Leigh Whannell | INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 3

With Insidious: Chapter 3 hitting cinemas in a matter of days, we were lucky enough to grab some time with Leigh Whannell. Having written the first two movies, not to mention having played Specs in those, Whannell is finally making his directorial debut with the third movie in the Insidious franchise. Having co-created the Saw series, as well as his work on the Insidious films and the upcoming Cooties, Whannell is one of the biggest names in modern horror. We got to chat to the always-engaging Aussie about Insidious, Cooties, and whether there’s enough legs in the Saw franchise for one more outing.

STARBURST: Plot-wise, Insidious: Chapter 3 is a prequel to what we’ve seen in the previous two films in the series. Was that always going to be the case with this third film?

Leigh Whannell: No, I think I didn’t know what it was. I kind of sat down with a blank page, literally. Every time I write a new screenplay, I buy a new notebook and kind of look at the empty pages as this sort of wonderful potential, like what the script will be when this notebook is filled up. So sitting there looking at this blank page, and I’m thinking what can this film be, and I just made a few decisions about the prequel thing. The first is that I didn’t wanna involve the Lambert family; I thought they’d taken enough of a beating. Then I decided to make Elisa the main character. As soon as I did that, I realised it had to be a prequel because she died in the first movie. The only way to really delve into her life was to go backwards. So that was really it; that was the whole driving force behind it being a prequel – it was Lin Shaye.

And it’s great to see Lin Shaye playing such a huge part, as quite often these days she’s just used in supporting roles. Was it a nice change for you to bring her and that character to the forefront of the movie?

Yeah, it was. I love that Lin got to play a main role. She is not usually given those roles, as you said. Indeed, women her age are rarely given lead roles in films, even rarer that they get to play such a badass. I was into that. When we were shooting the film, I started to get more and more into the idea of Lin being this kind of badass demon slayer, and I just thought it was a cool concept and not something we’ve really seen before. It’s just another reason I’m so happy and have so many good memories of the film. It’s this sort of happy accident that Lin got to play a role she would never normally get to play.

With the first two films, a common theme is fear of the unknown and facing up to that. Is that the same here, particularly with Stefanie Scott’s character?

Yeah, I mean fear of the unknown is the bread and butter of haunted house movies. Usually you’ve got a family and they have no idea what’s happening to them. That first act of a haunted house movie is all about people saying “What the hell’s going on?!” I feel like that’s something that audiences really latch onto. If you look at those two words, “haunted” and “house”… most people who have seen a haunted house movie in the theatre probably live in a house. So they can relate to it. If they see your average kitchen or average living room, they can put themselves in it. There’s a very relatable aspect to that. It’s different if you set a horror film in the depths of hell – it might be fun, it might be great, but it’s not something that the audience can latch onto in terms of their own life. What I love about haunted house movies is that relatability and just how average and common the characters are. So I wanted to do that with this movie. We had a brand new family, so we could kind of start off again with that bewildered response to these hauntings, whereas the Lambert family from the first two movies have been through so many hauntings at this point that if we focussed the film on them then they’d be experts.

 
On the set of Insidious: Chapter 3 

With yourself having written all three of the Insidious movies, there’s obviously some continuity in place on the production, but how different was it for you to pop your directorial cherry this time out?

It was great! It’s always been a goal of mine, but I wasn’t sure what it was gonna be that I would direct or indeed how I would be in this job. I didn’t know if I would suck at directing. It really is something that you need to learn by doing, kind of like jumping out of an airplane. I can show you a diagram on a chalk board with the velocity speed that you’ll be going, I can show you how to pack a parachute, I can show you videos of people jumping out of a plane, but none of that is going to matter when you’re up there thousands of feet in the air and about to jump out of a plane. It’s something that you need to actually do to know. I kind of feel like that about directing, so when the opportunity came up to direct this film I thought, “Let’s just dive in with both feet and find out how it is.”

And how did you feel about the directing job afterwards? Was it a good experience and something that you’ll look to come back to?

Yes, definitely. I had a great time, actually. I’m starting to worry that I was too spoilt and I didn’t actually get a realistic view of what filmmaking’s actually like. I have heard a lot of horror stories about filmmaking from different people over the years, other filmmakers that I know, but I actually had such a great time that I’m worried that the next film I shoot I’m going to get my arse kicked from here to Galway and suddenly realise, “Oh, that was not a real experience. This is what directing’s really like!”

Did it feel a bit odd to be doing an Insidious film without having Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne and James Wan around on set?

It was a little bit. It was odd to be on an Insidious film set without James there, certainly. Usually I’m sitting in the background as the writer and he’s the one in charge of things. It was strange to be the person doing that, but I actually started to treat the film like it was a brand new movie. I certainly didn’t think of it as a sequel. I tried to think of it as a standalone film, and that really helped me.

The last time we spoke to you early last year, you’d just starting writing Cooties, which is now set for release later this year. From the trailer, it looks like a great mixture of comedy and horror. Given the subject matter , was it always going to be quite a light-hearted film?

Thank you! And yeah, my goal was to make a comedy in general. I’ve always wanted to do a comedy. Then when the idea for Cooties came around, I thought it was perfect because it kind of had one foot in the horror camp, one foot in the comedy camp. And I loved making it. The cast was all these comedy legends; you had Nasim Pedrad from SNL, you had Jack McBrayer from 30 Rock, Rainn Wilson from The Office. It was just a great comedy cast, and so I kind of felt unqualified to be there on the set as an actor. But I had a ball, I got along really well with everybody, and I’m really proud of that film. I can’t wait for you to be able to see it. It comes out in the US on September 18th, but I’m not sure when it comes out everywhere else, but I love it; I’m super proud of it.


Cooties 

With Insidious: Chapter 3 out shortly, and Cooties to follow later this year, as an actor, writer, producer and director, what route are you going to take next?

I think I’d love to direct another film. I really would. I really got the bug and I just feel like I’m gonna have to make up for lost time and really claw my way back to the director’s chair. It’s never easy to make a film, so I’m not expecting to have one dropped into my lap and just be doing it, but I really want to direct another film. That would be my primary goal next.

And is there any particular genre you’d be looking to go for next?

Musical’s probably the only genre I can think of that I don’t really want to direct in the future . I don’t know exactly. I’m going through a real sci-fi phase. I’m gonna have to make this sci-fi movie now because any journalist that interviews me or asks me what I’ve got coming up next, I’ve been saying, “Well I’m really into sci-fi right now…” So I’ve really committed to this sci-fi movie. But that’s just something that I really enjoy as a genre, and I’d love to do something in that genre.

Maybe some kind of creepy sci-fi horror?

You know, horror’s very malleable. You can make a sci-fi horror film, and I do love films like The Thing and Alien. Sci-fi horror movies like that are amazing, so maybe it could be that.

Finally, there’s still rumours and rumblings of a Saw remake or another entry in that franchise. Is that something that you have any wish to see or to be possibly involved with?

I don’t know where they’re at with it. I know that they’re not shooting anything right now. If they were shooting anything then they’d have told me, as I’m still close with those guys. So I’m kind of as in the dark as you are. If they’re secretly planning something then they haven’t told me, but they’re certainly not in the middle of shooting it.

And do you think that there’s enough legs still in the franchise for another film or two?

I don’t know with Saw. It’s been so long since I was involved with Saw. I feel like it’s all about the idea, you know? I guess this goes for any film or film franchise, but what makes it worth doing is having a great idea. If you rush it and you just kind of push this film out just to cash in on the interest in Saw, it’s not going to be good. I would love it if they came up with an idea that was truly original and truly kind of turns the whole Saw concept or gimmick or story on its head. That’s what I think they need, and I think that’s what they’re waiting for. That’s why it’s taking a while.

Insidious: Chapter 3 is in UK cinemas from June 5th, and Cooties is waiting for a confirmed UK release later in the year.

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW OR ON TWITTER @STARBURST_MAG

Find your local STARBURST stockist HERE, or buy direct from us HERE. For our digital edition (available to read on your iOS, Android, Amazon, Windows 8, Samsung and/or Huawei device – all for just £1.99), visit MAGZTER DIGITAL NEWSSTAND.

CLICK TO BUY!

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB:

Toa Fraser | THE DEAD LANDS

For as long as we have been telling stories there are still those first moments within storytelling that bring with them a sense of historical importance. Speaking with STARBURST, filmmaker Toa Fraser reflected on encountering this responsibility that he found to be mixed with joy. “This is only the first original Māori language feature film… It is a real responsibility, but at the same time a real joy to be able to celebrate language, traditions and customs.” Fraser is a filmmaker that creates an impression of a storyteller using cinema to look to both the heritage of the past while keeping one eye on the present and future, telling us: “The Dead Lands was an opportunity to use the amazing contemporary tools of moviemaking that tell a story in a way that our ancestors would have told their audience.

During the course of the conversation, Fraser reflected on his youthful encounters with cinema and his attention to the process behind the magic, while offering his thoughts on the theatrical influence on his approach to directing and the role of music and movement within his cinema.

STARBURST: Why did you choose a creative career? Was there one inspirational or defining moment?

Toa Fraser: I suppose the slightly personal answer is that I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark with my nana in Southend when I was around six, and since then I knew that I wanted a career in the movies. As most people do, I underwent the questioning of whether that was a wise thing to pursue in my late teens and early twenties.

I just started writing for theatre at the University of Auckland and I had a couple of plays that were very successful, and so I kind of fell into it. I lucked out really quite early on, and I managed to maintain that vision. I am pleased to be able to say that The Dead Lands has a very strong relationship to Raiders of the Lost Ark and the movies I enjoyed as a kid and as a teenager.

