fi/action film Battle: Los Angeles, which follows a group of heroic marines as they take on an army of aliens who invade the City of Angels and attempt to wipe out the human population.

B-D reporter Chris Eggertsen recently sat down with director Jonathan Liebesman (Darkness Falls, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) and stars Aaron Eckhart (Suspect Zero, The Black Dahlia), Michelle Rodriguez (Machete, Resident Evil), Michael Pena (Eastbound and Down), and Ramon Rodriguez (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) to discuss the effects-heavy spectacle, which takes a unique ground-level view of all the extraterrestrial mayhem. Get the full skinny inside.

Battle: Los Angeles

I mean, on IMDB I’m sure it’ll [say the movie is] `action/sci-fi’…[but] my goal…was `I want to make a war movie with aliens’. Not an alien movie that happens to have soldiers.” – Director Jonathan Liebesman

Best known up to this point for relatively inexpensive horror offerings like Darkness Falls and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, South African director Jonathan Liebesman is now edging toward the higher end of the budget spectrum with this Friday’s Battle: Los Angeles, an alien invasion film in which several marines, led by Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), go head to head with fierce extraterrestrial attackers bent on wiping out the population of America’s second-largest metropolis.

The movie has been heavily hyped and marketed for the last several weeks on billboards and in T.V. spots (including in a pricey 30-second Superbowl ad), and so far it’s shaping up to be the first real “event” film of 2011. However, if you’re hoping to witness the large-scale destruction of some of those iconic L.A. locations (a la Roland Emmerich) you might want to check your expectations at the door. Because according to the director himself – and despite what the trailers may suggest – this simply isn’t that kind of film.

Especially with this movie I didn’t want it to be [about]…taking out the landmarks“, said Liebesman, sitting down with reporters at a fashionable Santa Monica hotel located mere feet from the site of the initial alien attack that takes place in the film. “I thought like aliens, to an alien, or to someone who’s not from America, I think that you don’t know what’s supposed to be a landmark. To me, Los Angeles is freeways and buildings and a beach…that’s kind of what it meant to me. I didn’t want the Capitol Records [Building] or the Hollywood Sign. You know, I think…obviously you’ve seen that kind of stuff before, done in $200 million movies. There’s no point in trying to outdo that. So [I] just [decided] do it on a much more sort of ground, visceral level.

To give this “in the trenches” approach (the film is often shot in the style of real-life war footage) a more realistic feel, Liebesman had the twenty or so actors playing the marines go through three weeks of boot camp during last year’s humid Louisiana summer (the movie was mostly filmed in and around Shreveport and Baton Rouge, meaning the “LA” of the abbreviated title could just as easily stand for “Louisiana” as “Los Angeles“) to accomplish the goal of both making them look and behave like actual soldiers on screen and to enhance their sense of camaraderie.

During this process, the group of polished Hollywood actors were broken down by the rank of their respective characters and put through an intense regimen approximating real-life boot camp (albeit with a few concessions, including being outfitted with packs about half the weight of those carried by real soldiers) that included physical drills and extensive weapons training. As a result of this Method-style pre-production phase, Eckhart – who plays the commanding officer of the group in the film – also found himself in a leadership position among his fellow actors, the real world and the fictional world of the film blending together in ways that, as suggested by the actor, perhaps resulted in a bit of friction between himself and some of the younger thesps he was tasked with whipping into shape.

I had to lead the drill, sing the songs, everything“, Eckhart told us, speaking throughout with an almost grim sense of earnestness. “And that’s fun and everything for a day, but when people don’t want to do it, it’s a nightmare. And you end up finally just going, `Are we gonna commit to this or not? I’m not gonna do this anymore as Aaron Eckhart, I’m gonna do this as Staff Sergeant Nantz.’ So I quickly fell into Staff Sgt. Nance, [and] I never got out of it. I only called them by their ranks and their character names. I don’t know their real names. There was just no alternative. And some of them hated me, and you know, some of them got something out of [it]. Can I say that I mentored these kids? No…I’m a hard worker, I did my job. I was in character all the time. If they appreciated that, then I’m glad, and if they didn’t then that’s their problem.

Michelle Rodriguez was essentially the polar opposite of Eckhart when we spoke with her earlier that day about the intense training and physicality required of her role as Tech Sgt. Elena Santos – a part that more or less follows the basic template of many of the previous tough-as-nails characters she’s played. The actress broke down for us the regimen of daily workouts at boot camp – during which the actors would also at certain points rehearse actual scenes from the movie – that would begin at around four or five every morning and which succeeded in bringing some of her fellow actors to their knees.

