I feel its time to update the standard rules for what not to do in a horror film. Along with not going into the dark basement to check out the mysterious sound and not having per-marital teenage sex in a tent or cabin, we should now officially add not to hitchhike whilst secluded in a remote, unfamiliar land. Going all the way back to THE HITCHER (1986) and overseas to HOSTEL (2005), the ground work has been set for Mick Taylor to put the proverbial nail in the coffin of making this officially a new rule.
We first met good ol’ Mick Taylor, played by John Jarratt, back in 2005 with WOLF CREEK, a film that introduced audiences to an altogether new kind of serial killer. Allegedly inspired by true events — therefore making the film all that much more terrifying — WOLF CREEK unleashed one of the most refreshingly entertaining horror movie villains in years. Devilishly cunning and sadistic, yet playful and humorous, Mick Taylor is a slasher that brings some of what made Freddy Krueger a household name to a monster based in reality.
In true horror franchise fashion, WOLF CREEK leaves the audience with an open ending, ambiguously leaving the fate of Mick Taylor uncertain. As should only be expected, WOLF CREEK 2 opens more or less where the previous film left off. For those familiar with the first film, this continuity is upheld by a comment from a police officer insinuating Mick’s truck looks like it was driven off a cliff. If this doesn’t make sense to you, that tells me you need to rush out and rent WOLF CREEK. Honestly, you won’t regret the $3 or $4 investment.
Director and co-writer Greg McLean, also known for killer ‘gator flick ROGUE (2007), knows how to make genre fans happy, bringing back one of the first truly popular horror villains in recent memory since the heyday on the mid-late 80s. McLean’s direction along with Jarratt’s sense of humor and uncanny ability to charm or frighten the audience on the turn of a dime, makes for quite an unnerving ride through the Australian outback. One moment Mick’s friendly and funny, in a backwoods redneck sort of way, and the next thing you know he’s deadly serious, straight-faced and ready to snap. Armed with two trust weapons of choice, a large hunting knife and a scoped hunting rifle, Mick once again sets out for tourist season in the hot, dry Australian desert.
WOLF CREEK 2, for those who may be concerned, is not the same film rehashed purely for box office profits. No, this second installment does have a decidedly different feel, where its necessary. What remains the same is Mick’s twisted take on being a civilized enforcer of decent human character, and of course his trademark laugh. Once again, you’ll know what I mean the moment you hear that chuckle. For a deviant murderer, Mick is surprisingly patient and courteous, that is until you cross him or offend his sense of civilized behavior. However, one of the things that has changed with WOLF CREEK 2 is Mick’s level of patient and tolerance. Can we really blame him, though? After all that those ungrateful tourists did to him and his property in the first film, how could a man not be a tad short-fused?
With this subtle but apparent shift in Mick’s mood, WOLF CREEK 2 does lose just a touch of the charm we experienced in the first film. As much as we love Mick for who he is, the added bitterness to his character and urgency to his need to fulfill his violent nature does detract a touch from the thrill. Then again, what charm is lost here is made up for by Mick’s increased ingenuity in torturing and terrorizing his victims. Part of Mick’s appeal is that he’s smarter than the average hillbilly persona he conveys, making him all the more dangerous. WOLF CREEK 2 focuses more on the cat and mouse aspect of Mick’s relationship with his victim, the thrill of the chase, so to speak, whereas the first film spent more time introducing us to what makes Mick tick.
WOLF CREEK 2 still maintains that wonderfully demented sense of humor, but draws back on the laughter a bit from the first film. Mick just seems a level or two more serious about his work now, which means bad things for the hitchhiking foreign couple who have the misfortune of meeting Mick. Where so many slasher films focus on body counts and creatively excessive gore — not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that — WOLF CREEK 2 pays more attention to the details, the subtle nuances of deceiving, terrorizing, capturing and torturing one’s victims. Where’s the fun in simply killing your victims the first chance you get?
WOLF CREEK 2 is currently available through Video On Demand and will open in U.S. theaters on May 16th, 2014.
From the producer who brought you THE WOMAN IN BLACK and LET ME IN comes the unnerving tale of THE QUIET ONES. Tucked away in an estate outside of London, Professor Coupland along with a team of university students conduct an “experiment” on Jane Harper, a young girl who harbors unspeakable secrets. What dark forces they uncover are more terrifying than any of them expected.
Prior to the film’s April 25th release, WAMG sat down with Jared Harris, who plays Professor Joseph Coupland, in a small roundtable to discuss horror films, fight scenes, and watching his own movies with an audience. Check it out below.
Inspired by true events, the film stars Jared Harris (Mad Men and Sherlock Homes: A Game of Shadows), Sam Claflin (The Hunger Games: Catching Fire), Olivia Cooke (Bates Motel), and is directed by John Pogue from a screenplay by Craig Rosenberg and Oren Moverman and John Pogue, and based on a screenplay by Tom de Ville.
Let’s start with your character, where did you gather inspiration from, and did you do any research on the Philip experiment?
JARED HARRIS : Yes. You know, it’s an imaginative exercise when you construct the character. In terms of the look of the character, we looked at a lot of old stuff, pictures, from the 60s, and we figured this guy, this conception of who he was, would have been concretized in the 60s. We sort of settled on Serge Gainsourg, which is the idea behind the suits, and the constant smoking, and the cigarettes. And then he fancied himself as a revolutionary, so there was a hint of Lenin in the beard. So we gave him hints of Lenin in the beard, and stuff like that. And then, in terms of – the Philip Experiment I became aware of it through John Pague, and it was very interesting up until a limited point. What was interesting was what didn’t happen, and the reason why it didn’t happen. The guy who ran that experiment was a responsible human being, and whenever anything sinister or potentially threatening happen, he ceased the sessions and send everybody home. Obviously that is not that good for a horror movie, and the writers essentially saw that experiment – liked the premise of it to prove through scientific method, that there was a different source, a human source for the supernatural, and then use that for the basis for the story. Once they started to – once they said “what if,” and they started to construct the fictional story, they pulled from a lot of different sources. So the other stuff, I looked at just as much, the group psychology experiments that were done in American universities, Stanford and stuff like that. Because there was a strong element of that in a certain point of the story where you start to think “maybe that’s what he’s doing, he’s really fucking with all of these people” and he’s studying their behavior.
When did you first meet director John Pogue?
JARED HARRIS : I met John out here, and got sent the script by Simon Oates. Read it, and then discussed it with him, and then he felt comfortable with some of the suggestions, and my thoughts on the script, and then he put me together with John Pogue. Really what it was – you know the tricky thing about the story being set in the 70s – at that time there are a lot of experiments going on in Paris, psychology departments in universities, it was a legitimate form of study. The problem is that, they seem crazy now. They are largely being discredited, and no one has those departments going in universities. So really it was trying to find a way that we could use that, but it had to seem still relevant or possible. So, we sort of shifted the goal to how he was conduct the experiment, how he was trying to activate, olivia’s character to more of a psychological approach. And it was really – the whole thing was a rewrite of the character to put the whole focus on that.
Do you feel as though your character put obsession over redemption, or was it arrogance?
JARED HARRIS : A vendetta on his part, he believed he could – he believed he was capable of saving his child, and that his wife’s overreliance and belief on a religious aspect and that he was some how he was transgressing in a sacrilegious way is what prevented him from being able to cure the child. So, in a way, he blamed her and he blamed God, it was more of a vendetta that he had been hurt so he wanted to hurt back, he wanted to even the score if you like.
What is it about the supernatural that makes for a great film?
JARED HARRIS : It’s – we don’t know – supernatural stories are normally connected to the idea of there being an afterlife because of their focus on ghosts, and devils, and demons, and sort of religious aspect like that. And we really don’t know, it goes back to our very early primal understanding or questions we would have. It’s a rationale that is adopted about – human beings are naturally disposed of trying to come up with an explanation for everything no matter how sparse the information that you have, to give you an explanation. We have come up with this explanation. It’s on some level encouraging, we don’t want to believe that once we die it’s all over, but at the same time it’s terrifying. I think the appeal of horror movies – I think we as people, as human beings we need to exercise our emotions. I think it is a safe way of exercising terror and fear, without having to risk anything significant. You are going to come out of it alive at the end. To me, it’s like taking a roller coaster ride, it’s two minutes of – it’s fun because you know it’s safe. It’s the difference of knowing being on a roller coaster ride and on a plane that drops 20,000 feet, you know?
Are you a fan of the genre? Do you have any favorites?
JARED HARRIS : Tons of them, tons of them. You know horror is interesting because it covers such a huge spectrum. If you think about it JAWS is a horror movie; Alien is a horror movie; I thought THE OTHERS was a great horror movie. ROSEMARY’S BABY, the [Roman] Polanski films… they’re all horror movies in different ways. It’s a huge, huge banner if you like them. I mean, I love them. You know JAWS. I still… when I go into the ocean, you hear that fucking music. I remember after seeing that movie – when you go into a swimming pool, you still look behind you. You know?