The moment of realisation that films are created is an important moment in our relationship with cinema. Can you recall the point when you realised the experience films had on you were actually created by an entire team of people?

I was always aware of the mechanics of filmmaking. I talked about Raiders
, and I remember seeing Star Wars when I was three. I can remember going to the Odeon, Leicester Square and seeing The Empire Strikes Back. Before the age of DVD commentaries and such, there was a whole bunch of behind the scenes stuff available for these kinds of movies – really cool books about the making of the movies. So growing up, I was into the mechanics of moviemaking, and when I was twelve, I wrote to the James Bond producers to ask them if I could make my own James Bond film. I got a letter back from their lawyers in California saying that I couldn’t!

But I suppose the moment I thought of when you were asking me the question was when I was working as an usher at a multiplex in Auckland in the mid-nineties. When I first started, there were some incredible movies that were playing: Casino, HEAT, Braveheart and Pulp Fiction. As an usher, one of the things that you had to do was to go in five minutes before the end of the film to wait for the movie to finish in order to open the doors. So I saw the last five minutes of Casino twenty times before I saw the whole movie, and it is quite a cool lesson about watching a movie with objectivity when you know how it is going to end. So if anything, that was the moment that I started watching movies with an objective eye.

How important a role has theatre played in shaping you as both a filmmaker and storyteller? Do you think you would be a different filmmaker without the experience of having worked in the theatre?

I think of myself as an actor’s director
, although I have worked with some really fantastic cinema technicians and artists; people that have a whole bunch of skills and knowledge about the practical aspects of camera work and making the light look awesome, and the sound sound great. But for me I started my career working with actors in front of audiences, and so on the film set I put the actors first at the start of everyday. The whole mode of working when I am directing is about prioritising for performance, and that ease with the actors comes from my work in theatre. I know that there are directors who are far more comfortable with the tools of filmmaking, but the key tool for me is working with the actors.

You were brought on to direct The Dead Lands by producer Matthew Metcalfe. Can you elaborate on the backstory that led to your involvement with this project?

Yeah, that’s right.
The producer, Matthew Metcalfe and I met a long time ago now; about seven years ago after I had made my first film Naming Number Two. He asked me to direct My Talks with Dean Spanley, which we made with Peter O’ Toole, Sam Neill and Bryan Brown. It was a fantastic, wonderful and beautiful experience, but it was a very different filmdialogue driven with a lot of interiors and very quite formal and classical I’d say. But after that, I wanted to change direction and do something more athletic. It took me a long time to figure out how that was going to manifest. After Matthew and I had had a conversation about it, he came back to me with the idea of making a movie based on a raw New Zealand production of Giselle, with Gillian Murphy the great American Ballet Theatre dancer. So we made that in 2013, and we had a great time doing it. At the same time, we started talking about choreography and an approach to an athletic style of filmmaking that would fit really well with this script that he had: The Dead Lands, written by Glenn Standring. So we became excited about that and he asked me to make it, and I am very grateful that he did.

To follow-up on your point about movement and choreography, we have always perceived film to have a musical, rhythmic and melodic quality. Therein you can look at film as being choreographed, which leads to a comparison to dance, and the action scenes in The Dead Lands tap directly into the musical and choreographic nature of film…

Yeah
, that is really apt and really true. As I said, I worked immediately before this on a classical ballet film Giselle, with one of the world’s best practitioners of ballet, Gillian Murphy. Her finance, Ethan Stiefel, choreographed it. He’s an amazing choreographer and dancer in his own right too. So the relationship between the action and the dance of Giselle was very much at the forefront of my mind when we began working on The Dead Lands. Not only that, but also the style of martial arts that Jamus Webster, our martial arts specialist, brought to his work and our work was very performative. It had a real musicality as you say, and a dance like element to it as well. All of the actors were awesome dancers and so there was a very strong relationship between dance and action. For me, music is very important and I use a lot of music in my movies. Don McGlashan, who composed the soundtrack for The Dead Lands, he and I have worked together on all of my movies, including a small piece that he wrote for Giselle. So it was a great opportunity to take our collaboration to another place.

Matthew Metcalfe has said that it was essential to take the audience on a journey with The Dead Lands. The negotiation with an action film is to circumvent the inherent weakness of action as being potentially less stimulating than the interpersonal moments. With The Dead Lands, it struck us that you circumvent this by creating that essential journey in which the action punctuates the personal story and experience for the audience. How do you perceive the challenge for the contemporary action film to balance action and human drama in order to make it compelling for an audience?

It’s a real compliment because obviously the risk with making
a movie with a very strong mandate for it to be an action movie is that we could have ended up doing a performance art sort of thing without any story. But also I understand the boredom thing. For me, the comparison is with the James Bond movies. I am pretty familiar with all of those films, and I kind of get bored at the two thirds of the way through moment when it sort of stops existing in the real world, and it just ends up at the baddie headquarters where the plot sort of stops and the big explosion stuff starts. But having said that, Skyfall was a real inspiration for our work on The Dead Lands. What Sam Mendes and the whole team achieved with Skyfall was similar to what you are talking about – making the action work in concert with the character work. The other comparison I suppose is with musicals which I dabbled with a little bit in theatre. It’s a tricky thing to make sure that the story keeps working through the music and songs, especially when you are working on one of those musicals that has dialogue and songs. So I was aware of the pitfalls.

Does travelling into and recreating the past liberate your imagination in a way that working in the present day does not allow?

Absolutely
, and I felt liberated making this movie! Dean Spanley is set in a fantastical historical time to, but this is in total myth mode. The time is some random time in the mythical past, and there are a hell of a lot of Joseph Campbell archetypes that permeate the film. I felt very strongly that although it was based in a reality that was far more of a myth for my father, who is from Fijiwhich is also in the Pacific, the storytelling traditions are similar to those of Māori, and so those mythical stories that my dad told me growing up of Dakuwaqa the shark-god of Fiji and The Lady of the Falls, for instance, were the kinds of stories that were told between generations. I feel that The Dead Lands was an opportunity to use the amazing contemporary tools of moviemaking to tell a story in a way that our ancestors would have told their audience.

This idea of the use of contemporary technology to keep the past alive so that it can be both discovered and rediscovered by audiences is a significant one.

Well, 
I realised that it is a real privilege. The Dead Lands is the only second full-length feature in Māori, and the first was the adaptation of The Merchant of Venice. So I believe this is only the first original Māori language feature film. So in terms of what you are talking about, it’s a real responsibility, but at the same time a real joy to be able to celebrate language, traditions and customs; cool weapons and other cool things from the past that a new generation will be able to get excited about.

One of the rewarding aspects of world cinema is the encounter with other languages. The Dead Lands sees you introducing audiences to the less familiar Māori language. Therein, you are using cinema as a means to introduce us to language and sound, which in itself is a privilege.

Yeah, and for me it has a very profound and personal reason behind it because my parents called me
Toa, which is a Samoan word. It’s a very common word in the Pacific, and in Samoan, Tongan and Māori it means the same thing, which is warrior. But I grew up in Hampshire, England in the countryside, and for me as a kid the name Toa was a very lonely kind of a name. There were no other Toa’s in my class and there was no representation of Toa in James Bond or Indiana Jones movies, which were the kind of things that I was into. So I knew where it came from, but it was a very foreign name. So to have kind of come full circle having now made The Dead Lands and hearing all the actors use the word Toa when they are talking about warriors, and indeed in addressing each other as Toa, for me that feels like a very tangible, profound impact for what we have achieved with this movie. This is just a small example, but I can imagine that there are people who are going to be very thrilled to hear the Māori language spoken in such a beautiful and cinematic way.

 

THE DEAD LANDS is out now on DVD

<iframe style=”width:120px;height:240px;” marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ src=”//ws-eu.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=GB&source=ss&ref=ss_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=starburstmaga-21&marketplace=amazon&region=GB&placement=B00U3PW4AQ&asins=B00U3PW4AQ&linkId=ICAVWKD3IOF2OTDB&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true”>
</iframe>

Nico Mastorakis | ISLAND OF DEATH

As controversial shocker ISLAND OF DEATH has been given the HD treatment, we spoke to director Nico Mastorakis to find out more about the former VIDEO NASTY…

STARBURST: What was the Greek film industry like at the time you made Island of Death?

Nico Mastorakis: In the seventies, Greek cinema made a shy transition from conservative to provocative, when from mainstream melodramas, comedies and pseudo-historical epics, a section of the Greek film makers turned to soft porn – with survival being their only motivation. Soon they were making money, not only domestically but also abroad (where the soft version included some clumsy hardcore stuff, shot separately and in the absence of the key actors). Maybe I too made a miniscule change in the going trends, with Death Has Blue Eyes, the first parapsychological thriller and then with Island of Death, which was a shock to the industry. Not just the local industry though. I remember that in the first screening, during the Cannes market, distributors left the theatre half way through feeling sick! And those who left disgusted were the ones who came back to buy the movie the next day.

How does it feel that so many critics and commenters have found artistic merit in Island of Death when it was made solely for financial means?

The end justified the means – or vice versa? As in the thin plot of Island of Death, where indeed, the means justified the end! The fact is that when I read the first review in Screen International there was so much praise and the reviewer had discovered so many metaphors, that I thought they made a mistake and I had to read the title twice! Critics have the right and the duty, actually, to dig deeper into a movie, ignore the motivations of the filmmaker and find their own values. Most of the time, they discover crap instead of diamonds, sometimes they find diamonds in the crap. So, to interpret another Nico (Machiavelli) into cinematic lingo: “Actions can only be considered artistically right or wrong by virtue of the art of the outcome.

