Comic book fans are eagerly awaiting the release of The Losers. It's not just the adaptation of the Vertigo series that has readers buzzing. Chris Evans, just cast as the film incarnation of Captain America, is one of the stars of The Losers. The film also has Avatar's leading lady, Zoe Saldana, Thor's Idris Elba and Watchmen's Jeffrey Dean Morgan.
The eclectic cast plays a gang of black ops soldiers betrayed by a corrupt government official. Clay (Morgan) leads his gang to a life under the radar in South America. It takes a stranger named Aisha (Saldana) beating the crap out of Clay to convince The Losers to come back into the game. Yeah, The Losers takes a different sort of approach to an action movie.
Who directed this in your face action epic? Was it Michael Bay or Tony Scott? No, it was actually a filmmaker named Sylvain White. White has been working steadily on feature films for over half a decade. He really got in Hollywood's face with Stomp the Yard, a college dance film that became a blockbuster in 2007. The Losers marks White's foray into the action genre, and he's attached to the potential film of Robotech if that gets a green light.
As ecclectic as White's films are, he presents even more diversity with just his voice on a telephone. Born in France, White came to Los Angeles in 1991. He speaks a slightly accented English, more noticeable in an extreme enunciation of words. We're so used to the locals slurring everything together, it's the people who pronounce everything who stand out.
SG: Did you see The Losers as your chance to put your stamp on a big budget Hollywood action movie?
SW: That's kind of how I saw it. Unfortunately and fortunately, and contrarily to what people might think, it's actually not a big budget movie. It was done for very, very little money but I say fortunately because I'm very proud of what I was able to accomplish with what we had and in fact, it prompts questions like this. It looks like a big action film but in fact it was done for very little. We shot the whole movie in Puerto Rico, although it feels like it takes place all over the world. We were able to just really maximize a lot of the costs to make it feel that way. I always wanted to do action. I love action films and I grew up with the action films from the '80s like Beverly Hills Cop and Die Hard and the Lethal Weapons. I wanted to bring back the combination of the humor and the action in an explosive cocktail.
SG: I should have said a studio action movie because I'm not necessarily talking about the money.
SW: Yeah, absolutely. The great thing is that because it's based on a comic book that was pretty original, and I mean original not by its action but by its tone, it's a pretty unique combination of hardcore gritty action with this really cool sense of humor and these really interesting comedic characters. Yeah, when I heard about the project, I jumped on it. I did everything I could so that I could land it.
SG: You mention humor. Why have action movies gotten so serious?
SW: It's kind of interesting the evolution of action. I feel like action sort of found itself in the '80s and in the '90s it kind of went over the top. It was always like how big the explosion is or how grand the building exploding can be. I think they pushed the scale of the action to the max in movies like Independence Day and Pearl Harbor. You couldn't really blow anything bigger up. After that, people wanted stuff that wasn't over the top as much but much more realistic and gritty. I think that's when we've seen the latest incarnation of what the action style is, which is very well reflected in the Bourne series for example or even in the latest James Bond. But, as you pointed out, the big difference is when you go into more gritty realism, usually it's combined with a very serious, dry tone. The movies take themselves very seriously. It's for the better. I love those movies. I love the way action has evolved in that sense, but at the same time, I felt with this film, it had a unique feel to it because it potentially did something those other movies didn't which is still have the sort of hardcore gritty action but have fun with it and have fun with the characters and have a lot of humor in it.
SG: Are audiences ready for fun action movies again?
SW: I think so because I think for the last 10 years, we've seen really hardcore gritty action from stuff. All this sort of treatment of action is pretty realistic and I think people have seen it now. I think people like it but they still want to have fun watching the movie so why not combine it. I'm hoping people are ready. I'm counting on the fact people are ready for it. I think it'll be nice because it'll be a breath of fresh air.
SG: You incorporated some of the modern shaky handheld style but not in every single scene. How did you decide when to use it?
SW: Well, you know, I like the handheld feel for some things. It sometimes makes moments feel more personal and you can capture sometimes more detail. So I use it for that but I don't use it as aggressively and as much. I use it for very specific moments and specific things that I do. I also use a lot of steadicam, I use a lot of dolly track, I use crane shots. I mix it up and I did it a little bit the same on Stomp the Yard where I really try to mix the different kind of camera styles to create an overall aesthetic envelope for the movie. The handheld thing wasn't necessarily an overall decision. It was just for specific moments, to give scenes or instances a certain feel.
