All the influence in the world
Ridley Scott’s movie was finished. Then they had to replace Kevin Spacey.
Ridley Scott is no stranger to problematic films that morph into artistic triumphs.
The director followed up his 1979 hit “Alien” with 1982’s “Blade Runner,” a movie so plagued with production issues that it became as legendary for that as its dark vision of the future — and went on to influence countless others on its way to becoming a sci-fi classic.
But in Scott’s new film, “All the Money in the World,” he ran into a unique problem: replacing Kevin Spacey, who played billionaire J. Paul Getty, after the actor was accused of sexual assault in October.
Even though the film was already finished, Scott quickly decided to swap Spacey with Christopher Plummer, who was first considered for the role. Sony reportedly forked over $8 million to do it, owing to Scott’s promise that he would make it work.
“The thing is, I almost never do reshoots,” Scott, 80, said over the phone this week. “But I just proved it can be done.”
“All the Money in the World” is in-
spired by the true story of Getty, an oil tycoon and noted miser, and his refusal to pay a $17 million ransom to Italian kidnappers after his grandson, John Paul Getty III, goes missing in Rome in 1973. When the boy’s mother, Gail Harris (played by Michelle Williams), takes it upon herself to keep her son alive, Getty’s negotiator and former CIA operative Fletcher Chase (Mark Walhberg) steps in to help.
The movie flits between time periods and locations, from Getty’s cold English estate to the warm environs of the Italian countryside. Multiple scenes involve Getty interacting with other players against elaborate backdrops and sets with countless (and immaculate) period details.
So did Scott pull it off ? We talked to him about that, as well as casting decisions, depictions of violence and more in advance of the film’s Christmas Day release.
Q : Were you paying attention to the story that inspired this f ilm when it was happening in the early 1970s?
A: I was very successful in the ’70s through advertising, so I was one of those flashy people driving around in the beginning of the film (in the streets of Rome). I had a great ’70s and was surrounded by a lot of silly people and a lot of silly models, and I was as silly as they were. There was a lot of nightclubbing and (stuff ) like that.
What did you think of the kidnapping?
A: When the Getty thing landed it was kind of shocking because John Paul Getty was unique in the fact that he was a billionaire, which in those days was a one-off. Today there are hundreds of billionaires. But in that uniqueness his grandson was kidnapped and he gave all the wrong answers, apparently, when (the kidnappers) asked the question, “How much would you pay?” And he says, “Nothing.” He doesn’t really mean it. He’s actually talking to the terrorists, the (expletive) people who kidnapped the boy, and he knows this.
Q : Michelle Williams provides the heart of the f ilm as the boy’s mother. Did you always have her in mind for the role, or was it fairly competitive?
A: I was always saying, “How do I get Michelle Williams to do this?” because I watched her for a while doing her thing, and her thing was always special. She was always there, but when you get the material, you get the person. The script itself was so good, and I knew pretty well she would do it.
Q : Well, even if the script had problems I imagine your involvement was a deciding factor for her.
A: Do you want me to be conceited? I had something to do with it, definitely. Obviously. It’s been a while since I’ve been doing films and I have (a reputation). Q : In the larger context of your career, how unusual was it to replace Kevin Spacey at the absolute last minute? Have you done something like that before?
A: Usually when I finish a film, if I have to do pickups I’ll do hand-shoots or close shots, which aren’t too expensive. There isn’t a whole unit standing there. But I’ve never experienced six weeks of reshoots. Maybe if the planning was wrong or the script was wrong or something, but it’s actually never happened. You’ve gotta look at that (early on). You’re employing people who are either ready to go or not. If you’re not conditioned for that, you’re going to get killed, which is why films are going up and up in price. But with technology, I just proved I can do reshoots in the morning, cut them in the afternoon and honestly it’s not that much effort.
Q : Did you worry about getting access to some of these exotic locations again, or getting all the actors back together at a moment’s notice?
A: It’s a matter of recoordinating all the information when it comes in. I had a very good (production assistant) on the blower saying, “OK, this morning’s telephone call is about locations.” We had locations in Italy that had to be reshot, and we got them. But the most important thing of all is the ability of actors. They have a couple of hours to get it down. So it’s mostly logistical, but because I’m so used to that I didn’t even think about it.
Q : There’s a lot commentary in this f ilm about the value of human life, class struggles and the role of wealth in society. Do you think there’s anything to be learned from it at this moment in America?
A: Well, let’s take the tax bill. People say (Republicans) are doing it for the wealthy class. What (people) forget is if you get a clever, unselfish business person — I don’t care if it’s a corner store or a big business — who’s suddenly saving 15 percent, they’ll put it back in this business. Then you’re going to get growth and therefore (people) will get employed. My concern is with the elderly, the infirm and the youth who need to have chances and shots for every level, and equality in education.
Q : I’m sure you benef ited from some help early on in your career.
A: I’m a natural-born hunter because that’s who I am. No one taught me that. I started from scratch. I arrived in Hollywood with a wristwatch and stayed at the YMCA. You have to learn the curve. But don’t (expletive) moan about it. It’s about doing. There’s always a way in. I used to lay concrete on runways for an Irish company when I was a student. I packed drywall. My parents didn’t have the money to help me out. But they were very supportive of anything I wanted to do. Q : Let’s talk about that violent scene in the f ilm that the preview audience reacted very strongly to — when the kidnappers slice off the ear of John Paul Getty III. How did you approach that?
A: I thought it should be inefficiently violent, where the doctor is a heroin addict and clearly falling apart, down to his awful cardigan. I wanted it to be primitive, with a rag to knock him out. So in a funny kind of way it was almost like a slaughterhouse. It could have easily gone so wrong. You bleed a lot from your head, so if you hit the wrong vein it could have killed the kid. And they were considering cutting off his foot! With that bad of a doctor taking off his foot, he would have died.
Q : It’s a fantastically tense scene. And the psychological element is already heightened, after Getty’s grandson being in captivity for as long as he had been.
A: This guy had this thing, this Stockholm syn- drome with his captors. Cinquanta (one of the captors, played by Romain Duris) is a French actor, and his character is fundamentally a crook who’s a decent guy. He begins to take pity on the kid, a bit like a brother.
Q : The period details — from the sports cars to the earth-toned costumes and even lighting f ixtures — are incredible. Was there a particular part of that you enjoyed?
A: Well, you know, these are the people who work with me. So I’m in the horrible position of being an arrogant (expletive) and just assuming they’re going to deliver. If they don’t, they get slapped! But hey, I love it. Every film’s a challenge and they’re just like, “Bring it on.” From wardrobe to cameraman, I’ve worked with some of those people since “Gladiator” and they’re the most compatible group for me.