Did you have to consider any kind of therapy after making the film?

for a week before my DP showed up, casting the locals, setting up a decapitation, crucifying an actor on the front yard of the church, operating a blood pump and even playing a small part to the dismay of my crew and friends. The audience has a misconception about writers and directors, who write and/or make violent movies, they think that they’re nuts. But it’s usually the opposite, it’s the violent wackos who make pretentiously normal films! 

How (if at all) have your opinions of censorship changed in lieu of the BBFC passing Island of Death uncut?

I’m stunned, I marvel at their bravery! Opinions changed? Not at all, I still believe that the Brits, a truly progressive audience, do not deserve such a typically medieval institution, to tell adults what they can watch and what they shouldn’t. It defies logic and when that happens, I consider censorship a much more dangerous kind of violence than the one portrayed on film. I suspect that, through the history of censors in the UK, someone who may had cut out a bestiality scene, maybe went to his country home and fucked his goat.

You made a list of depravities to include in the film before making it. If you were to make it now, are there any more you would add, or anything you wouldn’t do?

There’s nothing new I could do, as depravities have been overdone as TV’s playground for over a decade. Watching CSI and its spinoffs, one can make a list of the best of the worst depravities ever filmed. TV has outdone Island of Death and anything else in this genre. And when it comes to graphic violence, splatter, blood and guts, there’s a plenty of them every day in the evening news. The pretence of “making the audience aware” is such a fucked up device for networks to legally play endless decapitations, child porn and kinky sex on primetime.

What would your attitude be if someone wanted to remake the film?

All offers welcome! However, I’m planning to shoot Island of Death 2 this summer! It will be totally different in tone, theme and mood. More sophisticated. A kind of study of the density of violence ordinary people carry throughout their existence, until they break the wall which separates true good from pure evil. All that, in a world where true good is unethical and outlawed and evil is the only moral status quo. I’ll make it without philosophical or artistic bullshit pretences, but with the true, one and only motivation commercial film producers have: To make money. We’ll later know if, in this case too, the end justified the means or if it was, once more, the other way around. Really, wouldn’t it be fun to see Island of Death 2 win the Cannes Film Festival?

Arrow Video’s extras-packed Blu-ray ISLAND OF DEATH is out now and is reviewed here.

Clive Davies | SPINEGRINDER

Clive Davies’ recent book from Headpress, Spinegrinder, is an absolutely massive brick of a thing, and well-deserving of the appellation “tome.” It comes in at over 1000 pages, and crams in 8000 reviews (“or thereabouts”) within said pages. It’s a fascinating bit of reading, covering as it does so many films. Additionally, it really lives up to its subtitle, “The Movies Most Critics Won’t Write About.” It’s an invaluable and entertaining reference, especially for those bin diggers looking to find a diamond in the rough. Now living in Japan, Davies gives a little bit of introduction at Spinegrinder‘s outset, but we were curious as to the particulars of how the book came together.

STARBURST: How did you come to be in Japan?

Clive Davies: I met a Japanese girl in London many moons ago. The whole long-distance relationship thing is quite tough, so I moved here and married her. Totally unexpected turn-of-events.

What is the review process like? Are you writing these as you go, or are they compiled from notes afterward?

Good question. I would say 95% of the reviews in the book were written immediately after viewing the film in question, usually for the first time (I take notes as I watch, and believe I am responsible for the destruction of at least a few acres of rainforest!). When I first started writing back in 1999, I did write some reviews from memory (stuff I’d seen in the preceding 4-5 years, mostly). The small pool of reviews that I wished I had time to go back and redo before publication belong to this category, and are not necessarily as accurate (in terms of plot details, etc.) as the rest of the book, but the overall assessments are probably on the money.

The inclusion of Hollywood blockbusters alongside obscure Asian cult cinema make for an interesting flip-though. Did you include every movie you saw, period?

The idea of including all sorts of fare, regardless of budget, genre, etc. was just one of the many ways I was inspired by the trailblazing Michael J. Weldon, particularly his second Psychotronic Video Guide, which came out when I was teenager and changed my life. On the video shelves (spot the outdated reference!) this stuff exists side-by-side, and is all fair game for the punter in search of a good time. I certainly wanted to include every movie I ever saw (within reason and certain genre boundaries), but I just couldn’t get it all typed up in time (I used to write reviews longhand to begin with. There goes another acre of rainforest!). There’s about an additional 2,000 reviews that I’m slowly slogging through, typing up, and updating for inclusion in Volume 2. Plus, we maxed out the printer at publication, so a few hundred were cut out then as well.

Alternately, were there films you specifically sought out once you started work on the book?

From the beginning I had an idea that there are certain strata of cult movies and movies in certain genres such as horror etc. that must be addressed, otherwise the book’s worldview seems off-balance somehow. I think I managed to get all the canonical milestones in there (bar a few exceptions that had me kicking myself later), to provide context if nothing else (how many new ways are there of saying that The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a classic?).

After those were out of the way, it was pretty much a free-for-all. If it belonged to a cult/exploitation-friendly genre in some way, it didn’t matter whether it was a theatrical, direct-to-video or amateur production, if it got watched it got written about. I sucked a few Tokyo video shops totally dry! I now realise that I was temporarily insane for a decade or so, thinking I could review every single title out there! The future for Spinegrinder is somewhat more selective. Losing stamina, getting old!

The tone of Spinegrinder is interesting, in that you’re willing to acknowledge when a film is merely decent, rather than everything being either superlative or absolute dreck. Is that honest approach what attracted Headpress?

You would have to ask Headpress about that. I’ve always appreciated honest criticism and don’t know how else to write, really. Seems like common sense to me. Sometimes something mildly diverting is just what you’re in the mood for, so those films should be identified as so, just as the classics and turkeys are.

In the introduction, you speak about the forward-thinking Japanese approach to preserving film, and comment several times about comparing different version of the movies you’ve watched. Do you think there’s a particular reason for these differences?

There are always reasons I guess, but on a case-by-case basis. I have no blanket explanation for this practice of altering things for different markets. Or why the Japanese seemed to be so diligent in their approach to the home video market. This ‘Video Watchdog-like need to know the details’ is an interesting geek culture fetish actually, occasionally for the greater good of film preservation, but sometimes just existing for the sake of itself I think. The act of research and reference can be enjoyed by some people (myself included I have to admit) purely on its own merits. Knowing that an obscure Taiwanese kung fu movie exists in a 5-second longer cut on Korean VCD, but with a different soundtrack is the kind of useless info I live for! And yes, I do know I need to get out more. Some filmmaker needs to make a Jorge Luis Borges-style Library of Babel documentary on this endless self-reflexive empire of signs.

Additionally, are there Western films of which you’ve only been able to find Japanese versions?

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything specific of interest that existed only in a Japanese version, or in an alternate cut for Japan only (apart from the much sought after, mythologised ‘Far East’ violent versions of Hammer productions that were apparently distributed back in the day). Of course, there are many examples of longer and/or alternate cuts that ended up preserved on Japanese VHS and laserdisc. To this day, grey-market dealers of the obscure still offer prints sourced from these Japanese sources. But it depends on your genre of choice. Spaghetti western fans will have an equal amount of rare Greek-sourced bootlegs in their collections.

In terms of watching some of these films early on, you say that your wife was the translator. Talk a little about the experience of watching a movie where someone is having to explain the dialogue second-hand, and how you’ve progressed since then.

We would sit down to watch a raw, un-subtitled Japanese VHS together. She would stop every now and again to explain what was going on, or I would stop and ask questions if I was confused. This process could take a long time depending on the type of film it was. A Nikkatsu roman porno would be pretty easy to figure out, while a complex dialect-heavy yakuza flick with surprise twists and turns could take a while! She would also supply me with accurate cast & crew credits (no IMDB entries for some of these, or bare-bones at best). Since then, my own language skills have improved a bit (not as much as I would like, because I’ve wasted so many years watching crap films!), especially the online research stuff (the JMDB, Japanese Movie Database is the place to go for in-depth cast & crew info, but it’s always a few years behind-the-times). The biggest difference since those days though is that within the last ten years there has been a flood of releases (both legit and not so legit) of Japanese films of all type, with reliable English subtitles. It would take a while to get through this stuff before you would run out and have to switch back to the raw stuff again, and in the meantime who know what else will turn up. So we are living in pretty good times in terms of the availability of this stuff.

You suggest another book in a decade or so, and even promise in the book more reviews at the website, but it’s not been updated in nearly two years. What are you up to these days, other than recovering from “celluloid poisoning”?

First off, credit where credit is due, the term “celluloid poisoning” was coined (unless he nicked it off someone else) by Richard Lewis, a very good teacher I had for a one-year filmmaking crash course in Llanelli from 1997-98. Actually, the way my approach to writing for Spinegrinder, and my life and interests in general, have changed since I wrapped up Volume 1 has been rather substantial – too much to go into in detail here without boring everyone, and I hope to address that in the intro to Volume 2. There will be a future volume, and I hope it will be in about a decade, but it will be a very different collection than the current book (although it will essentially still be just a collection of a few thousand film reviews!).

The website is not a priority at present, I have to confess. I’m keeping the domain and space, but have no idea what do with it. It’s awaiting its utility. Apologies for anyone who has tried to negotiate the very ugly, basic design of the site, or has been awaiting updates. Go watch a move instead!

