Interview with Justin Benson & Aaron Moorhead, writer and co-directors of Resolution

images.jpeg

Cult Projections: For me Resolution was the standout movie from this year’s A Night Of Horror Film Festival in Sydney.

Justin: Oh cool! Thank you, very very much. That’s amazing. It was really unfortunate that that was one of the only festivals we didn’t manage to get to go to that we really wanted to go to; y’know, costs of getting to Australia, and all that. That means a lot to us though, so thank you!

CP: What’s your background together, and how did you share the directorial duties?

Justin: We met as interns at a commercial production company in Los Angeles; it was my last day and Aaron’s first day. It was this really unique situation where people could express to each other, “I wanna be a writer/director” and “I wanna be a director/DP”. And it was one of those weird things that happen where two people actually go do those things. And so we were working together more and more, on short films and music videos, and stuff like that. We had some money saved up to shoot a feature, and between the two of us we had so many do-it-yourself-filmmaking skills that we’d worked on over the years that we could actually go make our own feature for very little money.

CP: Although Resolution deals with the supernatural, there’s a science fiction element – a cosmic intrigue, if you will. Are you a both big science-fiction fans? Do you have favourite science-fiction horror movies?

Aaron: We absolutely love fantastic cinema. We have a rule, not a rule, but one of things that Justin and I bond on; we don’t just love sci-fi movies, or horror movies, we just love movies that are good. And we gravitate toward the strange, and that’s usually fantastic film and genre film. There are definitely favourite movies, like I love Children of Men. I love Children of Men. But I also love Jurassic Park.

resolution_onesheet.jpeg

CP: Now without wanting to pigeonhole you, how aware were you that you were contributing to the “found footage” sub-genre, but delivering something altogether leftfield, and decidedly original? Where did the screenplay come from?

Justin: The conception of the screenplay was several things. In the most general sense it was a desire to write a movie that is conceptually frightening, not just a jump-scare every fifteen minutes, not make it effects every fifteen minutes, but something that can really get under your skin. Something that Aaron and I found to be a conceptually frightening idea. There was x-amount of money in the cheque account: how do we create an effective movie where we’re not going to go beyond our means? Figuratively our movie is like a little kid wearing his dad’s clothes. A person who tries to make a Spielberg homage for ten thousand dollars; it’s like, oh man, that’s not good.

[all laugh]

Justin: Just trying to tell an actual scary story and give that experience in the theatre. For example, sometimes you get the question: what made you do a genre-bending movie that had comedy and drama? We never actually thought about it, but if you want to actually frighten people, if you want people to actually feel fear, and give them that experience while watching a movie, then you create realistic characters and you give levity to situations, and understated humour, and you give them conflicts in their lives, that maybe you don’t typically see in cinema. And the other thing is the Jaws thing, y’know? In Jaws there’s a monster in the water, and that’s awesome, really cool. But the monster in the water isn’t that effective without those really interesting men on the boat.

CP: Yeah, indeed. [pause] The screenplay is emotionally and psychologically complex, but what I also like is that it arrives at a very stark and resonant nightmare ending. Can you describe the importance to you both - as writer and co-directors – in delivering all, some, or none of the answers to the questions that you raise?

Justin: What is interesting about our movie is, well, we definitely know our movie is mysterious, but the reality is – upon second viewing or third viewing – people find there is a literal answer to every single question in the movie, I mean quite literally. Perhaps not what happens to them after the credits roll, but everything else, you watch it and absorb it, but it is there, very much there. There are wildly different interpretations to our movie, but there is also one definite interpretation. When people are watching it they’re like, “Oh, there’s a lot of David Lynch extractions here,” but maybe they’re just stylistic touches, visual poetry, whatever, but then the second or third time, they’re like, “Oh fuck, it’s all very literal.” It can be interpreted very directly if you want it to. We’ve heard the Lynch comparison on occasion, which is awesome because he’s, like, amazing, but his are open to interpretation. Ours can be open to interpretation, we don’t mind it, but there’s also one definite answer that’s buried in the subtext. But there are potential red herrings throughout the movie.