We’re running around, switching guns, taking them apart, putting them back together, shooting them, and then doing infiltration sequences and trying to re-enact scenes from the actual film“, said Rodriguez, very pretty but with a casual, “just one of the boys” demeanor that makes her quite a bit more accessible than your average starlet (and certainly more so than Mr. Eckhart). “This was all pre-production stuff before actually shooting the film. Which is gnarly, because of the fact of how hot it is in Louisiana, how humid it is. And you know, the gnarly marines that had absolutely no remorse. Like we had people throwing up, and literally couldn’t handle it, `call the doctor, we’re dehydrated!’ [Laughs]…It was awesome though, I love that stuff. Like bring it on, baby!

Also joining the roundtables that day was actor Ramon Rodriguez – best known so far for portraying conspiracy theorist “Leo Spitz” in 2009’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen – who plays the role of 2nd Lieutenant William Martinez in the film. Rodriguez admitted to liking the script initially but also feeling uncomfortable about not knowing what the computer-generated aliens were going to look like in the finished product. It was only when producer Neal Moritz (Prom Night, I Am Legend) showed him a five-minute reel shot by Liebesman to sell his take on the film to the studio that the actor was really sold on the project.

[That was] the real turning point for me“, said Rodriguez, whose character suffers from a serious crisis of confidence when confronted with the alien threat in the film. “He had vision…It was amazing because it was no dialogue. It was just sound and picture. And it looked awesome. And again, I connected to it emotionally. I felt like there was some heart to it. And I got to kinda get an idea of what these things were gonna look like. So when I saw that, I go, `ok, this is something I wanna be a part of’.

Actor Michael Pena, who plays civilian “Joe Rincon” and therefore got off relatively easy by not having to participate in the boot camp experience, for his part recalled what it was like having to react to the “tennis balls on a stick” that stood in for the film’s CG aliens during production.

[Liebesman] he had such a good sense of humor about it“, said Pena, a natural comedian who played “Dennis” in Jody Hill’s Observe and Report and has also appeared in several episodes of the Hill/Danny McBride series Eastbound and Down. “And he’s like, `alright, I know…this is a ball’. But he’s like, `trust me, it’s gonna look really fucking cool, and really amazing’. And there [was] one time where they brought something [out]…and it was pretty gnarly. It was in the freeway scene.

Of course, while creating a fearsome and non-derivative look for the aliens is an important component of any sci-fi invasion film worth its salt, Liebesman also maintained that he was less focused on the “sci-fi” of the project than in creating a war film in which the enemy just so happened to be an army of extraterrestrials.

I mean, on IMDB I’m sure it’ll [say the movie is] `action/sci-fi’“, he said, addressing a comment that the film seemed to fall more squarely in the former category than in the realm of pure science fiction. “[But] my goal…was `I want to make a war movie with aliens’. Not an alien movie that happens to have soldiers…So you’re right, there’s an incidental-ness to the aliens.

But at the same time“, he continued, regarding his laser focus on the more visceral aspects of the piece – an approach that didn’t exactly lend itself to, say, cutting to scenes in a meeting room at the White House – “what that allow[ed] me to do is not get into political reasons for `Why are we fighting this war? Is this a good war, or is this a bad war?’ I just want[ed] to [show]…you know, guys who put their lives on the line, how they bond, what they do for us. That kind of stuff. That’s what I was interested in.

I looked at this more as a war movie“, echoed Eckhart, while at the same time admitting to the film’s basic overall function as a piece of escapist popcorn fare: “[But[ in this day and age, who wants to see a war movie where you’re killing actual people? This is a movie of entertainment, you know? So we get to suspend that disbelief and to assign the foe any sort of characteristics that we like. And at the end we don’t have to pick sides, that sort of thing. Or we don’t have to make some geo-political rationalization or something like that. So I feel like that’s good for the movie. I felt like this movie was a movie about…young marines who bonded together and who cared for each other and who had to help each other survive. I think that’s the essence of the film.

One thing for sure is that, although Battle: Los Angeles certainly contains its fair share of horror, it’s also the farthest Liebesman has yet strayed from the genre that succeeded in making his career. This calculated move toward bigger-budget, “four quadrant” filmmaking unmistakably follows the path of Liebesman forebears like Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson, both of whom started out in horror before moving on to direct blockbuster franchise movies (though Raimi did admittedly make a recent return to the genre with 2009’s Drag Me To Hell). Interestingly, what with his scare-fare roots Liebesman – a native South African who grew up watching the grandiose spectacles of directors like Spielberg and Cameron (fare that often served as the only option in a limited theatrical marketplace for American films) – admitted he isn’t actually a huge fan of the horror genre but rather started out working in it due to its proven track record as a launching pad for budding filmmakers.