You can find a taste of Clive Davies’ writings at Spinegrinderweb.com, and purchase the book from Headpress.

Today from 5pm INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 3’s Leigh Whannell Answers Your Questions!

With Insidious: Chapter 3 hitting UK screens on June 5th, we’ve got a unique opportunity for you to put your questions to one of biggest names in modern horror, Leigh Whannell.

As well as starring as Specs in the Insidious series, Whannell has also penned all three entries in the franchise and has now finally stepped behind the camera to helm this latest installment. This coming Thursday, we’ll be hosting an exclusive Twitter Q&A with the talented writer, actor, producer and director from 5pm to 6pm.

So, have a question for Leigh about Insidious: Chapter 3 or the Insidious series? Well now’s your chance to get that question answered. And then there’s Whannell’s impressive back catalogue, which has seen him star in the classic Saw as well as penning the first three entries in that franchise, not to mention his work on the likes of Dead Silence and The Matrix Reloaded, plus the brilliant-looking upcoming horror/comedy Cooties.

Get your thinking caps on, and when posing your question be sure to include @LWhannell and @STARBURST_MAG in your Tweet. And remember, this unique opportunity will be running from 5pm to 6pm on Thursday, May 28th, so be sure to wait until then to put forward your questions for Leigh.

In the meantime, why not take a sneak peak at the last time we spoke to the always-engaging Whannell early last year.

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW OR ON TWITTER @STARBURST_MAG

Find your local STARBURST stockist HERE, or buy direct from us HERE. For our digital edition (available to read on your iOS, Android, Amazon, Windows 8, Samsung and/or Huawei device – all for just £1.99), visit MAGZTER DIGITAL NEWSSTAND.

CLICK TO BUY!

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB:

Byron Mann | ABSOLUTION

With the UK digital release of Absolution this past week, we caught up with Byron Mann to discuss cinematic confrontations anew. Starring alongside Steven Seagal, the family dynamic between the stars and the filmmakers meant the pitch was a simple one: “It is you and Steven; you guys go to Russia and take on Vinnie Jones. Done! That is all I needed to hear.

In conversation with STARBURST, Mann reflected on the defining moments that led to him to a career in front of the camera, which has seen him become the filmic incarnation of Street Fighter’s Ryu, and more recently collaborate with Eli Roth on The Man with the Iron Fists. The action star also reflected on creating a shorthand within this family dynamic, unexpectedly invading theatres, and the uncertainties of the profession.

STARBURST: Why a career in acting? Was there that one inspirational moment?

Byron Mann: That’s a very good question. I had the hardest time deciding what to do because I honestly didn’t know. I went to law school with the full intention of being a lawyer. But then upon my first semester I realised that the work was very dry, and in my first year I had a summer internship, at the end of which the partner sat me down and said, You should do something else. Your heart is not in legal work and it is easily detectable.” He told me to do something I enjoy doing. I said to him that the only thing I enjoyed that I can remember was acting in high school, in theatre, and he said, Well why don’t you just do that? I was going to school in Los Angeles and so I said, “Okay, I’ll go back and I’ll try.” So having that talk was defining first of all, and then I just remember being on the set of one of my earlier movies and thinking “I could do this without even being paid. I would love to do this.” It felt easy. I was in my element, and honestly I still feel that every single time I step onto the set, and I’ve been doing this for twenty years. So those are some of the defining moments where I realised that I really enjoyed doing this, and I’d do it without even being paid.

When you first read the script for Absolution, what was it that appealed to you about both the story and the character?

Well I have to give you some background. This is my fourth or fifth project with Steven Seagal. We are friends and so that is one. Number two, I have done three or four movies with the director Keoni Waxman and the producer, Philip B. Goldfine. So we are like family, and it is kind of like Guy Ritchie with all of his actors in the UK. So when they called me, I said, “Yes, absolutely! Just tell me where and when. I didn’t even have to read the script. They basically told me the story: it is you and Steven; you guys go to Russia and take on Vinnie Jones. Done! That is all I needed to hear. But he said, “Listen, this is sort of your movie because you have to do double the amount of action that Steven does, and so you just have to be ready for a lot of action.” You hear this a lot, but you like to work with people you like because you spend a lot of time doing this. A movie can take up to two or three months, and so you better like these people.

You mention the family dynamic. How does that shorthand develop across multiple projects, and does it make the collaborative relationship more instinctive?

Well that’s a very good point. One of the things that I do with Keoni Waxman is I sit down with him – and as many directors as I can – with the script before we start, and I basically mark up the whole of it. This scene needs to be in this direction or this scene has too much dialogue; we can cut this piece out. Sometimes I will write my own dialogue and a little of that is in the final film. There is a fight where I pour some hot water onto a bad guy, and the dialogue that ensues was what I wrote up with Keoni. So the shorthand quote on quote that I share with him is that we are very good with and we are very open to ideas, and I am not shy to tell him it’s shit. And all that work is in the film. I will tell you a good story. This film was not meant to be released in the cinemas; it was only meant to be for Video on Demand. But all this work we put in that I have just told you about translated so well that Lionsgate were beyond belief when they saw it that they said, This is fantastic. We have to get it into theatres.” And this is essentially what happened.

Contemporary action films are often accused of relying too much on action when what draws the audience into the story are the characters. Telling this story, how conscious were you that the action must compliment the character and story rather than overwhelm these elements?

A very good question again. Okay, so listen. I grew up in Hong Kong with Hong Kong cinema. As you know there are a lot of martial arts, kung-fu movies coming out of Hong Kong, and I worked with a lot of Hong Kong directors. Their saying is that they really like good action, and sometimes if you see a Hong Kong film with a lot of martial arts it can just be non-stop action, wall-to-wall. A fight scene can last for fifteen minutes . The guy just doesn’t go down, just keeps on fighting. I had an experience when I did The Man with the Iron Fists with RZA and Eli Roth, and I remember being in the editing room with Eli. We shot that opening action scene in one month, and you can imagine the footage that we had. Yet they whittled it down to what was essentially a two minute scene. The reason they did that was because Eli explained, “Every fight has to have a story. You can’t just have a fight that goes on and on. The audience will grow bored because it is tiring for them. I absolutely took that to heart and on this film I said to Keoni, “Usually on the day when we film that what the stunt coordinators had choreographed is sometimes non-stop action, and I think we need to break it up. Sometimes we need to see my character Chi in danger; he’s almost going to get killed or there has to be a purpose to the fight. So every action scene that we did there was a little crescendo; a little spark to the fight scene and it leads up to something. Again it went so well that all this made Lionsgate say, “Wow, we’ve got to release this theatrically. So it all paid off.

How does the physicality of the character serve to define the character?

When I first learned acting, my acting teacher said that with every character the most important thing to do is to figure out how the character walks and how the character talks. How he walks and how he talks . That is absolutely true. If you nail that down then you’ve 75% of the character. So for instance with my character Chi in Absolution, this guy is a Hong King Triad enforcer. He is a heavy, he fights, and he has a co-existing relationship with Seagal’s character. Growing up in Hong Kong I grew up with people like that, and so I didn’t have to do any research. I kind of knew how a guy like that would move and how he would talk. So to answer your question, absolutely. The physicality of the character definitely informs the character, and it would be absurd to not take that into account. Even sometimes having the right wardrobe on. If you don’t put on the wardrobe then you can’t feel the character. I’m shooting a television series right now called Hell on Wheels, which is out in the UK as well later this year. It is a western, and once I put on those western clothes I will be able to feel the character.

Do you look back on every film and each of your characters as a unique experience? Is it a series of moments that builds an appreciation that deepens with time?

With our career you never know what the next project will be or what experience you will have. You honestly don’t know. I’m shooting Hell on Wheels right now, and in two weeks time I am going to New Orleans to shoot a movie with Christian Bale, Brad Pitt, Steve Carrell and Ryan Gosling. I don’t know what that experience is going to be like, and so you just have to be open, and that’s all I can say. Just be open and don’t try to hold onto any expectations. Be open, both as an actor and as a person going on set, and you’ll enjoy the experience a lot more.

Absolution is available in the UK on DVD and digitally courtesy of Content Media.
 

Jon Schnepp | THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN LIVES: WHAT HAPPENED?

One of the greatest ‘what ifs’ in genre cinema is a movie by the name of Superman Lives. To be directed by Tim Burton, starring Nicolas Cage as the Man of Steel and with Kevin Smith amongst some to tackle the screenplay, the film was planned for a 1999 release. Only it never happened. The film was sadly scrapped by Warner Brothers shortly before principal photography was to begin. In the years since, Smith has openly talked about the failed project and various pieces of concept art and test footage have surfaced online.

With a career that has taken in the likes of Metalocalypse, The Venture Brothers and The ABCs of Death, Jon Schnepp decided to explore exactly what happened to Superman Lives, taking to Kickstarter to fund The Death of Superman Lives: What Happened? and managing to get the thoughts of Burton, Smith, producer Jon Peters and many more. Ahead of the film being shown at this weekend’s MCM London Comic Con, we were lucky enough to grab an hour with Schnepp (complete with cameo from producer Holly Payne) to discuss the film and some of his past works.

STARBURST: So, starting from scratch, how did you first hear about Superman Lives?