CP: We love red herrings. [pause] The relationship between Michael and Chris produces some wonderfully black comic dialogue, how important is humour in a horror movie that’s not a comedy, and how best should humour be integrated?

Justin: If you’re making a horror movie to scare people, let’s leave the genre side out of it, you have to really get them to identify with the characters, like the characters, and view these characters as real people, and the thing is, in real life people can make light of really dramatic situations, that’s realistic. If you’re trying to scare people you need to make realistic characters, have that levity, make jokes of situations, and all these things. It’s a necessary part of every type of movie, but especially if you want to do something that’s actually frightening.

ResolutionDVD-723x1024.jpg

CP: I quite agree. Frequently directors seem to fail in that. But you guys did a great job with the writing and casting.

Justin: Our actors delivered this to us on a silver platter. The script is pretty much exactly what you see on screen. But those guys are really, really talented guys. They just got it. 90% of good directing is good casting. And in that regard we directed very well.

[all laugh]

CP: Horror is probably more trendy amongst up and coming directors than it’s ever been. Is there a Golden Rule that all horror writers and/or directors should try to follow, and if so, what would that be?

Justin: You shouldn’t rely on make-up effects exclusively and you should try and do visual effects really cheaply, even if it looks bad. And if there’s no jump scare every ten pages you’ve failed. No, we’re kidding, we’re kidding! There are bad rules that a lot of people seem to follow. The good rule is - it’s not a rule in fact, but we wish it was – please be original. And we don’t mean, “Now you see my monster is wearing a mask, but also has a tail!” or “My zombies aren’t fast or slow, they’re medium zombies!” All that’s doing is putting a Band-Aid on the problem. We really feel there’s so much room for innovation. Not like what kind of monster, or what kind of genre you’re doing, but storytelling in general is in a really bad place, in that homage movies are becoming the norm. Even in indie film, where you don’t have to do it to get your money back. The Golden Rule is don’t do the thing that someone else just did. There’s no reason to do it. There’s NO reason to do that. Unless you’re just a businessman. When Aaron and I are working on material if someone else has done it, then we’re, like, well we can’t do it. That’s just how we work.

CP: Well congratulations, because that’s how I felt coming out of your movie at the festival; that finally some writer/directors delivering a horror movie that was fresh and original. [pause] Do you believe in the spirit world? UFOs? Do you believe in parallel universes?

Aaron: I’m not going to speak for Justin, although we don’t usually disagree on something. I personally do not believe in the spirit world. I think there are some rules of physics that we haven’t yet understood, there could be some really new stuff just around the corner, but in terms of the paranormal – at least the commonly accepted sub-culture version of it – I don’t think that exists.

CP: It’s always interesting when filmmakers are tackling this, as to whether they are coming from pure conviction or pure speculation.

Aaron: By the way, we love talking about it though, and not in the cynical way. We think it’s fascinating, fascinating.

CP: That’s like me; fascinated, but sceptical.

Justin: There’s an interesting thing in storytelling that one can do. There are a lot of places where supernatural phenomenon can fall apart logically. It all does eventually pretty much, but there are certain things, where it’s harder to deconstruct and make them fall apart for an audience, and those are fun to play with. If you can keep your audience distracted enough with some good jokes and some good drama you can kind of get them to believe in that and really get under their skin. But it’s tricky. There are supernatural phenomenon that you can Wikipedia and find the source of it, when in history that happened, and there’s stuff that you can’t. There’s stuff that requires a lot of thinking about. Kind of like the first ten minutes of The Exorcist, which for me makes that movie quite frightening. We’re not talking about a demon that’s from a religion I can Wikipedia and see that that religion derives from this religion. But with The Exorcist this thing is ancient and mysterious. It pre-dates history! It doesn’t follow arbitrary rules. And that’s what’s so frightening about that. There’s a halfway scientific biologist approach to a lot of the stuff we do, in that does it prey on our primal fears or on institutional fears. We’re more interested in the primal fears; scary on a conceptual level, rather than scary on an educational level.

reso_05ca.jpg

CP: Are there any directors whose work you look to for inspiration? Any current directors that are exciting you at the moment?

Aaron: We’re inspired just by good work, like Ben Wheatley. Are you a Ben Wheatley fan?