SG: That's an interesting distinction. Does handheld work better in smaller intimate scenes than in big action?
SW: Yeah, because sometimes if you do it during the big action, it can be kind of messy. It can be a little bit hard to follow, especially if the editing is fast. So it really is a balance. Usually when you go handheld, my opinion is when you go handheld you have to cut slower. When you go more traditional, then it allows you to cut faster. It really depends on how you want to temporize the scenes. It's a really good device. I've always used it I was in film school for tailoring moments.
SG: That's a really smart point of view, that it has to be decided in conjunction with the editing.
SW: Absolutely, which is very true for 3-D movies as well. Now I think people are figuring that out. You have to adjust the editing to the technology. It's very important because you have so much more information to process in a frame when it's in 3-D or if it's moving really fast in a handheld shot. You have to hold on it a little bit longer.
SG: How much do you think the interest in Chris Evans as Captain America will help The Losers?
SW: In the comic book world I think it's going to be very good. I think The Losers is going to really help Chris Evans get more recognized for his role in Captain America. I think it's kind of the other way around. I think people know that he's going to be the next one, mostly in the industry or in the comic book world but I think the mainstream's not necessarily fully aware of that yet. He's a terrific actor. The role he has in The Losers is so different from everything else that he's done in the sense that he's such the comedic character in the movie. He's so good at it. Categorically, the roles are different so I don't know how much it will help but I'm certainly very happy about his success, and the success of Zoe as well. When I cast her in the movie, there was no Avatar, there was no Star Trek. People didn't really know who she was yet. I had been aware of her from some of the independent films that she had done. I really pushed to get her. Of course now we're all happy about the success she's had so if it helps the movie, it can only be a good thing.
SG: Did you make sequel deals before their other films got booked?
SW: [Laughs] Well, I don't know what she did. I'm not aware of her deal but I'm really hoping that there will be a sequel. I hope the movie does well. We based the story on the first two volumes of the comics but there's a multitude of volumes so there's also room for sequels that are already kind of laid out in the comic book. I think it'd be great but you never know.
SG: Have we gotten to the point where a man can fight a woman and it really is equal?
SW: It really depends on the individuals but that certainly was something that I feel sometimes feels fake in movies. I wanted the fight in this movie to feel real and I just counterbalanced the fighting style. He's more of a boxer/slugger style and she's more like a female Bruce Lee. She's super fast and precise but her punches have lower impact. She can punch him five times while he can only punch her once. She's moves so quick, it's hard to connect. That's how I balanced the fight between them. I like it. It feels fun but it's still believable. Typically, you shoot a scene like that, I had the assistant director from the Bourne series for example, who did Wanted as well, he would tell me, "To shoot a fight like that, normally we get five days to shoot those kind of scenes." We did it in a day and a half and I'm very proud of the result.
SG: Is it also at this point you don't have to pull the punches on her? The woman can take a fair beating in an equal fight scene in 2010 without making people uncomfortable.
SW: Oh yeah, absolutely. You can show that as long as she's tough. Aisha is a tough character but Zoe is a tough girl. She really went out there, she trained so hard. She brought on actually the same stunt coordinator she worked on Avatar with, which was a very fortunate thing for us. She worked and trained so hard, so she was really badass. Speaking of SuicideGirls, we talked a lot about her look, the piercings and the tattoos and really wanting to stay true to the look of the character in the graphic novel. It's cool because you don't see that kind of character very often, especially a multi-ethnic sort of character with that sort of aesthetic. And at the same time, she's such a badass. She really holds her own against these guys. She's probably more of a warrior than any of them. I love that about her.
SG: If you end up doing Robotech next, is the technology all there to do it?
SW: Yeah, the technology is there for sure I think. You know, I'd love to do it. Its one of those projects that I've been a fan of the anime forever, since I was a kid. I think it'd make a fantastic movie. What set it apart as a cartoon was that unlike some of the other cartoons at the time like Transformers and some of the other things that were in the same vein, is that Robotech had a very strong narrative and cinematic quality. It felt more like movie or a long series than a cartoon for kids. That was because it had the Japanese sensibility in the storytelling and that felt more adult. The themes were very adult. When I was 12, I thought this would make a fantastic movie so I'd love to do it. It's a huge movie obviously planned at Warner Bros. but that's all I know. I read it. I thought it was really good but I don't know much more about the actual project.
