Dir: Jim Wynorski [as Jay Andrews] Stars: Billy Warlock, Kurt Max Runte, Catherine Lough Haggquist, Peter Graham-Gaudreau
I have a lot of time for Wynorski who, along with Fred Olen Ray, is one of the most enthusiastically active B-movie directors in Hollywood, with a career going back to 1985’s The Lost Empire, and which has resulted in such classics – at least in TC Towers – as Deathstalker 2, Chopping Mall and The Bare Wench Project [ok, Chris would disagree with me over the merits of the last-named]. He operates under a range of pseudonyms, including H.R. Blueberry for soft-porn spoofs such as The Da Vinci Coed, with other names including Arch Stanton, Noble Henry, Tom Popatopolous and Jamie Wagner. But the one you have to watch out for, and operating here, is Jay Andrews. This tends to be attached to poverty-row SF/action flicks, often appearing on the SciFi Channel: Komodo vs. Cobra or Gargoyle. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Thing Below.
You’ll notice that the trailer provides only brief glimpses of the titular Thing, and that would be for very good reason: it is total crap, being entirely CGI, and apparently constructed using the full computer power offered by a top of the line Sinclair Spectrum [without the 48 Kb RAM expansion pack] A host will open their mouth, a tentacle will shoot out and wrap itself around the victim’s throat. Except, the use of the words “shoot out” and “wrap itself” implies that the tentacle and the actors interact in some way. Please be under no illusions there: you could achieve a better semblance of visual trickery by getting your six-year old nephew to draw on the TV with Crayolas.
The film starts on an US warship in the Gulf of Mexico, where a sample, dug up from an oil-platform, is being returned to shore in a ferocious storm. The scientists in charge, rather dumbly, wait until the height of the gale to try and move the sample – described as so radioactive, it could tan an elephant’s hide, though this is never mentioned again – to a secure location, from the lab counter on which it is currently sitting. Do they, oh, use a dolly or cart of some kind to move it, as the ship heaves through the waves? No: a bunch of guys each grab a corner, and stagger around for a bit, before the inevitable happens. They drop the container, which shatters and the contents starts shooting tentacles out, as if auditioning for the cosplay at a Legend of the Overfiend convention.
Then the ship blows up. Quite why, I’m not sure, but they probably had used up all of their stock footage, and needed to divert elsewhere. Such as the CGI oil-rig where the bulk of the film actually takes place; this does explain the movie’s alternate title, Ghost Rig 2: The Legend of the Sea Ghost. In case you’re wondering, the original Ghost Rig was a retitling of a British film, The Devil’s Tattoo, about an evil spirit haunting a North Sea platform. It was, presumably, successful enough to merit this pseudo-sequel, though since they seem to have abandoned the title, you’d never know.
Heading towards the rig is a supply ship, under the steely gaze of Capt. Jack Griffin (Warlock), along with a scientist, Anna Davis (Haggquist), and company man Rieser (Graham-Gaudreau) – the latter may be a nod to Paul Reiser, who played basically the same role in Aliens. When they arrive, the find the place almost deserted, and soon find out that a creature is roaming the corridors here. It’s never quite made clear whether this is the same one which was on the ship or not; I think it’s probably a second one, but if that’s the case, how it escaped too isn’t explained. As Oscar Wilde once said, “To lose one many-tentacled beast from the depths may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.” Or something like that.
Here, we discover the creature’s other ability: it can project visions into the minds of those near it, to lure them within tentacle strike range. I’m pretty sure this was used in a Star Trek episode. And, say what you like about the monster, it doesn’t lack ambition. The crewman who wants to be a cowboy, for example, gets a whole Western town, complete with an opposing gunfighter. Never mind that this is actually a storm-tossed oil-platform, so any normal person might go “Hang on a moment…”, when they stumble through a door into Tombstone (or a semi-convincing facsimile thereof), instead of the expected store-room. Similarly, another crew member gets a visit from his favourite porn starlet, played by Glori-Anne Gilbert, whose breasts have previously been discussed on this site. A third lost her husband and son in a train crash, so – yep, you guessed it – the entire accident scene gets re-created. Hell, if you’re going to go big, go big.
Gradually, the team is whittled down to the small band of survivors, who are exactly the characters you would expect to survive. They locate a couple of survivors, including Captain Jack’s brother, and there’s a tussle over a floppy disk which contains information on how to defeat the creature. This is questionable in a couple of ways. Firstly, when was the last time you saw anyone copy information onto a floppy disk? And secondly, the method actually used by Jack, seems far more inspired by a recent viewing of Die Hard than anything remotely technological. Sadly, the film lacks the guts to have him intone “”Come out off the coast, we’ll get together with a many-tentacled telepathic fiend, have a few laughs.”
