Remaking the beloved Total Recall and winning over the masses was always going to be a tough task for Underworld helmer Len Wiseman. Despite being far more faithful to Philip K Dick's short story than the 1990 Arnie version and boasting an impressive cast including Colin Farrell as the confused factory worker/resistance fighter Douglas Quaid and Kate Beckinsale as his wife/nemesis Lori, the 2012 version struggled to find widespread approval.
In a fascinating and revealing interview to coincide with the release of an extended and superior director's cut, Wiseman discusses the Schwarzenegger shackles, the reasons why his original vision was diluted in the theatrical release and why green screens are not his favourite haunt...
How do you feel about the reception to the theatrical version of Total Recall and would you have done anything differently in retrospect?
"I felt like we were really battling nostalgia. To remake nostalgia is quite tough. I was surprised by the amount of love there was for Arnold's portrayal of that character. While I was in college I read Philip K Dick's story and it was shocking to me how different that character of Quaid came across in the story to the film that I watched when I was a kid. So I was excited by the idea of not in any way trying to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger but to present a new type of Quaid not a new type of Arnold."
Yes, because Quaid is presented as an 'everyman' figure in Dick's story yet Schwarzenegger is the antithesis of this - being effectively a walking special effect...
"Absolutely. In my opinion it was the opposite from what the book was portraying - and I loved Total Recall the original film. But I went to go see it as an Arnold Schwarzenegger action film. I knew nothing about Philip K Dick or the story. I was 14. When you watch Arnold in anything, you have a feeling that he's a superspy waiting to be activated rather than being surprised that he turns into that person."
It's interesting, because I interviewed your wife [Kate Beckinsale] at the Total Recall junket a few months ago and she commented on the American audience's huge level of attachment to the Schwarzenegger canon...
"Well, I gotta say I was blown away by that. I was ready for a comparison because it's a remake, so you have to shoulder a lot of that or you're an idiot going into it if you just complain about that aspect of it. But how much people were really getting upset that it strayed from the Arnold Schwarzenegger version, which is already a departure from the original source material. There are two things that people really got upset about - that Arnold was not there and that we didn't travel to Mars.
"For me it was a weird experience, because although I love the guy and grew up with his movies and a lot of his movies are the reasons why I wanted to be a director, I felt with the book that in terms of this story, Arnold was an odd choice for that character. And the book never went to Mars. People are so much more familiar with the movie than they are with the book. I guess that makes sense."
The extended cut and the theatrical cut - if you had to choose, which one would you like to become known as the definitive version of your movie?
"It would be the extended 'director's cut' - it truly is my director's cut and not just an extended cut. It goes further into the things that I was excited about - that question of fantasy versus reality and really playing with that idea. I think the theatrical version is more of a streamlined version of that idea. You're always fighting against time constraints. It's tough with a movie of this size. You test the movie and confusion is always a bad thing to people. I consider there to be a difference between good confusion and bad confusion.
"Often you're confusing the audience on purpose to have fun with that confusion, because this movie is all about confusion. And so you've got people that really are tuned in to enjoying that confusion of it being a puzzle and really struggling with 'are we in a fantasy or is this happening in reality?' Then others go 'I don't have a definitive answer and I don't like that'. You battle it."
For me, the director's cut works much better as it allows the film and its ideas more time to breathe and adds more depth. Was there a big battle for you to preserve your original vision and have that released as the theatrical cut instead of the streamlined version?
"There was, there weren't screaming matches going back and forth but there was a lot of back and forth about what the theatrical version should be. It is interesting because you rarely see a director's cut that advertises '20 minutes of action put back in'. What always is removed is story, character, plot and it's really frustrating for a director.
"There are many parties involved and it's a very expensive movie, but you will notice in that 17 or 20 minutes added in that it's not action. It's pure story. I prefer a slower pace. The theatrical version, for many reasons that I won't bore you with, is a faster, more action version than my original cut and I'm glad that people are going to see the pacing and the time taken with the story that I intended."
It must have been frustrating to be held responsible by some critics or viewers for certain perceived faults of the theatrical version like an overly fast pace or lack of depth...
"It's the beauty of filmmaking with these kind of movies. It really is. When I hear the pacing issue... I'm just the product of an older style pacing, I suppose. I'm considered a younger director so I think people assume that I'm putting that pace on it.
