Martin Campbell Reveals Secrets Behind 'Cleaner' and His Iconic Bond Legacy!

Martin Campbell, having steered not just one but two crucial installments of the James Bond series, “GoldenEye” and “Casino Royale,” has undeniably etched himself into the action movie cosmos permanently. Yet, his solid, understated talent that graced projects like “The Mask of Zorro,” two adaptations of “Edge of Darkness,” and “Memory,” has positioned him as a versatile force in Hollywood for over five decades.

Campbell’s latest film, “Cleaner,” leverages his considerable experience as a purveyor of thrills. In it, Daisy Ridley plays a former soldier-turned-window washer enlisted to defeat a radical eco-terrorist group that takes over an energy company’s corporate headquarters after discovering that her disabled brother is among their hostages. Despite bristling at comparisons of the film to “Die Hard,” Campbell delivers a literal high-wire act of suspense that required Ridley to perform a majority of her own bone-crunching stunts even as he most heavily leaned on her acting muscles to create a desperate, vivid (if foul-mouthed) portrait of heroism under hard circumstances.

Prior to the debut of “Cleaner” this coming Friday, Campbell engaged in an interview with EbMaster, where they discussed the distinct difficulties of the movie within the context of Campbell’s esteemed career. Not only did they touch upon the financial and practical hurdles of filming a tale set on the 50th floor of a building, exteriorly, but the director also reminisced about some of his past successes, even those he declined three times initially. Offering insights gleaned from his experiences in the unpredictable world of showbiz, he shared his hard-earned thoughts on triumph and setback.

Not counting your TV work, I think that “Cleaner” is your 20th feature film as a director.

God, is it really? You know more than I do, Todd.

For good or bad, did it feel that way?

Not at all, I hope you understand my point. Due to the time gaps between movies, it’s not like we can accumulate them in a way. At times, I’m taken aback when an old film I barely remember making resurfaces, and I think, “Oh dear, I had completely forgotten about it.

This film has sort of a “Die Hard” vibe. Did you look at this film as a containment thriller or a way to exercise your talents in a limited space?

Well, no. I mean, I can name you 20 films that take place on a plane, for example, [but] no one will ever equate one with the other. Because “Die Hard” was such a terrific movie, so anybody in a skyscraper — in our case, a cleaner up against eco-terrorists — obviously there’s a similarity. But actually the story is very different, and it was a page turner for me. What was interesting for me apart from the Daisy part was the eco-terrorist thing and the coup within that terrorist organization, which is very unusual. And the relationship between Daisy and her brother was different, so in many ways very different from “Die Hard,” but architecturally, of course, it’s similar.

You mentioned the eco-terrorism in the film. How difficult was it to ensure that you might not inadvertently vilify activism for what’s a really pressing social issue right now?

At present, environmental issues are extremely important, particularly in America where President Trump seems to be pushing it aside. However, what’s intriguing is that eco-activists can be seen as the ‘heroes’ in this context, and they fall into two main groups. One group advocates peaceful protests but draws the line at violence; threats are acceptable but no lives should be endangered. The other group is more radical, pushing for extreme measures. This dynamic creates a gripping narrative that once started, it seldom slows down.

The action in this film is really visceral.

Daisy handled the majority of tasks independently. In fact, the actress working alongside her was a stunt performer. Typically, a stand-in is required, but this time, things were different – Daisy excelled remarkably in all aspects, even when it came to potentially risky scenes.

How dependent is the success of those scenes on the actor being willing to participate? Are you a good enough filmmaker that you could still make it look as intense even Daisy had refused?

It’s advisable to employ an actor whenever feasible, as viewers might observe a duplicate and appreciate the authenticity of the acting and action. Additionally, actors offer flexibility during filming since there’s no need to modify shooting styles.

I imagine that this film, as handsome as it is, may have cost a little less than some of those big studio films you’ve made.

It certainly did.

What does making films with bigger resources teach you when you come to a project where they’re a little bit more limited?

To put it simply, this production faced a challenge: The scenes required filming from high up on buildings, which is usually restricted and expensive. So, how did they manage to shoot this on a tight budget? They had numerous discussions about how to make it economically viable, especially since the main character spends most of her outdoor time hundreds of feet above the ground. One solution was creatively designing the set for the window-washing cradle, constructing multiple levels of windows instead of building a large set with an actual cradle that could move up and down as desired. This limitation actually forced them to use techniques they might not have needed on a larger production, but the results were just as effective.

This film follows “Dirty Angels,” starring Eva Green, and it follows “The Protégé” with Maggie Q. Is there a reason that stories about female bad asses seem to have inspired your creativity recently?

In a different wording: “Indeed not. Regarding the movie ‘Dirty Angels,’ I felt that the use of a female team was logically sound, given the societal treatment of women as inferior in Afghanistan and their traditional attire like the hijab. If it were a group of male Marines, they wouldn’t have been able to pull it off. The script was always intended for a woman, and selecting projects based on female leads isn’t intentional.

What conversations did you have with Daisy about what you wanted her to bring to the role that you wanted to amplify once she got onscreen?

We frequently discussed her bond with her brother since it’s essentially her only significant relationship aside from Taz, which is a complex one for them. To clarify, Daisy is a multi-faceted actress, so it was primarily about her ability to physically carry out the necessary actions in this role.

You’ve talked about how you were not right the right director for “Green Lantern.” What lessons have you taken from the films that you’re still proud of today?

Interestingly, it’s the unconventional projects that you undertake that seem to stand out. For instance, I worked on a movie for HBO titled “Cast a Deadly Spell” in the early ’90s, which was an unusual blend of HP Lovecraft and Humphrey Bogart. Initially, I felt uncertain about my suitability for this project and even questioned whether I should be involved. However, my partner at the time encouraged me to take it on regardless. To my surprise, it turned out exceptionally well and achieved great success. This experience taught me that sometimes it’s wise to embrace something intriguing, captivating, and new. As for myself, I have always been a fan of thrillers. The original “Die Hard” is, in my opinion, the epitome of an entertaining thriller, although I’m not confusing it with “Cleaner” at the moment. Growing up in the ’60s, I was captivated by movies like “The Manchurian Candidate,” John Frankenheimer’s film “Seven Days in May,” and “The Wild Bunch.” These classic late ’60s films remain close to my heart.

When you helmed “GoldenEye,” it was not just a rebirth for the franchise, but an incredible calling card for you to showcase all your filmmaking skills.

The ironic twist is that the movie I landed this role in was based on another film that didn’t earn a single penny. In Australia, I worked on a production titled “No Escape,” and I can’t think of many other people I’d call famous apart from Ray Liotta who were part of it. The film was completed, released, but unfortunately, it didn’t make any money at all. Surprisingly enough, this unsuccessful movie became my ticket to securing the job for directing Bond, as John Calley, who was running United Artists at the time, saw “No Escape” and thought I would be perfect for the role.

The next film you made was “The Mask of Zorro.” Did you feel like that was really you getting to capitalize on the momentum of the success of “GoldenEye?”

Funny thing, I declined the offer for “Zorro” on three occasions. The reason was that Robert Rodriguez was initially set to direct the film, but he withdrew due to budget constraints – specifically a $47 million budget which he felt wasn’t enough. Despite being asked three times, I refused each time because I wasn’t fond of the script, despite its strong storyline. Later on, Steven Spielberg convinced me that I was the second coming, and I agreed. The moment I made the decision, I sat in a restaurant with my agent and lawyer, feeling remorseful and saying to myself, “This is the biggest mistake I’ve ever made by accepting this movie offer.

Do you feel like that film came together?

Despite acquiring additional writers and other adjustments, there was a point during pre-production when TriStar Pictures’ president Calley, who had recently replaced Mark Canton, strongly disliked the movie concept. He had multiple reasons for not wanting to proceed with the project, some of which were due to inheriting it, and because he was my superior on “GoldenEye,” communication ceased for about 10 days. Eventually, we received the go-ahead, and I asked him why he approved this movie. He replied that even if it turned out to be a failure, he could still secure $45 million in foreign sales. So, we moved forward and completed the production.

When time came to make “Casino Royale,” did you feel more confident coming back to the franchise, or was there enough unpredictability with a new Bond actor that it felt like a different kind of tightrope walk?

In “Casino,” we were significantly boosted by Paul Haggis’ initial script draft. Paul is an exceptional writer, and he managed to complete it in about five to six weeks, which was a tremendous aid. He truly gave the story its foundation. Additionally, Barbara Broccoli’s insightful decision played a crucial role: It was her who strongly advocated for Daniel Craig. She was the one who wanted him most, and she was spot-on. This combination, along with adopting a more raw, realistic approach to the project, is what I believe made that film exceptional.

After making so many films, is there an alchemy that you can identify where you can make a movie great with a star even if the script’s not great, or if the star is not great, but the script is?

I don’t usually perceive it in that manner. You see, filmmaking is a challenging endeavor, especially when you’re dealing with extensive sequences. In such cases, you just grit your teeth and plow ahead. Our primary focus was simply getting the project completed and working as hard as we could to make it the best it could be. Whether it would turn out to be a good movie, I had no way of knowing at the time. For instance, Mads Mikkelsen was exceptional, Eva Green was perfect – truly outstanding. Sometimes, pieces just seem to fall into place, and your cast aligns perfectly. You get lucky. That was one such case where everything came together for that film. However, I never know until the end of a movie if it’ll be any good. Additionally, in that movie, there were three significant card-playing scenes which I was concerned about, fearing they might become tedious or fail to engage the audience. Fortunately, with actors like Daniel and Mads, you’re completely captivated by them.

What is the first inkling when you know you’ve made a good movie, that you’ve pulled it off?

Nowadays, movies are pieced together progressively, and I rarely watch the initial assembly. Instead, I focus on reels one and two, then examine every take to make it tolerable for me to watch. A movie is at its worst during the assembly process – it’s quite disheartening. However, this is when I believe we might have something worthwhile. As we progress, you may have seen edited snippets because the editor is working simultaneously, which gives us a sense of whether it will be good or not.

Are there films that you’ve made that you feel deserve more appreciation than they’ve received?

It seems to me that “Memory” serves as an intriguing example. Critics weren’t fond of it, yet it shares the same narrative as its European counterpart. Personally, I believe our ending is superior, and overall, I consider it a more skillfully crafted film. However, the criticism it received was quite harsh, while the reviews for the European version were quite positive. This might be the only instance where I disagree with the critics’ assessments. As for the films I’ve made that didn’t turn out well, I can’t argue with those criticisms. I have no qualms about admitting their flaws.

This interview was edited and condensed.

2025-02-21 22:48

Martin Campbell Reveals Secrets Behind ‘Cleaner’ and His Iconic Bond Legacy!