1 - One of the biggest rumors about the film is that it was plagiarized from the Stephen King story The Monkey. Is this true of not?
It's true. As Ken Berton described it to me, the story which formed the basis for the screenplay (what is known in the industry as a "treatment") was developed by a collaborator who had secretly re-fashioned "The Monkey" into "The Devil's Gift" with no authorization. Ken claimed that this was not known to him until long after the film had gone into production, at which time he was committed and it was too late to back out. They subsequently changed many sections of the story so as to remove some of the resemblance to King's work, but obviously they did not remove enough as the similarities are widely recognized.
2 - Please tell us on exacly how this film came to be and what the production was like (any interesting on-set stories, etc). I'd love to know more about the misadventures, high dramas and petty squabbles. :)
My involvement began after quite a bit of the principal photography had been completed, so I don't know much of the back-story. Ken and his collaborators were film students at San Francisco State University when they started the project. I worked on many of the scenes that took place in David's house and garage, which were filmed at the Berton family ranch in Petaluma, as were some of the outdoor scenes (the nightmare wedding, the climax in which he tries to bury the monkey, etc). I also worked on a number of post-production effects. There's a lot of water under the bridge since then, but some fun stuff I do recall:
- The opening scene with the old lady using the Ouija board was filmed outdoors using a partially constructed 'indoor' set, at night. The fire was real and quite hot, a large chunk of fabric that I think was from the curtains took off in the sky on fire and nearly burned the whole properly down, luckily one of the grips chased it down and put it out before that happened.
- The shower that tried to scald David to death was also a partial set built outdoors on the ranch. The poor bastard was naked in a lot of those shots, though that did not end up on-screen, thankfully.
- There was an escalating, ongoing battle between the two women who worked behind the camera as to which was the Director of Photography, a coveted title. Apparently Ken had inadvertently promised the title to both of them at separate times. It got a bit nasty. Finally he solved the dilemma by giving them separate-but-equal titles.
- The miniature pyrotechnics were created by an industry pro who also did work on the Star Wars and Star Trek films of the time, as well as many others. He could have been joking, but when we took our lunch break he turned to us and said, "where's the coke?" - and he was NOT asking about a carbonated beverage. Poor guy, our production was waayyyy to poor for that kind of refreshment.
- We needed a workshop on the ranch, but the best Ken could come up with was a small, creaky barn-like building with a sloping dirt floor and no electricity - we had to drag an extension cord from the main barn. One end of the room was walled off, and behind that wall lived one of the ranch's stud horses, who would spend the day *beep* and pissing and generally making the place smell real nice. We came back after one long break to find that hens had taken up residence in the model of the old Victorian house that is seen in the opening sequence.
- The original sound technician wanted to make "tasteful" porno films and talked about it quite a bit. It got old.
- The interior of David's house was actually Ken's Grandmother's house, in case you were wondering why a middle-aged widower would have big gaudy oil paintings of Pompeii and urns and pictures of strange people all over the place.
- Everyone including Ken and his team were working for 'deferred participation', which means that no one was getting paid until the film was completed and started to make money. Then everyone would get paid at the same time, according to a percentage assigned to them, as the money came in. Well, as soon as the first receipts were recorded, the lead actor and actress sued to get ALL of their money FIRST, before the rest of us. The thing was tied up in court for years and most of us never saw a dime. Cue the sad music.
I'm sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind for now.
3 - How did the film took two years to make? How did it took so long? (I understand that filmmaking is a lenghty procedure, but 2 years is rather long for this kind of film)
It was a low-budget independent production that was largely self-financed. Right at the end, it got an injection of funding from a distributor, but up until that time production would frequently go on hiatus when the money ran out.
4 - Exacly how was the director difficult to work with? Was it because he was so serious about the project?
The movie was his baby, paid for with his own (and/or his family) money and he micro-managed every detail. I can't really say as I blame him, but as anyone can see the film is no 'Citizen Kane' and I think a bit of perspective would have served him well. However, having never been in his shoes I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
5 - Did you ever had any contact with Kenneth J. Berton after The Devil's Gift finished, or was the experience too painful?
