TWISTS AND TURNS OF `FURY ROAD'
An oral history details the personalities, problems and triumphs behind the fourth `Mad Max' film
Director George Miller, whose career includes both the post-apocalyptic mayhem of “Mad Max” and “The Road Warrior” and the kid-friendly fare of “Babe” and “Happy Feet,” spent years staring down one obstacle after another to make “Mad Max: Fury Road,” the fourth “Mad Max” film.
Starring Charlize Theron, Tom Hardy, Nicholas Hoult, Zoe Kravitz and more in its huge cast, it's considered by many to be an action classic for its incredible stunts and feminist point of view.
“He had incredible resolve and a specific vision in his mind that he couldn't shake until he realized it,” says Kyle Buchanan, author of “Blood, Sweat & Chrome,” an oral history of the saga behind the 2015 movie. But the path to getting the film into theaters was harrowing, involving everything from skeptical studio executives and quarreling stars to desert storms.
Buchanan spoke by phone recently about what made this movie such a visceral experience and what went wrong along the way. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Q How many times have you watched the movie?
A I saw it three times in the theater and then when it came out on DVD it became a perennial. I would throw it on periodically while writing the book. I threw it on a few weeks ago with a friend who hadn't seen it, and I just became immersed again. It's just that mesmerizing.
Q Could the movie have been this good if they'd filmed it back in 2003, when Miller originally hoped to start?
A It took so long, so even the things that didn't work out, like trying to build the 3D cameras, meant that the visual approach to the movie was so much more considered than it might have been. The entire thing, from the visual approach to the storytelling, could be deepened so much over time. You feel that in the movie.
Q For all the blame studio executives get when they clash with directors, you write that Miller got lucky when the studio refused to let him work on both “Happy Feet 2” and “Fury Road” simultaneously.
A Can you imagine? Miller's insistence he could do both was wild. It's tricky — you have to trust his vision wherever it leads. He's going to try to do things that haven't been done before, and that sounds crazy to risk-averse Hollywood, where they tend to adhere to what has been done successfully. In the case of doing two films at once, Miller was overpromising. You have to be able to parse what is and isn't doable and what might not seem doable but might be worth putting some chips on. That's the challenge.
Q You detail Miller's tenacity and singular vision but also how collaborative he was, even bringing in feminist playwright Eve Ensler to workshop with a group of actors. That's a fascinating balance.
A I think a lot of directors at his level have one or two key people, but George has always been interested in taking someone who thinks differently and finding the excitement in the frisson of the overlap. He's hungry for knowledge and he never stops challenging himself to incorporate other points of view.
It's an interesting lens through which to view auteur theory. Filmmaking is such a collaborative art form, and so many people have small or large impacts. So you have a specific visionary who is aided and abetted by these other creative people.
Q The action is mind-blowing, but how important was it that he sought to imbue the film with a deeper message and that he did it without becoming preachy?
A It's a movie that sounds so shallow in its outline but is really so deep in the themes and plotlines that animate it. It feels very bracing and new when you have the wives and this group of older women and they're all taking part. It ups the stakes and it's showing you something you haven't seen before. There's so much going on and yet it's also a blast to watch.
Q You also recount the unusual audition and rehearsal processes for everyone from cameramen to stuntmen. How did that impact the movie?
A You can't define it, but you can sense that there's something there — it all feels so thought through. It's another example of Miller's sense of collaboration and his idea that what's going to make this movie work is if everyone can personalize their experience, even if they're an unnamed War Boy. These are not details the movie is explaining, but in the action genre, where things can be paper-thin and so contrived, it's exciting to feel like these characters and ideas are really thought through.
Q Miller sounds like a good human but a difficult director for actors.
A There wasn't an arc for actors to play. Sometimes he'd just say to Charlize, “Put your hand on the steering wheel.” It's a two-second shot. She's struggling to figure out how this scene fits in and whether it will make sense when it's cut together.
If there's a flaw in his approach, it's that sometimes he just doesn't know how to communicate his vision to his actors. If you ask something about your character, Miller could go into a 30-minute monologue about the historical underpinnings of the choices the character makes. But you may not get what you are supposed to do in this shot and how it fits into the wider whole. Sometimes you have to give your actors a little bit more.
Maybe he should have made some concessions to the way the actors needed to work. But all of that chaos does add up to something coherent. It worked because Charlize and, indeed, everyone, found something at the core in all their preparation and could return to those places.
Q It sounded like a difficult shoot for many people.
A Some people look back with incredible fondness because it was the most creatively satisfying project of their lives, and some people literally cannot watch the movie because it was too difficult of an experience, and that's what they'd remember instead of the final result.
I wanted to get the most wellrounded picture of what really went down, whether it was flattering or unflattering to people. You talk to as many people as you can to try and echolocate where the truth may lie.
Q Did you expect Charlize Theron to be as raw and open as she was about her difficulties on the film, especially with Tom Hardy?
A We know how stage-managed some interviews can be. I had an inkling that maybe I would have to go to lesser-known people or people behind the scenes to get stories and quotes that felt more real and unfiltered.
That turned out not to be true. People all wanted to be real about the whole experience. To Charlize's credit, she does not back away from things. She knew it would set off another round of headlines about her clashes with Tom Hardy that she's not eager for, but she didn't shy away from it.
It's one of the reasons Charlize has such a complicated relationship with the film — she's so incredibly proud of it and knows it's one of the best things she's ever done, but there's still an ache she has because it was not the easiest experience.
Maybe it's just the right time — several years had passed so they had distance and felt permission to speak freely but it was still fresh and vivid enough in their minds.
What Charlize said about what needs to be done to help your lead actress feel protected on a set speaks to something that Hollywood is just becoming more attuned to — the perspective of somebody, famous as she might be, who might feel unsafe on your set.
Q What's your take on Tom Hardy?
A This is not going to startle anybody: Tom Hardy is a very eccentric person. It's part of the reason he's such a good actor; his method on set is to try a whole lot of things and sometimes it takes you to a brilliant place. But he would show up late to set all the time, stoking resentment, not creating the environment where he can do the exploration he needs. On the set, he's a whole lot to handle but it works onscreen, where he feels wild and untamed. It's a live-wire performance.