Do you have a favorite in those sub-genres?
JARED HARRIS : I feel that the films that stay with me are the ones that get into your head. Their sort of visceral. I don’t like violence porn. I saw HOSTEL, and I had to take about four showers after, just to get experience – it really upset me so much. I have to say it was brilliantly constructed in terms of script, the way it slowly unpacked the mystery at the heart of it, when you finally get to what it was about, it was just the most disgusting aspect of human depravity. So I take psychological horror films, that’s about my limit.
After you punched Pete Campbell on Mad Men, it was very interesting to see you and Sam get into it.
JARED HARRIS : Yeah! I got him with a right hook. I got Pete with a left I got Sam with a – actually Sam’s was a sucker punch, that was actually a topic of conversation – in the script it said – for it to be completely believable we have to get into one of those things were people are holding you back, otherwise this guy is going to be beat me up. And it is always the guy who – whenever you see these things where two people started to fight the one person who gets in the way of it gets punched, or the person who gets suckered punch, the person who is the pacifier.
Where do you think ‘The Riches’ would have gone had it stayed on air?
JARED HARRIS : Yeah during the writer’s strike. What was supposed to happen, what was explained to me I sort of start something up with Minnie Driver’s character, and take over the group through her, and he comes back, and there is sort of the big confrontation, and he fucks me up. But I was using the kid, and Minnie.
Where did you find the balance in your character, because he makes a few different emotional transitions throughout the film?
JARED HARRIS : Well, I think he was genuine in his belief that he could help her. At the same time I don’t know – once he started to get results out of her, he probably would have kept her in there for a really long time. So it’s kind of a balance between these opposing forces within your nature, within somebody’s nature. There is an altruistic reason behind it. At some point – I read a biography about Robert Oppenhimer, and in the way they were describing the Manhattan experiment, project, one of the things they were discussing was the possibility of once they set the chain reaction off, when would it stop. And there was a huge group of those scientists who thought that the chain reaction would continue until it ripped the atmosphere off the Earth and killed all life. They weren’t sure that it was going to happen, there was the possibility that it could, they still pushed the button, you know. There is a certain element, once your on a train, once your set on one of these goals, I think it’s hard to get off, but I think what happened to him was that initially he believed he could help her and cure her. But once he got these results from her, I don’t think he would have let her be on the train, I think he would let her out. And that’s a question of which things would be appropriate for the audience to see, it’s part of the structure of the story. There is also an element in the script that is still a little bit there, but there is a kind of a you quite weren’t sure if there was a fatherly thing, but there might have been a sexual attraction that he had to her as well, which was obviously a whole other lever of freaky in the script. That is what I liked about it, it was playing on a lot of different feelings, and a lot of different emotions, it was finding different ways of making you uncomfortable.
Regarding the location, and the house you filmed in, was the vibe you felt?
JARED HARRIS : The Victorian house was attached to this business center. The business center had been built in the 60s or 70s, and the whole place had been abandoned for about 50 years. To get to the Victorian house, you had to talk through this really weird sort of business center with this stinky rotting carpet. You kind of walk through – “what did they do here,” and you sort of felt it was some sort of strange scientific part where they done anal experiments. So that was actually a brilliant way of getting yourself into the mood. That went you get yourself onto the set, and open this door, suddenly you’re in this Victorian house that they had attached to the back of it. But once you’re in there, there are about 40 to 50 different people there at one time. But they did a great job in terms of production, set, dressing, art department, and stuff like that. You could find rooms to hide in.
Do you ever watch your own movies on your own with audience, especially for a movie like this.
JARED HARRIS : I’m seeing this tonight. I saw Lincoln with an audience. I saw SHERLOCK HOLMES [GAME OF SHADOWS]. I mean, it all depends. It’s difficult to go to the Cineplex, because you look like your star fucking yourself. It’s just fucking awful. I can’t do that. It’s really just embarrassing. So, that’s pretty awkward. Normally you see the reviews at premieres, and stuff like that. I’m looking forward to see it [THE QUIET ONES] with an audience.
Jane Harper is not the only thing that needs saving in LIONSGATE ‘s new 70’s horror film THE QUIET ONES.
Inspired by true events, THE QUIET ONES tells the story of Professor Joseph Coupland and his team of researchers as they attempt to cure an abandoned foster child named Jane who has been surrounded by strange and alarming behavior her entire life. As their experiments begin to unfold, they recruit a young camera man named Sam to document their findings. What they don’t realize is that they may be dealing with something bigger than mental psychosis. They may be dealing with the supernatural.
Director John Pogue set out to build on the screenplay THE PHILIP EXPERIMENT, written by Tom de Ville, and incorporate the fascination of parapsychology and social scientific research of the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s with a horror film.
‘The Philip Experiment was an experiment conducted in Toronto in the 1970’s where researchers set out to prove that the phenomenon of poltergeists are just manifestations of emotional energy. The group of parapsychologists were testing the theory that by combining their thoughts on the idea of Philip, a ghost that they had invented, and concentrating together for long periods of time, they could manifest the make-believe ghost in physical form, or at least spawn his generate his energy for communication purposes. Although the ghost never did appear, they did begin to experience knocking, table shakes, and even the table beginning to hover. Although the documented part of their experiments, no solid proof was found to support or disprove their findings, especially since no real tests were conducted, or controls set. Just a group of researchers huddled over a table. The experiments were deemed inconclusive.
It seems like a great idea to play off of due to the heightened curiosity of the supernatural in the academic world during this time period, along with all of the other various experiments that were being conducted, but somewhere along the way they missed the mark. The film didn’t really have an area of focus, leading to long, dragging moments that were only interrupted by cheap jump scares. They only loosely talk about their experiments, so we’re stuck just watching a silly spinning light as Professor Coupland talks to Jane, or Professor Coupland strapping her down to a table that seems to be electrified. When they all finally come to their senses and realize that the occult, and that there are supernatural forces are at play they briefly touch on the real back story, and within fifteen minutes the movie is over. Talk about the paranormal stuff, or the experiments, or anything else! Pick something and focus on it so we are made to care. Oh, and if you blink you will completely miss the reason why this film is called THE QUIET ONES. Apparently, that was the nickname that the group has obtained on campus because they won’t talk about their research outside of the group. This is brought up in a very quick scene, in passing, and there is no way to figure it out on our own since they are in isolation during the entire film, and have zero scenes where they socialize with others. How do we know they’re quiet about what they do if you don’t show them in a silent situation?
I don’t know if I’ve shared my rant on jump scares in a while, so if you’ve heard it before please indulge me. A jump scare or two in a film is fun. After the scare, it generally makes us all giggle and it lightens the mood allowing for us to go on a bit of an emotional rollercoaster. As they say, “You can’t have the good without the bad.” The same goes for the placement of comedy in horror, which is why I tend to gravitate towards the scary movies of the 70’s and 80’s. Having said that, a film that solely relies on jump scares to frighten their audience are terrible. You’re just taking cheap shots at your audience. This usually happens for one of two reasons. Reason 1 : You have a terrible script. You are unable, or just don’t care enough to write a story that has the ability to horrify an audience. Either that, or you only realize during editing that something is seriously missing and decide to fill the void with an abundance of meaningless scares. Reason 2 : You think that horror fans are naive, and this is all we are looking for in a film. Wrong. In the case of this film, I’m leaning towards the theory that they realized that the story was flat, and decided to spice it up. Unfortunately, scaring the shit out of the audience by basically yelling ‘BOO’ at them couldn’t disguise the mundane lag of the story.
Despite a lack of character development in the story, the acting in this film is quite enjoyable. Jared Harris gives a brilliant performance as Professor Joseph Coupland. His character shows a wide range of emotions and depth, and carries the audience through the movie. Olivia Cooke brings a likeablity to her disturbing character of Jane. Although we’ve seen the young girl in the white gown with dark hair a million times in horror films, I think she did a good job of making her character stand out. They did her character, as well as the other characters, an injustice by failing to explore them a bit further. Especially her character though. She does a great job making the audience care about her, despite knowing why. This is certainly more of a muted down role for Sam Claflin than we have seen in the past, and it suited him well. Coming off of movies such as THE HUNGER GAMES : CATCHING FIRE, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN : ON STRANGER TIDES, and SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN it was a smart move to pick a role where he took on a different type of character. I just really wish the story complimented all of their hard work.
They shot this film in both 35mm and 16mm, to differentiate between the narrative world, and the real-time world through the eyes of Sam as he filmed it. I actually enjoyed this. Although I think the fake reality horror shake-cam films are a bit played out, the look and feel of this felt true to the time period, and was rather inviting. If they would have stuck to this and beefed up the story without all the cheap scares, and cheesy ending I would be a happy camper. This had the potential to be a great horror film.
I really wanted to like this film, but THE QUIET ONES should really take a cue from its name and keep silent.