Jon Schnepp: Well, like other people, I heard about it through the trades. I can’t remember where I heard about Kevin and thought he looked really familiar, and I was like “Oh man, he made the Superman suits!” So when he came back I asked him, and he looked kind of uncomfortable. Later that night with Holly Payne, the producer and my girlfriend, we went over to this restaurant and we’re hanging out with some friends, and I told them about this, I told them about my interest in this project and how I’d been collecting artwork on it. One of my friends said that I should maybe make a documentary, and another of my friends said I should maybe raise some money on Kickstarter. So that was the idea. Then that idea would not leave me alone. I was like, “You know what? I wonder if I could find enough to make a documentary. I wonder if I could just devote time to this and research it, if I could uncover more facts about it.” So in the following 3 months later, I started the Kickstarter in January 2013. I raised money to make a feature film about what happened to Superman Lives. And I was shocked. In the first weekend we raised, like, $35,000! It was like, “Wow! People are really interested. There’s more people out there like me than I thought.” That there began the journey, which I foolishly thought it would only take maybe 8 months. I was like “Yeah, I’ll get it done and I’ll premiere it at San Diego Comic-Con in 2013.” I was completely wrong. For me, I was used to directing live-action television shows and cartoons, where you have a lot of control on the project through casting and hiring, going over storyboards, and then you just start making it. So with a documentary, you’ve got really zero control and no power. You have to ask people if they wanna be in your movie and they can say no.

You managed to get some major names from Superman Lives involved in this project, such as Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, Jon Peters, etc. How eager were people to get involved with the documentary when you first proposed the idea to them or were some hesitant in doing it?

Yeah, none of them wanted to do it at first. I started off just trying to find different ways to contact them because it’s not like you can just call them up. I’ll have a list of phone numbers and agents and all these buffers and “Here, I’ll pass it along” and then they never pass it along. So it’s a really long process. Then a lot of people were like, “Man, Kevin Smith will be easy. He loves talking!” And I’m like, “Yeah, but he’s also super busy! He does like 5 or 6 podcasts a day, he’s working on movies constantly, he’s got a TV show, and he’s got his family, and his concerts.” So it’s not like he’s just got 4 hours free tomorrow for you to go on over. But when I made contact with him, it took about 8 months to get him locked down. It was funny, because when I got Kevin I literally… I’d also been working on getting Tim Burton, and someone from Canada e-mailed me. I had a lot of moles who were interested in the same thing. They were like, “Hey, did you know about the flying footage?” I was like, “No, do you have it?” They’d be like, “No, I don’t have it but I’ve worked on it.” And I’d be like, “Well what about your friends, do they have it?” So I started finding out about what did exist even though people didn’t have it, so I was trying to hunt that down.

 
Jon talks to Kevin Smith in The Death of Superman Lives 

And did you ever get chance to approach Nicolas Cage? He’s not directly a part of the documentary apart from in archive footage, so did you ever get anywhere with him or was that simply never going to happen?

Well here’s the story as far as that goes. With Tim Burton, I got contact through someone who was working on the set and said here’s the production manager’s number for Big Eyes , the DP over at Warner Brothers. We tried reaching out to Nicolas Cage, and when I started the Kickstarter he was still talking about Superman. Some of the audio clips I have are from the interviews he’d done at that time. Also, at the time that I started doing the Superman Lives Kickstarter is when the Internet went into overdrive on memes of Nicolas Cage. The Internet went crazy on making fun of Nicolas Cage. The Internet, and I mean everyone who is a troll or who likes to make fun of people, somehow Nic Cage become a focal point of their poking fun. His face was on a cat. His face was on a man’s chest. Literally, every day there’s like 10 to 20 brand new Nicolas Cage memes. There’s edits of him from “Not the bees, not the bees!” So it became a real obvious thing to me that millennials never saw him in his past roles. Their reference is National Treasure. Anything before that they’d never seen or cared to look up, so he was kind of like a jokey guy who was in a bunch of bad movies and someone you should make fun of from Wicker Man and these other movies that maybe didn’t turn out that great. I’m from a time where I’m like “Nicolas Cage is an incredible actor!” He’s in Vampire’s Kiss, Wild at Heart, Raising Arizona, Face/Off, Con Air. The list goes on and on. Obviously he won an Oscar the year he was cast as Superman, so you would’ve had an actor who won an Oscar portraying Superman. It was different than just trying to get an unknown person to portray Clark Kent and Kal-El. It was getting someone who was bringing their own unique take to the character, which he was going to. Long story short, we reached out to him and talked to his manager. I even showed his manager a cut of the film about 6 months ago, and he just declined to be interviewed because the following year and a half, after all these memes exploded everywhere, Nic Cage just said “I don’t wanna talk about the past anymore.” He made it clear to every single person that he will not talk about anything from the past, including Superman Lives. I totally understand it coming from his perspective. If you were that person who woke up every day and there was a brand new picture of you on the Internet a hundred times a day, you would probably withdraw a little bit and just kind of focus on the now because anything you do or say is gonna be made fun of. It’s one of these horrible things, but when you see the film we’re not doing that at all. All of the people involved in the film – myself, the producer Holly Kane, my co-editor Marie Jamora, technical producer Chris Graybill – we’re a small crew who have been working on this film for the last 8 months, almost non-stop every day until 2 in the morning, and we were never out to make fun of Superman Lives, not out to make fun of Tim Burton, not out to make fun of Nicolas Cage or Jon Peters. My goal as the director of this film was to spotlight the creative process and the artistic process, because there was something there that I knew was very, very interesting. And it was also to spotlight the creative process of a Hollywood film; how do you make something like this, how do you get this far and it still falls apart. That’s what became obvious to me as I got more and more of this amazing artwork and as I get some of this test footage of Nic Cage. Though we didn’t talk to Nicolas Cage, we got an incredible amount of test footage of him trying on different outfits. The footage that we have is kind of being fly-on-the-wall whilst Nic and Tim talk about their process, so you’re hearing Nicolas talk about how he’s going to portray Clark Kent while he tries out different Clark Kent looks. Really Tim and Nic had a synergistic approach to Clark Kent as well as Superman. They looked at him as an alien, this outsider who at first doesn’t fit in. Clark Kent was actually going to be the regular guy who no one would believe that this guy was Superman when they looked at him. He was wearing a Mickey Mouse t-shirt, he had a weird blue jacket. He was definitely like a geek version of Clark Kent.

Most of the stuff that we’ve seen over the years, it’s rare to see the Clark Kent side of the character, with the pictures seen largely focussing on the Superman side of the character. So you take a look at the Clark Kent element of the character in the film then?

Oh yeah, that’s a big chunk of it. It’s a key element. What’s really, really crazy is just that in the last year, where I’ve released these trailers, now if you search Superman Lives then the majority of the artwork is from my trailer. Basically Tim Burton gave me the keys to his Wizard of Oz/Raiders of the Last Ark vault with all of the Superman Lives art. It was fantastic! We were in there for 2 and a half days photographing non-stop. There’s such a voluminous amount of work. Truly, the somewhat sad part of this film is not only that all of the people I interviewed really wanted see this movie made, not only is there a misinterpretation of what this film would’ve been from the outside from the public… it’s so wrong and so off that when we actually see what they were making, everyone who’s seen the film so far – and it’s kind of what I wanted so I feel good about it, and I didn’t mean to do it, there’s no manipulation of it, I just placed all of the facts in order – it feels like even if they didn’t like the idea of Nicolas Cage as Superman, that they realised that this would’ve been a really interesting film and they wish it got made. And that’s kind of the end result when you walk out of the film, after you’ve seen the film is so loaded with creativity and different ideas and imagination, and we really did see a very unique and interesting film forming and it just gets beaten down. And there was a lot of different concept art. For me, a lot of people ask me “Shouldn’t there be a Superman Lives made now or would you like to make a Superman Lives movie or should there an animated version of Superman Lives?” And my response is no, because there isn’t a Superman Lives movie and there can’t be a Superman Lives movie because it got shut down in 1998. It’s not like there’s a film that got made that can be released or the finished idea is all there, completely mapped out so that someone can execute it. That doesn’t exist. All that exists are 20 different versions of Brainiac from 3 different studios, 30 different looks of Doomsday, all these different set ideas, some of which were actually being built, the Skull Ship actually got built, Lex Luthor’s penthouse suite actually got built. Certain areas got built up or sets were being built as they were 3 weeks before shooting when the plug got pulled. They were actually going to start shooting some principal photography in Pittsburgh. When you think about it, they didn’t even have Lois Lane cast yet and they were 3 weeks away, but yeah, they were only about to start principal photography. Maybe they were going to do inserts, maybe they were going to do Clark Kent scenes, you don’t know what they were going to shoot first.

 
Tim Burton with Nicolas Cage as Superman 

You touched on it earlier, Superman Returns. That was one of those films that seemed to peak after 10 minutes, after the airplane rescue, and then became formulaic and a little too centred on the love story of Superman and Lois. Superman Lives certainly sounded a little different to that. We know he’s a huge fan of Superman, and his son’s even called Kal-El, but do you think that Nicolas Cage would’ve made a good Superman?

I think he would’ve knocked it out of the park, I think he would’ve nailed it in a way that no one was prepared for an actor like him to nail a character. I look at Nicholas Cage’s Superman as how I look at Michael Keaton as Batman. Michael Keaton’s Batman in 1989, the film wouldn’t have happened if we had the Internet because people would’ve complained so much about the guy from Mr. Mom and Beetlejuice as Batman. Warner Brothers would’ve just gone, “We’ve gotta recast. Shut this down!” That’s exactly what would’ve happened. But that’s fan culture though, that’s what happens with everything that involves superheroes or just fan culture in general, like “I liked that band before they were famous.” It’s the thing that you hold close to your chest, like “I don’t wanna change Superman’s costume. I wanna keep the red underwear.” Then they get rid of the underwear and people don’t even remember that he ever had red underwear! The casting decisions are exactly like that every time that someone is cast as a character and every time a photo is released of that person as that character, like Heath Ledger as The Joker and now with Jared Leto, it’s the classic story of fans being like “Don’t ruin my story, don’t take over my character!” And then the movie comes out, and most of the time right now we’re batting pretty good. We’re betting around 85. Back in the ‘90s we’re not batting at all! We had to wait 3 or 4 years for a superhero movie and most of the time they sucked. Look at 1997 or 1998, there were no superhero movies that came out. Oh wait, Batman & Robin came out.

We guess there was Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. with David Hasselhoff in 1998…

Yeah, but what turned it around was Blade. That was a character that no one expected to even make a blip on the radar, that nobody even thought of as a Marvel movie, that people just thought of as a vampire movie. And that was a lot of fun. So when that kind of thing was happening, I think Nicolas Cage would’ve been fantastic as Superman; he had a take on it that was really unique and special and fit in with fanboys more than they would ever know. Superman is that kind of character that’s so powerful that it’s hard to figure out how to humanise him, and Tim Burton humanised him by making him just like a fanboy who was reading a comic book at the time in high school. He was an outsider, he was laughed out and kept apart from other people, like “What, are you reading comic books?” So I think of anybody, nerds would’ve identified with this more than any other Superman because he would’ve been a Superman that people could identify with. He was an alien but he also had the human traits that he had to deal with.

Jon exits for a moment, and in enters producer Holly Payne for a cameo of sorts…

During the experience of making the documentary, did your thoughts on the actual Superman Lives movie change at all?

Holly Payne: Yes, sure. I was less familiar with it than Jon was because Jon had this fixation on it for years, but I was obviously raised on Christopher Reeves’ Superman. I wasn’t a comics nerd, not mainstream comics anyway. So my inception to Superman was stuff I saw as a child and Christopher Reeve. That was the idea I had in my head for Superman. But knowing Jon and knowing comics and all of the iterations of various characters in the comics world, finding out about this story it was so much more intriguing to me than any other story we’d ever heard about Superman or Clark Kent or Kal-El. It was his struggles and making it an off-Earth experience for most of the movie, that was something that we’d never seen. I thought that was a really exciting take and also something Tim Burton could’ve played a lot with. So yeah, it was unfortunate.

And what’s the response been from the guys who got involved with the film?

You know what, it’s been overwhelmingly positive. We had many of the people at our red carpet premiere that were involved in the movie. We had Wesley Strick, we had many of the concept artists that worked on it, we had a production manager, we had a lot of people who worked on it in some kind of way before it was pulled. It’s been a long time for them, they haven’t really thought about it much. In fact, many of the people we spoke to, when we interviewed them they hadn’t seen their own art for 15 years and were like “I don’t remember doing that!” because it had been that long. There’s a lot of humour in this movie too, which you’ll see, but it was a trip down memory lane in a very positive way for all of them, even for Wesley Strick, who was one of the screenwriters. He’s more in the Hollywood scene, so for his perspective it was more looking through the curtain at how Hollywood development works and how things blossom and then got pulled and changed due to too many chiefs. And the risk factor is huge. Warner Brothers at that time were on a really bad one, so they had had multiple, multiple failures and it was a risk that they weren’t prepared to take all of a sudden.


Holly and Jon at a previous MCM event 

And if we remember rightly, was it yourself who was involved with Jon on The ABCs of Death?

That was me! I had an eyeball ripped out.

How was that to work on then?

Well here’s the thing. That was with Jon Schnepp as well. Jon’s the director of multiple things; he directed Metalocalypse, he directed The ABCs of Death

The Venture Brothers!

The Venture Brothers. So it’s one of those things where people pigeonhole you and think you can do just one thing. But both of us, Jon in particular, do a lot of different things, but for that he did the short W is for WTF. That was fun. I had my face bitten and my eyeball ripped out by an insane clown, so that’s exciting.

And just like that, faster than a speeding bullet, Holly exits and Jon returns to continue where we left off earlier…

A question that we asked Holly earlier, but when you were making The Death of Superman Lives did you find that your personal thoughts on Superman Lives changed at all?

Jon Schnepp: Yes, quite a bit. When I first started the film I was really just interested in the concept art. I was like “I wanna find out more about the ideas that were behind this.” As I found out more and as I interviewed, not only Kevin Smith, but Tim Burton… he was the big interview. He unlocked so many people. It was like trying to talk to someone’s boss. Nobody felt comfortable even though the project was so long ago because they still work for him, he still hires the same people. Everyone wanted to feel good about it. Above and beyond the incredible designs and artwork, I think this would’ve been like a cosmic fairytale version of a superhero. It would’ve been a lighter version of something. It wouldn’t have been a gothic version of Superman, it would’ve been a light, fun film and it would’ve had some amazing sequences with Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and Christopher Walken as Braniac with their heads together, arguing with each other. Stuff like that, when you think about it that could fall into Batman & Robin territory, but done in the right way, and Tim Burton had just done Mars Attacks! with Sarah Jessica Parker’s head on a dog, and it could’ve fallen into that territory where it could’ve been weird and strange. I started thinking more about what this version could’ve been. I really would’ve liked to have seen it, I really would’ve like to have had the chance to see it, but my feeling about it now is that you don’t need to see it because we have all the versions and different possibilities. And we don’t even know if that stuff would’ve made it into the final film, that was just a draft. Then later it became Lex Luthor and occasionally Braniac’s head would pop out of Lex Luthor and start yelling about stuff. So we don’t know what the final outcome of it would’ve been. I think it would’ve been a very unique and interesting Superman, and not using those words in a bad way but using those words in a good way, getting a different turn on the character that I think would’ve sent audiences in such a different way that they would’ve really responded to it. I think this actually would’ve been, if this film happened, it would’ve changed the course of most superhero movies. Remember, it would’ve came out in 1999, the same year that Blade came out. Marvel were bankrupt in 1999 and DC were thinking of buying Marvel Comics in 1999, that was what was going on. If Superman Lives came out in 1999 and was even a moderate hit… but people just didn’t see, especially the corporate people. They saw money. They were losing money, all their movies were losing money, and the more risk they felt about people responding badly to Nicolas Cage, people were responding badly to Tim Burton, they were getting a lot of bad press, the script’s not done yet, and they needed to pull the plug. It’s this thing that you can see from a business side, but from a creative side it’s like “We’re ready to go” and then they’re pulling the plug. So it is something I would’ve loved to have seen, but I feel with this movie I’ve captured so many of what the possibilities you could’ve seen that you’ll kind of come away from the film having seen it in a sense. It’s kind of the Elseworlds type of universe, it’s round about Planet 9 or 10 or 13 or whatever and the suit in this movie did come out, you would’ve had Michael Keaton as Batman and Tim Burton and then a team-up in 2001 and then all these different movies would’ve happened. It would’ve been a different universe that we live in now in 2015, populated with a different type of superhero film. You would definitely have had a Justice League, probably in 2004. Now it’s like 2015 and you’re not going to see the Justice League for 4 more years or something.

There was George Miller’s Justice League round about 2006 that is another movie that got totally axed, even though a whole cast was put together and shooting was ready to start in Australia.

I know! That’s incredible. They had all their costumes made, those guys were all training for 6 weeks over in Australia, they had sets built, they had the Hall of Justice built, they had the bad guys’ sets built. They had all these sets completely built and a 45-minute animatic completely done of the film, all the big scenes, full colour, 3D versions of all the characters storyboarded doing their shit. I mean that’s the one, that’s the one you wanna see. If you could see that 45-minute thing…

Maybe a next project for you? A nice follow-up to The Death of Superman Lives?

Yeah, but there’s just not enough of that unfortunately. For me, my interest in doing Superman Lives really came down to the artwork and the ideas and people behind it. To me, George Miller was definitely into it and he’s an incredible director, but like I said the story of that is not as interesting. The story of that is simply that DC decided it didn’t wanna have two Batmans. They already had Christian Bale and they were gonna go with another Batman but didn’t. I’m like, “Look, they do it on TV. They’ve gonna have two Flashes, two Green Arrows. Why not have multiple versions of Batman?” Then there was the same thing with J.J. Abrams’ Superman: Flyby. They had all of the auditions for Henry Cavill and Brandon Routh, I have the footage of all that, I have the animatics from that movie, literally 30 or 40 minutes of animatics. You can see, it would’ve been a pretty interesting take on Superman because Krypton never blew up and Superman gets in a pod at the end of the movie and goes to fight in the Kryptonian Wars. It would’ve been a totally different take on Superman, and that’s kind of exciting. I think I might put that together as a Blu-ray special feature on my film. I don’t think it has enough there to be a whole feature, but it was this film that I covered more and more and I was fascinated to find out what they had made and where they were going.

 
Metalocalypse 

Away from The Death of Superman Lives, you’ve worked on some truly awesome shows, such as Metalocalypse, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Space Ghost and a personal favourite of this writer’s, The Venture Brothers

I was really just sitting in for Jackson Publick , he was really burnt out and I was just finishing Season 2 of Metalocalypse. He called me and was like, “Would you please come out here and help me get Season 4 started?” They were redoing the first 3 episode for 6 months! That’s why you always have to wait all those months for Venture Brothers, for them to reenergise.

Could you ever see yourself going back to that sort of work?

