Lilja's Library

by Hans-Ake Lilja

  Jay Holben: The main day of photography was a pretty serious day. Although we all had a lot of fun, I’m very careful to protect the environment of the actors. The set was carefully designed to be lit so that we could almost be continually shooting—there were very short breaks between shots and Tonya was on set for the majority of the day. That really helped her mood and performance to be constantly in that world.

  Early on, when I was in high school, I made a lot of video movies entirely by myself. I set the tripod up and acted out the shot, then go back to the camera, move it and do the next setup. Then I’d edit them together and voilà—a one-man movie. I called them Holben-Solos. Although I had a comfortably sized crew for the main shoot, the majority of the insert shots (all the close-ups of the toilet, light bulb, beetle, etc.) I shot entirely by myself in the evenings after a day of work. I’d come home after shooting for twelve or fourteen hours on another project somewhere around 1 a.m. Spend the next hour or two setting up a shot and shoot till 3 a.m. Then get some sleep, wake up early to pack up the gear and go off for another day. Most of the inserts were shot over a three-evening period and I had no crew for them—so it was kind of like going back to the Holben-Solo days and was a bit fun.

  There is, I suppose, as an amusing anecdote: the story of the dung beetle. I wanted a cockroach to crawl across the bathroom floor (that’s what was scripted), but I was having an extremely difficult time finding one (lucky me). I called a company that provides insects and animals for movies and when all was said and done (including handler, transportation and the roach’s fee) it was going to cost me one hundred dollars per roach. I said “ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Does it SING too?” So, needless to say, I did not use that company. As it turned out, one of the other projects that I produced in that time was shot in Hollywood’s Griffith Park. As we were location scouting for that job, a fellow crewmember spotted a pair of dung beetles out for an afternoon stroll. We recruited them for Paranoid (of course, after a lengthy negotiation with their agents) and set them up in a lovely mason jar with some samples of home (dirt, horse manure and sticks). The first shot I did with beetle 1 (the only one that appears in the film) was merely having it crawl across the floor. I was combining this with a dolly toward the beetle on an extremely long lens coupled with a diopter. It was a very tough shot to pull off and took several takes. To get the beetle in position, I would place a large cup over it—scoot it carefully across the floor to its start mark and lift the cup on cue. After ten or so takes, I put the beetle back in its jar. The next shot was to be the beetle crawling behind the toilet in the bathroom. I lit the scene and went back for the beetle only to find it on its back, apparently writhing in pain. I thought “OH MY GOD! I’VE KILLED IT!” Then I looked again and realized the possibilities. I took the writhing beetle to the set, put it down and shot the scene that is now in the film. I put it back in the jar, extending my condolences and promising a first-class burial, and went back to work. A few hours later, I went back to the jar and the beetle was fine! I later learned that roaches and some kinds of beetles, if they feel threatened, can spontaneously give birth. If you look closely at the shot in Paranoid, you can see an egg sack coming out of the end of the beetle. Once filming was done, both beetles were released still quite alive, back into the wilderness with their new egg sack. I can only hope they named some of the little ones after me.

  As another side note—the film was shot almost entirely in my apartment in Los Angeles. My girlfriend was not too pleased to hear this story of a beetle on the floor of our bathroom—let alone one giving birth. She made me thoroughly clean the bathroom again after filming was done.

  Lilja: Did you have any personal contact with King during the making of the movie? Has he seen it (and if so, what did he think about it)?

  Jay Holben: I never had any contact with King whatsoever prior to making the film or during the process. I don’t recommend this process, but it was, unfortunately, the way the project came about. By the time I made the final decision to shoot Paranoid, I knew I’d never have a chance to clear the rights and get permission before my date of principal photography—so I shot first. I sent a finished copy of the film to Stephen in Bangor asking for his blessing and the right to show the film. He called me three weeks later to extend his permission for me to show the film as a presentation of my work in non-commercial venues. His only comment on the film was, “You’ve got a good film here…I liked it.” I was elated at that and didn’t press for details.