I feel like I was more at home with this, because I knew what I wanted more“, he said, answering a question about moving from lower-budgeted genre filmmaking to the epic scale of a Battle: Los Angeles. “I mean, these genres, war movies and aliens, are much more of a passion than horror movies were for me. That was sort of a way to sort of break in, for someone who doesn’t write his own material, and this kind of stuff is much more what I’m interested in and where I would hope to keep going and improving. You know, getting better scripts in these types of genres is kind of what I’m hoping to do.

The plan seems to be working, as the director’s next project is the currently-in-production Wrath of the Titans, the sequel to last year’s disappointing but high-grossing Clash remake which was helmed by Liebesman’s friend Louis Leterrier (Transporter, The Incredible Hulk). Attempting to tow the line between satisfying the disappointed non-fans of the first movie and not throwing Leterrier – who Liebesman described as a “mentor” – under the bus, the director was nevertheless surprisingly open about voicing his frustrations with the first installment’s obvious shortcomings.

I guess I see it as a big missed opportunity“, he told us frankly. “You had such an amazing cast, [and] you have such universal, amazing source material…the take on it that I’m doing is more of bringing the costumes down to reality, [and] the sets…making things real, the camerawork, stuff like that. Putting the fantasy world in a reality. So it’s almost like, take `Gladiator’ and put fantasy in there. To me, that’s…I mean, I guess that’s what I was hoping for when I walked in the cinema for the first one, was a world that I was gonna believe that [just] happen[ed] to be fantastical.

This “gritty realism“, as he referred to it, also factored in to Liebesman’s decision to shoot on film rather than digital, meaning that the movie will, like Clash, be going through a 3-D post-conversion. However, unlike the first movie, which was switched over to the format in a last-minute cash grab, Wrath will be “conceived, storyboarded, designed…[and] edited” for 3-D.

The conversion process has come such a long way in the last couple years“, he said, in a statement that’s still unlikely to sway fans who felt burned by the first movie and its “pop-up book“-style 3-D visuals. “[And] by having a [3-D] stereographer from the start, and [by] thinking of 3-D from the start, we can take total advantage of that process.

As for the possibility of a Battle: LA sequel, it of course all depends on whether or not audiences embrace the ground-level, shaky-cam style filming technique that Liebesman employed to put a unique spin on the proceedings. As for hardcore sci-fi geeks who may be disappointed by this unconventional, more action-oriented approach, Liebesman indicated that perhaps next time he’d focus a bit more on the “sci-fi” of it all by delving into the origins and motives of the aliens themselves.

I think you can get a hell of a lot of brilliant depth [in a film] when you get to know your enemy…[but] that just wasn’t the story that was in the script when I read it“, he said, addressing a comparison between his film and countryman Neill Blomkamp’s more complex take on the concept of “alien invasion” in District 9. “So I think what you’re talking about would be awesome to explore if an audience is interested in more. Which, I don’t know, we’ll see.

Interviews

John E.L. Tenney Discusses UAPs, Conspiracy Theories, and Possible Origins of the Phenomena [Interview]

Published

on

Welcome back to DEAD Time. Even if you’ve only dabbled in the paranormal, chances are you’re familiar with John E.L. Tenney. Tenney is one of the most sought-after and well-known experts in the world and has more than 30 years of experience with UFOs, paranormal research, occult phenomena, and conspiracy theories. He has authored over a dozen books and worked as a consultant and appeared on TV shows like Unsolved Mysteries, Sightings, Hellier, and Kindred Spirits.

In a previous installment of DEAD Time, Bloody Disgusting talked with Tenney and his best friend and co-host of the What’s Up Weirdo Podcast, Jessica Knapik, about their favorite haunted locations and Tenney shared the terrifying true story of an exorcism he attended.

This month, Bloody Disgusting was excited to have the opportunity to talk with John E.L. Tenney about conspiracy theories surrounding UFOs and UAPs, hoaxes, possible origins of the phenomena, and a lot more.


Bloody Disgusting: You’ve been actively investigating unexplained paranormal and occult phenomena for over 30 years, so you’ve probably seen it all. I’d like to talk about UFOs and wonder what you think about the term being changed to UAP – Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena?