From the producer who brought you THE WOMAN IN BLACK and LET ME IN comes the unnerving tale of THE QUIET ONES. Tucked away in an estate outside of London, Professor Coupland along with a team of university students conduct an “experiment” on Jane Harper, a young girl who harbors unspeakable secrets. What dark forces they uncover are more terrifying than any of them expected.
This week, WAMG sat down with Olivia Cooke, who plays the disturbed Jane Harper, in a small roundtable to discuss the supernatural, ‘Bates Motel’, and her upcoming projects. According to Sam Claflin, she also played a bit of a prank on us by telling us a story about Jared Harris and a ‘goblin’ that she completely fabricated. She certainly is a lot of fun! Check it out below.
Inspired by true events, the film stars Jared Harris (Mad Men and Sherlock Homes: A Game of Shadows), Sam Claflin (The Hunger Games: Catching Fire), Olivia Cooke (Bates Motel), and is directed by John Pogue from a screenplay by Craig Rosenberg and Oren Moverman and John Pogue, and based on a screenplay by Tom de Ville.
Your character Jane is quite an interesting one to play. How did you get yourself in the mood to play such a complex character?
OLIVIA COOKE : It was disturbing how easy it was for me to, sort of, jump into that character for some reason. I was eighteen, and it was my first film, and I don’t really ever remember being method, or anything like that. I kind was like “Well, here it goes!” and the guys, who I was so nervous about working with made me feel so comfortable, and they were, kind of, going to extremes. So, I was like “Oh, well I’ll join the party! I’ll go to extremes as well!” I don’t really remember ever having to work myself into it. I remember jumping about getting the energy, getting the breath up, but that was about it.
Did you feel that it was sort of like playing a bunch of different characters, or did you view it as one character with different facets?
OLIVIA COOKE : I felt like it was a bunch of different characters, but in a host. She was manipulative. She was vulnerable. She’s like a teenage vixen. She’s naive, but she’s also very lovely, and sweet at the same time. It’s all of these different elements that help. That is Jane Harper, or it’s Evie. It just felt like they’re so compartmentalized that I just felt that that is her.
Horror films are generally known to have really fun sets, especially to keep things light. What did you guys do to unwind at the end of the night?
OLIVIA COOKE : I really wanted to make a musical. [Laughs] Me and Rory [Fleck-Byrne], we both started MOULIN ROUGE!, and we filmed it but Rory had his phone stolen. We had it on video. I was like [sings] “We should be lovers” and he was all [sings] “We can’t do that!”… the whole Ewan McGregor, Nicole Kidman duet. Sam was singing WEST SIDE STORY [sings] “When you’re a jet”…yeah. Then, I think at one point Rory tried to hypnotize Jared [Harris]. Me and Erin [Richards] kind of, there was a latch… Do you know the latch in my door? I’d pop up and go [sings] “Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy” [laughs] and then she would pop up and go “but here’s my number” and we would just do a little Carly Rae Jepsen. Yeah, that and musicals.
Was that lost footage as well, because that should be on a DVD somewhere?
OLIVIA COOKE : Rory sent them to me, but then I got a new phone, and he lost his phone. I’ve got pictures of me and Jared by our trailers jumping into the air, and he actually broke my toe because he was slow on the uptake. Like “Ok. After three” so I would jump on three, and he would jump on about five. So, I was coming down and he was just coming up, and I felt my toes go [with her hands, pushes her fingers up and back]. I mean, I don’t know if it was broken for sure, but it was black and blue, and it was huge. it was a fat toe.
Does pain like that bleed into your performance the next day when you have to be anguished, or anything like that?
OLIVIA COOKE : A bit. Yes. I was wincing a lot, and hobbling. Not really. I mean, you kind of lose it when you’re in that mode. When I was being burned, and when you’re doing all of these fight scenes, it’s only after that you’re like “Oww! I hurt!” In the moment you don’t care. You just go for it.
You and Sam [Claflin] have a really nice chemistry in the movie. Did you guys do anything to bond off-screen? How did that work out for you two?
OLIVIA COOKE : The first time I met Sam, Sam was already attached so he came into my final audition to test a few girls. It was kind of awkward sitting outside of the audition room. He was like “Hi. How are you? I’m… ” and I was like “[Whispers] Oh my god. I know… ” [Laughs] I was like “Oh my god. He’s talking to me!” and then, we went into the room and John was like – after we had done all of the scenes – he was like “Ok. I really want you to just scare him now.” so we did the scene, and I was like “Fuck. How am I going to scare him?” so I had to wait a long moment, and I held this stare, and then just let out this piercing scream, and he jumped about five feet onto this chair, and I was like “Ok. I got the part.” But no, we had two weeks of rehearsals before, so the five of us bonded. Yeah. It just happened. Me and Sam had really good chemistry anyway, so it was very easy. It was very natural.
The horror genre has been around for such a long time. Do you have any specific favorites? Either a favorite genre, or specific films?
OLIVIA COOKE : I love the supernatural ones, like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. I was convinced – I think I was fourteen or fifteen when I first watched it – and I was convinced that it was real. Two weeks later my friend was like “You know that was actually filmed in LA” and I was like “Oh. Ok.” I love THE WOMAN IN BLACK. I had gotten split up from my friend when we went to watch that at the cinema, and I had my scarf wrapped around my head like a turban. It was the worst, terrible night. It was so scary. What else? INSIDIOUS. I kind of love the theatrical time, like when they go into the other world. I loved all of those characters. It felt very – sort of like a circus.
Do you think you might have those same feelings when you watch this film with an audience at your premiere, or will the fact that you’re watching yourself take you out of it?
OLIVIA COOKE : Well, we had the premiere in London, and I had watched it previously, on my own with my agent, so I was like “Is this scary?” but my agent had his tie wrapped around his head – wrapped around his eyes, so I knew he was scared. I know all the jumps, and what’s going to happen. I’m watching me. I’m watching my performance like “What am I doing? This is awful. Stop doing that with your hand.” but seeing it with an audience and seeing them jumping, and their reactions, their screaming… it reassured me a lot that this is actually working.
Do you like to watch your performances? Jared was saying that he finds it, sometimes, strange. Do you like to watch your movies with an audience?
OLIVIA COOKE : I think, so far, all of the characters that I’ve played have been so far removed from me, like Emma from ‘Bates Motel’. It’s just not me, really. I mean, I’m a bit dorky like her, but what I saw in her I did not see in Jane Harper. I did not recognize myself. Especially the transformation that I went through. It kind feels like you’re watching a really close friend of yours, and you’re just like “Stop doing that! I wouldn’t do that if I were you.” It’s a bit strange, but also I think you need to watch your stuff in order to know “That didn’t quite work. Don’t do that next time.”. That sort of thing. If you do something with your face that you always do, that’s like a habit, then you know to train yourself not to do it.
Did this fall under the timeline of ‘Bates Motel’? Was this before or after? A Hiatus?
OLIVIA COOKE : It was before. This was filmed two years ago, and a month later… Was it a month? It was a month later that I got ‘Bates Motel’. I had just gotten my manager, and agent in America, and they sent me a tape for ‘Bates Motel’ a month later. I just got it offered off of a tape. I sent it over and got it.
Did you get to dig into ‘The Philip Experiment’ or the paranormal studies that this film is influenced by?
OLIVIA COOKE : Yeah. We definitely searched into it, but it’s so loosely inspired on ‘The Philip Experiment’. It just sparked the writers imagination. They took a lot of elements for different experiments of the time, but it’s a movie. You need to imagine all of these things, and you imagine it for yourself. The character of Jane – you see that character all of the time. In every horror movie there’s a girl in a white smock, and she’s got black hair. I wanted her to be as original as possible, even though she looks very non-original.
Jared was saying that the house that you guys filmed in, and the adjoining abandoned office building had this atmosphere like they used to do experiments there. What was the vibe that you got?
OLIVIA COOKE : Definitely. No, I definitely felt it. It had this very odd smell because… You know when you go into a house that’s not been lived in for a year? There’s definitely a bit of a musky smell. This one hadn’t had anyone in it for fifteen years. It kind of felt like a Tardis to me. [Laughs]
Great reference!
OLIVIA COOKE : I know! The front bit was so modern. Well, not modern, but clean, white, pristine with a bit of dust on it. Then, when you went into this other part of the building – The Victorian part – Literally, you were in this 1970’s derelict… It’s rotted, and it’s got dust, and cobwebs everywhere. It’s kind of like you’ve been transported into a completely different era. It was really strange.
You realize that you just picked up a ton of sci-fi fans when they read this?
OLIVIA COOKE : Oh, really? [Laughs]
How was your experience with Sam operating the camera, and taking on a director-type role?
OLIVIA COOKE : You know, for my character personally, because I was so connected with Sam’s character, with him operating the camera, it was really good for me to have that eye-line, and to look like I’m looking into the audiences soul. I found it really handy for my character, from an acting point of view, to have that as a transportation method. I found it really handy.
