Raimi brings some madness to the multiverse
‘Doctor Strange 2’ features hallmarks of director’s films
Relief was just starting to wash over director Sam Raimi the morning after the recent premiere of “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.”
The film, now in theaters, has been a headlong sprint for the 62-yearold, who took over two and a half years ago after Scott Derrickson departed the project over creative differences. Raimi had a script to retool but an unmovable shooting timeline to meet.
“Every part of this moviemaking process has been great, but every part of the process went on too long and became a little too intense,” Raimi said. “I love the writing, but the writing never stopped. Michael (Waldron) was writing the script all throughout the production. And the shoot was great, but then we had to do reshoots. Also because of COVID, things got stretched out.
“But it’s been great,” added Raimi.
Even if his reentry was rushed, Marvel’s “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” which kicked off Hollywood’s summer movie season, has heralded the return of one the movies’ most beloved genre filmmakers. Raimi crafted the microbudget horror landmark “The Evil Dead” (and its more comic cult-classic sequels, “The Evil Dead 2” and “Army of Darkness”) before his Spider-Man films, with Tobey Maguire, helped pave the way for the superhero era that followed.
And, somewhat miraculously, the latest “Doctor Strange” is an identifiably Sam Raimi film, full of playful horror, clever comic touches and bonkers flashes. He brings some
madness to the multiverse.
This interview with Raimi has been edited for clarity and length.
Q: This film bears many hallmarks of your work: Bruce Campbell, a book of the dead and even, briefly, shots from a demon’s point-of-view. Do you feel like you smuggled a Sam Raimi film into a Marvel movie? A:
I was really trying to make a Marvel movie, first and foremost. I guess everyone does things their own way, without trying to specifically make it something other than what it was. I was really just trying to follow the characters from the previous Marvel movies and storylines from “Wandavision” had led into and where all the “Avengers” movies had led into. But also try to open up
the multiverse as Marvel had requested of writer Michael Waldron for future adventures.
Q: Do you feel that these films, like any other kind, should bear the fingerprints of their filmmakers? A:
I think the first responsibility is to tell the story of those characters because this is, like, episode 27. But I think it’s great that filmmakers can do it from their own perspective as long as they’re working within the Marvel box, basically.
And it’s a very big sandbox to play in. What they do at Marvel is they really protect the integrity of the characters. So long as you’re doing that and as long as you’re aware of the story elements so you don’t disappoint the fans, I think it’s great that filmmakers in the Marvel Universe exercise
their personality and style and tell the story with their own sense of panache.
Q: I think of the “Evil Dead” movies and “Army of Darkness,” in part, as odes to practical effects. This is the other end of the spectrum, with extensive, anything’s-possible CGI. How did you adapt? A:
I love practical effects. That’s my favorite thing to do on set, and it’s my favorite thing to watch in movies. But the nature of this movie was so big, to travel through the multiverse, the techniques were not really befitting of practical effects, the major techniques. There are moments for them in this movie, but really it had to be computer generated because of the scope and the amount of journey our characters went on. It just would have been too expensive and impractical to do it practically. I love practical effects, but they take time. With a giant production like this, it’s difficult to shoot take after take because the blood tube is showing in frame or the wire is floating.
Q: You hadn’t directed a feature since 2 0 1 3 ’s “Oz the Great and Powerful.” You’ve since been largely producing and making television. Had you been eager for a chance like this? A:
I did take some time to recalibrate my sense as a director. Yes, I was kind of hiding out, producing young filmmakers work, trying to relearn new ways how to do my job, so I didn’t become stale. I spent a lot of time my garden thinking about it. So when the call came in for this picture, I was really ready to jump back in. I was hungry to make another movie.
Q: Are you surprised at how superhero films have evolved in the last 1 5 years, an era your “Spider-Man” films helped birth? A:
I never expected it to take off in this gigantic way and become so crazily popular. I did recognize that in the work of Stanley and Steve Ditko and all the Marvel writers and artists there were so many movies to make. But I never thought they’d be making a movie about Moon Knight, for instance, one of their secondary or thirdtier characters, or Doctor Strange, who I think was a second-tier character, and being so successful with them. It took off beyond what I imagined.
Q: You departed “SpiderMan” disappointed with the third film and on the cusp of making a fourth. Do you feel you had unfinished business in the genre? Does making “Doctor Strange” heal any of those wounds? A:
It is a way of that, that’s true. The thing about the unmade “Spider-Man” movie, we left everything very amicably, the studio and the elements that were Marvel at the time. I just realized that I couldn’t make a good enough script in the amount of time they had to hit a start date. So I said to Sony, “Let’s save money and not let fans down. Go ahead with that reboot.” And they said “Thank you, we’ll do that.” It was a very amicable parting, so I don’t really have unfinished business about it. Every writer dreams of something they’re working on. They want to see it born into the world, so there’s always that. But this movie was very satisfying to me and fun. I loved working with the actors. It did satisfy me as far as my fix for superhero pictures.