The eclectic cast plays a gang of black ops soldiers betrayed by a corrupt government official. Clay (Morgan) leads his gang to a life under the radar in South America. It takes a stranger named Aisha (Saldana) beating the crap out of Clay to convince The Losers to come back into the game. Yeah, The Losers takes a different sort of approach to an action movie.
Who directed this in your face action epic? Was it Michael Bay or Tony Scott? No, it was actually a filmmaker named Sylvain White. White has been working steadily on feature films for over half a decade. He really got in Hollywood's face with Stomp the Yard, a college dance film that became a blockbuster in 2007. The Losers marks White's foray into the action genre, and he's attached to the potential film of Robotech if that gets a green light.
As ecclectic as White's films are, he presents even more diversity with just his voice on a telephone. Born in France, White came to Los Angeles in 1991. He speaks a slightly accented English, more noticeable in an extreme enunciation of words. We're so used to the locals slurring everything together, it's the people who pronounce everything who stand out.
SG: Did you see The Losers as your chance to put your stamp on a big budget Hollywood action movie?
SW: That's kind of how I saw it. Unfortunately and fortunately, and contrarily to what people might think, it's actually not a big budget movie. It was done for very, very little money but I say fortunately because I'm very proud of what I was able to accomplish with what we had and in fact, it prompts questions like this. It looks like a big action film but in fact it was done for very little. We shot the whole movie in Puerto Rico, although it feels like it takes place all over the world. We were able to just really maximize a lot of the costs to make it feel that way. I always wanted to do action. I love action films and I grew up with the action films from the '80s like Beverly Hills Cop and Die Hard and the Lethal Weapons. I wanted to bring back the combination of the humor and the action in an explosive cocktail.
SG: I should have said a studio action movie because I'm not necessarily talking about the money.
SW: Yeah, absolutely. The great thing is that because it's based on a comic book that was pretty original, and I mean original not by its action but by its tone, it's a pretty unique combination of hardcore gritty action with this really cool sense of humor and these really interesting comedic characters. Yeah, when I heard about the project, I jumped on it. I did everything I could so that I could land it.
SG: You mention humor. Why have action movies gotten so serious?
SW: It's kind of interesting the evolution of action. I feel like action sort of found itself in the '80s and in the '90s it kind of went over the top. It was always like how big the explosion is or how grand the building exploding can be. I think they pushed the scale of the action to the max in movies like Independence Day and Pearl Harbor. You couldn't really blow anything bigger up. After that, people wanted stuff that wasn't over the top as much but much more realistic and gritty. I think that's when we've seen the latest incarnation of what the action style is, which is very well reflected in the Bourne series for example or even in the latest James Bond. But, as you pointed out, the big difference is when you go into more gritty realism, usually it's combined with a very serious, dry tone. The movies take themselves very seriously. It's for the better. I love those movies. I love the way action has evolved in that sense, but at the same time, I felt with this film, it had a unique feel to it because it potentially did something those other movies didn't which is still have the sort of hardcore gritty action but have fun with it and have fun with the characters and have a lot of humor in it.
SG: Are audiences ready for fun action movies again?
SW: I think so because I think for the last 10 years, we've seen really hardcore gritty action from stuff. All this sort of treatment of action is pretty realistic and I think people have seen it now. I think people like it but they still want to have fun watching the movie so why not combine it. I'm hoping people are ready. I'm counting on the fact people are ready for it. I think it'll be nice because it'll be a breath of fresh air.
SG: You incorporated some of the modern shaky handheld style but not in every single scene. How did you decide when to use it?
SW: Well, you know, I like the handheld feel for some things. It sometimes makes moments feel more personal and you can capture sometimes more detail. So I use it for that but I don't use it as aggressively and as much. I use it for very specific moments and specific things that I do. I also use a lot of steadicam, I use a lot of dolly track, I use crane shots. I mix it up and I did it a little bit the same on Stomp the Yard where I really try to mix the different kind of camera styles to create an overall aesthetic envelope for the movie. The handheld thing wasn't necessarily an overall decision. It was just for specific moments, to give scenes or instances a certain feel.