You say that you’re dorky. What makes you a bit dorky in your personality?
OLIVIA COOKE : I don’t know. I think I just do stupid things, and I’m a bit awkward. I sit a bit awkwardly. Like, I’m in a really nice dress, but I’m, like, hunched over. I should be more ladylike, and things but I think I’m just a bit awkward in myself. Like Emma in ‘Bates Motel’, she’s kind of this way. She’s not fully confident with how she is yet. Kind of a bit like that, I think.
What do you have coming up next?
OLIVIA COOKE : THE SIGNAL, a sci-fi with Laurence Fishburne comes out in June. Another horror movie called OUIJA comes out Halloween this year, and then a film, a comedy! Yeah! We begin shooting in June, in Pittsburg. It’s called ME & EARL & THE DYING GIRL. I play the dying girl. So, there’s an element of self-torture, obviously, but I’m really excited.
Do you tend to gravitate towards more character driven roles as opposed to characters that are a bit more grounded and real?
OLIVIA COOKE : THE SIGNAL, the character in that is pretty real. The one that I’m going to do in June, even though she has leukemia she’s a normal, middle of the spectrum girl. I do tend to gravitate towards character parts more because it’s just so much fun to play. Even playing Emma. It’s such a feast for an actress. Delving into a character… I don’t think there’s ever been character really like her before, so I’m very lucky for them to trust me in playing those characters.
Can you describe your character in OUIJA?
OLIVIA COOKE : She’s the heroine of the story, so she’s not the damsel in distress. She’s the one trying to save, and trying to come to terms, and get to the bottom of things in the story. She’s the one that kind of gets everyone on board, and she’s trying to figure out how, and why all of these things are happening surrounding this Ouija board. I’m the lead. It’s like my face on every frame, which no one really wants to see. Yeah. It’s the first character I’ve ever had where I’m kind of saving the day.
Did you guys screw around with each other on set with the board?
OLIVIA COOKE : Well, there was a guy underneath. It was metal. Not metal. It was magnets, so he was moving it underneath on the board. They made a clap sound, so whenever they needed us to jump, we’d jump. They’d play this stupid freakin’ horn. His head was right where my legs are, so I’d go “Ahh!” and I’d kick him. I’m like “I’m so sorry Sean!”. The injuries sustained whilst operating a Ouija board. That shouldn’t be in his job title. [Laughs]
Between your roles in these films, how would you characterize your own belief in the supernatural?
OLIVIA COOKE : I’m really open-minded. Nothing’s ever happened to me. I’m willing… I’m doing all of these things hoping that something will come to me, but it hasn’t. My dad’s had stuff happen to him. All of these people that I’ve talked to have had things happen to them, and I’m like “Why don’t they come scare me?” So, until that happens I think then I’ll be a firm believer, but maybe it won’t happen. Have you had Jared yet?
Yes.
OLIVIA COOKE : Aww. Damn. I was going to say to ask him about the goblin story!
What’s the goblin story? Now you have to tell us!
OLIVIA COOKE : When he was younger, he was saying that he had a supernatural experience. Apparently when he was younger, like around five, he woke up and he saw, like, a green leprechaun – small goblin thing right on the edge of his bed. The leprechaun sort of woke up and ran to the door, and then looked back, and so little five-year-old Jared chased him, and saw the ol’ leprechaun making his way down the spirally stairs, like, looking up at him, and was sort of like “What was that?” so, I don’t know what that is! I use it to embarrass him, like “So, the goblin…”
From the producer who brought you THE WOMAN IN BLACK and LET ME IN comes the unnerving tale of THE QUIET ONES. Tucked away in an estate outside of London, Professor Coupland along with a team of university students conduct an “experiment” on Jane Harper, a young girl who harbors unspeakable secrets. What dark forces they uncover are more terrifying than any of them expected.
This week WAMG sat down with Director John Pogue in a small roundtable to discuss sound design, the films inspiration, and being attached to the ‘Hammer’ brand. Check it out below.
Inspired by true events, the film stars Jared Harris (Mad Men and Sherlock Homes: A Game of Shadows), Sam Claflin (The Hunger Games: Catching Fire), Olivia Cooke (Bates Motel), and is directed by John Pogue from a screenplay by Craig Rosenberg and Oren Moverman and John Pogue, and based on a screenplay by Tom de Ville.
It occurred to me throughout the whole movie how important Jared Harris’s voice was. How much did that play a part in your casting, because if he had a voice like… let’s say Woody Allen, it just wouldn’t work?
JOHN POGUE : Right. Right. The voice… the whole Jared package was hugely important. We actually cast Jared before we cast anybody else as, sort of, the anchor of the movie, just because we felt like he brings such experience, such talent, such gravitas, and such a voice to this role, and that we would then, kind of, use him to generate excitement amongst the cast and community, and reel in some others. So, fortunately it worked out that way.
I really liked the sound design throughout the movie, and the way you built tension through various sounds and noises. Was that something that you wanted while filming, or was that something that you guys made sure to enhance in post?
JOHN POGUE : Thank you. It’s something that we definitely planned for. I did not want any genre music in this movie. I felt like this movie was something different from that. I really liked Lucas Vidal’s work. He’s European, and brings an oral aesthetic to the project. I felt like we could do everything with design, and so our plan was to only use practical machinery that was used in the movie as our sound. So, we recorded all of the sounds that the machines make, the EEG machine, all the lights, all the microphones. Everything that made a noise, we recorded in advance before we started shooting the movie, and I sent it here to Lucas, here in LA, and said “Make a sound palette from all of these machines so that we can use that to design the sound, or the score of the movie” which is really just sort of manipulating the sounds and bringing up the pitches, and lowering them, and dirtying them up. All of the sound that you hear, with the exception of the voice, which is the synth sound that the Evie character makes, all of that was practical sound that was recorded from the set.
This is based on a true story – Loosely on ‘The Philip Experiment’. I’m curious, how do you find a balance in draw the audience in with the ‘Based on a True Story’ tagline without making them feel duped?
One of the films inspirations was an experiment conducted in Toronto during the mid-1970’s known as ‘The Phillip Experiment.’ It was conducted under the auspices of Dr. A.R.G. Owen, a British-born mathematician, geneticist and lecturer who wrote several papers on poltergeists and telekinesis. During the experiment, a small team conjured up a ghost named Phillip on paper – drawing his likeness, giving him certain qualities – then attempted to bring him to life using their collective concentration and emotional moods. At first, nothing happened, but soon a series of unnerving happenings – raps and taps and shaking tables – convinced the team that some kind of psychic activity was truly in play. They even made a film, documenting part of the experiment.
JOHN POGUE : That’s a very good question. I don’t like feeling duped as an audience member. In this particular case it’s ‘Inspired by a True Story’. We’re very careful with that wording, as is the Writers Guild. You have to be very specific about that. It’s become a little bit, or a lot of a cliché. I felt like there were enough, sort of, real elements of ‘The Philip Experiment’, as well as the social science experiments of the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s that added an extra element of that really happening to our movie. The idea of taking a volunteer, and sort of pushing them to their limit by locking them up, and depriving them with sleep – there were experiments that really did this. Not ‘The Philip Experiment’, but other experiments. So, this movie is really an amalgam of different elements from different true stories that were, kind of, put together ultimately to make the movie. THE PHILIP EXPERIMENT, the original screenplay written by Tom de Ville, was more closely related to ‘The Philip Experiment’, and that was more about an experiment to create a ghost. Long story short, that concept kind of evolved, and transmuted into the script that I was given. In terms of making the audience feel like they weren’t duped, I think that’s a tough one. We’re not representing that this is based on ‘The Philip Experiment’ – at least I’m not. I think, if you’re truthful about it, that’s better, but there are elements that really happened that are reflected in the screenplay. We have a little fun with this concept, obviously, with the very, very end of the movie which is sort of a meta approach to the true story idea, which is kind of – hopefully – meant to be ironic – getting you to think about what this whole true story idea really means, and have that be a discussion. Hopefully, that’s what that idea engenders.
I had a follow-up question to the sound design that you were talking about a moment ago. When it comes to creating all of the jump scares that you have in the movie – When you’re sitting there ‘tweaking the ‘pitches’, as you say, it seems like it’s not good enough to just have a loud sound come out of nowhere. So, did you find that certain pitches have a different effect on the audience, when they follow certain scenes especially?