John E.L. Tenney: I don’t have a big problem with it. We’ve seen the change in the moniker of strange objects before, going from flying discs to flying saucers to UFOs. So, it’s just another kind of cyclical, completely benign name change. I think the only thing that worries me about it is that people think that by changing the name it somehow changes the credibility of the sightings; by giving it this term that the government will use, UAP, it somehow discounts all of the flying saucers, flying discs, experiences, UFO experiences from the 1940s up until now.

BD: Last year David Grusch, a former intelligence officer, became a whistleblower and claimed the government had recovered nonhuman crafts with nonhuman species inside. What do you think about his claims?

JT: Well, it’s really interesting with his testimony to Congress because he used very specific language. Very specific questions were asked, and he answered them in very specific ways. So, even to your point, if I’m remembering the way the testimony went, he was asked about extraterrestrials, and he said that they had found non-human biologics. Now that term, non-human biologics, can be applied to anything that has life that’s just not human. So, that could be viruses, that could be molds, that could be spores. So, because the question was asked about extraterrestrials, and he answered affirmatively that there was non-human life, the media ran with the idea that he said that there were extraterrestrials. The majority of life on this planet is non-human biologics.

BD: What are your thoughts on the Interdimensional hypothesis and ultraterrestrials as explanations for UAPs?

JT: I think that where our research spans, we really have to kind of broaden our field. So, whether something exists in this kind of plane of reality with us or in an alternate dimension or an alternate universe or an alternate reality is something that we can give thought to and that we can craft ideas about. It’s just that the further away we get from something that is experiential and experienced by tons of people, and the harder it is to prove scientifically, doesn’t necessarily give us better ideas, right? I think that there’s really nothing wrong with the way that people have been thinking about aliens for 100 years, which are life forms that have developed technology and intelligence and come from somewhere else within our reality. It’s just as people start to research and sometimes that doesn’t seem fulfilling, or sometimes the experiencer says something which doesn’t match reality.

It’s just as people start to research and sometimes that doesn’t seem fulfilling, or sometimes the experiencer says something which doesn’t match reality, people start to jump to conclusions that perhaps it’s multi-dimensional. Perhaps it’s an ultraterrestrial when I don’t know if you need to make that leap so fast. And by doing that you take focus off of that which can be researched. We have hundreds of thousands of cases which don’t seem to be ultraterrestrials or interdimensional, and they’ve never been really well researched. And as we start to get new cases and new fascinating ways to think about them,we do kind of leave all of those hundreds of thousands of cases behind because, well, maybe it was just a hubcap someone threw in the air. The more mysterious it gets, the more those earlier cases which now seem mundane to us, which are probably very important to the formation of how we think about things, get lost in the shuffle.

BD: One of the most famous UFO stories is the Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter in 1955, which involved a group of people who arrived at the police station and claimed their farmhouse was being attacked by small alien creatures who came from a spaceship. Do you think there is any truth to this story, or do you think it was a case of mass hysteria?

JT: Kelly-Hopkinsville, much like even the Flatwoods monster in Braxton County, West Virginia, are incidents where people have what seem to be super normal experiences. They don’t make any money off of it, they actually become ridiculed in the community. There’s no beneficial point for them making up the experience. In Braxton County with the Flatwoods Monste, you have, 10 or 12 people seeing a giant 11-foot-tall creature with a burning head come down out of a UFO. And all these cases are researched, and they seem to have some physical evidence, some physical traces, whether it’s tracks in the ground or even in the Kelly-Hopkinsville case, you can actually see the shotgun blast where they shot at the creatures through the door. So, there’s something there to research. I don’t think that it’s written off as mass psychosis in the sense that how many people would willingly subject themselves to ridicule by making up a story with no monetary or power dynamic beneficial to them.

BD: That would make sense. They’re not getting anything by going public with their story.

JT: Except scorn and ridicule. In Michigan in 1960, the largest UFO sighting in American history, it went over the course of about a week and a half. Thousands of people saw flying saucers in the air. The government was called out. It’s now called The Swamp Gas incident because the government said it was just swamp gas that everyone saw. This was a really big turning point because even the people who were involved in it, once the government had said it was swamp gas, everybody, most of the people involved said that if they ever saw anything again, they’d never talk about it because paint was thrown on their houses. They were called frauds everywhere that they went. So, it’s actually like really detrimental to a person to report these sightings. And that 1966 case two was the first time that Congress actually took up the idea of investigating flying saucers. Because the Michigan congressman at the time was Gerald Ford, and he went on the floor of the House and called for investigations into flying saucers.

BD: I know you also deal with conspiracy theories sometimes. Obviously, there’s going to be conspiracy theories thrown around if the government is looking into either the whistleblower or some of these other incidents.