The ending is both eminently predictable, and a complete cop-out in that the creature suddenly decides to develop a hitherto-unmentioned skill – one which, if applied earlier, would likely have resulted in a rapid end to the film. No such luck, however, and we are left to contemplate the horrific possibility of The Thing Below 2 – or, possibly, Ghost Rig 3. So far, however, even Wynorski has not seen fit to go back to that particular well, despite having made 23 features in the four or so years since. Perhaps even he knows when it’s best to let sleeping, ah, things lie.
Despite the copious use of stock footage [some of which is, admittedly, fairly impressive], the film’s cheapjack nature continually shines through. The entire US government is represented by two guys and a Dell computer in a largely-empty warehouse, supposedly in Washington. This is enough to get you the direct-dial number of the President; well, I guess Bush hasn’t got much to do since the election.
If Warlock looks somewhat familiar, it’s because he was the lead in Brian Yuzna’s Society, where he also found himself on the wrong end of an alien species, and I have to say, the acting is probably the least of the film’s problems. While no-one stands out, they all do what they can with the crappy material, especially since one suspects they were acting under false pretenses. Specifically, being unaware that the special FX to be inserted later, were using the term “special” in much the same way as the “Special Olympics.” I can only sympathize with them, so here’s a quick plug for Haggquist’s theatrical and film bookshop in Vancouver. It’s the least she deserves.
Regardless of how you look at this film, there are better entries sitting on the shelves. Alien paranoia? Go for The Thing, which the movie’s title is shamefully invoking. Want tentacles on the ocean? Try Deep Rising instead – which also had far better effects, despite being made six years previously, practically an age in CGI terms. Deserted vessel? Even the crappy Ghost Ship had one good scene. Which would be one more than this manages. But ask yourself a question, folks: how cheap and rushed does a film have to be, before Jim Wynorski won’t use his real name on it?
“Is this movie for everyone? Absolutely not. Will there be people that hate it? Absolutely. But the fact is – what I can say is we didn’t sell out… This movie was made triple fold not only because I love the story and I wanted to do a musical but to basically show people that you can make something different. You don’t have to regurgitate the same ideas over and over again. There are original ideas out there. You just have to fight for them and get the audience out.” — Darren Lynn Bousman
Zdunich (left) and Bousman field Repo! questions
Some things seem doomed to fail. High on the list would be a horror musical with no advertising budget, buried by its distributor, whose stars include Paris Hilton, the lead singer from industrial pioneers Skinny Puppy and that guy off Buffy. But 500 people came to Chandler Cinemas late on a weekday night, paying $15 each to watch Repo! The Genetic Opera. Mainstream Hollywood would kill for that level of viral buzz. What the hell is going on?
Repo started as a ten-minute opera called The Necromerchant’s Debt, written and composed by Darren Smith and Terrance Zdunich in Newport Beach. It grew from there, with additional songs and characters being bolted on, and eventually developed into a full-length 2002 stage-play, which ran at Hollywood’s John Raitt Theatre. That was directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, then 23 and, at that point, with no feature experience at all. However, after he helmed Saw II and Saw III, he used some of the cast and crew to make a 10-minute promo reel.
Twisted Pictures, the producers behind the Saw franchise, took the idea up and the movie was green-lit with an $8.3 million budget and an eclectic cast. Shooting begain September 2007 in Toronto, with a release date originally scheduled for April this year, as shown on the image, top-left. Post-production delays – an opera proving significantly harder to edit, etc. than a regular movie – pushed this back to November. However, Lionsgate – and I can certainly see their point, though the arrival of new head Joe Drake probably didn’t help – simply didn’t believe there was a market for the film. They basically dropped out of promotion and released Repo on just eight screens [even worse than Lionsgate’s dump of Midnight Meat Train in August]. Matters weren’t helped by some particularly vicious reviews.
“Misery is enduring this Rocky Horror Paris Show” — Rolling Stone
It’s hard to find much disagreement among the mainstream press: the movie currently has a 17% Fresh rating among the top critics at RottenTomatoes.com. Zdunich and Bousman were undaunted, inspired by the better reaction on blogs and indie sites that there was an audience for their film out there – if only they could find it. The warm reception it had received at film festivals also helped convince them Lionsgate were wrong, and with the help of a dedicated Internet following, they took their movie on a tour across North America in November. Sold-out screenings followed, with the creators somewhat bemused to find fans turning up in costume as characters – to watch a film they’d never seen before.
