Staci Layne Wilson/Horror.com: Let's Eat Lolly is a very strange title! Please explain the premise of your film.

Lee Romaire: LEL is about an eccentric toy and candy inventor named Lipton Lolly. Lolly gets stranded in the desert and is put to the ultimate test when he becomes the object of someone's (or something's) dinner plan. Who or what wants to eat him? Let's just say LEL is more like ALIEN than THE HILLS HAVE EYES. Actually, it's more like THE BENNY HILL SHOW meets ALIEN.

SW: It's been said that comedy and horror - even though they're the cheapest movies to make - are actually the most difficult to get right, mainly because timing is so crucial. Would you agree with that?

LR: I have to agree with that. In each example, the foundation or lead up the the joke or the scare has to be built properly or it falls flat. Similarly, as someone who creates creatures for a living , I hate when they over expose the creature too early instead of concealing it and letting your imagination create something horrible or fantastic.

SW: How do you successfully combine the two?

LR: Hmm.. that's a good question. I'll let you know when I figure it out. Seriously, I think you just have to take a chance on your vision. If the story supports combining the two, as LEL does, then it should work. LEL is a comedy with a horrible situation dropped into it.

SW: Why did you want to tell this story, in particular?

LR: Two years ago I wrote and directed a 30 second commercial with creatures that Romaire Studios [1] created and built. It was my first production- and it was relatively successful. It even won an addy award. That commercial starred a good friend of mine, Phil Jackson, and also featured the puppeteering talents of another friend, Dave Barclay, who's first job was helping Stuart Freeborn with Yoda, then operating Jabba the Hut and onto the Dark Crystal and many other amazing projects.

I wanted to take the next step into production, so I decided to do a short film. LEL started out by creating the character of Lipton Lolly around Phil's great physical comedic talents, and as I wrote, and discussed the character with Phil [pictured, in character], it developed into a more layered and ambitious story.

SW: Working with puppets and such can be awfully tedious; why do it, when we've got computer imagery so readily available?

LR: Actually , the opposite is true: working with puppets is pretty easy- cgi is tedious and expensive. Cgi has its place, but it's usually terrible when it's not mixed with a live action element- you can't warm up to it because its just not real. Admittedly, working with some complicated animatronics can be tedious . But a puppet is not necessarily an animatronic. Working with the right kind puppets, and enhancing with cgi if necessary can save a production a ton of money.

In my opinion, cgi is losing its luster. There was a great article in THE GUARDIAN about audiences getting tired of seeing all cgi all the time.  Almost every new director I talk to and work with wants to use practical stuff now.

Cgi, puppets, make-up- they are all great tools. But one technique does not solve all the problems a script presents - and don't be fooled into thinking otherwise.

SW: What's the psychological impact of using organic materials in a film, as opposed to computer-generated stuff?

LR: Well, I think using practicals does a few things. First, it gets everyone on set excited- make-ups and puppets are basically expensive toys, and everyone loves toys. Second, the director can visualize better and the actors have something to interact with it so I think it makes for a more successful performance. Even if you are replacing it later with animation, there should still be something physical on set.

SW: Does your passion now lie in directing - will you be creating more projects for yourself, or/and would you be interested in directing other peoples' scripts?

LR: My passion is in creating creatures and characters. But that is evolving- I feel like I'm now creating the worlds that the creatures and characters inhabit. And my characters don't necessarily need to be a make-up or a puppet- I'm learning that they can be real people whom I create fantastic worlds around. What I really enjoy is collaborating with talented people. It's very exciting. And I absolutely would produce and direct someone else's script.

SW: Who are some of your influences as a filmmaker?

LR: Wow, there are too many to start naming. I almost think the title "filmmaker" is too sophisticated for me. Sid and Marty Krofft? Pure genius. Seriously, I love everything from Krofft to Cronenberg. They both have equal bearing in my book.

SW: What's your own background?

LR: Well, I run one of the newest live action creature effects studios, boringly named Romaire Studios. I figured if I was gonna produce something good it better have my name on it.

I started late in the business, after cgi had arrived. I was always interested as a kid in makeup and puppets. I just never even fathomed that it was a viable occupation. I learned from the best make-up artist in the world- Dick Smith. He gave me a lot of confidence to make it in a very difficult field. I worked in other makeup effects shops for several years, but just decided that i could do it better on my own. So I started 4 years ago by myself and little by little have built the business up, one little job at a time. Last year was my busiest year and this year is even better so far. We just did creatures for a music video that was #1 on mtv last month, and we just landed two major hollywood movies that will really show off what we can do.

SW: Who are some of the most successful makeup and special effects and visuals people who've gone on to direct (like, Jan de Bont, DP/director, or Bill Malone, creature effects/director)? What's unique about this career progression, as opposed to someone who starts off as a director?

LR: Guillermo del Toro (also a Dick Smith student) is another great example.  I think that someone who starts off as a creature effects artist or a vfx creator has the gift of seeing how to best exploit these "artifices" for maximum impact. But there is also a danger of focusing too much on the effects and not enough on the story. In LEL, we're doing some nice creepy creatures but they certainly not the focus of the movie. It's just another part of the story. I'm using effects very sparingly.

SW: LEL is a short film; how do you see it being distributed, and seen? I mean, Internet, festivals, or what? What are your hopes are for the movie, and by extension, yourself?

LR: I hope that when it's completed that it is actually watchable. If it is watchable, then I hope the right people watch it and give me more money to make more stuff that people can be entertained with. As far as how I'm going to show it, I really haven't put a lot of thought into that yet. It's too early to tell.

SW: Thanks, Lee!

= = =

[end]