"And yes, a lot of it within the action the pacing can be very exciting. But with the storytelling elements, with a movie like this, if you have dialogue scenes that go on too long it does make for a conversation to be had. That part can get frustrating for me."
What is your favourite of the additional scenes in the extended cut?
"The favourite is the lobby scene between Harry, [Quaid's] friend, when he comes back in and has a 'come to Jesus' moment of 'are you in a fantasy or reality?' and that scene is about a nine-and-a-half minute scene in my cut and about five minutes in the theatrical. That's the beauty of the whole concept, the whole movie to me is that kind of court battle.
"It's one person giving a really good argument that he is experiencing a fantasy and the other is playing a really good opposing argument for the other... the theatrical version kind of glosses over that."
What led to a pivotal scene featuring Ethan Hawke being cut, as it does appear to address what some see as a plot hole about why Quaid is not recognised in public despite his notoriety...
"There were too many people that were confused by it. This goes back to the conversation about why I believe there is good confusion and bad confusion. Enough people said they were confused and thrown by it, but I must say that the older generation completely got it. So it's complicated. [The studios] don't want to alienate a large section of the audience if they're confused by it.
"What is a frustrating thing to go through, is that now the director's cut has come out and people have seen it, there has been quite an overwhelming response in terms of what is explained more and what goes into depth more - and actually they're finding it clearer where they were confused about things in the theatrical version."
Confusion and ambiguity can often be confused. Looking at Blade Runner, Ridley Scott has previously stated that his director's/final cut clearly gravitates more towards Deckard being a replicant than the theatrical cut. So does your Total Recall cut lean more towards a particular reading of Quaid's identity?
"Yes, I believe it does. For me, it's about the ambiguity of this idea - the fantasy versus reality. I do have a point of view. If this makes sense, I think the ambiguity of an idea like this is very important but I do believe as the director of a project you do have to fall on one side as to whether it's reality or fantasy because in all the minutiae, every single decision or conversation you have, it does lead to one point of view or another.
"I believe I have my point of view in there - with little bits and pieces to be able to figure it out. It's part of the joy of it. It's what I love about Philip K Dick's stories - he's somebody that loves to question reality a lot but rarely does he answer it."
Can you be drawn on what side - fantasy or reality - you feel the director's cut is geared towards?
"I would answer that question by saying yes, it does give more clarity - but I won't say what that is. But I do believe that there are more clues there as to what is really happening."
You made a big effort to use physical sets as opposed to green screen as much as possible in Total Recall - do you plan to continue this strategy for future movies?
"I absolutely do. It was a challenge for me because I prefer to do as much practically as I possibly can and I was faced with a movie set 100 years in the future, so you're going to have to use CG. I really don't have CG but I just prefer to shoot as much as I possibly can.
"We built massive sets and I remember early on with my crew, when we were talking about the car chase and elevator scene, a lot of people were assuming we'd have a big green screen stage and I said 'No, I want to build the cars, I want to build the elevators and shoot this like a car chase like we would on a Die Hard film'. Obviously we had to replace the background but I'm not going to be stuck on a green screen stage, I can't stand it."
It really makes such a difference...
"It really does. If you shoot some element practically and get those cars on the street and shoot the car chase, what happens is that CG becomes a slave to your photography rather than you being a slave to it. It really does change how those shots are done.
"I met with a bunch of visual effects crews about Total Recall and when talking about how I was going to do a lot of these scenes, a lot of people would say 'Why would you do the practical side of it, when you could do the whole scene in CG and you wouldn't have any limitations?' And I'd actually go 'Ah, but that's the thing - I embrace limitations'. The limitations of filmmaking are something that feels real. You take out all those limitations and the camera just starts swinging and floating around everywhere and I feel people then disconnect."
Shooting practically tests your craft surely, figuring out which angle to shoot a scene from to make it work as opposed to relying on some folks with their MS Paint or whatever to draw stuff in...
"It really does. Obviously there are many shots that have to be pure CG and I tell you, so often you get those shots in and the reason why they're not really feeling real is because the limitations are gone and they're not adhering to 'this could never be possible on a dolly, this could never be possible on a crane'. A lot of directors love that and I enjoy a lot of movies that do that. I just personally have a hard time connecting to that kind of filmmaking."
'Total Recall: The Extended Director's Cut' is out now to own on DVD and Blu-ray
Watch a behind-the-scenes clip from the Total Recall shoot below:
