STIR OF ECHOES: David Koepp Interviewed

By: Steve Biodrowski
Date: Saturday, February 05, 2000

David Koepp is one of Hollywood's Billion Dollar Screenwriterswhich is to say, the combined box office grosses from the various films scripted by him exceed $1-billion. These include a fair number of science fiction, fantasy, and horror blockbusters, such as DEATH BECOMES HER, JURASSIC PARK, THE SHADOW, THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK, and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. He has written for such well-known genre directors as Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, and Brian DePalma, and he has directed two films of his own: THE TRIGGER EFFECT and STIR OF ECHOES.

The later film arrived on DVD and home video this week from Artisan Entertainment, the company behind THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. An adaptation of a 1958 novel by Richard Matheson, STIR OF ECHOES tells the tale of Tom Witzky (Kevin Bacon), who emerges from a hypnosis session with a new-found psychic power that allows him to see the ghost of a murdered girl who has been communicating with his son. Part ghost story and part murder-mystery, the film fared poorly at the box office when it was released last fall, partly thanks to audience burn-out after a summer full of horror and partly due to competition from the MTV-targeted STIGMATA, which opened the same weekend. And then of course there were inevitable comparisons to another filmic ghost story, which reached blockbuster proportions and made anything that followed look like an imitationthis despite the fact that STIR OF ECHOES was finished and ready to go last Spring, well before THE SIXTH SENSE came out (not to mention that Koepp's film is based on a novel more than four decades old!).

For the DVD release, Koepp did a lively and informative audio commentary that will fill viewers in on many behind-the-scenes details. However, as thorough as he was, we found a few questions to ask him when he agreed to a phone interview from his office in New York, where he is currently working on the screenplay for SPIDERMAN, to be directed by Sam Raimi.

QUESTION: YOU KEPT THE BASIC IDEA AND PREMISE OF RICHARD MATHESON'S NOVEL, BUT YOU DID MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE STORY. WAS IT BECAUSE OF THE TIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1958 AND 1999?
David Koepp: It was mostly the time difference. I felt like it was 1958, so it was really an Eisenhower-era subdivision. That I didn't feel I could make work, especially in Southern California, because it's really not like that anymore. And I wanted to go somewhere that I had some really feeling for, and I knew Chicago much better.


As for the plot: I just felt a terrible anti-climax in the book when I got to the revelation, so I wanted to try something different. Other stuff you just do because you're making it your own. And the book, since it's so much in the guy's headthat's very tricky stuff to translate into a movie. It's very hard to show thoughts.

IN THE BOOK IT WAS JUST ONE PERSON WHO WAS THE KILLER.
Yeah, it was an adultery thing. I think the landlord guy was having an affair with the woman who lived in the house before, and the wife killed her. You think it's going to be the landlord who killed her because she was threatening to go to the wife, but it turns out the wife was jealous and killed her.

YOU ALSO MADE THE EXPLANATION MORE CONSPIRATORIAL, INVOLVING ACCOMPLICES WHO COVER UP FOR THE KILLERS.
The neighbor was such a strong character throughout the movie, so I thought the neighbor should be involved in the climax.

YOU DID DO A LITTLE BIT OF A CHEAT WITH THE NEIGHBOR IN THE BASEMENT: THE OFF-SCREEN SECOND GUNSHOT MAKES US THINK HE'S KILLED HIMSELF. BUT IT WAS FUNNY IN YOUR DVD COMMENTARY WHEN YOU CALLED IT A 'SECOND WARNING SHOT.'
Yeah, that's right! That's what it was.

HAVING THE CHARACTER REAPPEAR TO SAVE THE DAY CERTAINLY WORKS IN THE MOVIE, BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS YOU WONDER ABOUT AFTERWARD: WHAT WAS HE DOING DOWN THERE FOR THE TEN MINUTES HE TOOK?
He was having a little gun party down there! He was thinkinghe had a lot to think about!

HE WAS WORKING UP HIS NERVE, I GUESS.
Exactly!

LOOKING ON IT NOW, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE DECISION TO TURN THE STORY INTO A MURDER-MYSTERY THRILLER IN THE LAST REEL, PUSHING ASIDE THE SUPERNATURAL ELEMENTS?
Oh, I don't know. That's what the story was. The story was about what happened to her [the murdered girl], and I felt like the answer was going to be the end of the story. So I don't knowI don't want to second-guess. There's stuff you'd always change about everything if you could later, but I like the movie.

IT'S JUST A TRICKY THING, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REALLY HAVE THE GHOST COME IN AND INTERVENE AT THAT POINT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS A GHOST STORY, SO YOU WANT THOSE ELEMENTS IN THERE. IT'S A BALANCING ACT.
I thought about that: she could get involved someway. But she never had, and she didn't have that ability. So it seemed that would have been cheesy.