The creators deny having deliberately set out to create a “cult movie.” I think it’s probably true, though the obvious potential inherent in the concept is clear – if you can capture the singing goths of the Rocky Horror fanbase, and the Whedonites, attracted by the casting of Anthony Stewart Head, you’ve got a fiercely loyal audience. Said Zdunich, “I think we appeal to a group of people who are hungry for more than just your typical moviegoing experience. They’re hungry for something that feels like an event, that feels like a community.” There’s no doubt, based on the reaction and attendance on Thurday night in Phoenix, that this sense of community is no mirage.
Hard to say where the film goes from here. Bousman has vowed to keep touring, all the way through the release of the DVD in January, and beyond [we want to bring him back for our Phoenix Fear Film Festival next year]. However, it seems tough to create a theatrical cult in the DVD era, where home viewing is increasingly superior to the multiplex experience. Time will tell whether this current, undeniable phenomena is merely a short-lived curiosity, or develops into a lasting feature on the cinematic landscape.
And with that all said, is the movie any good?
Repo! The Genetic Opera Dir: Darren Lynn Bousman Star: Anthony Stewart Head, Alexa Vega, Paul Sorvino, Terrance Zdunich
The year is 2057. The world is dominated by GeneCo, the company under Rotti Largo (Sorvino) that helped defeat a wave of organ failure, by providing transplants – at a cost. And woe betide you, if you feel to keep up with the payments, for they’ll send repo man Nathan Wallace (Head) after you for a friendly chat and the foreclosed organ. However, both Largo nor Wallace have their own issues: the former discovers he is terminally ill and has to decide which of his three dreadful offspring will inherit GeneCo, while his employee has a teenage daughter (Vega) suffering from an incurable blood disease. The two have a connection that goes back a long way; Nathan’s now-dead wife had been engaged to Largo, back before he saved the world. I trust the potential for tragedy, of the Wagnerian kind, needs no emphasis.
I don’t think this is as original as has been claimed in some quarters. While the rock opera [note, not musical: that just contains songs, while this contains almost no spoken dialog] is a genre that’s not exactly been seen much, aspects of this come from – in chronological order of the movie versions – Phantom of the Paradise, The Rocky Horror Show, Hedwig and the Angry Inch and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. The last-named may be the closest, for its mix of arterial spray and show-tunes. Add elements from the likes of Brazil and Blade Runner [while the central notion is close to Python’s Live Organ Donors] and the result is about as original as the average Tarantino film. Still, what emerges is unquestionably its own beast – albeit in much the same way as Frankenstein’s monster.
The movie’s strongest suit is its visual style, which is little short of breathtaking: a future world with a dreamlike atmosphere has been created, mostly using sets but with effective use of CGI to add scale. Much credit to cinematographer Joseph White and production designer David Hackl for their sterling work creating a backdrop, into which all the characters fit perfectly. Head is the standout performance, commanding the screen with a combination of pathos, presence and gallows humour; he is no slacker on the singing front either, though having seen him on the London stage as Frank N. Furter, back in the early 90’s, that’s not really a shock. Zdunich appears as a graverobbing drug-dealer, and gets one of the best songs, though his character seems peripheral – it may have served a greater purpose on-stage?
Paul Sorvino is a pleasant surprise [with some research, it seems shouldn’t be]; not so Vega, whose voice comes over as thin and reedy; it’s probably appropriate for her 17-year old character, but lacks anything to make it a pleasure to listen to. Sara Brightman, as an opera singer whose site was restored by GeneCo, also makes an impression, albeit probably as much for her enormous false eyelashes as anything else. Paris Hilton shows up as one of Rotti’s appalling children, and doesn’t suck as much as you might expect, though I’d still have welcomed it if her character’s fate had matched that suffered in House of Wax.
For an opera, it’s a major weakness that the tunes are eminently forgettable: less than 24 hours later, I can’t remember even a couple of notes of any of them. Being charitable, let’s assume they take a few hearings to sink in. Though mostly unremarkable, I liked the neo-industrial feel to most of them [the presence of Ogre from Skinny Puppy, playing another of Largo’s kids, makes a great deal of sense], and there’s enough variety to keep things interesting. Joan Jett shows up at one point, for reasons that escaped me.
Even if the results are wildly uneven, I have nothing but enormous respect for the creators: they clearly went into this with a vision of what they were trying to create, and they refused to compromise it one iota. In a world of increasingly-sterile entertainment, the love that went into this, both in front of and behind the camera, is a pleasure to see. The dedication to and passion for the film shown by Zdunich and Bousman is both obvious and infectious, and is likely a key part of the reason why fans of their work appear to be every bit as enthusiastic.