CP: Yes, I love Kill List and Sightseers, and looking forward to A Field in England.

Aaron: A Field in England was shot for 250, 000 and he’s a fucking rock star. I love that, it’s so cool. We love the Soskia twins who did American Mary. On a bigger level, Cuaron for Gravity and Children of Men, obviously. We have big budget tastes; we both love Gore Verbinski. I grew up with Spielberg, although I’ll probably never make a movie like his. And we like Danny Boyle, we like his spirit quite a bit. And we like Richard Linklater.

CP: What next for you? Another collaboration?

Justin: Of course. Our next movie will be called Spring. It’s about a young man who leaves from California, with a lot of personal problems, and takes a nowhere trip to Italy, and sparks a romance with a girl on the southern coast of Italy. And we really feel these two are falling in love, but when they go their separate ways, we see her go through some transformations and we think is she a vampire, is she a werewolf, or is she some kind of Lovecraftian sea creature? But they all turn out to be red herrings, and what she turns out to be is, probably something that we shouldn’t put any kind of journalistic meaning to just yet. But it’s a new monster mythology of our own creation, and people who’ve read the script are like, “Oh I really like it because it reminds me of Cronenberg body horror, a very realistic character relationship thing.”

CP: Sounds very exciting.

Justin: It is. It’s the most exciting thing since A Field in England, my mom said.

CP: It’s been fabulous chatting with you guys. But your voices are very, very similar.

Justin: Yeah, we’re told that. Just pick arbitrarily. Would it be better if one of us, next time, attempted an Australian accent?

CP: If your attempt at an Australian accent is as bad as Tarantino’s then no.

Justin: I promise it’s worse.

[all laugh]

Justin: Oh, one last thing. Wake in Fright changed our lives.

CP: That’s actually my favourite Australian movie. That movie is fucking awesome.

Aaron: God, that movie is amazing. Absolutely incredible. I was horrified. I stopped drinking beer for two hours after I saw that movie. Two hours!!

CP: I know. It’s the true definition of the word: fug.

[all laugh]

CP: Hopefully with your next movie you can come out to the festival!

J/A: Thanks very much, great talking with you. 

Interview with Evan Glodell, writer/director of Bellflower

200135-Bellflower-Interview-Flixist-header.jpg

Bryn: Tell me a little about your background as a filmmaker? What movies or directors inspired you, and what was the first camera you used?

Evan: Oh, whoa! I don’t think anybody’s specifically asked me that! I like lots of movies, but I’m really bad at nailing down who my favourite people are. But the first camera I ever used was a Sony DX 1000, the first mini-DV camera.

B: You’ve worked mostly as a cinematographer, did you study that, or are you self-taught?

E: Mostly self-taught. I’m from Wisconsin and I moved to L.A. to try and get into filmmaking, the film business, and I didn’t know what I was doing, but I just started making movies on a camcorder with my friends. Like, really short, small films. And I basically kept doing that for a couple of years, and then I got into the hobby of modifying cameras. Then people started seeing things I made and noticed that it looked different, so sometimes people would hire me - only a couple of times - to shoot things for them. I think it was more like, “What are these cameras, why does this look weird?” It was just a couple of favours I did.

B: Oh, okay [laughs] Well, yes, it was certainly the look; the lighting and the whole look of the film that struck me initially, captivated me; a dreamy mood of listless summer days. It was only afterwards that I found out that it was a unique camera that you’d designed and built. Was it expensive to customise? Was there any kind of post-production tinkering or grading at all?

E: Oh, very little. There are things going on. There are four different cameras that we shot on, and three of them were pretty heavily customised, and then also the Silicon Imaging SI-2K, which was the base for everything we built. I still use their sensor and their recording electronics, and that camera has a colour correction programme built into it. So if I built something around that sensor and an image would come in, sometimes so messed up that you couldn’t really see it, then we’d heavily colour-correct it back, to get it to look the way you wanted it. And in doing that, the couple of different rigs we had, we could put out two or three distinct looks. In a way it’s kind of like analogue and digital processing, but it’s all put on while we were shooting. In post-production it was more like if something was too dark, or two angles didn’t match, we’d adjust them.

