Volume III No. 9

A publication of the National Association of Theatre Owners

Advertise in In Focus

©

Zucker Punch
The director of ‘Airplane!’ and ‘The Naked Gun’ returns to parody ‘Signs,’ ‘The Ring’ and more with ‘Scary Movie 3.’

by Mike Russell

(Read the bigger, longer and uncut version, here.)

It’s 1998. David Zucker – writer-director of such legendary comedies as “Airplane!” and “The Naked Gun” – tells the Internet’s Onion AV Club: “The whole idea of spoof, to me, is just so done and gone.”
It’s 2003. Zucker is putting the finishing touches on his latest directorial effort: the decidedly spoofy “Scary Movie 3.”

Confronted with his dismissal five years ago of the very type of comedy that made him famous, Zucker does the decent thing: He cackles. “Oh, my God! I remember that!” he says. “Never, never listen to me, you know? I think that [interview was] before ‘Scary Movie 1’ came out; I just thought spoof was so dead. I think the Wayans single-handedly revived the whole thing.”

In all fairness, until “Scary 3” came along, the 55-year-old Zucker really had ditched the joke-a-second parody format – a format he pioneered with fellow Kentucky Fried Theatre founders Jim Abrahams and brother Jerry Zucker. Together, Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker (or ZAZ) created classics and cult classics like “Airplane!” “Top Secret!” “The Naked Gun” “Kentucky Fried Movie!” and the short-lived TV series “Police Squad!” The trio stopped directing their movies as a threesome after 1986’s “Ruthless People”; Jerry went on to helm “Ghost” and “First Knight” while Jim followed the identity-switch comedy “Big Business” by milking the parody format a bit more with the “Hot Shots!” movies and “Jane Austen’s Mafia!” David, subsequent to his work on the lucrative “Naked Gun” trilogy, began a move toward more character-oriented projects like “BASEketball” and “My Boss’s Daughter” (a bona fide romantic comedy starring Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid).

So what brought David Zucker back to spoofery – to directing a sequel to a series that was itself broadly inspired by ZAZ’s pioneering style? He blames the head of Dimension Films. “Bob Weinstein came to me and said, ‘Do you want to do “Scary Movie 3”?’” Zucker recalls. “And I said, ‘Well, not if it’s another one of these slasher things.’ Although I thought ‘Scary Movie 1’ was pretty funny, I’m not a fan of slasher movies. To do good satire, you have to have some affection for the genre – as we did for the Clint Eastwood police-film genre and the airplane movies.

“But then Weinstein said, ‘“Signs” and “The Ring.”’ And I think those are pretty ripe for satire. A videotape that kills you? That’s perfect.”

In Focus talked with Zucker about “Scary 3” (which, by the way, marks the triumphal return of Leslie Nielsen as a deadpan mayhem catalyst), “My Boss’s Daughter,” the classic ZAZ comedies, Davy Crockett, and much more.

________

FROM ‘SPOOF IS DEAD’
TO ‘SCARY MOVIE 3’

Will the MacGuffin in “Scary Movie 3” be a videotape, just like in “The Ring”?
Yeah. There’s a videotape at the center, plus crop circles, plus “8 Mile.” We’re spoofing at least five or six major movies. There are scenes that combine “Signs” and “The Ring” and then “The Matrix Reloaded.”

Now, spoofs were relatively tame when you were doing “Airplane!” – you know, you might have a boob shot here or there –
Well, actually, as far as the tame-osity of these things, it’s gotten stricter, if anything.

Really?
Yeah. You can’t show boobs any more. You can use one F-word, but – ugh! – this thought police! Ask Mike Myers what he has to go through on the “Austin Powers” movies. They have become so horrible, and you have Clinton and Lieberman to thank for this bullshit.

It was so much easier on “The Naked Gun”: The rules were pretty much hard and fast – it was language and even nudity we got away with. We always had a shower scene in the “Naked Guns”, and we had boobs in “Airplane!” and we had Leslie Nielsen hanging off a statue’s penis in one of those “Naked Guns.” Now you can’t get away with anything.

________

‘MY BOSS’S DAUGHTER’
AND COMIC GUILT

“My Boss’s Daughter” is the first movie you’ve made with hot, young stars; you’re working for the first time in your career with tabloid lust objects.
Working with Tara Reid and Ashton Kutcher is a new thing for me, because the average age of my casts for the other movies was deceased.

You made a habit of re-inventing older actors as comedy stars.
Right! Think of what we did with these aging actors – and still making those movies for a youth audience. Working with young people is a much different experience. It’s a lot easier to promote, obviously.

