Hi everyone, Michael here. I recently had the incredible opportunity to chat briefly with Nancy Spielberg, sister of Steven, on the set of Horrorween in Los Angeles. Nancy will be playing the wife of Dead Body Guy Chuck Lamb in the the 3-D Horror/Comedy, which promises to revitalize true independent, low-budget guerilla filmmaking. Nancy spoke about Horrorween as well as her experience making Steven's first feature-length film, Firelight.
MarketSaw: What was it like making Firelight with Steven as a kid?
Picture 1: A scene from Firelight
NS: Firelight was my brother's first big film that won him his first award, I think, as a teenage filmmaker. I was about 7 or 8 at the time. We grew up in Arizona--it was about 110 degrees, there was nothing to do except go to the library and take out books, and we didn't really want to do that. So my brother would make films and he would get all of his high school buddies, and I don't know how my mother allowed it, but she allowed him to turn our house totally upside down into a set. Not only that, but he was too young to drive, so she had to be the driver in certain scenes. So that's what we did one summer. My sister and I did special effects, and my other sister was his script girl and had to get punched in the arm all the time. I was an actor in the film, and my sister was also an alien. So we did everything we had to do. And it was a cool experience. It was a lot of hard work, but the fun part was--way back then being directed by Steven Spielberg, you know, was a pain in the ass, because I had to die, and I was a little girl crawling in the grass and there was this throbbing light force, which was this alien force that was coming from another planet, and he said, "look up and reach for it." The sun's right there, and it's Arizona, it's hundreds of degrees, and I'm squinting, and he says "stop squinting!"(laughs)
MarketSaw: So you were living in Arizona at the time?
NS: Yeah, we grew up in Arizona. I was about 6 months old, my brother was about 10, and we spent most of our formative years there growing up in the desert. There was nothing there...It was early early, with Indian reservations, and that was it. No air conditioners!
MarketSaw: It sounds like you had a great backdrop for the film...
NS: It was great! He did a lot of war films, a lot of Cowboy and Indian things in the desert, and Firelight we did all over the place.
Picture 2: Nancy Spielberg (left) & Raquel Brussolo on the set of Horrorween
MarketSaw: Was your character abducted?
NS: I was actually disintegrated and moved to another planet. There were blue and red firelights. One color disintegrated living objects, the other inanimate objects. The aliens from another planet literally took us, and put us on a different planet. They took over our brains, almost like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. So, yeah, I just had to crouch, crawl in the grass, and leap towards this pulsating light because I was a curious little child. I was squinting, and my brother kept saying, "stop squinting!", "open your eyes!" I was going blind because the sun was right in my eyes. So you couldn't say no to me. So he got his shot.
MarketSaw: Did you go to California when your brother shopped the film? The story I heard was that he gave a reel or two of the film to a producer as a sample, and that this producer closed down shop and disappeared with the reel.
NS: That's a good question, I don't even know for sure. I think one reel is lost and Steve has the rest. I'm not sure who has the missing reel.
MarketSaw: Is the film commercially available?
NS: No, but it should be! Maybe one day. I know they've shown little clips of it, in "this is his life" type documentaries...but it's never been available.
MarketSaw: How did you first hear about Horrorween? How did you get connected to it?
NS: I'm involved in a charity called "Children of Chernobyl," and one of the women that's involved with it--Joycelyn Engle, a producer--is friends with [Horrorween producer] Ed Meyer. Ed had donated a few walk-on roles on Horrorween for our big celebrity auction that we sold for big money for charity. Also, both of my girls love to act, and we thought being in Horrorween would be a great family experience. They are multi-talented in many ways, with very strong personalities. My younger one directs films, and I would really love her to do that because you have such power behind the camera. And that is how my brother got started, really. My brother was a misfit as a kid, and as a boyscout he couldn't find all the medals and badges he needed, because he couldn't physically do pushups, pull-ups, etc. So he suggested to his troop leaders, "Can I make a film, and get my badge like that?" And he did, and suddenly all the boyscouts wanted to be his friend, all these guys who thought he was a nerd. So it started like that.
Picture 3 (left to right): Director Joe Estevez, actors Devon Greenbaum, Melissa Katz, Jessica Katz, Nancy Spielberg, and Raquel Brussolo discuss a shot
MarketSaw: Have you done any acting between Firelight and Horrorween?
NS: We were extras in some of Steven's films, and other little things like that. I've done production work. I prefer that to acting. Actually, [Nancy's daughter] Melissa made a film called "Montezuma's Revenge" that I was in. That was shot in Puerta Vallarta and in LA. A multi-location, high-budget film with a lot of Kung-Fu fighting. It was very Charlie's Angels! Steven saw that and said it was very smart, sassy filmmaking. He thought Mellisa made great actors out of her parents!
MarketSaw: Have you heard anything about Steven's next film, the 3-D Tintin?
NS: Right now he's in the Hamptons, still hanging out, having some summer time, reading some scripts. I think they're shooting in September. I'm not too sure though, because when we get together, the first conversation is "what are my kids doing?, "what are your kids doing?" Then we talk about the parents...a lot of times we don't talk business. I was actually disappointed that he is not doing Chicago 7 because Sacha Baron Cohen is in it, and I love him.
MarketSaw: Can you tell me more about your charity work?
NS: We do a lot of charity work. One of the main ones is the Chabad's Children of Chernobyl (CCOC), which helps kids from the former Soviet Union who are basically dying, and very ill from radiation contamination. We do a big celebrity auction, meaning it's a big festive event with a celebrity presence with great auction items such as walk-on roles in films, days on the set, or other cool things like cars or art. It's a big black tie event..we sell out, it costs a lot of money. Our next big celebrity auction for CCOC is in New York, on November 24. The event itself is called Children at Heart. CCOC is the only group that permanently evacuates kids and provides them with medical help, housing, education psychological counseling, summer camp--everything they need to live their lives and live a happy life. We also do a couple of other children's charities. Most of our charities are kid oriented. And then we do all kinds of little things, such as history documentaries for public television...but I'm a mama first!Ed Meyer and Joe Estevez are making Horrorween in the style that Steven and Nancy Spielberg started making films--very guerilla, simplistic, and "real" filmmaking. It's great that this style of filmmaking is being preserved in a world where every major film studio is owned by a vertically integrated mega-corporation.
Thanks so much to Nancy Spielberg, Ed Meyer, and Joe Estevez for arranging this interview!
Set photos by Hans Nilsson
Horrorween is scheduled for release in 3-D on October 30, 2009.
Sphere: Related Content
is being released on disc, 
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I have been holding off on posting on your blog as I really didn't see the point in attempting to set you straight as you clearly are very involved with the industry for a very long time and certainly entitled to your learned opinion.
However, I now find myself needing to reply to your post as there are many readers of my 3D focused website that are either confused by what you have said - or they want my opinion of your comments.
So, at the behest of my readers, here is my retort.
Your opinion is basking in the glow of nostalgia Mr. Ebert. Yes I have a vested interest in 3D, but I can base my opinions on fact and not fiction.
You stated: "There seems to be a belief that 3-D films are not getting their money's worth unless they hurtle objects or body parts at the audience. Every time that happens, it creates a fatal break in the illusion of the film. The idea of a movie, even an animated one, is to convince us, halfway at least, that that we're seeing on the screen is sort of really happening. Images leaping off the screen destroy that illusion."
NOT if used correctly and for that purpose! JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH is a family thrill ride and nothing more - it was MADE to have things coming at you - including the gravity influenced saliva of Brendan Fraser. James Cameron's AVATAR will be using 3D correctly and actually bringing the audience INTO the movie. Do not lump all 3D films into the category Mr. Ebert - you are sadly mistaken.
You stated: "There is a mistaken belief that 3-D is "realistic." Not at all. In real life we perceive in three dimensions, yes, but we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us. Nor do such things, such as arrows, cannonballs or fists, move so slowly that we can perceive them actually in motion. If a cannonball approached that slowly, it would be rolling on the ground."
I find this paragraph to be far beneath you. In real life we do see in 3D OBVIOUSLY because we have 2 eyes. And yes we DO see things leaping at us: How on earth did you play catch with a baseball? It is called depth perception or Stereopsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereopsis) - it is that little thing that pilots must have in order to be licensed. And in a well made movie you will not have objects slowing down to augment a 3D effect unless it was intended to be part of the movie (like for example the bullet time effect in THE MATRIX). 3D is not realistic? This is an ignorant statement - we are obviously seeing in three dimensions as we have two eyes. It is as realistic as when I shut off my alarm clock in the morning without having to slap around my nightstand trying to find it in space.
