It’s been some time since I’ve had that feeling of being “had,” going into something with hopeful expectations, only to find out that it was all a ruse. Cinema is often like this, drawing us in, capturing our emotions and interests, even playing off our primal instincts. Michael Bay knows the mass loves explosions, so there are always plenty in his films, all of which appear int he films’ trailers. Trailers are another way that we, as viewers, can be duped. It’s a necessary evil, I suppose. The nature of the marketing beast that, inevitably, will always accompany the anticipation involved with being a movie watcher. This has become something of a cultural agreement of modern society. We tolerate in order to be entertained.
I find it “crazy” how individuals associated with one film, generally applauded for being a success, can turn around and be equally associated with a flop, but it happens. This is where the “buyer beware” term is coined. Never judge a book — or, movie — by it’s cover, as they say. This goes both directions. It’s been by experience that, no matter how much you enjoy a director, actor or actress, or perhaps even a writer, never to allow yourself to be drawn into the blind expectation that anyone is perfect. Unfortunately, I allowed this very rule I have self-imposed to be broken.
OUT OF THE DARK (2014) is a film that has done just that, wandered haphazardly out of the dark, only to be blinded by the light of day as it finds an eager, albeit unsuspecting audience. For those fans of the horror/thriller genre accustomed to Netflix, the ratio of good genre films to schlocky and/or just plain bad movies that seemingly pop up out of nowhere is pretty extreme. Nonetheless, at least a minimum of 3-4 of these films will always be present in our queue at any given time, patiently awaiting their 90 minutes of instantly-streamed glory. What we are not accustomed to, and less less tolerant of, is paying inflated theatrical ticket prices to obtain the aforementioned low-grade thrills of b-movies.
In short, this shall be the level of entertainment one receives when sitting down to watch OUT OF THE DARK. I have never been one to unduly criticize a filmmaker for making his/her art, and that’s not about to start now. In all honesty and with full disclosure, I am disappointed with director Lluis Quilez, as this is his feature film debut. On the other hand, OUT OF THE PAST is co-written by Javier Gullon and David Pastor, and I couldn’t be more disappointed. Pastor, who wrote and directed CARRIERS (2009) and THE LAST DAYS (2013) were both of noticeably higher caliber, despite his now well-established obsession with viral epidemics. Gullon wrote ENEMY (2013) for God’s sake, a vastly superior and endlessly cerebral and mesmerizing piece of scriptwriting. How this can be is beyond my comprehension, but its said that oil never mixes with water.
OUR OF THE DARK sets in motion a thriller about two parents searching for their missing child, only to uncover a corporate scandal hidden behind a family secret by way of a ghostly haunting in South America. Chew on that. Sarah, played by Julia Stiles, moves to South America along with her husband Paul, played by Scott Speedman, and daughter Hannah to take over her father’s business. Her father Jordan, played by Stephen Rea, is a respected man in the jungle village as he once helped bring prosperity to the poor indigenous people, but that prosperity has recently suffered due to economic downturn and tragedy. Shortly after arriving, Hannah goes missing, which leads to a witch hunt for creepy children who are suspected by Sarah to have taken her daughter, but of course her search is hindered by silence and secrecy.
Director Quilez has managed to take a dismally uninteresting script and still make a visually engaging film, despite what I imagine is a modestly modest budget. In addition, the special effects for the creepy children are low-grade but effective, a mix of makeup and digital manipulation. The overall effect of the ghostly haunting sequences is somewhat unnerving, so for that I commend the filmmaker in what would otherwise be a relatively forgettable film. As for the cast, Speedman has never gotten me excited for anything, so I’ll stop there. Stiles has ridden the fence for some time now, but ultimately takes a hit in my book with OUT OF THE DARK. She plays this film too safe, far too by the book, theatrically textbook. Perhaps the most unbearable example of this would be the key, climactic scene when she confronts her father, but I also can’t blame Stile and Rea entirely for this, because the dialogue in this scene is so utterly cliche I could nearly recite their lines before they do. The drama gives way to forced melodrama and the emotions are of the instant just-add-water equivalency.