Now, because he plays “goofy,” do you think Mr. Kutcher is underrated somewhat as an actor?
Well, I’ve heard now that Ashton wants to do some serious things. He’s really talented; I have no doubt that he could do anything he wanted – but I think his audience may prefer him as … not so much “goofy”. ... I mean, this is a romantic comedy.

Chris Rock talks about how actors always feel kind of guilty about being comedians – they need to go do dramas, or else they’re somehow not “real” actors.
That’s right, yeah. Even Woody Allen was about being at the grown-up’s table.

Rock then proceeded to say that comedy is so much harder than dramatic acting – he thinks the priorities are all turned around.
I would say so. I’ve never directed a drama, but it seems like it would be completely different pressure – or no pressure. [laughs]

Drama is so much in the script and turning the camera on really good actors. But in comedy, there’s so much detail work with timing, and the audience knows instantly whether you’ve succeeded or failed – because you either get the laugh or you don’t. There’s no cover-up in a theatre. I mean, on TV, you have a laugh track; people don’t know if what they’re seeing is actually funny or it’s all an illusion.

“Police Squad” was a pioneering TV series in that it jettisoned the laugh track.
Yeah. And the networks wanted us to put a laugh track in. It would have ruined it. It would have been on the air for another three weeks. ... [laughs]

________

THE FLAWED GENIUS
OF ‘TOP SECRET’

I’ve been a fan of “Top Secret!” since I was a kid.
You know, so many people talk about “Top Secret!” On “Scary 3,” we have one scene involving all these rap artists – like Master P, Raekwon, Reza, Method Man, Ja Rule – and they’re all big “Top Secret!” fans.

One of the things I think the movie has going for it is its completely insane mixing of genres – one second it’s an Elvis film, the next it’s “Where Eagles Dare.”
For a long time, a friend of mine and I had gotten to be really big fans of what we call “Nazi movies.” They were movies made about American spying during World War II from, like, 1938 to ‘45 – half entertainment and half propaganda. And more often than not, in the end credits it says, “Buy War Bonds!”

We loved these movies, whether they starred Cagney or Gary Cooper. They were all black-and-white, and they all involved going behind enemy lines – usually in France, sometimes in Germany. And there were certain things that always ran through them – there was the French Resistance, which was always the same, and the German sentries; I always joked that you could always sneak up behind a German sentry and kill him – if German sentries could hear, they would have won the war, you know?

So I loved that genre and then the old Elvis movies. We just decided to combine them. [laughs]

“Top Secret!” also contains your most surreal images – a train platform rolling away from a stationary train, a man shattering after falling from a height, a gigantic underwater fistfight set in a Western bar, that incredibly technically complicated scene with Peter Cushing that was filmed completely in reverse.
There was a hint of that in “Airplane!”: There was one scene where Robert Stack walks through a mirror. I always wanted to do these visual puns, I guess, or visual tricks – to develop stuff that you think about when you’re smoking something. Although “Top Secret!” was not written while high at all. ... And we decided we wanted to explore those visual things in “Top Secret!”

Now, unfortunately, the greatness of those visual gags – you pay a price for it. When you do that, you undercut the believability, the foundation, of your story. In filmmaking, you have to tell a story – and I think every time we did one of those [surreal visual jokes], the involvement of the audience in the story was undermined.

There are a number of reasons why it didn’t do well at the box office – and it flopped at the box office. First of all, it was that combination of genres. People see Leslie Nielsen with a gun and a badge, and they go, “OK, I get it – this is gonna be a detective movie.” They see a twisted plane, they go, “OK, this is going to be an airplane movie.” Now, when they see a cow with boots [laughs], they don’t know what that is. And I accept full responsibility, because it was my idea. I think the studio didn’t know how to promote it.

I mean, if the movie came on TV and I was just watching, I would probably be stuck there watching – you want to see the next gag. And they are the best gags that we’ve ever done. But see, it’s a strange thing about movies: They’re really won or lost by their structure and by the last five or 10 minutes.

Do you know who Alex Karras was? He played for the Detroit Lions back in the ‘60s, and he wrote a book called “Even Big Guys Cry,” his autobiography. And he told this story of how, when they would play the Green Bay Packers, he remembered just beating them all up and down the field – just scoring and beating the crap out of the Packers – and then, after the fourth quarter, when they’d look up at the scoreboard, they’d see that they lost.