SG: That's an interesting distinction. Does handheld work better in smaller intimate scenes than in big action?
SW: Yeah, because sometimes if you do it during the big action, it can be kind of messy. It can be a little bit hard to follow, especially if the editing is fast. So it really is a balance. Usually when you go handheld, my opinion is when you go handheld you have to cut slower. When you go more traditional, then it allows you to cut faster. It really depends on how you want to temporize the scenes. It's a really good device. I've always used it I was in film school for tailoring moments.
SG: That's a really smart point of view, that it has to be decided in conjunction with the editing.
SW: Absolutely, which is very true for 3-D movies as well. Now I think people are figuring that out. You have to adjust the editing to the technology. It's very important because you have so much more information to process in a frame when it's in 3-D or if it's moving really fast in a handheld shot. You have to hold on it a little bit longer.
SG: How much do you think the interest in Chris Evans as Captain America will help The Losers?
SW: In the comic book world I think it's going to be very good. I think The Losers is going to really help Chris Evans get more recognized for his role in Captain America. I think it's kind of the other way around. I think people know that he's going to be the next one, mostly in the industry or in the comic book world but I think the mainstream's not necessarily fully aware of that yet. He's a terrific actor. The role he has in The Losers is so different from everything else that he's done in the sense that he's such the comedic character in the movie. He's so good at it. Categorically, the roles are different so I don't know how much it will help but I'm certainly very happy about his success, and the success of Zoe as well. When I cast her in the movie, there was no Avatar, there was no Star Trek. People didn't really know who she was yet. I had been aware of her from some of the independent films that she had done. I really pushed to get her. Of course now we're all happy about the success she's had so if it helps the movie, it can only be a good thing.
SG: Did you make sequel deals before their other films got booked?
SW: [Laughs] Well, I don't know what she did. I'm not aware of her deal but I'm really hoping that there will be a sequel. I hope the movie does well. We based the story on the first two volumes of the comics but there's a multitude of volumes so there's also room for sequels that are already kind of laid out in the comic book. I think it'd be great but you never know.
SG: Have we gotten to the point where a man can fight a woman and it really is equal?
SW: It really depends on the individuals but that certainly was something that I feel sometimes feels fake in movies. I wanted the fight in this movie to feel real and I just counterbalanced the fighting style. He's more of a boxer/slugger style and she's more like a female Bruce Lee. She's super fast and precise but her punches have lower impact. She can punch him five times while he can only punch her once. She's moves so quick, it's hard to connect. That's how I balanced the fight between them. I like it. It feels fun but it's still believable. Typically, you shoot a scene like that, I had the assistant director from the Bourne series for example, who did Wanted as well, he would tell me, "To shoot a fight like that, normally we get five days to shoot those kind of scenes." We did it in a day and a half and I'm very proud of the result.
SG: Is it also at this point you don't have to pull the punches on her? The woman can take a fair beating in an equal fight scene in 2010 without making people uncomfortable.
SW: Oh yeah, absolutely. You can show that as long as she's tough. Aisha is a tough character but Zoe is a tough girl. She really went out there, she trained so hard. She brought on actually the same stunt coordinator she worked on Avatar with, which was a very fortunate thing for us. She worked and trained so hard, so she was really badass. Speaking of SuicideGirls, we talked a lot about her look, the piercings and the tattoos and really wanting to stay true to the look of the character in the graphic novel. It's cool because you don't see that kind of character very often, especially a multi-ethnic sort of character with that sort of aesthetic. And at the same time, she's such a badass. She really holds her own against these guys. She's probably more of a warrior than any of them. I love that about her.
SG: If you end up doing Robotech next, is the technology all there to do it?
SW: Yeah, the technology is there for sure I think. You know, I'd love to do it. Its one of those projects that I've been a fan of the anime forever, since I was a kid. I think it'd make a fantastic movie. What set it apart as a cartoon was that unlike some of the other cartoons at the time like Transformers and some of the other things that were in the same vein, is that Robotech had a very strong narrative and cinematic quality. It felt more like movie or a long series than a cartoon for kids. That was because it had the Japanese sensibility in the storytelling and that felt more adult. The themes were very adult. When I was 12, I thought this would make a fantastic movie so I'd love to do it. It's a huge movie obviously planned at Warner Bros. but that's all I know. I read it. I thought it was really good but I don't know much more about the actual project.