WHAT'S IT LIKE SITTING DOWN TO DO AN AUDIO COMMENTARY?
I realized later I probably should have had someone do it with me. I just figured...I don't knowit was at a busy time for me; I was moving from L.A. to New York, and I had like 90 minutes to go in and do it. I just went in, since I had plenty to say. I felt I know the movie pretty well, so I have enough to say. What did you think: how was the commentary?

WE LIKED IT. MY WIFE AND I HAD SEEN THE FILM AT PRESS SCREENING IN THE SPRING OF LAST YEAR.
Yeah, which is when it should have been released.

WE SAT THROUGH THE DVD WITHOUT THE COMMENTARY, AND THEN WE SAT THROUGH IT AGAIN WITH THE COMMENTARY.
Oh my god, you poor bastards!

IT WAS FUN AND INTERESTINGYOU DIDN'T NEED ANY PROMPTING.
It's a little weird, but by the time you've finished the movie and done the press tour, you've talked about it so much. I don't think I really said anything new; I don't think any new thoughts occurred to me. From the time I found the book until the time the movie was released, I thought about this for two years. Plus, I watch those [DVDs with audio commentary] a lot myself, so I know what I want to hear. I'm really interested in hearing what are the influences, who is an influence, and what are the happy accidents. If there's anything that happened unintentionally that turned out good, that I'm always interested in hearing about. What were the difficulties of particular shots? The more specific, the better. What is a horrible mistake that you managed to hide? All that kind of stuff.

I also like when people are somewhat critical, because if they're all pompous and proud, it's insufferable and horrible to watch. I also didn't want some congratulating interviewer, because that's just as bad. So that is what I tried to do.

SOMETIMES, IT SEEMS HARD TO KEEP UP. IT'S NOT AS IF THE FILM WILL STOP WHILE YOU PURSUE A PARTICULAR IDEA. DO YOU DO THAT WITH NO REHEARSAL?
Yeah. You can stop and go back. A few times I did. If you get off on a thought that's not quite working out the way you hoped it would, you can stop and rewind, and pick up from your last coherent thought. But then, a few things get away from you. I didn't realize until I'd read your review that I'd said 'Dennis Hopper' [starred in DUEL]. Obviously, I know it's Dennis Weaver, but that got away from me, and nobody else noticed. It's too bad, but...stuff like that's a little irritating. It would be nice if you had time to listen to it, and then go do another pass. But I just didn't have time.

And your comment [in the DVD review]you mentioned it would have been nice if I'd talked about THE SIXTH SENSE. There's just no way I'm going to mention that! I just don't want it immortalized forever on my DVD. It's bad enough that it killed my movie; I'm not going to address it on the DVDI'm just not going to do it!

I DID SAY THE COMPARISON HAS BEEN MADE ENOUGH ALREADY.
Yeah, I'll say! The worst was one review I read: the first sentence was, 'It's amazing how quick Hollywood is to copy success.' Oh, please! Yeah, I wrote and directed it in four weeksthat's exactly right!

YOU SAID YOU CHANGED VIDEO TO BLUR THE WORDS ' SLEEP' AND 'DIG' ON THE MOVIE SCREEN DURING THE HYPNOSIS SEQUENCES. [THE WORDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UNREADABLE UNTL THE VOICE OF THE HYPNOTIST INDCATES THAT THEY COME INTO FOCUS.]
It was about the right degree of blurred in the movie. But for some reason, when it goes to video, things become in sharper focus.

PRESUMABLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT MAGNIFIED TO SUCH A BIG SIZE.
Probably. So they were in much sharper focus on the video, and you could immediately tell what the word said. So we did have to do a little something. 'Dig'I always wished was a little blurrier in the movie theatre, also. So that was pretty simple. We threw the focus out.

IN YOUR COMMENTARY, THERE WERE MANY INTERESTING TOPICS, SUCH AS YOUR CONCERN ABOUT FILMING EXPOSITION SCENES IN A WAY THAT IS INTERESTING. AS A WRITER, YOU'RE THERE IN THE SCRIPT STAGE, YET YOU SAY THAT MUCH OF THAT WAS CUT OUT IN EDITING. WHY WAIT TILL POST-PRODUCTION?
It's the power of images. Something may have been absolutely necessary in the script, and then why you see it onscreen, it's so much fuller that things become unnecessary. So it may be that you needed it in the script and then once you start showing things in the film it's all unnecessary, or parts are unnecessary. That's just a process of discovery, but it's a tricky one, because you're increasingly familiar with the material, but nobody else is. They're only watching it for the first time, so you have to try to keep some objectivity, which is almost impossible.