  Lilja: Are there any plans for another King movie?

  Jay Holben: Oh…that’s a loaded question. There are a great number of King stories that I would love to adapt to the screen. We briefly discussed this possibility in our phone chat and he remained optimistic, but realistic about the possibility, explaining that “…Most of my stuff is either already optioned or complicated.” At this point, no, there is no other King movie in the works for me, but I’d like to keep the prospects for the future open. One at a time, though.

  Lilja: Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Is there anything else you want to say to the fans that read this interview?

  Jay Holben: In the past year I’ve been contacted by a number of King fans anxiously awaiting this film. I truly appreciate your support and interest in the project and beg your patience just a little bit longer. I know what it’s like to be a fan and I know what it’s like to be an avid collector who wants to see and own everything they can associate with King. I can say that we’re trying our best to accommodate the fans and still stay true to King’s wishes.

  I’d also like to add, although I’m sure for most of your readers this is not necessary, my gratitude for Stephen King’s extraordinary generosity and support. Many people have read about his “Dollar Deal” policy—a sure sign of his unending support for students and aspiring filmmakers. I remember a time, back during my high school speech years, when a very famous playwright sent his lawyers to the competitions to make sure that anyone using his material was paying the full royalty fees. In a litigious, money-hungry society it’s amazing to have someone like King who’s willing to help and make an extraordinary sacrifice in his own gain to do so. He’s often been accused of being driven by the dollar, but this policy is a sure sign that he’s just doing it for the love of the written word.

  That, and scaring the pants off of you whenever he can.

  ****

  James Gonis

  Posted: December 8, 2000

  Here is an interview with James Gonis. He is the man who made a movie out of King’s short story “The Lawnmower Man.”

  Lilja: Could you start with telling me a bit about yourself? Who are you and what do you do?

  James Gonis: I’m thirty-five now. I moved to L.A. in 1993 with aspirations of screenwriting. I still write but presently I have a full-time job at Playboy booking out Playboy Playmates on promotions.

  Lilja: When did you make The Lawnmower Man? Can you tell me a little about the production? How much did it cost? How long did it take to film it?

  James Gonis: The film was shot in 1985 during a junior-level NYU production course entitled “Junior Narrative.” Everybody made films for their credits, working in different capacities. It took about ten days to shoot over two different weeks that summer (continuity sticklers would notice that the length of hair changes on the actor who plays Parkette, sometimes from shot-to-shot). I can’t remember how much it cost, but it was a lot more than I bargained for! Less than five thousand dollars, I think.

  Lilja: What made you pick “The Lawnmower Man” out of all the stories King has written?

  James Gonis: It was a standout story in my memory, so bizarre and disturbing, brutal but kinda funny! And despite the inherent challenges in telling that story, it was still within the realm of what student filmmakers could do within their framework—no UFOs were coming down or anything. It was doable! At the time, it wasn’t long after Creepshow and Cat’s Eye, so doing a broad King story was a natural. Also, he hadn’t had as much
short fiction out back then as he does now, so there wasn’t as much to choose from.

  I don’t think we started out thinking to do it broad, though. It changed a bit when we turned to the Walt Simonson comic adaptation, and it’s closer to that version than the short story itself.

  Lilja: In the movie, Andy Clark (who plays The Lawnmower Man) appears to eat a mole and some grass. I assume it’s not a real mole. What was it? And how about the grass, was that real? It looks really great!

  James Gonis: No, that was a real mole. Andy insisted on realism. (Joke.) It was pieces of a rabbit pelt, boiled liver and red food coloring all mixed up. Real cut grass was pre-washed and scattered in front of Andy so he could scoop it into his mouth.