I've actually had worse experiences with others before and after Ken, he was not that bad, all things considered. We talked a few scattered times in the years that followed, about the lawsuit that was tying up our money, and about the total lack of interest his follow-up horror film screenplay was generating in Hollywood. It was not Merlin but rather some thing about a college kid with telekinesis that was pretty awful as I recall. I heard that Ken died suddenly, and pretty young. So these two films represent the totality of his legacy to mankind.
What happens to us in the future? Do we become @ssholes or something?
- Marty McFly
reply
share
Pineapples101
8 years ago
It's so cool that you have taken the time to write all this down! :)
I'm watching the MST3K episode right now and I've always been curious as to how and why this mish-mash of films came into being.
One thing I would like to know - did the director direct anything else, such as music videos, commercials etc?
Both sections of the film are pretty awful, but I have seen waaaay more incompetent examples of film direction. And the lighting and framing on the Merlin sections are at least passable.
It seems like quite a big production for someone with such a limited resume?
Do it Doug!!!!
http://movie-memorabilia-emporium.blogspot.com/
reply
share
Capn_Kirk
8 years ago
One thing I would like to know - did the director direct anything else, such as music videos, commercials etc?
Not that I know of. As I recall, his day job was as a paralegal. Someone else connected to him - perhaps someone I met online who worked on "Merlin" - told me that the trials and tribulations of that production cost him his marriage. The man was single-minded to be sure, and he could never be accused of not trying to do the best that he could with limited resources. But I really got the sense that it took it's toll on him. I remember him complaining of ulcer flare-ups during the final crunch to wrap up "The Devil's Gift". He was in his early twenties at that time... rather young for ulcers!
What happens to us in the future? Do we become @ssholes or something?
- Marty McFly
reply
share
FatherEsteban
8 years ago
Thank you for taking the time to answer all my questions, it's greatly appreciated! A shame to hear that Ken has passed away, and that neither you or Ken made a penny off of The Devil's Gift. One thing I will compliment you and Ken for: I did really like the opening shots with the miniatures, establishing the lady's house, and the toy monkey does looks mildly creepy in the dark shots (During the ''Nightmare Wedding'' scene, that's what I'm refering to). The editing in the scene where Michael almost gets run over by a car is edited rather well (until David lets out a dramatic NOOOOOOOOO!, where it kind of destroys the slight tension it was building up). It's also rather impressive that Ken was able to make a proper (proper, as in, shot on 35MM film instead of 8MM or Video) when still in his early twenties, even if the film overall didn't turn out very well.
I actually have a few more questions regarding The Devil's Gift:
1 - Was The Devil's Gift (I'll shorten it to TDG from now on, it's quicker and easier to type) originally intended to be a short student film, or was it from the start intended to be a real motion picture?
2 - Was Ken happy with the finished product?
3 - Why was the psychic lady's house loaded with figures of Jesus Christ? Was it shot in a Christian's house?
4 - What was up with the overall sweetness of the film? (as already mentiond in one of the IMDb user reviews; the hugging, the kissing, good family values, etc.)
5 - Could you please explain why the Psychic (Adien was her name in the film, if I remember correctly) sounded so angry, or was that a part of the shoot you weren't involved in?
6 - Was it blood or excrement that came out of the shower? (Apologies if that question might sound a bit rude. I watched it on a poor quality version on YouTube, as I haven't found an original VHS tape of it yet. The print quality was quite dark in some places, so it was slightly unclear to me).
7 - About the ending: When it cuts to black, all you hear Michael cry out for Dad, the sound of the toy monkey's cymbals clashing together, followed by the sound of an explosion. Did Ken thought it would be more effective this way, or did he ran out of money to build a miniature of the house?
