Oz touts new film while recounting past efforts

To publicize his new movie “Death at a Funeral,” film director Frank Oz came to the area on a publicity tour in May. Oz has made some well-known films – “What About Bob?” and “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels,” for instance – but he’s probably still well known as a performer. He was one of the essential creative people behind the Muppets, and he’ll go down in film history as the guy behind Yoda in the “Star Wars” movies.

A relaxed and unassuming man, Oz talked about the joys of making a small-scale movie, and the problem with Marlon Brando.

Question: How did you get started in directing?

Frank Oz: I always wanted to be a stage director. The only reason I became a movie director is because Jim Henson gave me all these opportunities. And after “Dark Crystal” and “Muppets in Manhattan,” David Geffen asked me to do “Little Shop of Horrors” and I kept on going.

Question: And how did Henson know you’d be a good director?

Oz: I remember Jim, on “The Dark Crystal,” which was a massive movie – and it was Jim’s movie, not my movie – I remember, on the flight to England, he said to me, “Do you want to direct this movie with me?” And I said, “Jim, I’ve never directed a movie before, why do you want me to direct the movie?” And he said something which was typically Jim Henson, which was, “Because it would be better.” He didn’t care about the credit. He knew that I could shore up certain areas that he wasn’t as good at, like I was better at staging than he was. He knew everything about fantasy and special effects, but he knew there was a little bit of a lack in him that I could film. We were so close that we kind of knew each other’s strengths and weaknesses.

Question: One of the things to appreciate about “Death at a Funeral” is this expert cast of British actors.

Oz: I do a lot of improvisation – not necessarily on the screen, but as a tool to get someplace. And so I thought I’d go to England and I’d have all these trained actors and I’d say, “OK, I’d like to improv this,” and they’d look at me and say, “Dear boy, just hand me the script and go away.” But the reverse was true. They jumped at it. And their training was so deep-seated, they were marvelous. It was an absolute joy.

Question: Did working on a smaller film give you more control over this film?

Oz: This was a $9 million film. Which is what I wanted to do after my last film (“The Stepford Wives”); I’ve always done big films and I was looking forward to doing a small one. I was the complete boss; they gave me all the reins. Whereas on a bigger film, like $80 million or $100 million, the studio gets involved. Not that they get involved and push me around, because I don’t get pushed around very much. But then I feel responsible for people’s jobs, and the stock of a company, and it’s just too much. I don’t want to do that; I want to enjoy the film.

Question: What kind of approach do you take with actors?

Oz: I used to do the whole deep psychological thing a long time ago, but I don’t any more. Simple is good. Whatever that particular actor might need, you sort of let that happen. There are actors who say, “Leave me alone, I don’t need any help,” and actors who come to me and want to go over every scene. I’m OK either way.

Question: So with someone like Marlon Brando (on “The Score”), for instance –

Oz: Well, Marlon hated my guts. Marlon totally hated me, and he was right to hate me, because I was too tough on him. I wouldn’t let him take over and do what he wanted to do, which was to be bizarre. But I handled it very badly, I was too confrontational and not sympathetic enough, and I lost him. He really didn’t let me direct him after the first two days. My contention is that he disliked everything about acting except between the time you yelled “Action” and the time you yelled “Cut.”

Question: What about his performance was so bizarre?

Oz: It was too gay. I met him at his home and said, “This character’s gay, but we don’t want him too outrageous.” And when he came on the set, it was Truman Capote time. My editor looked at me and said, “We can’t use this.” … and I said to Marlon, after he was forced to take away that whole outrageous demeanor, that he was doing wonderful work, and he said, “I have no idea what I’m doing.” And that’s true, because what you see on the screen is Marlon, and that’s what I wanted.

Question: Do you like to move back and forth between comedy and drama?

Oz: Oh yeah. Somehow I haven’t screwed up too badly in comedy, so I keep getting these comedy scripts, which is very nice. But I did “The Score” because I didn’t want to be a one-trick pony. I’ve always wanted to go from horror to comedy to thriller to comedy. Comedy’s the mainstay, but … I like mashed potatoes, but I don’t want mashed potatoes every night of the week.

Question: Is shooting comedy different from shooting drama?

Oz: I think the cut to the close-up is detrimental. That means I’m forcing you to see what I want you to see. Comedy is reaction, not action, and it’s about relationships. If I had my druthers, I’d always like to have two people in the shot – it’s like on a stage, you can decide who to look at. But I don’t like being told, as an audience member, OK, he said something, now here’s how he reacts. “This is what you should feel now.” No – let it be organic and natural. In my opinion.

Frank Oz, director of “Death at a Funeral.”