Yeah, for me doing this documentary was actually just a reason to do something and refresh my creative juices by doing different things. I think for myself, I have been writing two different scripts right now and I have an animated script for a feature that’s sort of in the realm of heavy metal. I wanna do an animated film for adults with modern technology. I would like to do that but unfortunately it’s impossible to make an R-rated animated film in 2015, yet somehow they were able to make Heavy Metal in 1980. How can you make that and then now we’re so advanced that you’re saying there’s no money in adult animation? Alright. That was my first Kickstarter, it was gonna be an 11-minute cartoon.

The only adult-themed animated movie of recent years that comes to mind really is Rob Zombie’s The Haunted World of El Superbeasto…

There is that, but then that never got released properly, it just went straight to Hulu or something. So there’s that, and then I’m probably going to focus more on doing a live-action, actual real movie. And I’ve got a horror musical that I’m working on, all original stuff that I’m working on. That’s the next thing I’m gonna push myself into. I’m probably not gonna do another documentary, and if I did then it’s probably not gonna involve superheroes. A couple of people have approached me and been like, “Hey, would you be interested in doing something with this?” It’s funny as what you’re doing now is what people think you do. I’m like, “Well, I’ve been directing TV shows for 15 years.” I do one documentary and people want me to do other documentaries. I’ve had people tell me that I could look at Justice League: Mortal or Darren Aronofsky’s Batman movie , and I guess it’s a possibility to do all those things but it also takes a lot of your time. This one took 2 and a half years and the last 8 months have been every day non-stop. It’s a very consuming job. So my future is gonna be doing other creative stuff and who knows, but that’s what I’ve always been doing. But I’m really happy with the response to this documentary, not only from people who thank me for making this but I’m also happy with the response after they’ve seen it. That’s the most important thing to me, not just the idea of making a film but the execution and the finishing of the film, which I think caught a lot of people off guard. If they come from a Hollywood background then they might have thought I was making fun of it, but I’m definitely not doing that. The intention was never there, so the input and the final product is not there either, we’re not making fun of it. We look at the development process of a Hollywood feature film that happened to be a superhero film.


Holly Payne in The ABCs of Death

It certainly sounds a lot more time-consuming than just doing a segment on The ABCs of Death. How much fun was that to work on?

That was great, and it seems like they picked all the right guys to do all these different things. For me I was W is for WTF, which was a lot of fun. And the Soskas, I really liked their film American Mary. But yeah, it was great to work on The ABCs of Death. None of us worked together, the other directors, but when we had the premiere we had almost 25 other directors, almost all of them came, and it was great to talk to them not only about films but about life in general and just hang out. It was such a cool thing to create that anthology.

The Death of Superman Lives: What Happened? will be shown at MCM London Comic Con on 22nd and 23rd May, with a VOD and US DVD/Blu-ray release on July 9th. A UK home release has yet to be confirmed.

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW OR ON TWITTER @STARBURST_MAG

Find your local STARBURST stockist HERE, or buy direct from us HERE. For our digital edition (available to read on your iOS, Android, Amazon, Windows 8, Samsung and/or Huawei device – all for just £1.99), visit MAGZTER DIGITAL NEWSSTAND.

CLICK TO BUY!

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB:

Bryan Fuller | HANNIBAL

Bryan Fuller is an American screenwriter and producer famous for his work on a number of acclaimed series, including Dead Like Me and Pushing Daisies. Hannibal, the intimate story of Thomas Harris’ serial killer Hannibal Lecter, is soon to enter its third season and we were lucky enough to get the chance to speak to Fuller, the creator and one of the minds behind the show.

STARBURST: How did the show come about and what was it about the characters that you thought would make for a television show?

Bryan Fuller: Basically the show came about when I was asked if I thought one could be made from the Hannibal franchise, and my first response was absolutely! The hinge of it for me was always going to be the relationship between Hannibal Lecter and Will Graham. It’s hinted at in the novel, a kind of connection but it’s never really explored. At one point Hannibal even says to Will, “The reason you caught me is because you’re just like me.” It was the strange promise of there being this whole world that we hadn’t seen in any of the adaptions so I wanted to explore that friendship. This led on to relationships between heterosexual men, a bonding and a brotherhood based on respect, and what has the potential to be psychologically eroticised rather than physically so. This would give us a base that would always be rooted in character.

With such a character driven piece casting is everything. How did you go about it?

The approach was to try and get the most fantastic actors we could. The first person cast was Hugh Dancy, whose work I was familiar with and I knew he’d be able to play this incredibly complicated, very tricky man with accessibility and likeability. On occasion Will Graham is a dick, so it certainly helps to have someone likeable to bridge that “dick gap” .

That’s true, because for much of the show you never quite know who you’re really rooting for.

There are certainly things that Will does that are questionable and bad for him; whether he can admit it or not is the thing. He’s trapped in Hannibal’s thrall, who has such an incredible influence on him. When we are seen by another and being seen gives us a reason to engage it becomes very addictive. When he’s with Hannibal he knows things and understands things that he doesn’t when by himself, and that becomes very seductive.

I went back and watched Silence of the Lambs and there are some notable similarities and some notable differences, and then more references truer to the books. Do you feel a responsibility to tell the definitive Lecter story?

We set out to tell the definitive story that exists outside of the previous interpretations, so I guess we did. We also wanted to bring something unique to the story because I certainly don’t want to just Xerox someone else’s work. I want to make sure that I have, within this amazing toy box and writing, the ability to play with it as I see fit and perhaps either expand or contract certain characters’ stories. It’s almost like a mash-up; a bit of this from The Silence of the Lambs, and a bit of that from Red Dragon, and you then get the satisfaction of experiencing something both familiar and new.

I mean this in the best possible way, but is the series terminal given you’ll crossover with the books at some point perhaps? I guess I’m asking do you a have a master plan.

I see every season as an end point as this is the first time I have had a series make it into Season 3! I also want to craft something that leads to a natural end point with each season, as it’s fun to back ourselves into a corner and then have to figure a way out in the next season.

I wondered, what guided the decision to set the story at the time period you do?

Really it was about finding a period in Hannibal’s life that hadn’t been explored. There is a brief moment at the beginning of Red Dragon when you see him giving a dinner party, but no-one had ever illustrated him as a functioning psychologist, helping people in his brilliant way. So that all felt very fresh. That again gave us the chance to observe Will Graham differently.

There are points in the series that are extremely gory, particularly in the first half of Season 1. Did you have planning meetings about how to kill people off?

The first episode after the pilot with the mushroom man was interesting. We had this story about someone who killed everyone in a fast food restaurant and we couldn’t see what was interesting about this other than the black comedy about that culture. We wanted something that would impact psychologically. Finally we came up with the idea of a mushroom farm being grown off of people and we did a load of research on the properties of fungi. That became very telling in setting the style for the show in creating this tableau and fitting it into Will Graham’s search. He makes connections similar to the mushrooms and that gave us our theme.

Why do you think there are some famous films and names from films being adapted for the small screen? I’m thinking Norman Bates and Fargo and the like.

I think there’s now an acknowledgement of a lot of sentimentality towards shows and films of our youth. The television market now is so seductive for creatives as you have more scope to express your own approach. Anything that is valid in its own right is acceptable. If you were just doing a carbon copy then there’s little interest in that, but if you’re bringing something new with a different perspective then that’s what makes it valid.

What else are you involved in right now?

We have American Gods and it’s thrilling to be working with Neil Gaiman as I’ve been a fan for so long. It’s such an interesting novel with so many pockets that we can explore in so many different ways.

Hannibal’s Season 3 debuts in the UK exclusively on Sky Living on June 10th.

George Miller | MAD MAX: FURY ROAD

With MAD MAX: FURY ROAD finally released this week, we caught up with director/co-screenwriter/producer and all-around genre legend GEORGE MILLER to find out all about it…

STARBURST: On the earlier Mad Max films, you pioneered using real cars and real actors to orchestrate incredibly visceral action. What were the challenges for you to take that approach with a film on this scale, with gigantic armadas converging in the desert? Was it like conducting a war?

George Miller: The logistics are very similar to conducting a war.   In fact, several of our crew and members of the stunt team had military experience, Special Forces and such. One of them, who plays a character in the film, had been to Iraq and Afghanistan. He said to me, ‘I don’t want to use the analogy of war, but this feels just like going on a mission. Instead of shooting people, you are shooting film.’ Obviously the human stakes are entirely different, but logistically, the mobility, feeding the troops, communications, keeping everybody safe, all of that has a lot in parallel with a military exercise, and this applies to any film you’re shooting on location.

Back when I made the first Mad Max, I was bewildered by the process because I had the film in my head and I had it on paper, but I was amazed that it just didn’t go my way. And I remember talking to Peter Weir, the Australian director, who had done two features by then. He said to me, ‘George, don’t you realize that making films is just like going on patrol in Vietnam? You’ve got your mission, you’ve got to get there, but you don’t know where the landmines are, you don’t know where the stray bullets are going to come from, and you’ve got to adjust.’ That’s the way that you get through it. The land mine might be the sun going out when you need it, or you’ve run out of time before you’ve got to a certain point. You’ve lost the location, or any one of those enormous, enormous things that can happen. So, by the time I got to my next film, which was Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, I just treated it like come what may, you have to adapt and fulfill the mission.

So, the analogy holds up somewhat, and that’s what it was like on Fury Road. It was much bigger than anything we’d done before because almost all the film is outdoors. It’s a remote location, so we had to drive a long way and create all our own communications. You’ve got 50 vehicles in the same scene and probably 100 personnel – 100 stunt and cast, camera crew and even more in a shot – and all of those have to be in communication because the film must be shot on the move.