And I think this is the only analogy I can think of for “Top Secret!” – because it’s a movie where the characters weren’t accurately defined, or the story structure wasn’t there so that whatever problem Val Kilmer had in the first act was solved in the third act. You weren’t emotionally involved with those characters.

________

‘AIRPLANE!’ (AND THE POWER OF BASEKETBALL)

Now, “Airplane!” was derived heavily from the 1957 drama “Zero Hour” –
Have you ever seen that? If you watch that, it gives away everything [in “Airplane!”]. It’s almost scene-for-scene in certain parts. I’ve spoken at college classes and shown scenes from “Zero Hour” and then the same scene from “Airplane!”

In retrospect, do you think it was necessary to purchase the “Zero Hour” rights before you made “Airplane!”?
I think so, because we followed the plot pretty closely. I don’t think you can take plot — you can take characters and occasional dialogue, but I don’t know if it’s allowable to take plot. And for “Airplane!” we lifted that plot exactly.

You’ve said that in “Airplane!” Robert Stack and Leslie Nielsen totally got the joke as far as deadpanning goes, but that Lloyd Bridges needed, as you put it, a little more “directional babysitting.” How did you pull that off?
[Bridges] wanted to change a lot of his dialogue – and we didn’t want to change any of the dialogue. And he was in the first week of shooting, and then [Robert] Stack came onto the set. And then when Stack heard him complain about one speech or two speeches, he took Lloyd aside and said, “Lloyd, you know, you have watermelons crashing in the background and spears hitting the wall. Just keep talkin’ – they’re not listening to us.” And he got it. After “Airplane!” came out, he got it totally. I thought he was just wonderful in “Hot Shots!”

You’ve said in interviews that “BASEketball” and “Police Squad!” were both failures as TV ideas, and that your ideal storytelling form is movies.
Every time I do my forays into TV, it just reminds me that I should be doing movies. [laughs]

Now, BASEketball was a real game that you guys played for 10 years – and you’ve said that the moment in the movie where Ernest Borgnine steps in and offers to fund the BASEketball league is when the movie ceases to be an autobiography.
Yeah. But everything else was really autobiographical. And the weird thing is, Pete and Bobby Farrelly were part of the [real] BASEketball league, as was Richard Lovett. who’s now the head of CAA. We would award the [league] trophy at the big CAA staff meeting every year. I would make a speech, and I would give Michael Ovitz a whole introduction to read – and I would include all these real insults to Ovitz in the speech, and Ovitz would read them.

So you were the commissioner of BASEketball.
I was the commissioner, and Lovett still calls me “The Commish.” [laughs] “BASEketball”’s another one of my unintended cult favorites.

_________

OBSESSION AND
DAVY CROCKETT

What’s the status of the “Davy Crockett” script you’ve been developing for years?
I think it needs a re-write; I still think that it could be a great movie. I think part of the problem is that the story that we devised was one of Davy Crockett and his son, and it was a split focus – the son got the big speech at the end of the movie, so that’s kind of difficult to sell to a major star.

I’m anxious to see “The Alamo” – that’s going to have Billy Bob Thornton as Crockett.

Looking back at your “Naked Gun” movies, there are Davy Crockett photos all over the walls.
And there are in “My Boss’s Daughter” and “Scary Movie 3.”

You’ve expressed your admiration in interviews for Crockett as this kind of no-B.S. politician. People always think of him as just being “the Alamo guy,” but he had a storied political career.
Oh, yeah. He was the Will Rogers of his day. He was a humorist – he was like Groucho Marx. He was zany and funny – a celebrity. I’ll be interested to see, in this “Alamo” movie, how wide a scope the movie is going to be – if they have Crockett in Congress at all.

Are you going to be disappointed if Davy Crockett just shows up wearing buckskins and a coonskin cap?
Well, you know, I won’t care, really; I think I’ll enjoy the movie because I love that era of history. It may have an effect on my plans – whatever I do with “Crockett.” This is something I’ve been working on for 15 years.

This is your “Gangs of New York.”
[laughs] I hope not, man! These vanity projects. ... You know, [Davy Crockett’s] a very hard story to tell, because people’s lives don’t fit neatly into a three-act structure. His first wife died, and his second wife, it’s questionable whether he even lived with her. ... It’s tough. The way to do it may be to portray Crockett telling it himself – because that gives me deniability. Then it would be Crockett putting a little frosting on his own story – which I’m sure he would have done.

Where did you develop your obsession with Crockett?
I think just from the Disney television show back in the mid-’50s. Then, in L.A. in the mid-’80s, I re-connected with some people who were also interested in him — and they introduced me to the national organization that was interested in the Alamo and Crockett and Bowie and Travis and all of those characters; they put out a little magazine called The Alamo Journal.

I host a big “Crockett Rifle Frolic” on my ranch in Ojai; every two years we have one, where everybody dresses period – artisans, craftsmen, historians, teachers, gun nuts. I became best friends with the guy who’s the editor of Guns & Ammo. [laughs] And then I had all my entertainment-business friends over there – so it made for an interesting combination.

_________

BREAKING DOWN
THE ZAZ STYLE

Does it weird you out when people offer these serious analyses and deconstructions of the Kentucky Fried style of comedy?
Well, I’m kind of used to it, because it started with our old film professor at University of Wisconsin – who began analyzing and trying to explain how we got to this style of comedy.

Well, you guys did invent a new way to do comedy. That’s hard to do.
I guess so – although we had no awareness of that at the time. We were just doing kind of what we had started to do onstage. And there was kind of a forerunner in “Kentucky Fried Movie” – “Fistful of Yen,” which was kind of a 20-minute mini-spoof of “Enter the Dragon.”

Critics have identified the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker comedy style as having several key elements: (1) rapid-fire wordplay; (2) dramatic B-actors in deadpan comedy situations; (3) serious foregrounds juxtaposed against comic backgrounds; (4) extremely rapid delivery of gags, often at the expense of plot; and (5) a very conscious blending of high and low humor. Is there anything you’d add to that “formula”? Or would you even say there is a formula?
Nobody ever really outlined it to me like that. But those certainly include all the elements. Did you want to break it down?

OK. The pacing: The pacing came from when we were on stage, in the Kentucky Fried Theatre – and we never wanted to be up there when people weren’t laughing. Because that was the biggest shame in the world, to be hanging out there with no laughs. That’s where we got the pace from: Everything had to be a joke or a set-up to a joke – sort of complete efficiency.

The early ZAZ comedies have dramatic exposition that moves the story along in the foreground, with comic stuff going on in the background. Did you get to do any of that on “Scary Movie 3”?
When a joke is too obvious, I like to put it in the background. I remember at the end of the first “Naked Gun,” we had this big gag with O.J. falling down a bunch of steps in Dodger Stadium in a wheelchair. And I felt that was just such an obvious thing that I wanted to have Leslie and Priscilla in the foreground.

I think one of my favorites along those lines is in “Top Secret!” – when you’ve got the couple having a lover’s talk in the foreground and behind them people are divvying up a pizza with endless strings of cheese. ...
When you have to do exposition in a zany comedy, you have to keep the laughs going.

The background stuff came from, in real life, just observing people’s behavior and things just happening in the background. Like when we watch serious movies, I always look at the extras in the background. Or I look at the extras in a Marx Brothers movie, and everybody there is dead.

You know, the Marx brother that we thought was the funniest was Zeppo, because he was so uncomfortable – he was just there because he was the brother. But in the books that I’ve read about the Marx Brothers, he was the funniest offscreen. And I totally understand that.

_________

LESLIE NIELSEN,
COMEDIAN

I remember reading how you had to fight to get those straight-faced actors in “Airplane!”
Yeah. The casting directors said, “Leslie Nielsen is the guy you hire the night before.” It was horrible. And we knew that Leslie Nielsen was just gold. You could tell he was great; we didn’t even know if he could do comedy – but it didn’t really matter anyway, because it was dramatic timing that he needed.

In the later “Naked Gun” movies, Leslie Nielsen gravitated away from the deadpan approach and began mugging more than he did in the earlier films. Was that a conscious choice, or just the way that it was going?
I think it was not a conscious choice. ... You know, as he became more known as a comedian, he started to act more like a comedian.

I think I learned a lesson as the “Naked Gun”s went on that Leslie was always better when he caused other people distress. Like, there was a scene in “2-1/2” where he fell over a guy’s wheelchair and they were twisting around on this floor – and I think if I had the choice to do that one over again, I would have had somebody else fall over the wheelchair – but he caused it.

I was careful that, in “Scary Movie 3,” Leslie causes the distress – he doesn’t get beat up.

So he’s back to very deadpan mode.
Oh, yeah – totally deadpan. And everything Leslie is in is great – he is terrific. He has not lost a beat.

How old is he now?
Seventy-seven, I think.

There are second acts in American lives.
Yeah. In “Scary 3,” he plays the President. In an East Room reception, he beats up a bunch of handicapped people.
[laughs]   

 

 

Current Issue Previous Issues Newswire Search  Table of Contents