OUT OF THE DARK (2014) is slow to get started, offers little in the way of original material and asks the audience to care way to deeply about 2-dimensional cookie cutter characters in a dispassionately written film that isn’t quite sure if it’s a paranormal thriller or an ecological morality drama. While its an excusable throw-away popcorn rental that at least looks interesting at times, its far from worth paying cinema prices. At least at home, you can kick into MST3K mode if necessary, and not risk getting asked to leave the theater… and the popcorn is a lot cheaper.
OUT OF THE DARK is currently available via VOD and opens in theaters on Friday, February 27th, 2015.
We’ve been through many cycles of cinematic history now, reached many milestones and have given birth to many cliche’s as well, but as time draws forth, where does film take hold to ensure a continued future of innovation? Certainly, technology does, and will always have its part in the creative endeavor of filmmaking, but when it comes to story, are we beginning to see the long, slow death of originality? On some levels, I fear this may be a temporary reality, but much like life and energy itself, never truly dies and will always find a way.
It will come as no surprise that many a studio film is churned out in formulaic fear of stirring the pot, rousing the dormant interest of adventurous viewers, but we still have our independence. Indie filmmakers, the experimenters, the explorers, the balls-to-the-wall, no excuses, just make it happen and make it yours pioneers. These are the artists who take risks and will always find a way to make something fresh, original and entertaining.
WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD is one of these films. I admit, I may sound like a grandstanding fool, but keep in mind this, like so many of the best indie films today, is not trying to please everyone. There truly isn’t a one size fits all equation for filmmaking. This is where Hollywood so often fails. This is where Australia has repeatedly shown its glory, a revelation we first uncovered back in the 70s and a resurgence that has recently become realized by more and more viewers. We may be experiencing the beginning of a renaissance down under, and if you’re a fan of genre film, you’re in for a real treat.
Like so many modern indie filmmakers, crowdfunding has been a crucial and liberating financial friend, allowing artists to reach out to their fans and peers directly, and in turn those fans and peers can have a direct and immediate impact on getting the films they want to see get made. WYRMWOOD was funded, in part, through crowdfunding. Co-writer and director Kiah Roache-Turner has delivered an entertaining, fresh, sick and twisted genre film for the fans and it does not suck.
Co-written by brothers Kiah and Tristan Roache-Turner, WYRMWOOD is not just another zombie apocalypse film… well, actually it is, but its much more. We enter into the story as the epidemic has already set in, spreading throughout the Australian Outback, but our journey follows an average mechanic names Barry (Jay Gallagher) who witnesses his wife and daughter turn into zombies. With nothing left to lose, Barry suits up and knuckles down, setting out to locate and rescue his sister Brooke (Bianca Bradey) amidst a chaotic world of flesh-eating zombies and even less-savory human beings.
WYRMWOOD can be viewed as MAD MAX meets DAWN OF THE DEAD, as some marketing suggests — the MAD MAX portion is clearly evident — but the film offers some additional nuances for the seasoned genre buff. Stylistically, the film does display a touch of the Raimi brothers, but more appropriately the visual style and graphic violence of a younger, more raw Peter Jackson, who reigns from the neighboring New Zealand. Such films as BAD TASTE (1987) and DEAD LIVE (1992) come to mind, both of which are far more graphic and violent than this, but whose influence is unmistakable. These are both films that helped pave the way for an entire genre, which is only now firmly taking hold on a wide scale.
WYRMWOOD is a dark film, both in its content and in its humor, but it also melds genres. Horror stands strong as its base, but the film is as much science fiction as it is blood and guts. Without giving anything away, I was pleased to see a film that suggests a twist on the origin of the zombie apocalypse that is new but also based on some level in fringe science. If you’d like a hint, refer to National Geographic’s TV series How to Survive the End of the World, Season 1: Episode 1: Zombie Earth (2013). This twist on the storytelling allows the film to enter new territory, explore new concepts and suggest alternate talking points in the massively popular zombie genre. On a side note, personally, WYRMWOOD is more akin to AMC’s TV Series The Walking Dead than it is to Romero’s classic DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978), but I can see both as influential.