B: Imdb lists the cost of the feature at about seventeen grand (U.S.), is that pretty accurate for the actual shooting cost? What was the most expensive part of the production?

E: It’s accurate as any of us are able to figure out. We never actually had any money. I think the most money I ever had in my hands was money I’d saved up right before we started; I had a couple of thousand dollars and most of that went into buying the Buick Skylark. Slowly, bit by bit, it sucked up money, ‘cos every time we needed to build something, paint, and hydraulics and switches and gauges and stuff, it kinda builds up. I think if you cut it down the middle; how much money was spent on the Medusa car and how much money was spent everywhere else, more than half of all the money that was used over those three years went into just keeping the car running and modifying it.

B: So it took three years to shoot?

E: Yeah. We tried to shoot the thing in one non-stop go at the very beginning; it went on for three months. And at the end of three months we had shot most of the movie, but not all of it, but we gave up ‘cos we were so out of money, and the car was broken down, so we just had to stop. And then I tried to finish the movie with what we’d shot, and realised I couldn’t do it. So for the next two-and-a-half years I just kept editing and we would get together and build the stuff we needed for the next scene, which was mostly the hard scenes.

B: So tell me a little about the screenplay. How long did that take to write, how much of it was improvised, and how much of it was autobiographical?

E: Oh wow. The first draft probably took a couple of months. And that was in 2003 or 2004. And ever since I had finished that first version I was trying to figure out how to make it, and failing everywhere I looked. We could make this for ourselves, and then when that turned out to be too difficult, then I started focusing on getting better so I had a better reel so I can raise some money. It wasn’t until years later that we realised that wasn’t going to work either, so we decided to go back and just do it ourselves. So how much is improvised? I know when we were shooting we would try and do each take different just so we wouldn’t feel like we were reading lines, but in the end most of the scenes are pretty close to what was written.

B: And how much of it was autobiographical, ‘cos it feels very personal?

E: Yes it is. It’s really, really, really … It makes me uncomfortable how personal it is. To me it feels like emotionally it’s 100% autobiographical, but I purposefully switched all the details out. We’re talking about the first half of the movie. Because after that it all kinda goes insane. But a lot of stuff is taken directly from my life, or ideas that happened to my close friends, or happened to me when I was younger that I mixed in. I’m not sure if that’s a good answer. It’s based on real life, but it’s not a recreation of anything.  

B: Tell me then a little bit about the casting. Did you audition many actors? Rebecca’s character Courtney was one of the movie’s more interesting, and her performance one of the strongest.

E: Yeah, she’s awesome. All of the main roles; me, Tyler, Rebecca, Jessie, and Vince, were all people I had known for a long time and had worked with on other short films and projects. We had a couple of casting calls, just in L.A, we rented a place for the day and we had people come in to fill the bit parts. I was very adamant that I didn’t want any of the main roles to be played by people who weren’t close to me.

B: There were four editors, you included. How much of the movie was made in the editing room? What was your shooting ratio?

E: I don’t know the exact ratio. There are some parts that changed quite a bit, and other bits that didn’t change. The longer it went on the more we wanted the movie to be the best it could be. I had watched the movie with every single scene deleted, and a number of scenes re-ordered, especially in the second half. It’s definitely not like the script, but the overall structure is there.

B: I see it as a kind of hybrid buddy movie and dark romance, but then after I watched it I read that it was being included in this “mumblecore” sub-genre, of which I’ve seen maybe one or two! Where do you see Bellflower fitting in?

E: If I had to, I would say exactly what you said. It’s a movie about the friendship of these two guys, and it’s also a dark romance movie. I had never even heard of mumblecore until the reviews come out saying that we were part of the mumblecore movement, and I had to go look up online to found out what mumblecore was.

B: Yeah, me too!

[both laugh]

B: Apparently it’s been around for ten years!

E: I know! I had no idea!

B: What next for Team Coatwolf?

E: I have a script I’ve been working on for a couple of years that I’m just about to start showing people, so I can hopefully start shooting.

B: That sounds great! Look you’ve got an amazing little film on your hands; I wish you all the best for the future.

E: Thank you. Yeah, it was good talking to you.