JT: I think that first and foremost, it’s interesting that when we look at the way it’s portrayed in the media now with congressional hearings and people of rank and people with government positions talking about UFOs, because of the way that we remember history and tell history, we forget that there have been congressional hearings on UFOs in the past. There have been high-ranking people in the past that have talked about seeing flying saucers, whether it’s Air Force pilots or admirals in the Royal Air Navy in England, this has happened before. The only difference now is the way that it’s covered in the media and our media cycle makes it seem much more prevalent than it ever was in the 1970s.

If your UFO story got told in the five major newspapers of the world, that’s a huge story. But now this one story is being retold in 700 online newspapers. It seems like there’s much more being told, but it’s really not as much as it’s ever been. And the government is bad, pretty notoriously, at keeping secrets. Big ones too. There are so many people involved. There are so many people that would have to be involved, even with things that might sound really kind of off the rails. But like when people talk about someplace like Area 51 that has, you know, hundreds of UFOs supposedly stored in it, and there’s thousands of people that work there, one of the things you have to take into account is simple things like waste management. Who takes care of the plumbing? Who takes the garbage out? The secrets would eventually slip. There are so many people involved in something like that, right? And we’re also now dealing with congressmen, businessmen, elected representatives who are of an age where they grew up as fans of science fiction.

We’ve never experienced that before. When all of the former elected officials and Air Force pilots and military officials, all those earlier people grew up, science fiction was a kid’s thing. These people now that are elected representatives and officials, grew up with Star Trek and Star Wars and watching In Search of and Unsolved Mysteries. So, when they get into positions of power, their natural curiosity is to talk about the things they have always been curious about just like us. And so, it doesn’t mean that they have any more information; it’s just that they have more interest and more personal identity attached to high strangeness than previous elected officials.

BD: That’s such a great point. That had not even occurred to me.

JT: I think it was Representative Adam Schiff, a few years ago, went on the floor of the House and talked about Star Trek and Spock, like he’s a fan of Star Trek. So, when you see people now interested in having UFO hearings, you have to remember that those people are also fans of modern-day science fiction.

BD: Do you have a personal theory that might explain what UAPs really are and where they come from?

JT: There’s a part of me, of course, that is very interested in the fact that the rise of UAP and sightings of things flying in the sky has proportionally increased with the ability for every day, normal human beings to buy objects that can fly around and flash in the sky. Drones are a good example. But I think that it’s important to look back at the older cases that aren’t so much involved with easily accessible technology that we have. I think that the UFO phenomenon, the UAP phenomenon, the flying saucer phenomenon, is much larger than just one answer. I think that you may have a multitude of extraterrestrial creatures, interdimensional creatures, ultraterrestrials, the kind of belief systems that form around mythology with different religions—I think all of those things can be happening at one time. And when you look at it through your personal lens, you might not see it as separate, individual cases, and lump them all together. So, I really think it’s important for people to look at each UFO case individually without saying, “Oh, objects must be a tic tac shape. Oh, objects must be a disc shape. Oh, objects must conform to what I think a flying saucer, UFO, or UAP case is.” The best research that people can do is to look at each case individually and uniquely because each case is unique and individual.

Obviously, not everyone is a researcher, but there are a lot of people who think that if I see a UFO, in Michigan for example, on Monday and then people see a UFO on Wednesday, in Michigan, that these must be the same UFO, when it’s two completely separate events happening. When you talk to people and drill down, yes, there may be commonalities between the sightings, but the differences are really where the interesting theories and ideas come from. Saying that everything is just a tic tac really does disservice to strangeness in and of itself. What I tell people is that when you look back on the history of UFOs, and you look at some of the UFO photographs taken in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, the ones that have remained, the ones we can’t prove are hoaxes—you have to remember that if those people did hoax the remaining photographs we have that show weird things in the sky, those people never considered that we would have easily accessible computers to debunk their photographs. So, the fact that a photograph from the 1940s or 1950s cannot be disproven with all of the technology that we have now makes those cases even more fascinating because the tic tac video might be great but I’m pretty sure that thousands of people in the country could make a video that looks just like it right now within a few minutes.

It really fascinates me that people really miss the fact that the average age for a congressperson right now is about 57. They all grew up watching Lost in Space, Close Encounters, and Star Trek and sitting around the television and reading comic books and loving it. They are the first generation who have access to power and who have had a real fandom to it.


For more information on John E.L. Tenney’s work, as well as upcoming events, please visit his website.

Continue Reading