For the true genre fans, the film offers more than it does for the average viewer. Call them bloody Easter eggs if you like, but the characters and scenarios set up in WYRMWOOD are bizarre and eccentric. David Lynch meets Stuart Gordon, with a psychotic mad scientist who loves disco music and Barry’s sister, Brooke, holds a powerful secret one may trace back to being influenced by Stephen King, or Stan Lee, depending on how you choose to interpret her ability.
WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD is a film that holds true to its subtitle in a literal sense. Its a road movie, about a couple of guys trying to survive a long drive through dangerous lands. The film is as familiar as it is enticing as a unique translation of the zombie apocalypse story. There is plenty of action, quality special effects and stunt work, a balanced combination of drama and comedy, believable characters who are relate-able and likable — or easy to hate, when appropriate — and most importantly, features a strong, unpretentious heroine that is more palatable than what has been offered — respectfully — from Milla Jovovich and Kate Beckinsale.
WYRMWOOD opens in select theaters on Friday, February 13th, 2015.
Although Summer has long passed, it’s not too late for another youth-oriented movie adaptation. So, what is it, another flick based on a popular series of “young adult” novels, or perhaps a “tear-jerker” like THE FAULT IN OUR STARS or IF I STAY? Is it another comic book or classic TV show getting the big screen treatment? Nope, this is based on a game. But not a video or computer game like the Lara Croft franchise or the recent NEED FOR SPEED. It’s an “old school” board game, one that’s been around for ages. The box office sinking of BATTLESHIP has not deterred the folks at Hasbro Films (an off-shoot of the toy empire). After all, GI Joe and those Transformers are still raking in the bucks. Plus THE LEGO MOVIE’s success will spawn a trio of spin-offs. Oh, and there’s a chance of cross-over money from the ravenous fright flick fans, since this game supposedly contacts the netherworld. Switch off the lamps, light up the candles, and enter the world of OUIJA.
It begins with a flashback to a pre-teen girls’ slumber party as a pretty lil’ blonde gives her BFF, along with the theatre audience, the rules of the game. Flash ahead years later and the ladies are about to finish up high school when tragedy strikes. That BFF, Laine (Olivia Cooke) is shattered by her loss. She must know why this happened and so she gets out, of course, that dusty old ouija board. Since she can’t do this alone, Laine recruits her beau Trevor (Daren Kagasoff), her rebelleous kid sister Sarah (Ana Coto), the deceased’s beau Pete (Douglas Smith), and mutual pal, diner waitress Isabelle (Bianca Santos). Needless to say, they get much more than they bargained for when all matter of weird stuff starts happening. Laine realizes that they opened a portal that has allowed an evil force into our dimension, a force that targets the five friends. Is there any way they can stop this entity and send it back before its vengeance is unleashed upon them all?
First time feature director Stiles White (a veteran special effects artist), working from the screenplay he co-wrote with Juliet Snowden, pummels the film with every PG-13 “spookshow” cliché we’ve seen again and again. Characters pop into frame with exploding music beats while others emerge from the shadows silently for no good reason other than to try to make the heroine and audience jump. The spirits are a variation of the pale, stringy-haired wild wraiths so common since THE RING from a dozen years ago. And they’re intent on offing the cast as if this were a kids’ cable channel FINAL DESTINATION. There’s none of the inventive, infectious energy that made THE CONJURING an unexpected multiplex thrill ride. Cooke leads the good-looking cast through the motions while glowering as if she was fretting over exams (much as her role in THE QUIET ONES or on TV’s “Bates Motel”). The whole cast is interchangeable, as if they were plucked from the latest CW prime time show or a soft drink commercial all running around a generic West coast town. At least Coto gets a mild punk/goth look (a ripped shirt!) along with a “grrril” snarl. We do get a couple of supporting turns from two screen vets. One’s from a current popular horror franchise, another’s a fave film teen witch. These ladies are the only adults to make an impression, the rest are invisible and ineffectual (Laine and Sarah’s single Pop skips out early on a business trip). During a brief scene in which Laine meets a school counselor we almost expect his dialogue to be replaced by the saxophone “waa-waa” of the adults in the Peanuts animated TV cartoons. The film will work for its intended audiences as young girls will bury their faces in their boyfriends’ shoulders (and to be fair, both will spring from their seats a few times), but for those of us who have been to more than a couple of movie haunted houses, it is a real slog. Do they have to play the game in the dead of night? Why not enjoy a potluck lunch before opening the window to begin the summoning? Sorry, logic’s got no place here. Instead of heading to theatres, OUIJA would be better off gathering dust with the other games
At some point in our lives, we all get swept away and caught up in the intoxicating high of young, new love, whether its real or imagined. While fully immersed in the depth of all this romantic and emotional giddiness, it would seem nothing could tear the two of you apart, nothing except, perhaps, a sudden and frightening event that occurs of unknown origin. Consider it the newlyweds’ worst nightmare, a honeymoon gone horribly wrong, at the hands of forces beyond your control.
In director Leigh Janiak’s film HONEYMOON, the newlyweds at the center of our story experience one version of this very nightmare. Paul and Bea are swimming in their joyous new life together and no other soul nor care in the world around them even registers on their radar. The two of them are sharing some time away from their jobs, their family, friends and everything else at a little country house by the lake. One night, Paul wakes up and finds his wife missing, only to discover her still, silent body standing almost comatose in the dark woods. Something bad has happened to Bea, but the details are lost on both of them at first.
Paul, played by Harry Treadaway, is a kind, caring average Joe that is clearly infatuated with his new wife. Bea, played by Rose Leslie of HBO’s Game of Thrones, is equally in love and the two carry on with an energetic, playfully erotic honeymoon until the mysterious night in the woods. From this point on, that carefree feeling is gone and their honeymoon rapidly spirals into a chaotic chain reaction of secrets, paranoia and unsettling revelations by Paul that something has changed about Bea and she clearly will never be the same woman he married.
The sudden and abrupt shift in tone of HONEYMOON puts on the breaks of our good time watching these two likable characters getting their kicks. The jarring nature of the event in the woods shakes us back into reality then plunges us into the uncertain and nerve-racking mystery of who, what and why. Bea plays this off at first, but her gradual emotional, psychological and physical departure from her husband sets Paul on a fear-driven mission to save her, somehow. Then the strange marks and bleeding begins and Paul struggles to convince Bea she needs help, as she pleads with Paul not to pry into what’s happening for his own safety.
The premise of HONEYMOON is fueled by the intimate setting and small cast. The answer to exactly what has occurred to Bea and why and by whom, or what, is never answered and is only vaguely eluded to as fuzzy, theoretical possibilities as derived by the audiences’ own imaginations. Then again, the film isn’t about the what, who or why, but the relationship and the aftermath this event causes. This is where Leslie and Treadaway deliver the backbone of the film, which is light on special effects and supporting cast.
HONEYMOON is a character-driven horror film of the utmost psychological nature. Something clearly happened to Bea, and is continuing to happen, evolving and progressing as Paul continues to feel more and more helpless. Treadaway shows admirable range in conveying the array of emotions Paul must endure during the span of this film, convincingly portraying a man overcome by fear, confusion, anger and to some extent, even betrayal. Leslie, on the other hand, continues to show she has grit as well as sexual appeal. She can be alluring and tough, but void of emotion or frighteningly creepy when necessary.
Janiak paints an eerie modern tale of horror with human emotions and the fear of the unknown, melding classic themes of Edgar Allen Poe with body horror that evokes the influence of David Cronenberg. HONEYMOON does not fall back on special effects or simple, primal shock tactics as a crutch to keep the audience attentive. In fact, I feel as though a very intentional effort was made to avoid the use of these tactics at all costs, whenever and however possible. This, in turn, makes for a much more enjoyable and believable experience.
HONEYMOON is a slow burn. The story builds, then crushes us, then gradually rebuilds in the aftermath of the wreckage, developing an entirely new and much darker universe for these two characters than that which we were first introduced. The film does require a small amount of patience and a slightly higher tolerance for some uncomfortable moments of minimally-risque sexual horror that will have both men and women cringing and quite possibly nauseated.
Writer and director Joe Begos’ ALMOST HUMAN (2013) may draw influence from the oft-remade “Body Snatcher” genre of science-fiction, but where he strives to stand apart is by bringing the classic standard to the modern grindhouse horror audience. This is a gory, violent rendition of the concept of alien creatures taking over human bodies and controlling them from within like robots. While this approach has its niche market, I always contend that viewers should try and look past the gore and violence but still embrace it as they experience the film as a whole, then make judgments based on more than simply the visceral sights and sounds that may prove distasteful on their own.
ALMOST HUMAN, not to be mistaken for the short-lives futuristic sci-fi television series that aired the same year, presents itself with a surprisingly low key, unassuming disposition of simplicity. The film avoids the more darkly comedic, or slyly self-deprecating trends that have fared well for films like HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN, instead investing in a more dialogue-conscious, character-driver story that allows the audience to connect more closely to the human element of the horrific events that unfold on screen.
That’s awfully deep talk, so let me move beyond that now and discuss the more visceral traits. ALMOST HUMAN, perhaps shockingly, is not as gratuitously violent and gory as may have been suggested. Granted, I am coming from years of exposure to the type, but the true horror here comes from the cast and script. While the special effects are noteworthy, not over-the-top but realistic, their used sparingly, relative to the genre. Its the anticipation and drama that keeps the viewer on edge in this film.
ALMOST HUMAN stars Josh Ethier as Mark Fisher, a man returned home after having disappeared two years prior in a mysterious flash of blue light. Graham Skipper plays his friend Seth Hampton, one of a small clutch of witnesses who have tried to move on with their lives while fully aware of the unforgettable events that occurred. With Mark’s return, however, something has changed. He has changed and he has a mission.
The story takes place in Derry, Maine, the same fictional town that often serves as the setting for Stephen King’s tales of horror. Told with an indie-spirited perspective, ALMOST HUMAN could be called a minimalist backwoods alien abduction story, graphically interpreted for mature audiences, but its also an exhilarating, edge-of-your-seat film on a small scale. Ethier nails his performance as the cold, empty emotionless husk of a human body driven by its other-worldly host. Consider Schwarzenegger as the Terminator without the accent and a decent skill for acting, then dress him up like Paul Bunyan and you’ve got Mark Fisher.
ALMOST HUMAN is not your 50s sci-fi. It’s gritty, steeped in realism and yes, its violent. Why do I keep coming back to that? Because its important, but the horror isn’t entirely visual. The sound in the film plays a crucial role, both literally and psychologically. Lights and sounds become synonymous to terror and fear, whereas darkness takes an unconventional break from being the harbinger of doom. Viewing the film on blu-ray only greatly enhances this element of the film’s design. The sound becomes its own character symbiotic to the grotesque worm-like alien creature that have implanted themselves within their human hosts.
As for the special effects, the aliens themselves are handles much like Spielberg’s handling of “Bruce” the great white shark in JAWS. The less you see of the inhuman antagonist the better, generating a greater sense of fear and discomfort than can be realized by over use of special effects. Once again, this is where Begos’ use of sound plays an integral role. the aliens are far more present in the film as interpreted through the high-pitched, ear drum piercing shrieks they make. Like fingernails on chalkboards multiplied by a thousand. Add to this the short 80-minute running time and you have a compact sensory science-fiction slasher flick.
As for any lack of a happy ending in the story, this can be remedied by pleasant surprises within this blu-ray’s special features. Containing not one, but two feature-length commentaries: one with writer/director Joe Begos and Josh Ethier and another with this duo plus actor Graham Skipper and producer Cory Lockman. As if this weren’t enough for the average enthusiast, the blu-ray also includes a feature-length making of documentary, a behind-the-scenes featurette on the set with Graham Skipper, and the short film TOXIN, in addition to the standard inclusion of trailers, TV spots and photo galleries. Overall, the ALMOST HUMAN blu-ray is the total package that blends sci-fi and horror with an accessibly engaging but minimally cerebral story and lots of goodies. Oh, yeah… and, it has a chainsaw.
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.