JOHN POGUE : Sounds that are pitched – pitch wise – that are dissonant – your ear has a hard time processing them, so it subconsciously makes you feel, sort of, icky about it. We would measure, with the jumps, the actual sound and put a pitch to it, and see if the pitch was on key, what key it was on, and can we tweak it to make it off a little bit so that you feel uncomfortable. We also did that with suspense builds, because there are a lot of very subtle… You hear sounds, kind of, coming in. You’re not sure. We did a lot of tweaking the pitch, which is so easy to do now on the computer, just so you feel like it’s a little off. So you feel a little uncomfortable. It’s like listening to a bad note. So, for the big scare we tried to turn them just a little bit. Again, I didn’t want genre music. We were trying not to do genre jump scare sounds, and it’s really hard to do that because they’re a standard. There are 12 standard jump scare tones that you get with your editing package, and so you have to create, and mix, and remix those sounds so that they don’t sound like every other movie that you’ve ever heard. We did our best, but it’s kind of hard to… It’s actually more challenging than you’d think.
Do you have any favorite horror films?
JOHN POGUE : I do. I have a lot of favorite horror films. I really like the original PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. I like that a lot. I’m a huge fan of the classics : THE EXORCISM, THE OMEN… that sort of early 70’s era. I think Kubrick’s THE SHINING, and many of Kubrick’s movies are some of the most horrific movies that I’ve ever seen. JAWS is a great horror movie, in my opinion. I just happen to be someone who happens to like the fear to be created in my mind. That’s why I like the more minimalistic approach. It’s just a taste thing. I’m not as into the blood and guts. Although, when I saw the original SAW, I loved that movie, but then I started to get tired of it. I loved the original because it was fresh, and it was scary, and freaky, and crazy. I can’t say lately I have any huge favorites. Probably the last one was… I liked THE LAST EXORCISM. I thought that was fun in a different way.
So, is it a good thing that the whole ‘violence porn’ genre had its moment, right?
JOHN POGUE : I mean, I do feel like it’s a good thing because it just stretches the genre. Why should we always be doing the same thing. That’s not my taste, but it was certainly entertaining, and effective, and new, and different. Yeah. I don’t get as upset morally about that as many people do because I believe in the audience. They know that you shouldn’t go drill holes in people’s ankles. They know that. I think that was a good thing. Yeah. I’m kind of ok that it’s sort of – not with us quite as much anymore.
Given your appreciation of the genre, and especially the classics, did it mean something extra-special to you that this is under the ‘Hammer’ brand?
JOHN POGUE : Yeah. It was really daunting, and scary because I felt like we had to earn our way onto the ‘Hammer’ shelf, and there are so many great movies in their past, and they have such a great legacy making fantastic movies, and also making a lot of goofy, crazy horror movies. Certainly with LET ME IN and THE WOMAN IN BLACK, making a successful movie in that arena that would live up to the ‘Hammer’ name was really daunting. Especially, because frankly, this is a super low-budget production. It’s not something that many people are aware of, because they go “Oh. They did THE WOMAN IN BLACK, and LET ME IN” but we did this movie for almost nothing. So, to do something for almost night, but to also hit the achievement in terms of it being the next ‘Hammer’ was a real challenge. It was kind of terrifying, and wonderful at the same time.
You shoot with the handheld camera from the 70’s for the majority of the film. I’m curious if introducing that into the movie allowed for more improv on set, or was it completely scripted?
JOHN POGUE : That’s a great question. This movie, obviously, is kind of a hybrid. It’s omniscient – sort of a narrative 35mm storytelling with a found footage element, but the found footage element is real-time. There’s sort of a psychological hurdle that could have been a problem because you’re actually watching something in real-time as it’s really happening, but you’re watching it as if it’s already processed. The movie’s a little bit strange in that way, and a little bit weird. I kind of liked that about it, but it was also a challenge because we were worried, at least I was worried, that the jumping back and forth between the omniscient footage and the found footage was going to throw you out of the movie. So, to your question, my cinematographer and I spent quite a bit of time in preproduction trying to create a visual strategy, and a visual grammar so that the movement between the narrative and the 16mm footage in Sam’s point of view to immerse the audience into his character, rather than throwing you out of it. We wanted the audience to be as scared as possible, and we wanted the audience to fall in love with Olivia Cooke’s character. We’re doing this, looking through a camera lens, so how do you make that immersive rather than distant was sort of the question. The answer was we tried to help the audience by explaining to the audience ‘Look. Be comfortable with this point of view.” There are certain moments – for example, after Olivia Cooke screams “Help me!”, where we go to Olivia and we’re in the 16mm point of view so that the audience will hopefully feel like Brian looking at her, and then we go to Brian McNeil, Sam’s character, and we’re in the 35mm point of view, so we’re in the narrative storytelling, and then we go back to Olivia in the 16. So, what we’re trying to do is say “Don’t worry what format you’re in. Just enjoy the story, and be a filmmaker with Sam’s character, audience, along with Sam.” We’re hoping that the audience feels like they’re making the movie with Sam, and that they’re not really paying attention to the format shifting. It was very, very deliberate, and very, very planned out. On the other hand, the found footage element allowed us to do a lot of fun things on set that we weren’t expecting. For example, Sam spent so much time learning how to be a filmmaker that we had him shoot certain sections of the movie. In the scene where they do the corium photography, and Olivia’s character is lying down, and she hands the camera the doll – us, the audience, Sam – he shot that whole scene with the Alexa camera. This giant camera. It was kind of cool to see a guy like Sam shot this, and see how he set up the shot. I didn’t tell him how to shoot it. I said “You tell me. You’re the director.” A number of times he shot the movie, and it gave sort of a raw, visceral, excitement, at least for me, to the image because it wasn’t perfect. It was him trying to go for those emotional moments. He catches Copeland impatient as we’re trying to catch the drama of what’s going on. It was fun for me to have Sam be the filmmaker.
Did you find a camera that was actually used back then?
JOHN POGUE : Oh, yeah! The camera that he’s carting around is a 16mm documentary camera that would have been used in that era by someone of his socioeconomic background, and it was a real camera. It was super heavy. It was really heavy, and it had a light on it, and it had an internal battery pack, which is why he doesn’t have the battery pack around his waist. It had internal sound, and it was considered one of the most efficient all-in-one cameras that we could find that was real to the period – that would keep him from being loaded down like a mule with sound equipment, and lighting, and batteries, and that sort of thing. That’s all period.
Do you feel that there is a certain sort of romanticism to having that equipment? I can’t imagine in twenty years, when they do retro films about today, that they’ll just be holding up cell phones… It just doesn’t seem to have the same feel.
JOHN POGUE : Yes. We felt there was a certain – yeah, ‘romantic’ I think is the word for it – I mean, because obviously things are so different. It’s definitely part of his quest – a weapon as part of his quest. So, yes.
OCULUS, the new horror film co-written and directed by Mike Flanagan, introduces audiences to a new kind of terror: the eerily inscrutable Lasser Glass. This beautiful antique mirror is no ordinary villain. Its seemingly harmless reflections hold a malevolent supernatural force that infects the mind of the viewer, leading to paranoia, distorted visions, and eventually, possession. Recently, WAMG attended a small press conference for the film where Karen Gillan, Katee Sackhoff, James Lafferty and Rory Cochrane spoke with members of the press about the film, what type of horror they like, and what scares them. Check it out below.
Ten years ago, tragedy struck the Russell family, leaving the lives of teenage siblings Tim and Kaylie forever changed when Tim was convicted of the brutal murder of their parents. Now in his 20s, Tim is newly released from protective custody and only wants to move on with his life; but Kaylie, still haunted by that fateful night, is convinced her parents’ deaths were caused by something else altogether: a malevolent supernatural force¬¬ unleashed through the Lasser Glass, an antique mirror in their childhood home. Determined to prove Tim’s innocence, Kaylie tracks down the mirror, only to learn similar deaths have befallen previous owners over the past century. With the mysterious entity now back in their hands, Tim and Kaylie soon find their hold on reality shattered by terrifying hallucinations, and realize, too late, that their childhood nightmare is beginning again…
This is such an intriguing premise – an intriguing film with the intersecting temporal lines. When each first got the script, what was it that struck you, not just about the script as a whole, but the individual characters?
KAREN GILLAN : One of the things that I loved about the script, so much, was the time that was devoted to the characters, so we really get to see them develop before things happen to them. We’re actually invested, and care. They really earn the scares, which really excited me. I just loved the character that I played. I thought that she was really interesting.
KATEE SACKHOFF : Very similarly, in the sense that I really loved the fact that, for Marie, we got to see this vulnerability that she had, for years, with her before the mirror actually took her. I wanted to really make the audience love this family, and understand this family, then ultimately feel heartbroken for these children, and what they’ve had to go through. Mike [Flanagan] just did a phenomenal job on pulling you on this slow ride, that was engaging you the entire time… then, the last 30 minutes seem to just punch you in the face repeatedly. [Laughs]
JAMES LAFFERTY : I have to agree with Katee. I think it was the family aspect that drew me in. The fact that there are children involved in the script really started tugging at my heartstrings, and then to see the performances that they give on-screen was just mind-blowing to me, so that really shined through for me.
RORY COCHRANE : I just appreciated the family dynamic that could have happened, sort of, without these supernatural forces that were surrounding them. If you took them away you would still have this family.
My question is for Rory. We’re used to seeing you in roles where you are very likable. In this film you start out that way, with a like ability factor… I was just wondering how you found the right tone for your character as he evolves through the storyline?
RORY COCHRANE : I have to give credit to Mike’s development of the character. I think he gave everyone, sort of, this part to play with. For me, as an actor, I just want to get in and try to be super creepy, and play the realism of how I felt in the scenes. In between whatever scene we were doing, “what is the reality in this scene?” Forget the mirrors, forget the ghosts. That’s the only way I wrapped my head around it. We obviously have a slow decline without trying to play that up too much.
Mike has said that the mirror reflects the characters fears and insecurities. I was wondering if each of you could comment on how you perceived your characters fears and insecurities, and what you took as fuel.
KATEE SACKHOFF : I‘ll go, since mine was incredibly obvious. This is a woman who… the childen were 13 years old, and I was 32. To me, I would have had to have had these children at 18 or 19 years old. I wanted to play that as the reality, because my sister had a child at 18, and she is a phenomenal woman. She finished college. She worked her ass off. So, I didn’t want to age myself up, or play it in some negative light. If that was the reality of the situation, she probably gave up much of her own life for these children, and there is a lot of insecurity that comes from that. What is your importance to the world beyond being a mother? You’ve given up… you know. You can relate to body issues. Women can. I stand in the mirror and go “Oh, geez!” or “Oh my gosh! This is happening!” and I haven’t had children yet, so I can’t imagine what that’s gonna be like. So, I’ll probably do it some more. I think that her insecurities are incredibly obvious from the very beginning. I understood that, because I have seen it in so many women. It’s painful to not like yourself physically. I understood the insanity of that. [laughs]
Those children were incredibly. They looked like the young version of you, Karen, and Brenton. The casting was incredibly… Did you guys get to see the work of the younger actors playing you, or did they see your work on set? Did you synchronize between each other?
KAREN GILLAN : So, basically these guys filmed theirs, sort of, in the past section of the film first. That was the first three weeks of the shoot. Brenton and I went down to set all the time and just watched what everybody was doing. Absolute credit to Annalise, who played the younger version of my character, because she absolutely established the character. I went down and watched what she did, and then just took it from there. I tried to extend on it.
So, you cut your fabulous ponytail…
KAREN GILLAN : I know! It’s gone! [Laughs}
Since the Lasser glass reflects, or exacerbates its victims darkest fears and insecurities. If you were to look in the mirror, what would your greatest fears be?
KAREN GILLAN : That’s a QUESTION!
KATEE SACKHOFF : It’s martini time! [laughs]
KAREN GILLAN : I don’t know. That’s a really tough question! I don’t know… I don’t know…
KATEE SACKHOFF : Take it away Karen! [laughs]
KAREN GILLAN : I would say, probably not being able to do what I want to do, and basically not being fulfilled and happy. I don’t know how that would manifest itself in a mirror, but yeah. Just that feeling of not being satisfied with my life. That would be the worst thing that could happen to me.
RORY COCHRANE : I would see every audition that I’ve ever gone on. [Laughs]
KATEE SACKHOFF : We were joking about that earlier. Like a ‘Funny or Die’ sketch. Every worst audition that you’ve ever had. I’ve got a few of those. I had someone answer the phone half way through once…
KAREN GILLAN : Really?
KATEE SACKHOFF : I was like “Do I stop? Or just keep going? I don’t know what to do right now!” [laughs]. I just went “Aliright, I’ll see you later then.” and left. I just stopped.
KAREN GILLAN : That is really rude!
There are so many sub genres of horror films. I was wondering, for each of you, what is the thing that gets you to like horror movies? The gore type? The supernatural thriller? The psychological one… what does it for you?
KAREN GILLAN : I love horror films so I just wanted to chime in. I’m a big horror film fan, so this was really exciting for me. I’d say I love the cheesy slasher ones for the gore aspect, but really, the ones that are truly scary are the slow burners that really start to build up. I love THE RING. I just thought that they did that really well. That wasn’t so gory. It was just a really creepy video.
KATEE SACKHOFF : There are enough things in my life that scare the shit out of me already! [laughs] I tend to be mostly scared of movies that are about something that could actually happen. As actors, we spend a lot of time on the road, and in different places. I tend to wake up in the middle of the night and run into walls a lot, and forget where I am. So, for me… that is my biggest fear. Things that can actually happen. Like, someone tried to open my hotel room one night, and the chain was going, and I was like “Oh my god! What’s happening!” and it’s just those weird things, because you are constantly not home. So, I’m never in a comfortable place. So, those type of horror movies scare the shit out of me.
KAREN GILLAN : Hotels are really scary.
KATEE SACKHOFF : Yeah!
KAREN GILLAN : One time I was in a hotel, and I was convinced that it was haunted so I decided to make a film of it… and there’s nothing on it[laughs]. I called the reception and I was like “This room is haunted! I need to move!” and they didn’t ask any questions! They were like “Yeah. We’re gonna move you.” [Laughs]
RORY COCHRANE : I just want to add to that. When we were in Alabama, she [Karen] had a stalker that… am I allowed to say this…
KAREN GILLAN : Oh… I don’t know… [Laughs]
RORY COCHRANE : Anyway… The guy made his way across the United States sending postcards and things… It got to be pretty scary. So, the guy actually shows up at the hotel with flowers, and everyone around the set, the crew were like “Karen, you have to be really, really careful!” and she was like “Oh, that’s so sweet! He brought me flowers!” [laughs] She wasn’t scared of that at all… and that was a real thing!
OCULUS, the new horror film co-written and directed by Mike Flanagan, introduces audiences to a new kind of terror: the eerily inscrutable Lasser Glass. This beautiful antique mirror is no ordinary villain. Its seemingly harmless reflections hold a malevolent supernatural force that infects the mind of the viewer, leading to paranoia, distorted visions, and eventually, possession. Recently, I sat down with the lovely Katee Sackhoff, who plays Marie Russell, a mother who tragically lost her life shortly after the Lasser Glass was brought into their new home, to talk about her first role as a mother, the possibility of ghosts, and “road sodas”. Check it out below.
Ten years ago, tragedy struck the Russell family, leaving the lives of teenage siblings Tim and Kaylie forever changed when Tim was convicted of the brutal murder of their parents. Now in his 20s, Tim is newly released from protective custody and only wants to move on with his life; but Kaylie, still haunted by that fateful night, is convinced her parents’ deaths were caused by something else altogether: a malevolent supernatural force¬¬ unleashed through the Lasser Glass, an antique mirror in their childhood home. Determined to prove Tim’s innocence, Kaylie tracks down the mirror, only to learn similar deaths have befallen previous owners over the past century. With the mysterious entity now back in their hands, Tim and Kaylie soon find their hold on reality shattered by terrifying hallucinations, and realize, too late, that their childhood nightmare is beginning again…
You’re no stranger to horror films, doing HALLOWEEN : RESURRECTION, WHITE NOISE 2 : THE LIGHT, THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT 2 : GHOSTS OF GEORGIA… What was it about this film that made you want to sign on?
KATEE SACKHOFF : The script, first and foremost. Mike Flanagan is a phenomenal writer. I had read a script that he had written prior to this one as well – ABSENTIA. He’s really, really talented in taking something that is so simple, and that everybody can relate to, kind of flipping it on its head, and making you ten times more afraid than you’ve ever that you’ve thought of. In the case of ABSENTIA – a tunnel. We don’t think about it. Now you’re terrified of a tunnel. A mirror, you know… Everybody walks by, like, 50 mirrors a day. Now you’re terrified of a mirror. There are little things that he’s able to flip on their head. That’s the main reason that I wanted to do this movie. I thought that it’s an interesting take on the, kind of, perfect little American family. I think that women, especially woman as we get older, can identify with aging, and societies expectations of us, and out body image. We all look in the mirror on a daily basis and go “I wish this”. Now, what if that mirror was possessed and made you, not only question this about yourself, but truly believe that you are completely imperfect. It’s an interesting thought, you know?
Absolutely. You mention the concept of family. How did you prepare for your first role as a mother?
KATEE SACKHOFF : I didn’t want to make myself look older. I think that was one possibility, but I thought that the interesting thing would be if you take an educated woman who probably finished college… If those were my children I would have gotten pregnant at 19 and 20. I wanted to show her that age in a positive light. My sister had her son at 19, and she’s an incredible role model. She finished college. She does a great job. She works her ass off. So, I didn’t want to show a stereotypical, negative view of what it’s like to have a child young. In that sense I just, kind of, modeled her off of my sister who was a young parent, and who questioned her self as she got older. She felt almost that she got older faster because she had a child young. She’s in her early 40’s and she has a child that has graduated college, and is 25 years old. I mean, it’s very interesting. She feels older than most 45 year olds because she’s been a mom since she was 19. So, her insecurities may be heightened in that sense. I don’t know. I was really looking for that dynamic, and portraying it in a more positive light… until it obviously goes awry. [Laughs]
Speaking of insecurities, I’m curious how long your make-up process was for this, because they really transformed you and put you through the ringer!
KATEE SACKHOFF : She’s pretty nasty, right? [Laughs] That was another thing that we had talked about. I just kept saying “More. I want more. I want her to look worse.” Rory [Cochrane – who plays Alan in the film] made a great example of it earlier and said “Everything in this movie from the children’s perspective, and is two completely different realities.” One child believes that all of this bad stuff happened, and the other child believes that their parents were violent, and things went badly. So, I wanted it to always have an explanation for her going crazy. We added the alcohol into one scene… maybe that was it. Maybe Alan really did just go crazy, and maybe he was having an affair. Maybe all of these things… Now I completely lost my train of thought because I’m thinking about all of the scenes with Alan, and all of the examples of it. It’s a very interesting thing how it went so negative so quickly. [Laughs]
As a horror fan, I really enjoyed the different perspectives, and the different takes on things… I think that it’s really hard to get horror right in this decade.
KATEE SACKHOFF : Audiences are smarter. They’re expecting more. They’ve seen everything before. So, how are you going to make it different? How are you going to make a horror film different?
What is your reaction to seeing yourself on-screen, or in the make-up chair with all of the prosthetics on? I imagine it’s pretty wild!
KATEE SACKHOFF : On bad days, it took about two hours… two or three hours, and then it took a couple of hours to get off. Getting it off was hard. That was actually worse. I just wanted her… she’s sitting here, beating up her children. If this is one of her realities – that maybe their mother did beat them – it affects one of their realities. I wanted her to be ugly. We just kept adding more and more prosthetics. I wanted her to be hunched over, almost like an animal with a crazed look. It is weird to see that on-screen, but I think it’s probably easier to see myself on camera that way than it is to see myself looking normal. Looking normal is harder, because I’m more critical of myself in less of a character, I guess.
You have such a diverse fan base in sci-fi and horror. Have you every had a fan come up to you and talk about their experiences with the supernatural?
KATEE SACKHOFF : Some, yeah! A little bit… I’ve done a few movies that have possessions and ghosts, and things involved around them. I think it also make, as an actor, more susceptible to believing in these things as well. People do talk to me about crazy things. [Laughs] You can’t help but talk about it on set. That’s the favorite topic of discussion. Yeah, and I believe in that sort of stuff. I think you have to. There is no scientific proof in either direction, so that’s the question. It kind of just leaves everything up in the air. I think that’s why supernatural movies and television shows are so scary.You’re talking about something that you can’t prove or disprove.
Plus, it’s a little more fun to believe…
KATEE SACKHOFF : I think so too. I think it’d be much more interesting to believe that my Grandfather is sitting right there [looks beside her on the couch] just watching, you know.
I feel the same way about my Grandmother.
KATEE SACKHOFF : Yeah! It’s just fun!
You’ve played all sorts of different characters… Sci-fi, action, horror, voice-over… Is there any type of role, or genre that you would really like to play, that maybe you haven’t?
KATEE SACKHOFF : I’m just about doing things that I haven’t done before, and if I have done them I try to do them in a different way, you know? I’m a huge fan of romantic comedies, so for me, I would love to do that. I would love to go do stage, and to do musical theater. I started in musical theater. I just want to work as much as possible for the rest of my career, and have fun doing these things. I think that’s why I’m drawn to genre, because it’s more fun than going to do a drama where you’re crying all of the time. [Laugh]
Plus, it’s a little easier to unwind at the end of the day.
KATEE SACKHOFF : It is. Yeah. I mean, this was a bit harder because I was in prosthetics. For me, unwinding at the end of the night was washing my face off and going back to the hotel. It was on days where I was in full prosthetics and sit through a two-hour process to take off, I would get back to the hotel and everyone would already be in bed. [Laughs] So, then I would start drinking by myself [laughs]… like, “I’ve gotta unwind”. I think I had a $700, almost $800 wireless bill for downloading movies on iTunes [laughs] because there was no Wi-Fi. I was using my G4 on my iPad to turn my computer into a… yeah. So, I was downloading movies on iTunes. It was bad. [Laughs] It was so expensive.
You get caught in that trap…
KATEE SACKHOFF : You have to! I do it now. It’s so bad.
Well, what are some of your favorite movies?
KATEE SACKHOFF : Right now… I just watched BLUE JASMINE. I thought that Cate Blanchett was amazing ing that movie. As far as movies I’ve seen this year. I just saw DIVERGENT. I’ve read the books. I took two of the guys from the cast LONGMIRE with me, and they were like “What am I, a twelve-year-old girl?” [Laughs]… and I was like “We’re seeing DIVERGENT. Zip it! Put some Jack Daniels in your Coke and let’s go!”
Just a little “road soda” or, as I like to call it, “talent juice”…
KATEE SACKHOFF : Exactly! We like to call them “roadies” in Louisiana. [Laughs]
Scaring people has become a lucrative business over the years and decades since Hollywood first embraced the concept of fear for fun. Some of the most profitable contemporary films in terms of investment-to-return ratio have been horror films. In theory, this sounds like a good thing. Unfortunately, profitability does not always equate to a film being a creative success. For those looking for casual scares that appeal to little more than our base reflexes, similar to riding a roller coaster, there is no shortage of options on the market. However, for those of us looking for something more in our horror films, the selection is more limited.
I am happy to report that OCULUS satisfies that craving rather well. No. It’s not a perfect film, but few are these days. That really should go without saying anymore. The film’s marketing proudly announces “from the producer of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and INSIDOUS.” Try your best to take this with a grain of salt. Each of those films carry their own merit, and certainly fit well within the same genre wheelhouse, but refrain from allowing the franchise stigma to cloud or influence your opinion before seeing the film.
OCULUS is not the most original story at its core, playing on a number of popular and recognizable themes. However, the method by which the story is told is rather unique and definitely engaging. Far from linear and disjointed by design, the film leaps forward and backward in time between the present day and childhood for our two main characters. Kaylie, played by Karen Gillan, is an attractive young redhead engaged to the owner of an auction house by whom she is employed. Tim, played by Brenton Thwaites, is her slightly younger brother, recently released on his twenty-first birthday after having spent time under psychiatric care.
Kaylie and Tim have a secret. As children, their parents died and, despite the incredibly horrific events that led to their deaths, Tim ultimately was blamed for murdering his parents. The fantastic truth landed Tim in a mental hospital and prompted Kaylie to commit herself to keeping the siblings’ promise to destroy the entity responsible for the death of their parents. Kaylie’s journey of supernatural vengeance begins with a beautifully dark and ornate antique mirror that once adorned the wall of her father’s home office and has recently been sold by her fiancé’s auction company.
Directed and co-written by Mike Flanagan, who last previously ABSENTIA (2011), OCULUS works on the viewers’ mind in much the same way the mirror twists and pries on Kaylie’s and Tim’s minds. Truth and reality, time and memory, these are tools by which the entity uses to protect itself and wreak havoc on the lives of those who possess the mirror. The origin and story of the entity, for the most part a great mystery, does have a name revealed most briefly and without much ordeal. Marisol. Perhaps the filmmakers felt this was of little importance, but I feel if more attention had been given to the antagonist’s back-story the film would have been that much more engaging.
Steven Spielberg’s classic JAWS comes to mind, not directly, but when explaining the relative absence of Marisol from the film. Like minimizing our visual exposure to Bruce the shark, the viewer is not overexposed to Marisol, instead leaving much to the imagination and focusing on the mystery and suspense that actually drives the film. OCULUS does not delve too deeply into the back-story of Tim’s and Kaylie’s lives, outside of the events that led to their parents’ deaths. The frightening flavor of the film is not seasoned so much by knee-jerk scares and cheap thrills, but rather by a sense of the unknown powered by disorientation and distraction. Just as Marisol keeps the siblings’ distracted from their goal of destroying her, the film keeps the audience distracted from its flaws and weaknesses by immersing the audience into a more cerebral and visceral experience.
For the wannabe ghost hunters out there, pray you never encounter the likes of Marisol. One of the most intriguing elements of OCULUS is how formidable a foe she turns out to be, as creative and patient as she is brutal. Despite its correlation to films such as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and INSIDIOUS, OCULUS actually has far more similarities to that of THE RING, both in it’s evil antagonist and in the type of fear the film instills in the viewer. The modern meets Gothic mood of the film is enhanced by the cinematography of Michael Fimognari, experienced in the genre, and original music from The Newton Brothers.
In retrospect, given time to reflect and analyze the film, OCULUS is engaging as an in-the-moment cinematic indulgence. It will surely hold up to a second viewing as a way to watch for details missed in the original viewing, but I question the longevity of the film’s ongoing appeal. Ultimately, how the film ends in general is more predictable than the details of how that ending plays out. From early on in the film, the audience gets a sense of what must inherently happen, but it’s the thrill of watching that inevitability unfold before us that is as enticing as it is appalling, but isn’t this truly at the core watching any good horror film?
I am reminded of growing up in the late-80s, watching Unsolved Mysteries on prime-time television. Intrigued by commercials for Time Life’s Mysteries of the Unknown, an encyclopedic series of books about everything supernatural, extraterrestrial and any other unproven or unexplained phenomena, I recall begging my parents to buy me the books about alien abductions, Stonehenge, and mythical creatures that live in our backyards. Sadly, they never did, but I did manage to find the random torn and battered volume available at the local library.
HAPPY CAMP, directed by first-timer Josh Anthony, stirs these nostalgic memories of an era defined by the weird, abstract and unusual. The film is about a man named Michael, played by Michael Barbuto, who returns to his small home town 20 years after his brother went missing as a child. Michael is accompanied by his girlfriend Anne, played by Anne Taylor, and two friends named Teddy (Teddy Gilmore) and Josh, played by writer-director Josh Anthony). Anne wants to shoot a documentary about Michael and the mysterious disappearance of his brother twenty years ago, so the four of them hop into a massive old RV and road trip into the remote wilderness town of Happy Camp, California.
This group of relatively happy young adults quickly discover they are about as welcome in Happy Camp by the locals as they are aware of what they are soon to discover about the disappearance of Michael’s brother. In fact, Michael’s brother is only one of over 600 people who have gone missing from Happy Camp, many of them “flat landers” visiting from out-of-town. Anne and her rag-tag crew of documentary filmmakers set out with their handheld camera, asking colorful backwoods local characters about the disappearances, getting colorful backwoods responses, all of which are either typically vague or embarrassingly obvious in their exposition.
Herein lies the primary flaw and underlying reason for the film’s failure to succeed. Writing. HAPPY CAMP is constructed on the premise of being an actual documentary being shot, but never finished by the original filmmakers. Rather, this is the footage they did obtain, compiled after the fact by someone who happened to find the footage left behind by the filmmakers. In other words, this is yet another entry into the “found footage” genre of horror/thriller filmmaking that has become so popular since the stellar box office success of THE BLAIR WITH PROJECT (1999) opened this fickle can of worms for movie audiences.
I have nothing against the found footage genre. There are many creatively successful films that have experimented with this style of storytelling, such as the REC (2007) franchise, and a few have even been major box office hits, such as CLOVERFIELD (2008). However, just like any genre, there needs to be a compelling story behind the film for it to engage its audience and, unfortunately, HAPPY CAMP does not deliver. The concept is there, in its essence, and the film even has a fairly commendable production value for what appears to be a relatively low-budget endeavor, but the writers make two fundamental errors. First, the film is beyond predictable. I would argue that anyone who hasn’t figured out the entire premise of HAPPY CAMP within the first 15-20 minutes should avoid recommendations to refill the blinker fluid in their car. Everything is laid on the table, all the cards are shown and nothing — I do mean nothing — is left to the viewer’s imagination. There is an effort to disguise the mystery and protect the film’s secret, but the veil is left so thin by the characters’ dialogue that it might as well be made of plastic wrap.
HAPPY CAMP, roughly broken down into its simplest parts, is 33% setup, 33% pointless arguing and excessive use of the F-bomb while aimlessly chasing one another or running from and/or towards strange noises, and 33% actual story progression and conclusion, in that order. The remaining 1% got lost somewhere on the cutting room floor. Surprisingly, the third act of the film (being the ending) is the best and most promising part of the film. Despite so much being given away in the film’s dialogue, the filmmakers manage to hold back and not reveal too much of the [fill in the blank] that is the cause for all the missing people. What? Just because the film gives away its own ending, doesn’t mean I’m going to do the same. With that said, the special effects are, by far, not the worst I’ve ever seen on film.
Overall, the film is worth a good time late night viewing with friends of a similar sense of humor and a few beers. Laughter will ensue, not by intention, but the film does have its merit. HAPPY CAMP is not a painful movie to watch. I can see the film possibly garnering a cult following, like Tommy Wiseau’s THE ROOM (2003) or James Nguyen’s BIRDEMIC (2010), but with a decidedly higher production value. I would not hesitate to compare the film to those of Uwe Boll, in that it strives to accomplish something bigger then itself, but just doesn’t have the inherent substance to reach its intended goal.
Overall Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
Available nationwide On Demand and on iTunes, Time Warner, ComCast and DirecTV, among other platforms on Tuesday, March 25th, 2014.
Let’s step back in time for a moment… back to a time when a strange and deadly new virus emerged in our world. This virus would often go undetected at first, sometimes for years, and then strikes its victims with a devastating ferocity. This virus requires its victims to take daily regiments of very expensive retro-viral drugs and there is still no cure for this unfortunate condition.
Let’s now return to the present day. This virus still exists in the real world, but is manageable. What would happen if we suddenly exhausted the world’s supply of this life-saving drug?
THE RETURNED, written by Hatem Khraiche, could very well be an allegory for this frightening hypothetical scenario. In the film, directed by Manuel Carballo, the virus is one that invokes all the typical symptoms of zombism. Yes. I know that’s not a real word… yet. Much like our real world virus, this zombie virus emerged in the 1980s, initially killing tens of thousands of people, but has since been stabilized by a retro-viral drug. This daily injection, referred to as “return protein,” suppresses the virus and allows its victims to live normal lives, so long as they do not miss a single dose.
The return protein is harvested from the bodies of victims who had undergone the retro-viral treatment, but are now deceased. Individuals infected by the virus, whose symptoms are successfully suppressed by the return protein are collectively referred to in the film as “The Returned.” Previously, when mentioned that this retro-viral regiment allows The Returned to live a normal life, my explanation did not properly encompass all the negativity that comes along with that normal life. The Returned are ostracized, feared, hated and eventually targeted by hate groups who seek to eliminate the threat they impose on the human population by any means necessary. For this, The Returned often live in secrecy.
Alex, played by Kris Holden-Reid, is a musician in a relationship with Kate, a leading doctor in the search for a synthesized replacement for the dwindling supply of return protein. Rumors are spreading of the shortage, but Kate, played by Emily Hampshire, knows the truth and is all too familiar with what a severe shortage of return protein would mean to every single member of the population, human and The Returned. The impending chaos surrounding this shortage leads to rising paranoia, as desperation sets in with the clock ticking down… 24 hours and counting until The Returned permanently revert back to mindless, savage killing machines, unless the return protein can be successfully synthesized in time.
With THE RETURN, Manuel Carballo has crafted a thoughtful social thriller that utilizes a far too familiar piece of our own history to facilitate and engaging, emotionally complex horror story. This film is a slow burn, allowing time to contemplate in real time the underlying significance of the story without feeling dull or poorly paced. Little effort is required in developing a connection with our central couple. Alex and Kate are portrayed genuinely, allowing an open door to the characters’ souls. Their humanity is not lost, even when those closest to them repeatedly let them down.
Manuel Carballo delves into the heart of social disintegration. Anarchy is certain to reign in the face of massive numbers of The Returned potentially becoming an overnight threat to humankind’s existence. Carefully woven into THE RETURNED, hints and nods to current events and contemporary issues poke their ugly heads out through the celluloid veil, taunting the viewer to make the correlations without forcing the connection with a heavy hand. This is a smart, serious film that tackles message-driven storytelling in a way that doesn’t leave a sour taste in the mouth.
THE RETURNED is the total package. It’s a zombie flick, but instead of being driven by special effects, it’s driven by character development and a simple but solid plot. The films doesn’t rely on a comedic crutch or the typical excess of gore and carnage to capture its viewer, not that there’s anything wrong with these methods, but this film offers a somber yet refreshing reprieve to the status quo of zombie films. The writing is far above the usual standard for the average horror film, and the acting is equally commendable, but Kris Holden-Ried is especially deserving of praise for carrying the film as one half of the central focus.
All of this and still, like so many films, nothing is ever perfect. While remaining even in tone and scope throughout the first two acts, the later part of the third act does present some concerns. THE RETURNED is such a stable storytelling experience until the ending, or should I say endings, as in plural. It would not be the first, but is certainly amidst the list of films I feel suffers on some level from an indecisive outcome. In other words, the filmmaker seems to have been uncertain with where to end the film, in which THE RETURNED has three distinct points at which ending the film makes sense. The first two potential end points make sense, however the third, and ultimately final ending of the film, fails primarily because it completely shifts the tone of the film into a much darker, less comfortable place for viewers who have just spent an entire feature length film empathizing with its central character.
Sadly, for a film that spent the majority of its time overcoming horror stereotypes eventually succumb to that very crutch in the end. Despite this singular flaw, THE RETURNED is still a highly commendable and worthwhile exception to the genre and deserves an audience.
THE RETURNED will be available in theaters and on Video On Demand (VOD) on Friday, February 14th, 2014