We also had the Edge Arm, which is a sophisticated and remarkable piece of machinery that was thrown into the middle of the dust and highly choreographed car action. It’s a car with a crane arm holding a camera, and both the movement of the crane and the focus and framing of the camera are operated via remote control. So, the camera could fly right down to within inches from the ground and soar up above the big trucks and big War Rig. That was pretty wild, and it was a major exercise.

To be honest, when you make movies, there are the talkie scenes and the action scenes. But this was all real world and old school action with real vehicles, every day for over 120 days. The biggest issue, by far, was safety. Riggers, stunt crew, everybody was just obsessed with safety. But we had no broken bones or serious injuries to speak of, so it worked out great.

 

With green screen and visual effects composites being so ubiquitous these days, why is it for you more important to do it for real?

It’s the film. That’s how the Mad Max films started, and if it became a CGI movie, it wouldn’t feel like a Mad Max movie.

One of the big complaints with green screen is that people are working against tennis balls on a stick when you’re dealing with a monster, and that’s very difficult for an actor. But getting out there, getting dust in your eyes, feeling the heat of the sun and the cold of the desert in the mornings and at night—it’s a much more immersive experience. To take everybody out into the Wasteland and put them in those circumstances made the behavior more authentic because they had something to work against. 

The most important thing is that this is not a fantasy film. There’s nowhere you can go to fly a space vehicle and have many roadblocks coming at you. In the case of Fury Road, it’s tied to the earth. Why do a CG car crash when you’ll miss all the randomness of detail that happens when two cars collide? The way the dust behaves, the way the metal tears off… Why not do it for real?

All those things, plus the landscape, conspired for us to go out to Namibia. We needed a Wasteland where there was literally no vegetation, and in Namibia, there is some here and there. So, we were able to use CG to adjust where we couldn’t find exactly what we needed or to erase the tracks in the sand after the first take if we were driving across the desert. The rest of it was all real world, and I think a lot of it seeps onto the screen.
 

We wanted to also ask you about the vehicles, like the War Rig and the Doof Wagon, and the different personalities that they have. Where did they come from and what were your ideas about them?

The vehicles all had to arrive out of the backstory, and as much as we could, we just had to follow a logic.  We’re 45 years after the fall of the world, so the cars that survive would be the more robust vehicles – the muscle cars and the hot rods that we saw from earlier periods. The engines would be the more classic, not those with microprocessors or the more advanced technology. If anything broke down, you couldn’t go and get a new computer chip or if the metal crumbled, you couldn’t put it together again. Also, people aren’t concerned with the aerodynamics; they’re concerned with a kind of aesthetic.  So, a steering wheel becomes an artifact with religious significance to them in this world.

In the case of the War Rig, the characters spend so much time in it that it is indeed another character in the movie. It’s a distinct presence, so we spent a huge amount of time working on the way that would look, and every piece had to have a logic.  It’s obviously a tanker, with a hybrid of engines on the cabin.  They can’t go to the local body shop and get another paint job, so they cover it in tar and pitch. They put spikes and skeletons on it to give it a sense of dread and warn anyone who would want to attack it.  There are armed War Boys on top of it to protect it, like seamen protecting a ship.  It belongs to the warlord, so the tin roof above has got his imprint on it. It’s all personalised and very detailed, and all of those things had to come out of the story. It didn’t come off just a cool drawing.

In terms of the Doof Wagon, going into war, people always use music as a way to energise the troops, and now we’re going into war with an armada of vehicles.  So, what would rise above all that noise but a traveling rock concert?  It has to be loud enough for everybody in their vehicles to hear, so it has huge speakers. It carries a rock guitarist, the Doof Warrior, with a double neck guitar that is also a flamethrower. And the wilder it is, the more formidable they are and the more efficient the armada is militarily because people are scared off.

There is a fuel tanker, run by the People Eater, who’s from what others refer to as Gas Town.  Gas Town is obviously full of gas, but the People Eater is also the bean counter for the Immortan, so his fuel tanker is a Mercedes stretch limousine. And if he’s got one of those, he might as well decorate it, and has festooned the front with just about every fancy truck or car grill he can find. So, again, it arises out of character.

The Gigahorse is the Immortan’s car, and because he’s the warlord of the Wasteland, he needs the fanciest vehicle. Instead of one Cadillac, it’s kind of a Cadillac on steroids—it’s a double Cadillac. The V8 has a cult significance to this world, so for the Immortan, they put two V8s together to make an actual V16 for the Gigahorse.

 

What about the iconic Mad Max Interceptor, which has its own journey in this movie?

In the westerns, the cowboys had their favorite horse, and Max has his Interceptor. When we see it at the beginning, it’s pretty clapped out, as they say. But it’s scavenged to the Citadel where they have the resources to restore it big time in their own fashion, and it comes back into the story. Like Max, the Interceptor keeps getting wrecked and resurrected.

In the midst of the nonstop action in the Mad Max movies are provocative ideas with contemporary resonances. Were there ideas or themes you wanted to weave into Fury Road? 

I’ll just say that I hope this story has a lot of resonances for people, not only from the modern world, but what is constant in human history – how we behave to each other in dark and destructive ways, and also where we show each other honor and love.

When we made the Babe movies years ago, there was a scene in which the farmer looks through the window and notices that he’s separated the brown chickens from the white chickens. It was just a way to show that he had some concern for the animals. But when I went to South Africa, a gentleman said to me that Babe is about apartheid. It never was the intention, but, of course, this was just as South Africa was coming out of apartheid, so it made perfect sense through the eyes of a South African. That’s the nature of stories, I believe.

I have to quote Freddie Mercury – and I hope I get this right – when someone asked him about his interpretation of Bohemian Rhapsody, Freddie Mercury said, ‘If you see it in there, dear, it’s there.’ In other words, the song is in the eye of the beholder. It’s for each member of the audience to find its resonance. I live there, because that’s what allegory is. The hope is that people will make their own connections and that the film will have some meaning for them.

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD hits UK cinema screens on Thursday, May 14th.

Christoph Behl | WHAT’S LEFT OF US

Christoph Behl is a German-born writer and director who studied his trade in Argentina and Spain. Primarily a documentary filmmaker, Behl’s first feature, What’s Left of Us, follows three friends in the wake of a zombie apocalypse.

STARBURST: This is a hugely ambiguous film that can be interpreted in many ways. Would you say this is your version of hell?

Christoph Behl: It is a good question, because I like the fact that people will have a dialogue with the film when they try and interpret it. There are references to Sartre and there are very different ideas of why it is like it is.

Love appears to be one of your central themes, but the characters become almost asexual as the dynamic changes.

We originally filmed some sex scenes but we didn’t put them in the film. With them, there the love was much stronger but it wasn’t part of the original plan. With the scenes in, it felt like there was too much energy somehow.

Decay is also a strong theme, but there seem to be contrasts in how this is presented.

It’s very much there. Perhaps it’s the human characters decaying more slowly than the zombies, with the flies and so on. I don’t have all the answers I’m afraid .

Talking of flies, there are a lot in the film. How difficult was that for the cast and crew to work with?

It was really hard at first because we use lots of real flies and they were everywhere. It made it uncomfortable for everyone, but they’re not dangerous. After a few days, everyone just got used to it.

The film felt like a play in many ways, with just the three main characters and the mainly fixed location.

It wasn’t such a dogmatic decision to use one place, but as we rewrote the script it just became that way. For me it was important to reduce many of the elements and work more on the characters when there are less distractions.

The three leads deliver outstanding performances. Was it difficult to cast the roles given the chemistry you needed?

It was difficult, as you need a good cast or you don’t have a good film. Without them just doesn’t matter. I watched them all in plays to see what they were doing but it took six or seven months to sort out. They were very involved too, as they changed a lot of the script and we decided not to just have shots; we filmed the scenes and let them run, which I guess is documentary in style, but we did it just to see what would happen.

 

You have a documentary background and this film feels very voyeuristic. I wondered, was this something you’ve worked on?

The idea was to get the voyeuristic feeling by not making the cast act for the camera and just to watch them. It was important to simply observe them, like the Dardenne brothers, although they are much better at it than me. We also didn’t change the lens similar to them. We kept the same optic the whole time to make it feel very close. If you see this film in the cinema you are always so close up with the faces.

The sound in the film is hard to really describe and I wondered if you could talk about that a little.

We had this idea from the beginning where we wondered what we could do differently. Everyone has seen zombie movies, there are so many, so we didn’t need the backstory. What we did was put the sound from the outside into the inside of the house so it plays through the speakers on to the characters all of the time. That was the main idea, to make the environment even more unbearable. It was brave to make a film without music but I thought we did a good job.

There are so many zombie films out there and this feels like a direct opposite to World War Z. Were you nervous at all about entering the genre?

No, I liked the idea of going into the genre. I think it’s good to work with popular mythology. There are rules that are accepted and it’s good to work within them. The interesting thing is to work inside these conventions to tell a normal story. There are a lot of films like this now, such as Jim Jarmusch’s vampire film .

What’s Left of Us is released on DVD on May 11th, and you can find out review here.

 SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW OR ON TWITTER @STARBURST_MAG

Find your local STARBURST stockist HERE, or buy direct from us HERE. For our digital edition (available to read on your iOS, Android, Amazon, Windows 8, Samsung and/or Huawei device – all for just £1.99), visit MAGZTER DIGITAL NEWSSTAND.

CLICK TO BUY!

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB: