Superheroism is serious business, or at least that’s what the rubble-colored glower-fests clogging cineplexes these days would have us believe. But director David F. Sandberg has appreciated his tenure at the helm of the “Shazam” franchise specifically for how it offers a counterpoint to the usual gloom-charged intensity of the DC Cinematic Universe. When mild-mannered teen Billy Batson (Asher Angel) gains the powers of strength, speed, and flight (not to mention transforming into the adult body of Zachary Levi), he’s as psyched as any other kid would be, and the film emulates his enthusiasm with a juvenile spirit fueled by a diet of Gatorade, Doritos, and Skittles. A shade or two more immature than Spider-Man, Shazam and his team of super-pals are mostly in it for a good time, and the same goes for Sandberg.
A Swedish-born native of the horror genre, he got his start making crafty microbudget shorts under the online alias “ponysmasher,” one of which caught the industry’s eye and blossomed into his debut feature “Lights Out.” Dizzying box-office returns got him in good with Blumhouse, where he pulled the same magic trick again by conjuring a huge payday for “Annabelle: Creation,” his path to the uppermost echelons of the studio system paved before him. While he’s gotten a lot out of his sojourn through the big-budget woods — all-purpose directing advice from Helen Mirren, for one — he’s now looking forward to returning to his roots. His playful wickedness comes through in “Shazam” in the occasional demonic unicorn impalement, but he can only stay away from blood for so long.
Chatting with The Playlist, Sandberg discussed the tonal limbo occupied by its body-swapping premise, his relative freedom within the confines of the DCU, and the potential future of Hollywood’s most happy-go-lucky guy in a cape and tights.
One thing that makes “Shazam” distinct from many other superhero franchises is its placement smack in the middle of childhood and adulthood. How do you manage that balance of PG-13-ness? It seems to come through most strongly in the approach to violence and comedy.
You can do a lot with PG-13. You need some real threats and a real sense of danger to get invested in the story, so yeah, you have to have some situations where it truly feels like people could get hurt or even die. As a kid, those were the ones I loved, like when “Raiders of the Lost Ark” actually gets a little scary with the faces melting. I was frightened, but mostly I just thought it was awesome. So in PG-13, you can imply a lot of things and stay within those parameters.
In terms of working with these adult actors portraying kids, what’s the key to conveying that through performance? Are there mannerisms that keep actors from defaulting back to being a grown-up?
So much of it comes down to casting, finding people who have that youthful vibe, like Zach [Levi] and Meagan [Good]. I was actually talking to Helen Mirren about this while we were shooting one day because she’s worked with so many great directors and had all these once-in-a-lifetime experiences; I just wanted to learn everything from her I could. And she basically said, “There are really only four directions you can give to an actor: Faster, Slower, More, or Less.” That applies to the kid-adult balance, too. You tone it down here; you play it up there. It’s mostly trusting the actors because they all know these characters, and they know what they’re doing.
Is it intimidating to give direction to someone of Helen Mirren’s stature? I feel like she must have, I don’t know, an aura.
It’s all just explaining what you have in your head, not so much telling people to do stuff. You’ve got an idea, and you try to communicate it as directly and in as few words as you can. And I think I succeeded on that front because I saw some behind-the-scenes thing where Helen was like, “David? He’s a very, very quiet director.” That’s me being efficient!
The “Shazam” movies are budgeted at a much larger scale than your earlier horror movies. How do you find working with this much CGI? You hear some directors talk about the tactile part of the job being lost when you’re surrounded by blue screens and tennis balls on sticks.
You try to keep that to a minimum as best you can. I wanted to avoid the tennis balls on sticks when possible, so for most of the monsters, we’ve got performers in tight spandex suits. We found some really tall guys to approximate the minotaurs and cyclopses, so they can interact with things and actors. That helps a lot, to have something on set, even if you’re going to replace it in post. The thing I like about CG is that you can really go wild with the design because you don’t have to worry about the logistics of fitting a guy into a costume. You can make it look however you like, and that’s a lot of fun. “What’s the badass version of a unicorn look like?”
The design of the roided-up Greek mythological creatures reminded me of a line of action figures from the ‘90s, though I can’t remember what they were called. I don’t suppose you have the answer to this?
I think I know what you’re talking about — they were really muscular and element-themed. But either way, that’s the whole idea, the feeling of bashing your toys together on a much bigger scale and with a whole lot more money behind it. And there are also definitely some things where we’re doing little homages to Ray Harryhausen and his creature designs in stop-motion. He’s cool.
Speaking of influences, it seems like a lot of the key reference points for this movie don’t come from the superhero genre.
In the very early stages, we were looking at the “New 52” comic books because the first movie is pretty much adapted from the origin story those issues gave Shazam. More comics have come out since then, so we looked at going down that path, but that involves a little more fantasy than I wanted from the second movie. They’re going through all these portals to different far-off lands, and I wanted him on Earth. So the question becomes what we can have him do in our world, and that leads to the concept of the powers gained from these mythological figures turning out to be stolen, and the original owners want them back. You understand the anger of these goddesses because they were wronged. Shazam didn’t do it, and we may not agree with their methods, but we see where they’re coming from. Those are the best villains, the ones who kind of have a point where they’re not just evil to be evil.
Making a franchise movie, you’re made to serve a lot of different masters — to this series in specific, to the DCU in general, to the studio. “Shazam” isn’t as enmeshed in continuity as Superman, for example, but how close to free rein are you getting at this level of the industry?
That’s the thing I really like about the Shazam character, that he’s somewhat separate from the other guys in the Justice League. We don’t have to take everything that’s happened in every movie into account while still having the ability to play in this world that’s already been created. Maybe we get to use some of the characters if we want. But no one’s handing down orders to put this or that in the movie, to cover this or that plot point as part of a bigger plan. These movies exist as their own thing to enjoy, without expecting you to have seen lots of other stuff to keep up. The first few minutes of this new one give a little bit of a recap, just the basics of the kids turning into superheroes.
With James Gunn taking over the DC movie world, it seems like he’s keen on renovating the place. Do you have any sense of where this leaves “Shazam,” the character or the series?
I don’t know about the full-scale plans, but they keep telling me that there’s nothing in “Shazam” that conflicts with what they’ve got in mind for the future. So maybe, yeah, there could be more “Shazam.” But as for me? I just did two of these in a row, so I need a little break. But if they want to do more, I’m more than happy to talk.
There was talk about your script titled “The Culling” getting off the ground a few years ago. Are you going to revisit that one or a different horror project?
I don’t know exactly what my next move is because we’ve got a few things at various stages of development. “The Culling” is one of them. We’ll see which one comes together first; that’s the approach you have to have. You get a lot of things going and then move on to whichever one can get the green light first.
Is there a desire to get back to basics, get your hands back in the dirt?
Yeah, just because it’s been so long. I’ve been working on “Shazam” since 2017, something like that, multi-year projects. You just want to mix it up.
“Shazam! Fury of the Gods” arrives in theaters on March 17.