Poltergeist Confidential

In the movie industry (or any industry, for that matter), it's not polite to criticize people publicly. So, often times the "dirt" is dished by anonymous sources. Below are some tidbits I've received from people who worked on the "Poltergeist" films who related stories which were, shall we say, not exactly approved by the studio PR department.  Some of them contacted me after visiting my web site, and requested that I not post their names or what they did on the films. Other items I've found in various places on the web. If you're a cast or crew member who'd like to share any other juicy gossip, send me an email!

Poltergeist

Anyway, the interviews were interesting -- I still have them on cassette tape. Particularly the whole 'Who really directed 'Poltergeist'' thing. Rubinstein was hilarious -- 'Tobe Hooper couldn't even direct traffic!' -- while James Karen was all pro-Hooper. Goldsmith claims he never even met Hooper, only Spielberg. Nelson was just a jerk, quite frankly. So I will certainly be interested in seeing what, if any, of the controversy is tackled on the new DVD."

*****************************

"In the beginning, Steven did occasionally yell action and say cut.  Sometimes the actors got two different sets of directions from two directors.  Sometimes they would be the opposite directions.  After about three days of that, Beatrice Straight put her foot down and said she would only listen to one director.  That was Tobe.  After that, Steven was often on the set, but since he was prepping ET he wasn't there all the time.  The only time I ever saw him really fight with Tobe was after an entire day of shooting a scene with Beatrice Straight and the other two scientists involving a great deal of gobblety-gook dialogue, Tobe just couldn't get the shot.  Steven came onto the set and was very upset - there was a lot of ugly yelling - and Tobe just stood there taking it.  Beatrice Straight, again the hero of the day, finally stood up to Steven, said that the dialogue (which I believe Steven himself had written for the scene) was unplayable and that Sir Laurence Olivier himself couldn't act such badly-written dreck.  She made it very clear that Tobe was not to be blamed.  Steven was very quiet and about five minutes later the cast and crew were all dismissed for the day.  The next day the actors came back to the set and were handed new dialogue, which again I believe Steven had rewritten.  It was 100% better and Tobe shot the scene in about an hour with no problem.  But before shooting commenced, Steven got up in front of the entire cast and crew and apologized for the outburst and said Tobe was not to blame for the previous day's delays.  It was one of the most generous, selfless and courageous things I had ever seen on a movie set. "

Another source who worked on the film disputes the particulars of the above recollection:

"I vehemently disagree with almost every detail recounted in that quote. I do not doubt your word that this person worked on the film - so, on that point, I stand corrected, but I believe I'm wrong ONLY on that point. As I said before: 'I'm just plain tired of hearing so much pure conjecture from the public - and so much pure BS from its principal players.' Certainly, my witness IS in the minority, as, to the best of my knowledge, no 'Poltergeist' cast or crew member has EVER publicly stated 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth' on the subject of its director. It may be said, that, in my many years of silence, I DID suppress the truth... but I most certainly DID NOT EVER perpetuate the falsities and outright lies as have so often been professed by many of our cast and crew.

By phone, I've already contacted two other 'Poltergeist' crew members who, like myself, were present 'on set' each and every day of shooting. As well, like myself, neither recall any such exchange among Steven, Tobe, and Beatrice - and, believe me - it's almost impossible that all three of us would EVER forget (or never even hear mentioned) such a 'generous, selfless, and courageous' apology as is claimed to have been given 'the entire cast and crew"... by Mr. Spielberg, no less!!

Semi-Interesting Side Note: Based on my intimate familiarity with the making of "Poltergeist," I believe the claimed exchange of dialogue and subsequent apology could only have taken place in the Interior Freeling House Set (ie. - kitchen, dining room, living room, downstairs bathroom, and staircase with upstairs landing, hall and bedroom doors). Most likely it would have occurred sometime around our shooting the Dr. Lesh / Diane discussion as a tea pot slides across the dining table on its own power... or the scene where Ryan (Richard Lawson) is listening to music via headphones while, simultaneously, sketching his version of a ghostly apparition - even as he fails to notice that his scientific 'ghost image capturing' equipment is, also, stirring to action. What's 'interesting' here is twofold: Firstly, we shot both of those scenes on the same day. Secondly, it was the ONLY day that Mr. Spielberg was, IN FACT, 'very upset - (and indeed) there was a lot of ugly yelling.' Your source got that much right and I would never again see him SO vocally express his displeasure to anyone else. By the way... (geez, I almost forgot)... most interesting of all is this: He was not 'upset' with, nor did he 'yell' at Tobe Hooper. He was upset with... and he yelled at... ME!"

Certainly, it IS possible that Beatrice's objections, Steven's outburst to Tobe, and Steven's apology were known only to a select group of individuals and not to so large a group as was inferred by your source. What DID happen in witness of a large number of cast and crew was Steven's outburst to me. Let me be very clear on this point: Some directors, (too many actually) are, in fact, "reamer/screamers" and they can be easily agitated and/or moved to anger by even the smallest of problems or setbacks. Mr. Spielberg, however, is NOT among them. He is a most cordial person, but he is human, after all, and his emotional facilities are definitely intact.

For very practical reasons, the entire film, or quite nearly the entire film was storyboarded. In purely artistic terms, the action as depicted in "Poltergeist's" storyboards was quite simple in nature... almost cartoonish. (This is not to slight our, then, storyboard artist, Ed Verreaux, who is now a production designer. His sketches were drawn in the style and manner of Steven's request.) In the earlier stages of preparing "Poltergeist" we were told the storyboards should not be taken too literally - they were not "the bible," then again, neither was the script, but I digress. The storyboards were most useful in keeping the entire crew 'all on the same page' and they provided a good deal of information as to how Steven wanted the film to be shot, especially in terms of his preferred camera angles, lens sizes, and camera movements.

Twenty five years later, I have yet to work another film that was so completely storyboarded as was "Poltergeist." The combined bulk of the storyboards made them almost twice as thick as the script itself and a steady stream of changes to both required our constant and diligent upkeep. As our remaining number of prep days decreased, emphasis on our knowledge of (and, therefore, the importance of) those storyboards increased. In short, it turned out that, sometimes, those storyboards WERE considered "the bible."

No more than a couple or three weeks before we began shooting, I was forced to inform Tobe the limitations on some of the technical equipment to be used in the film. I also confessed a lack of certain expertise on my part as well. Tobe was actually quite gracious and accomodating. He asked if his cutting the scene - in a place where neither the script nor the storyboards called for a cut - would solve my problem. Indeed, it would, and by his agreeance to do just that, I was greatly relieved.

Only days into our shoot, however, as we began to rehearse that scene it suddenly dawned on me that neither Tobe nor myself had ever made Steven aware of my problem and our agreed upon cut. My greatest fear was realized then as Steven's blocking of the scene did not allow the cut that I'd been assured of. I looked over at Tobe and he just raised his hands and rolled his eyes as if to say, "Hey... tell Steven your problem... I ain't directing this thing!" At that point, it became my distinct and very unfortunate task to tell Steven that I could not accomodate the shot he wanted to do. Quite frankly, I fully expected a swift and harsh reaction to that news... and, geez-louise... did I ever get it! I won't detail his exact words or the heated manner in which he communicated his thoughts, but, in essence, he wanted to know why I had failed to accomplish something that had been in the script AND in the storyboards for some three months.

In the moment, I did not take his wrath well... but I took it. Later that day, I had occasion to return that disfavor to him in nearly the same tone and in, exactly, the same words. Like I said before, you CAN argue with Steven... but you damn well better have good reason. If you don't have good reason, however, well you damn well better be nothing short of RIGHT!"

[I asked this person: And I'm assuming the shot in question involved Ryan making the pencil sketch while the camera tilts up toward the stairs...?]

"That is correct."

More details on this one at:

http://www.spielbergfilms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7155

Poltergeist II

"Ah! I remember Grais and Victor being there. A couple of really bright 'nice kids,' who seemed a bit frustrated with Brian Gibson's oddly irrational suggestions (we all often found ourselves just staring at him, after he blurted out one nonsensical idea or another). Gibson appeared to be "in way over his head" as a feature film director at the time. I spoke with [another crew member] once following the film's release, and related my surprise at how good it turned out, considering what a 'twit' the director seemed to be. With a sly chuckle, he revealed 'Yeah, post production really saved that picture. That guy didn't have a clue.' How ironic that he managed to win an Emmy for the 'The Josephine Baker Story' a few years later. I wonder who saved that one for him?

I'm surprised to hear of his passing-he couldn't have been all that old. Not a bad guy; just 'dorky.' And yes, 'What's Love Got to Do With It' wasn't a bad movie at all. But I still can't help but think that he was helped a great deal by others involved in the production...He just didn't strike me as competent in the role of movie director, in any way. I really don't remember anything he said, specifically. It just all struck me as silly and arbitrary-the sort of clueless suggestions that you'd hear from Chris Farley's 'obsessed fan' character from 'Saturday Night Live' ('ya know what would be really cool?...'). The only thing I actually recall, was his embarrassing example of a 'girly shriek' he thought should be heard during the Worm metamorphosis scene. And all the lines he came up with sounded like admonitions from John Cleese's 'Tim, The Enchanter' from Monty Python's 'Quest for The Holy Grail.' I guess you could say we were 'nonplussed.'"

Poltergeist III

"[Gary Sherman] HATED the [performance of the] actor cast as the psychologist; remarking several times with an anguished sigh, that the lousy performance 'just kills every scene he's in'-but he was stuck with it."

***********************

[Regarding the claims of Gary Sherman that the ending was not a re-shoot and in reference to the experience of working with Gary during both principal photography and the re-shoot, this person said] "Gary is the king of spin..."

[This same person went on to talk about how they and others felt after Sherman screened a workprint of the film in late 1987, and how Sherman seemed proud of "how well" it turned out] :

"It was The Emperor's New Clothes, all over again, as Gary Sherman strutted along stark naked. My apologies to Gary, believe me, my intention is not to run him down, but when it was over, that's the way we all felt."

I recently discovered this posting on Zelda Rubinstein's listing at the IMDB:

"Hello,

I met this fine woman once in Tampa. I met her at a party thrown by some friends of mine who own a company 'Creatures of Delight', she was friends of theirs, and I must say my first impression of her was........what a bitch. But, after a few drinks she apologized to me, and I realized what I had done to provoke that response. I remembered her from the Poltergeist films, and said I loved her. She sat with me and other people at the party and went on to explain how MGM had "ripped" her off. She explained how they paid her for the first film and in that contract she "actually" was signing off any other sequels. So she had to make part 2 and part 3 for free, because she didn't read the fine print. So, I understand how many of you have good and bad things to say about her. I mean come on. This is what she does for a living. She REALLY is a nice person, but we ALL have bad days. I mean, there are days when I meet people and I am pissed off (for whatever reason) Whether you are in the public eye or not....give them a break. I could sit and tell you the whole story about her (which I have no idea what, but she is a very nice person to listen to.....especially after a few drinks)..But give her a break...Trust me my first impression of her was not very nice. "

I responded:

Surely she got paid for the two sequels. Are you sure she wasn't saying that the contract she signed obligated her to do a sequel for a set rate if any were made? That makes more sense. She was probably upset that she didn't have any bargaining power. That's why MGM had to fork over a lot of money for Craig T. Nelson and Jobeth Williams to get them back for Poltergeist II, and why they were able to hold out and not do part three. Craig and Jobeth were under no obligation to do a sequel, but Zelda must have been.