British filmmaker Robert Watts has been associated with five Lucasfilm productions since 1975. He first served as production supervisor on thef am Star Wars which, Watts admits, was a bit of a gamble for all involved. Although his work on that film led to steady employment with George Lucas, his involvement with the genre pre-dated the Lucas epics - signifcantly with his work on the 1968 science fiction classic 2001: A Space Odyssey under the auspices of fellow Briton Stanley Kubrick.

Though Watts had known from an early age that he wanted to pursue a career infilmmaking, he first sought a degree in Modern Languages at Marlbourough College in England, then continued his studies at the Universite de Grenoble in France. Upon completing his studies, hefaced the disagreeable prospect of two years of compulsory military service. He elected to serve with the Nigerian Army on the west coast of Africa. "I asked for that assignment," asserts Watts. "I had to spend two years in the army - rather than spend two years in England, I thought I 'd go and see something . . ." His desire to go "see something" has since expressed itself in location scouts andf am productions covering the globe. His service and studies completed, he was able to turn his attention to his true interest, filmmaking. His first employment was on a British production in 1961, a comedy titled A French Mistress. His career began in a traditional capacity: "I was a gopher. . ." Watts remarked, without disclaimer, ". . . an assistant gopher - there were two gophers on the movie and I was the junior of the two." From this somewhat ignoble start, Watts built a career that has spanned nearly twenty-five years and involved him with some truly memorable, and afew truly forgettable films. But by his own admission, he has taken great pride and delight in his association with George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. From his first film for Lucas, Star Wars, Watts went on to act as associate producerfor Raiders of The Lost Ark and The Empire Strikes Back, then acted as co-producerfor Return of The Jedi, and finally as producer, the "nuts and bolts"supervisor for the filming of Indiana Jones And The Temple of Doom.

In the following interview, Watts details his start in the business of making movies and takes us behind the scenes on some Lucasfilm favorites, as well as outlining the difficulties posed by the latest installment in the continuing adventures of Indiana Jones.

FF: When you secured your first job on a motion picture, did you find any particular aspect of filmmaking to be most appealing?

WATTS: When you go into a picture, starting as a gopher or office boy, you tend to be in the production department; you gravitate towards that area. Of course, the natural progression is that you get a job as a third assistant director (a grade that exists in England though not in the U.S.) because that's most like a gopher on a shooting set.

FF: A gopher with a title?

WATTS: Exactly, which in England is a formal union grade. Then, you work your way up from there. I did a lot of British cinema in the early days, a lot of nouvelle vogue cinema emerging in the early sixties; Darling, Repulsion (Roman Polanski's first English language film) and others. I went on to work on two of the early James Bond films, Thunderball and You Only Live Twice. I worked on Papillon and Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey and a wide variety of other films, some of which you'll not have heard of, because they were totally unsuccessful.

FF: 2001 was a landmark film full of innovations for the time it was made. Did it give you a lasting interest in the genre?

WATTS: I felt very fortunate to have worked on 2001 because it was a departure in terms of science fiction filmmaking. I have been fortunate to work on two films that were definite departures, because later I was to work on Star Wars - though the two films were totally different. 2001 was aiming to be completely 'factual,' utilizing the knowledge of the time. It was based on intelligent conjecture as to what would be possible.

FF: More like futurism than science fiction?

WATTS: it was science fiction as opposed to science 'fantasy' meaning the film dealt technically with weightless conditions, air locks, all those aspects. In Star Wars, you don't mess with that - it's a different set of rules - you're making a picture for the fun of it without saying to yourself, "Oh, God, how do I get this spaceship into a docking bay?"

FF: You went on to make five films with Lucasfilm . . .

WATTS: I was fortunate, in 1975, to fall in with Lucasfilm, who by then had one successful film already, American Graffiti, but was yet to take that stride into the standing it has today I'd first met Gary Kurtz (SW producer) in Culver City while working on a film called Wrath of God in 1972. (Its claim to fame was that it was Rita Hayworth's last movie.) The result of this almost chance meeting got me involved, almost four years later, with Star Wars as production supervisor, sort of running the nuts and bolts of everyday shooting. No one was sure about any additional films at that time and during the hiatus between SW and The Empire Strikes Back, I did two other films. I worked on a section of The Other Side of Midnight and did a real "art-house" movie in Afghanistan called Meetings With Remarkable Men. I was called back in January of 1978 to help with preparation for ESB and have really been there ever since.

FF: Did you provide impetus to Lu-casfilm's decision to use the EMI-Elstree facilities for the first film? They've used those studios ever since. Is it a matter of economics?

WATTS: The first film was a risk. It was a most odd screenplay 20th Century Fox was, I think, farsighted to pick it up. But they were nervous, so the economics became a major consideration. England was not only somewhat cheaper to shoot in, but they had something very difficult to find at that time in the U.S.: eight or nine stages in one studio available at the same time. That was a very key aspect from a financial standpoint. The film required a large amount of stage space. Though the Hollywood stages were larger, they were almost constantly occupied. The English film industry was in a sort of doldrum period at that time and we were able to get the whole Elstree studio at one time - at a very advantageous price. Elstree had changed format and needed to show it could handle a big picture. It was mutually beneficial. And, also, the availability of technical talent was a consideration.

FF: in addition to the Star Wars films, you were employed for the first Indiana Jones film, Raiders of the Lost Ark, which also was shot, in part, at the Elstree facilities.

WATTS: I was associate producer on that film. It was a totally different kind of project than the Star Wars films but we were able to apply some of the 'newfound' technical expertise to that film as well.

FF: on the new Indiana Jones feature, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (hereafter IJ&TOD) you are the producer; the fella. in this case, that has to deal with the 'nuts and bolts' of the filming.

WATTS: Yes, basically, though under normal circumstances the first thing I would have to do as producer would be to go and raise money for the film ! in this particular instance, I don't do that; it is a Lucasfilm production, and with George Lucas and Steven Spielberg's name on it, there wasn't too much trouble with financing. On this kind of film, one is an "employed" producer. The next step, obviously, was the organization of the whole thing. Preproduction involved two trips around the world to scout locations with production designer Elliot Scott. The filming itself began April 18th and finished, finally, on September 9th.

FF: That's a brisk pace . . .

WATTS: Well, yes, but we don't mess around with these films. There is one thing about Lucasfilm: the intention, always, is to put all the money on the screen.

OF. You had completed RetuM of the Jedi just before beginning on IJ&TOD. Did you find it to be blessedly uncomplicated after the demands of Jedi?

WATTS: Well, yes and no. Each movie, as an individual entity, has Its own complexities. The most difficult aspect of IJ&TOD was our two locations: Macau and Sri Lanka. They were extremely far-flung, which meant that visiting those locations took a lot of time. Jedi's locations were all in the U.S., whicn is, in effect, like being on one's own doorstep. Raiders, too; the location was Tunisia, which was only two and a half hours from London. You could fly down to see that things were going well in preparation with little difficulty But Sri Lanka was an eighteen hour flight, then a dreadful drive to get to where we were set up. With Macau, of course, you had to fly to Hong Kong then take a hydrofoil boat to Macau, a long, long way from home base in London.

FF: And all the personnel and equipment?

WATTS: we were able to pick up a lot of equipment in Hong Kong, they have a reasonably active film industry, but in Sri Lanka almost everything had to be sent from England. Including the catering truck and refrigeration units. One of the most important aspects, when you're shooting overseas, is catering. You spend a lot of money to Import caterers, cooks and even foodstuffs - there's a mobile kitchen truck, brought in by ship from the U.K. or U.S., depending on the location. This is vitally important, because sickness among the crew can wipe you (the production) out.

Although you want to give the crew good food, which is one side of the coin, you are also buying insurance for the production against sickness. (The movie I did in AfghanIstan - a very low budget film - that was the one thing I spent money on. We brought in a catering truck from England, overland. There was no sea route, no train route and only one plane a week. It's vital. Even with that precaution, there were times in Afghanistan when ! was only working with fifty percent of the crew.)

FF: There was some problem in Tunisia, on the first film, with illness during location shooting there.

WATTS: The fault really lay there with ourselves and circumstances not with Tunisia. The time frame for shooting had pushed the production into that location at the hottest time of the year. It's very difficult not to get sick when the temperature is 130° in the shade. When we used that location for Star Wars, we were there in March/April when the temperature is moderate, in the 70's. We didn't have any sickness.

FF: Were you doubly careful in Sri Lanka because of your earlier expenences?

WATTS: You're always careful, in any country, but particularly in the Third World countries - the standard of hygiene may not be quite the same as one is used to

. FF: in Sri Lanka, the principal action took place around a huge chasm, an abyss, the gorge. Was that something you and Elliot Scott discovered, or did you remember it from some prior scout?

WATTS: Scotty and I went first to India and spent several weeks scouting the country and we found every location called for in India with the exception of the gorge. One of the problems we also encountered, in the Himalayas in the north of India, was that the areas we were looking at were likely to be covered in snow during our prepa ration period. We found everything else, more or less, but it was very spread out. one thing here, then five hundred miles to the next area and so on. When we scouted Sri Lanka, not only did we find this gorge, we found it in a place where our other location needs would be accessible from one base, which was Kandy, the second principal city after Colombo, the capital. Then we had to make the bridge.

We were fortunate. Nearby the gorge there was a dam under construction which was being built by a British company, Balfour, Batty and Nuttall. They were about two-thirds of the way through thei r project and had a lot of highly skilled engineers and equipment right on the site. They actually did the engineering side of getting our bridge put up.

FF: Were they eager to assist?

WATTS: They were most helpful from the word go. We had found the gorge initially by helicopter. To look from the road, you can literally miss something that's over the next hill.

FF: Was the bridge left up for the locals?

WATTS: No, everything was removed afterwards. That, generally speaking, is contractually necessary when you put up any form of 'set piece.' A thing like that rope bridge and the access to it, because of the dangerous nature of the situation, I would have had it all taken away, regardless. I wouldn't have wanted to think of any kids playing on it or even in the vicinity of it after we'd gone because it was extremely dangerous.

FF: I'm not sure I'd have walked across it on a dare . . .

WATTS: Oh, I didn't mind it so much.

FF: You crossed it?

WATTS: Yes, I walked across even before the sides were on it.

FF: You must not have acrophobia.

WATTS: oh, yes, I do! I get a feeling of vertigo, to a point, but the bridge didn't worry me. I know that it had been put up by first rate engineers. And really, if the crew is going to work on it, you have to show them that you're also willing.

FF: Frank Marshall mentioned that the 'life raft scene' will be one to watch for in this film. can you tell us anything about that?

WATTS: I don't think I should elaborate too much. It is quite dramatic -I don't think the audience should get any preconceived ideas about it. Suffice to say, what Frank says is correct; it is all actual, real, it is not done with miniatures. It's quite a heartstopper.

FF: Quite a bit of the film consists of interiors (of 18 weeks shooting, only four were on location). Were there any particular problems you ran into with interior filming? Any sets that are noteworthy, like the Well of Souls in the first film?

WATTS: we built a lot of big sets. Everything worked really very well. They were highly intricate, most of the sets had built-in mechanical effects within the construction of the set.

FF: Rather than using an insert or other photographic effect?

WATTS: Yes, although there are certain overlays in some of the scenes. One always hopes that when the audience sees tne film, they'll go unnoticed - if they don't see them, it means they are totally successful. They become integral, natural, not something recognizable as "laid-in" afterwards.

FF: Did the overlays and other effects require any innovations or were there techniques available?

WATTS: There was a certain amount of innovation on this movie. I don't think there has been any Lucas film production yet where we don't do something that hasn't been done before.

FF: Can you mention anything specific?

WATTS: It would be difficult. Let's say there is a lot of intricate work in the sets which may be apparent. The sets are extremely atmospheric and very complicated but they worked very well.

FF: There was some additional location work in the U.S., at Hamilton Air Force Base, but which only involved a day or two . . .

WATTS: Hamilton was a planned specific location. We dressed the base to be Shanghai Airport, 1935.

FF: Did it require locating some vintage aircraft?

WATTS: we had one specific "picture" plane, a late 20's Ford Trimotor.

FF: Any funny letters on the tail' (The seaplane featured in Raiders sported the identification marking OB-CPO, a tip of the hat to another Lucas epic).

WATTS: There are letters, but these are there for a reason - not an injoke at all, though if you look carefully, you'll certainly see one "in-joke" for the fans. But, I won't tell you where it is . . .

FF: Another U.S. location was the American river near Placerville in Northern California. What was that utilized for?

WATTS: we did part of the life raft sequence on that river I can tell you one thing about that sequence - it was shot on three different continents, Europe, Asia and the U.S.

FF: Could you comment on why Lucas and Spielberg seem to attract the finest technical talent in the industry? Oscar/award winning craftsmen from diverse areas of the industry have congregated at Lucasfilm.

WATTS: Any production company that produces films which get the kind of exposure that Lucasfilm has gathered is obviously attractive to any artist. After all, the technicians on a film are creative as well as being technically skilled. Secondly, it is a good company to work for - these are not financial considerations I'm talking about - it is a company that fosters talent brings talent out, gives creative people the chance to create. Steven, as a director, is a most exhilarating person to work for. I mean, he's magic, an instinctive director This, to any creative technical person is a Wonderful quality. Both he and George have an enormous enthusiasm, an appreciation of good technical ability and creativity Put them together and you have a creative "force" second to none which is extremely attractive to other creative people. Given their amalgamation of creative talent and add to it the big talents of these other individuals and I think you generate something that is electrical that is exciting.

FF: And rare . . .

WATTS: And rare. I feel it. These are the kinds of movies you can work on twenty hours a day and not feel tired of it because the exhilaration carries you through.

FF: You seem to be saying there's no one else you'd rather work for.

WATTS: No, there isn't - I'd like to be a tenth as good as they are. We all aspire to excellence. FF: Now that this project is almost comple ed could you tell us what your plans are?

WATTS: Well, I have a lot of irons in the fire, as Lucas is not planning to make a film in the immediate future. I'm going to go off on my own to try and do something, though it will be a little smaller, perhaps more about people and less about action. Not that I'm tired of the action films but everybody needs a slight change of pace. But the last nine years have been a marvelous experience. I feel as if I'd pulled the handle on the dollar slot machine in the main casino at the MGM Grand and up came the four bars the jackpot in the form of that first job with Star Wars.
It's been that good.

Interview by Jessie Horsting
Fastastic Films, 1984