  Andy was terrific. Imagine having to do all he had to do, for the love of the craft and no pay? He had a great scene in Woody Allen’s Radio Days a couple of years later, as Dianne Wiest’s date who freaks out over the War of the Worlds broadcast. Ed Phillips, who could not have been better, had been in Tootsie as one of the TV show crewmen. Sadly, he passed away about a year after our shoot and never got to see the finished film. Helen Hanft, Mrs. Parkette, is a great character actress who’s done tons of New York stage work and lots of films for Woody Allen, and a memorable role in Arthur (“My husband has a gun!”). She was a friend of Ed’s and he was good enough to bring her into the production. It was so gratifying to be directing these talented professionals.

  Lilja: Can you tell me about a funny incident from the production of the movie?

  James Gonis: That rule of thumb, never work with kids and animals? Getting the dog to look like he was chasing the cat was impossible. Getting these animals to do anything was impossible. They weren’t trained—they were pets. And getting a perfect take of the little girl hiding in the bushes who didn’t want to eat brussel sprouts…very frustrating. Well, now looking back it’s hysterical.

  The funniest unintentional thing in the film is that when the lawnmower flies off the balcony (chasing Parkette at the end), you can see the tripod case in the background. We were too tired to notice those details by that point! It all got funny after awhile. It was a sweltering hot season and we were at the breaking point: How do we set up this shot? “Pan’s the boss!” Hoo, boy.

  Incidentally, it was a pretty dynamic crew. Ethan Reiff, the cameraman, has gone on to become an A-list writer, having co-created the TV series Brimstone. And Mike DeLuca, the writer/producer, is now the production head of New Line Cinema.

  Lilja: How many (if any) official airings have there been?

  James Gonis: Three. The first was the requisite NYU Film Festival screening. The second was at Horrorfest in Colorado in 1989. It was shown on a video monitor along with Jim Cole’s The Last Rung on the Ladder. (I couldn’t attend that convention. It would’ve been great, though; it was at the Stanley Hotel, which inspired The Shining.) The last screening was in 1991 at a New York film festival of Greek-American filmmakers.

  Lilja: How does it feel that all the King fans out there can’t see your movie? Do you think that will change in the future? Maybe a video release would be possible?

  James Gonis: The film has sat on the shelf so long that the thought that it might find an audience is most pleasant and unexpected. Most student films never really get seen that widely; it’s only because this happens to be a King story that there might be some broader interest. I can totally relate to the die-hard fans who want to see absolutely everything—I used to be one!

  I had gotten a letter from Milton Subotsky after the Horrorfest screening was publicized, reminding me that I did not have the rights. It was cool to get a letter from Subotsky—I wrote back saying, “OK, I understand. Gee, by the way, I loved your movies, Tales from the Crypt and Asylum…” So I really don’t think there will be an official release (despite that Subotsky’s deal has probably fallen through by now).

  However, the Internet makes for a broader outlet for fans to access and share this kind of material. Maybe there’ll be some exposure for the film along that vein. But I’m always sensitive to the legalities.

  Lilja: How do you feel about the motion picture version of The Lawnmower Man? Would you be interested in doing a motion picture version yourself?

  James Gonis: Obviously the feature didn’t have much to do with the story. Too much of a stretch to incorporate the story into the middle of a cyber-reality vehicle just so they could put King’s name on it. Pierce Brosnan’s cool, but it wasn’t an easy film to like. And as for me, having gotten the adaptation out of my system with the short film, I haven’t any desire to do a feature on it!

  Lilja: Have you gotten any reaction on your movie from King? If so, what did he think?

  James Gonis: I think I remember him saying he thought it was pretty good or pretty funny. Believe it or not, it’s hard to remember exactly what he said; it was about ten years ago! (I went to a book signing he did in New York around 1990, and I asked him.)

  Lilja: Do you have any plans for making more movies based on Stephen King’s stories?

  James Gonis: No, but I’d love to do ’Salem’s Lot and stick really close to the novel. What a kick-ass book! Of course, I couldn’t do it justice. I liked the miniseries, but I wish someone would re-adapt the novel and capture it on a more visceral level—George Romero would’ve done a great job in 1978. But I have written my own vampire spec script and it’s gotten some “bites”…so you never know.