You followed that nugget with "But what about rapid movement toward the viewer? Yes, we see a car aiming for us. But it advances by growing larger against its background, not by detaching from it. Nor did we evolve to stand still and regard its advance. To survive, we learned instinctively to turn around, leap aside, run away. We didn't just stand there evolving the ability to enjoy a 3-D movie."
Huh? I mean... WHAT? Yes, of course objects get larger and then when it gets close enough we detect depth. Why are you constantly referencing fast moving cars and cannonballs? Think about what really can be captured in a movie like catching a baseball as a kid from your father for example. I really dislike arguments from people that insist on either black or white. There is plenty of gray area in life! The baseball leaves your dad's hand and starts to get larger - you see the movement and the growth in size means it is coming towards you. Great, you position yourself. It is not until the ball gets close enough that your two eyes register two different images of the ball (depends on the distance of your eyes from each other). Your brain is then able to use your god given depth perception from TWO eyes to very accurately pinpoint where to catch the ball. It takes practice too. Not practice watching a ball get larger. Come on. HAND-EYE COORDINATION that is trained through depth perception. Honestly, are we back in school here?
You stated: "In my review of the 3-D "Journey to the Center of the Earth," I wrote that I wished I had seen it in 2-D: "Since there's that part of me with a certain weakness for movies like this, it's possible I would have liked it more. It would have looked brighter and clearer, and the photography wouldn't have been cluttered up with all the leaping and gnashing of teeth." "Journey" will be released on 2-D on DVD, and I am actually planning to watch it that way, to see the movie inside the distracting technique. I expect to feel considerably more affection for it."
That T-Rex sequence was one of the most entertaining and spell-binding bits of cinema I have seen in a long time. My opinion of course. So if you rather enjoy watching a T-Rex in 2D I would suggest Jurassic Park more so than JOURNEY. I have said it before, JOURNEY was meant to be a 3D thrill ride, nothing more. I won't waste your time trying desperately to dissect the "movie inside", whatever the heck that means. There is nothing else. It is a 3D family thrill ride! I can't believe I am saying this to the preeminent movie critic of our time, but you DO PREPARE yourself before a movie right? I mean, you don't walk into a horror movie expecting anything else but right? More than anything else I have commented on here - that is what I am most curious about from you Mr. Ebert.
You stated: "Ask yourself this question: Have you ever watched a 2-D movie and wished it were in 3-D? Remember that boulder rolling behind Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Better in 3-D? No, it would have been worse. Would have been a tragedy. The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake."
Absolutely 100% yes - and in fact RAIDERS would have been better yes. Especially the boulder scene. You have an uncanny knack for picking the exact right cinematic sequences that SHOULD be in 3D! And you comparison of 3D to the undead creatures of lore is unremarkable. A childish attempt to wrap up your butchery with something akin to a grin. Sorry. Didn't work. Modern 3D is a completely different beast compared to 20th century 3D and YOU KNOW IT. It amazes me that an educated man in your position would froth forth such bile.
Here is MY OPINION Mr. Ebert. It is you that is obsolete. Ewww, I can hear the gasps of the readers now! Jim Dorey dares to insult Roger Ebert! Whatever. I think you have had your day and your relevance is slowly eroding. I appreciate all you have done to date, really I have and I have watched many episodes of your work.
Yes, maybe I am miffed at having to post on your site. But really Mr. Ebert, open your EYES. Both of them. THE WORLD IS NO LONGER FLAT my good man and your opinion is growing obsolete. It is time to listen to the Galileo's of the world. Like Jim Cameron or Jeff Katzenberg. You said it yourself - Cameron wouldn't be trying to make AVATAR if he didn't think he could do it. My money is on Cameron, not you Mr. Ebert.
For your readers information, I am the creator and editor of www.MarketSaw.com which is dedicated to 3D movies and technology.
-Jim Dorey
Ebert: Thanks! I would like to believe I have an open mind, as I did when praising "Polar Express" and "Beowulf." I can very much see the effectiveness of using 3-D to provide depth instead attacking the foreground, and I am anticipating "Avatar" as much as any movie coming out--except for a few, of course.