One one hand, Colossal is the story of a woman, Gloria (Anne Hathaway), who moves back to her old hometown while she tries to put her life back together after losing everything. But it’s also the story of how, halfway around the world, a monster is periodically materializing over Seoul, South Korea, which has understandably captivated the world. As the movie progresses, the small-scale human drama and the larger-than-life spectacle slowly start to come together — eventually becoming what is now referred to as “the Anne Hathaway kaiju movie.”
Director Nacho Vigalondo is known for his unconventional approach to moviemaking, and by fusing the story of simple human drama with an actual kaiju movie, he’s crammed two completely different genres of film together. The result is a wholly original story that defies a simple explanation. We got the chance to talk to the director about what it takes to put a movie like this together, and realizing that he’s not going to be able to satisfy everyone.
Where did this idea come from, initially?
The idea itself is one those curious, ridiculous devices that I collect to be used in the future. What if these things happened here at the same time? It was much older. Any other ideas I collect, just interesting ideas which don’t work for anything. Making something interesting has no value itself. Originality has no real value. Originality doesn’t hold itself.
So, you have to be really careful about those ideas. They are really attractive, but they don’t hold the film. So you have to be careful. Because if I made a movie about that device, and just that device, it would be me trying to be the most clever guy in the room. I will probably become a pile of bullshit. It wasn’t until I found the characters that I didn’t realize that I had too many [ideas] in the script.
Did the premise evolve after you realized this?
It took time until I found story. There was a point in which the story was about two guys fighting for a woman. That was kind of funny, but at the same time it was so rusty and lame and the opposite of something that I feel needs to be told. I’ve seen that many times, again. I didn’t feel attracted to the story enough.
It wasn’t until I realized that it was going to be about a woman fighting with a man that I realized that the movie was going to be something that was ridiculous, and at the same time it was going to be a serious statement about something. When a woman and a man are fighting, they’re not fighting this flamboyant martial-arts way. They aren’t secret agents. They are just normal, and they’re going to fight. There’s something serious going on there, but at the same the story is kind of ridiculous. So I felt attracted to that chemistry.
Once you found those characters, what did Anne Hathaway and Jason Sudeikis, along with the rest of the cast, bring to the film?
Once you’re getting these A-list names, you’re like “I’m open to change,” but I have to say that the script that they got was the one that we shot. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t add stuff, not stuff that came from previous conversations or from before shooting, [but] from coming to the set all the time. There’s a lot of lines that get a big laugh from audiences, that’s not because of what I wrote, but how they said it.
That, for me, is like the ultimate gift, to see how things are growing and growing — and not necessarily by changing the nature of the story, but by proving the nature of these conversations.
So you appreciate these reactions that you didn’t anticipate?
[I’m] making these fantasies that are in many ways ridiculous. I think it’s honest to give the audience a chance to laugh at the movie and at myself. I think it’s a beautiful thing to not to take yourself so seriously. It’s just as simple as that. Writers think, “a funny idea comes, and I can’t stop myself into putting the funny thing into the scene.” I can’t stop myself. For example, probably the most stupid thing in the whole film: the fireworks.
There were a lot of things in this movie I didn’t see coming. That was one of them.
I wrote the sequence without fireworks, and it was an interesting confrontation, these two guys and she’s in the middle. But I was like, “Okay, this thing works, but this is not the kind of scene I’m going to be excited to shoot later.” When I wake up early in the hotel, in order to go to this location and shoot this scene, I’m not going to be excited.
Suddenly, this highly stupid idea, this phallic symbol of the fireworks tube, is like, “Oh my God. I want to put it there. I’m going to have a lot of fun making it.” I know it’s a risky thing. I know some people are going to be pushed away from the film. I try to understand that. People who think that sequence is too far for them. I’m okay with that, but I can’t stop. I try to mock the film itself from inside [itself].
There’s some scenes in the movie in which you can understand [it’s] not a serious statement about anything. If you want, you can view the movie on another level, or you want to explore the meanings and you want to explore my beliefs in the film, it’s up to you. I’m okay with that. I’m really okay with that, but I don’t feel that I reached the point in which I should be like Michael Haneke, punching the audiences in the face with films that are really, really serious.
This is a pretty out-there concept on it’s own.
Sometimes through the process, I’m just working with the sound mixing, just into the process, and I’m just part of the machinery. Sometimes I step back a bit, and I see the thing as a whole, and it’s like “I’m actually making this film with this cast? Is this happening?”
I remember that, in the ’80s, a mainstream movie tried to be different from anything else. People were attracted to that. Now, I’m sad that we are experiencing the opposite of that.
Does that worry you in the long-term?
This is just a phase. Things will change. Things are always changing. Even an original product like Stranger Things has to look like something else from the very beginning. It’s the Broadway musical culture. A Broadway musical can’t come out of nothing. Probably in the ’70s, but not now. You can make Cats in the ’70s. You can make Hair. But now, you make a musical, you have to be sure the musical is referring a famous film or a famous biopic or something that you’re going to perceive from a distance.
I mentioned this already, but there were a lot of unexpected turns in this movie, and I was okay with that.
I’ve been reading reviews all my life. Now that I’m making films, I’m reading the reviews of my own films. It’s amazing how sometimes, even prestigious people working for prestigious media, they judge the film just because it’s not fulfilling their expectations. Right at the beginning, the very first reviews are complaining that the movie is not following the path that they had in mind. This is unfair, but it’s understandable at the same time.
Does that ever get frustrating?
I understand that, but the whole point of the movie is that, besides the quirky premise, [it’s] really grounded. It’s about the opposite of Colossal. It’s about these guys in a bar. That’s the whole point of the film. So it’s really interesting how movies work in the people’s minds. It’s like they’ve got their idea of a movie that is not made, instead of something that is there.
I like the opposite. If a movie’s going to set me for something, and then all the sudden it’s not. That’s my ultimate pleasure as a movie lover. I love to go to see a movie and feel out of the comfort zone from the very beginning.
Like, “This is not what I expected. I don’t know where this movie’s going to take me.” I think that’s really exciting, but there’s some people who want a feel for the film, and that’s part of [their] DNA. It’s a really fascinating thing. When I watch Jaws, I want the guys to kill the shark at the end. That’s the ultimate pleasure. At the end of the movie, they kill the shark, so I understand the pleasure of making a movie that is following that path. But [some] audiences are attracted to the other thing, and I understand both.