Anyway, thank you, I'm still very grateful that you answered my pervious questions. It's very well appreciated.
reply
share
Capn_Kirk
8 years ago
I did really like the opening shots with the miniatures, establishing the lady's house
Thanks. I was never totally happy with how the miniature work looked, but it was out of my control. Ken took charge and directed all of effects shots in a hot hurry at the end of the production. He used the same camera and lighting crew that filmed the live-action shots, which was not really the best choice - photography for effects work is a different set of skills and challenges. For the opening sequence he insisted on shooting with a snorkel lens, because that's what the pros at ILM and such places did. True that, but unfortunately a really high-quality snorkel lens, such as what would be needed for a theatrical movie, is a very expensive item, and that's not what he ended up getting. As a result the imagery obtained is somewhat fuzzy and suffers from coke-bottle color fringing. He also used a type of arc light called an HMI to light the miniatures. They produce a high-intensity and very pure white light, but they have a nasty habit of flickering if the power feeding them is not optimal, and unfortunately the power available on the Berton family ranch was far from optimal. They ended up using generators but the flickering is still pretty noticeable. There were other problems, like filming at sound speed (24fps) when slow motion was needed. Overall the results obtained were less successful than what I had hoped for.
It's also rather impressive that Ken was able to make a proper film (proper, as in, shot on 35MM film instead of 8MM or Video) when still in his early twenties, even if the film overall didn't turn out very well.
The original negative for both the live action and effects work was actually captured pn 16mm film, not 35mm. This was a pretty common practice in the world of independent low budget filmmaking in the pre-digital era - trying to scrimp every penny meant shooting on the lower-cost 16mm film stocks. I believe that at 35mm print was made for the "premiere" (shown at a classic old-school movie palace in downtown Petaluma).
1 - Was The Devil's Gift (I'll shorten it to TDG from now on, it's quicker and easier to type) originally intended to be a short student film, or was it from the start intended to be a real motion picture?
I'm pretty certain that it was intended to be feature length from the very early stages, but I was not involved in that part. I did read a treatment of the script which was written some time before the shooting script and it was definitely a treatment for a full-length feature as opposed to a short.
2 - Was Ken happy with the finished product?
Yes, as I recall overall he was quite pleased with it. It was full of compromises but he accepted that. The guy was enough of a pragmatist to be a capable filmmaker, even if his tastes might have been questionable.
3 - Why was the psychic lady's house loaded with figures of Jesus Christ? Was it shot in a Christian's house?
If you are referring to the scene where David goes to see the Psychic / Tarot / Palm Reader, I'm pretty sure that was filmed in an actual business of that type in Santa Rosa. No idea why it was decorated like that, maybe the proprietor was into Santaria.
4 - What was up with the overall sweetness of the film? (as already mentioned in one of the IMDb user reviews; the hugging, the kissing, good family values, etc.)
Who knows. The tone of the film was influenced by the time in which it was made. Spielberg and his contemporaries were making a lot of summer movies featuring 'normal' suburban families and it seemed to me that Ken wanted to capture that feel. But that's purely conjecture on my part.
5 - Could you please explain why the Psychic (Adien was her name in the film, if I remember correctly) sounded so angry, or was that a part of the shoot you weren't involved in?
Umm, bad actress. Keep in mind that low-budget movies such as this typically drew 'talent' from the local theater crowd. They played to the back row. Very Shatnerian.
6 - Was it blood or excrement that came out of the shower? (Apologies if that question might sound a bit rude. I watched it on a poor quality version on YouTube, as I haven't found an original VHS tape of it yet. The print quality was quite dark in some places, so it was slightly unclear to me).
Poop. 'Raw sewage' is what I was asked to produce, to be more precise. In reality it was various colors of powdered tempera (poster paint) mixed with water and injected into the set's shower line. At one point we were between shots and Bob M (the actor who played David) was lying in the bottom of the shower/tub, naked and covered in this gunk, working for (at the time) no money, and I cracked wise that at least he's getting to live out one of his deepest fantasies. That busted up the whole set and provided some much-needed relief.
7 - About the ending: When it cuts to black, all you hear Michael cry out for Dad, the sound of the toy monkey's cymbals clashing together, followed by the sound of an explosion. Did Ken thought it would be more effective this way, or did he ran out of money to build a miniature of the house?
So to try to avoid an spoil: you mentioned three sequential sounds at the very end of the picture. The first two were in the original screenplay. Ken's idea is that the second sound would be the last you would hear, then the credits would roll. The production exec for the distribution company that had picked up the film insisted on adding the third and final sound (I was told). I think Ken's way would have been more interesting.
What happens to us in the future? Do we become @ssholes or something?
- Marty McFly
reply
share