  Lilja: Thanks! It was nice to talk to you.

  James Gonis: Thanks for your interest. Take care!

  ****

  Stephen Spignesi

  Posted: July 9, 2001

  Here is an interview with Stephen Spignesi, who has listed his favorite 101 King works in his new book, The Essential Stephen King.

  Lilja: Hi Steve. First, let me thank you for doing this interview! I have just read your book, and let me start with telling you that I really liked it a lot. It’s a very informative book! OK, on to the tough questions…

  Where did you get the idea for this book?

  Stephen Spignesi: The idea came to me in 1997 when I was working on my book The Italian 100 (which came out in 1998). The Italian 100 is a ranking of the most influential Italians and Italian-Americans in world history. It occurred to me at that time that Stephen King was probably the only author about whom a similarly-constructed book could be written, because first, he was popular enough and respected enough for such a book to be a valid commercial venture, and second, and most importantly, his body of published work—currently numbering close to six hundred individual pieces—made the idea of picking and ranking his top one hundred possible.

  Lilja: How did you research for this book? Did you read all of King’s work again or did you already know them by heart?

  Stephen Spignesi: I reread a great many King works while researching this book, but not his entire body of writing. Since I am really familiar with his work, I did a lot of browsing through novels and short stories to refresh my memory of each piece and see if my recollection of the work agreed with what I thought of it now. I rediscovered some wonderful pieces and was consistently impressed with how some of King’s older works, such as The Dead Zone and ’Salem’s Lot and The Shining and others, stood up over the years. In fact, four of my picks for King’s top-ten works were published in the 1970s.

  It was also very interesting to me to find that the top one hundred took shape in a very structured way. I ended up ranking his novels highest on the list, followed by novellas, then short stories, then nonfiction essays and articles, and I think that reflects King’s strengths in a very revealing way. He is at his best with the novel form, followed by the novellas, then short stories, etc. I did not deliberately place works in these specific areas; the list just took shape that way.

  It was difficult to leave things off the list, but I was limited to one hundred slots, and thus had to be ruthless. “Home Delivery” comes to mind. I love the story, but would have had to eliminate something that I thought was better in order to inclu
de it.

  But this is all so subjective and I would never be so arrogant as to state that this is intended to be the carved-in-stone ranking of King’s one hundred greatest works. This is my opinion, and my sincerest hope is that it will start a dialogue among fans and also spur some heavy rereading.

  Lilja: It’s a rather bold book to write. I guess that almost every King fan will disagree with you on some of the entries, right? Have you gotten any mail about it, and if so, what was the tone of those letters?

  Stephen Spignesi: You’re right. No one whom I have heard from agrees completely with my ranking. I have heard from many fans and it’s been fascinating to hear all the differing opinions.

  One fan was livid that I ranked “My Pretty Pony” as high as I did; another could not believe I even included “The Ten O’Clock People” on the list. That said, though, I think that most fans will agree that the list in its entirety is a pretty good snapshot of the Best of King.

  I think that if you set out to read everything on my list, you would, indeed, experience the “essential” Stephen King. And that was my intention from the start.

  Lilja: Did you, when you wrote The Complete Stephen King Encyclopedia, know that you would do a trilogy about King? Was that the plan all along or was it something that you realized as time went by?

  Stephen Spignesi: Back in the mid-1980s, when I started doing the research to write The Complete Stephen King Encyclopedia, it occurred to me that I would like to do three major books about King. (My two Stephen King Quiz Books were spin-offs of the Encyclopedia and I did not include them in the total.) But conceiving that idea was the extent of my commitment to a trilogy. I wasn’t sure if I could do three books about King that would meet the criteria that I had set for myself, which consisted of the following: the books had to make a contribution to the body of scholarship about King’s writing; they had to be personally interesting to me to research and write; and, finally, they had to be something fans would want to read.