ON THE ONE HAND YOU WANT THE STORY TO MOVE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. ON THE OTHER, THERE ARE ALL THESE AVENUES YOU WANT TO EXPLORE. IT'S A JUDGEMENT CALL ON HOW MUCH TIME TO DEVOTE TO SOMETHING. FOR INSTANCE, THE IMPLICATION THAT THERE'S AN ORGANIZATION OF PSYCHIC PEOPLE POPS UP BRIEFLY.
I like that. Some people complained, but I liked the implication of that and then letting it go, because it's spookier. I used to have them go and discover more about it, and Tom [Kevin Bacon's character] went and sat down to talk to them, and it lost all its mystery. It's much more interesting if you only hear bits and pieces. That I found worked a lot better. Plus, it wasn't about them. It was about this family.

YOU DON'T WANT TO TURN THE PLOT DOWN THIS CORNER AND PULL THE WHOLE MOVIE OFF COURSE. BUT YOU HAVE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH TO LEAVE IN, AS OPPOSED TO TAKING IT OUT ALTOGETHER.
I thought about cutting that, but it didn't help, and it actually hurt a little. I cut the scene down significantly in the alley, but there are a lot of people who would have been kind of lost without it. Some people maybe would have preferred not to have it in; others needed it. So...I left it. Plus, I don't think the movie really had a pace or length problem at that point, so I figured, 'What the hell?'

IT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT THE PROSTHETIC FINGERNAIL EFFECT DIDN'T WORK UNTIL YOU ADDED THE BREAKING CELERY STICK AS A SOUND EFFECT.
It was amazing. It looked really lame until we put the sound in. Then suddenly, 'Oh my god!'

YOU ALSO MENTIONED FILMING THE KNOCED-OUT TOOTH ON THE FLOOR WITH AN ENLARGED PROP AND FLOORBOARDS. I ASSUME THAT HAD TO DO WITH KEEPING THE OBJECT IN FOCUS AS IT SLID ACROSS THE FLOOR.
Yeah, and having any chance of getting the shot at all. It's just too hard to manipulate tiny objects and get them in focus and get them to look good. Also, I wanted, as you pointed out in your thing about the girl on the couchthat's exactly right. What I wanted to do with those early horrific shots was completely give you the idea that this movie could pull any stunt at any timeand then you don't have to. Because then you just ride on anxiety. But you have to get those early things in, to clue people into what they're in for. That's what I wanted those particular things for: pulling out the took, snapping the fingernailsreally attacking the extremities early on, to strip away people's comfort levels.

YOU STRIPPED AWAY THE COMFORT LEVEL OF A COUPLE PEOPLE AT THE PRESS SCREENING I ATTENDED: THEY GOT UP AND LEFT! THE REST OF US HOOTED AT THEM FOR BEING COWARDS.
Yeah! The fingernail is the walkout point.

IT WAS FUNNY TO HEAR YOUR COMMENT THAT YOU COULD ONLY GET THAT ONE SHOT OF THE JACKHAMMER DIGGING UP THE FLOOR (WHERE WE THINK THE GHOST'S BODY IS BURIED).
Yeah, it was incredible: we get to this point and we can't get the floor to break! The problems that come up are never what you imagine they would be. Never in a million hears would I have dreamed that are jackhammer would be unable to penetrate the floor. We thought once we touched this thing, it's all going to turn to powder.

I NEVER REALIZED IT UNTIL YOUR COMMENTARY POINTED IT OUT.
That's what the commentary is there for: to tell you how we tricked youcovered up our acne.

YOU'VE WRITTEN LOTS OF SCRIPTS FOR BIG DIRECTORS, AND YOU MENTIONED THE ADVICE DEPALMA AND SPIELBERG GAVE YOU FOR THIS MOVIE. BESIDES THAT, DID YOU PICK UP ANYTHING FROM WATCHING THEM AT WORK ON YOUR MATERIAL?
You can learn a lot by watching, but you ultimately can't learn anything until you do it. That's the problem, and that's why directing careers are so short for many people: the only way to learn how to direct a film is to direct a film, and you don't get that experience easily. There's nothing like doing it; no matter how long you sit on a set watching somebody, there's nothing like doing it. You know, it's hard to get those experiences. That's why digital [filming] is such a good thing, because you can practice now. You can make films for basically a hundred bucks, and learn about how to shoot a sequence and cut it together, and how you can screw yourself over without knowing ityou discover that in the editing roomand then bail it out. Those are important things to learn. Now, there's an easier way to learn it, a cheaper way to learn it.

HAS THAT AFFECTED YOU AS A WRITER? ARE YOU AWARE OF THE CHALLENGES YOU'RE SETTING?
Yeah, but you also just forget it. Even when you're writing for yourself, you shouldn't think about 'this won't be possible' or 'this is too hard.' You just write itwrite it, write it, write itas well as you can, and then figure it out later. Usually, when something is impossible or too tough to figure it out, you come up with a better way to do it anyway. All those rewrites forced on you out of necessityit always turns out better, because you're forcing yourself to think deeper.