Dir: Tobe Hooper Star: Steve Railsback, Peter Firth, Mathilda May, Frank Finlay
Lifeforce trailer [NSFW!] Never mind films, they don’t even make trailers like this any more.
This 1987 adaptation of Colin Wilson’s The Space Vampires was famously disastrous, taking less than half its budget at the US box-office, even after being edited down by fifteen minutes, and was one of a series of flops that pushed Cannon Films to the brink of bankruptcy. At the time, Janet Maslin wrote in The New York Times, “About 30 seconds into Tobe Hooper’s Lifeforce, two things become clear: that this film is going to make no sense, and that Mr. Hooper’s directorial work on Poltergeist may indeed have been heavily influenced by Steven Spielberg.” And when Wilson saw what Cannon had done with his book, he was unimpressed, famously saying: “John Fowles had once told me that the film of The Magus was the worst movie ever made. After seeing Lifeforce I sent him a postcard telling him that I had gone one better.”
That’s being harsh: Lifeforce is by no means a disaster and time has been kind to it; you’ll find a lot of positive reviews online these days. The IMDB currently gives it a score of 5.8 out of ten, which ranks it third-best among the fifteen features Hooper has directed [trailing only Texas Chainsaw and Poltergeist, obviously enough]. Even allowing for Tobe’s often-wretched output, that isn’t bad. It is a classic B-movie romp of aliens, who inspired the vampire legend, and are brought back to the Earth to wreak further havoc on modern-day civilization. Steve Railsback, chewing scenery to good effect, is astronaut Steve Carlsen, the man responsible for bringing the menace back from Halley’s Comet on the spaceship Churchill, and it’s up to him and SAS Colonel Caine (Firth) to stop them, before NATO does a spot of nuclear sanitary work on London.
It feels much like a Hammer film with a budget ($25m, a huge amount at the time) increased enormously from that studio’s norm, and would have worked particularly well as a Professor Quatermass film. I can easily envisage Messrs. Cushing and Lee playing two central characters, albeit ones perhaps more academic and, in Carlsen’s case, less hysterical. It is terribly British in many aspects, with cups of tea and stiff upper lips abounding, even as the capital collapses into anarchy and chaos.
In this setting, Railsback is somewhat of a sore thumb; it may be that his unrestrained looniness, the only American character of significance, was in part responsible for the film’s failures at the box-office there. Firth is admirably tongue-in-cheek, even when faced with Carlsen beating up a nurse believed to be hosting one of the vampires: recommended to leave the room, his po-faced response is “I’m a natural voyeur.” Similarly, the supporting cast, as with Hammer, is full of faces you should recognize, for example Home Secretary Sir Percy Heseltine, played by Aubrey Morris – he was Alex’s parole officer in A Clockwork Orange. Chief among these is probably Patrick Stewart, in his pre-Picard days, as the head of an asylum for the criminally insane. It’s somewhat creepy to see Carlsen impelled to kiss him, though it probably would have been even worse had the role, as originally planned, gone to Sir John Gielgud. Nicholas (Hazell) Ball and Michael Gothard, a villainous henchman from For Your Eyes Only, can also be seen.
And then there’s Mathilda May, who was clearly no bother at all to the costume department for the entire first half of the film, being unencumbered by any clothes at all. This prompts Dr Fallada (Finlay, a role originally offered to Klaus Kinski) to proclaim, with what turns out to be misplaced confidence, “Don’t worry. A naked girl is not going to get out of this complex.” She doesn’t so much perform as exist, and gives perhaps the finest portrayal of a nekkid space vampire in cinematic history: In a long ago printed edition of TC, I made a very complimentary comment about Ms. May’s breasts. Chris, with her superior breasts, has not let me forget this, and nor will I will make that same mistake twice. Though, for the curious, I will point out that if you click on the pic attached to this paragraph, you get the very NSFW version. And we’ll move rapidly on, shall we?
The special effects are a mixed bag. John Dykstra’s outer-space miniature work is impeccable, but some of the body casts on view are less than convincing. There’s one of Stewart which is so bad, it’s difficult to see how it could ever have passed muster, even more than twenty years ago. However, the epic scale of the film really works in its favour towards the finale, when London has been taken over. The feel here is more like a zombie film (co-writer O’Bannon helmed Return of the Living Dead the same year), with Hooper doing a fine job of capturing the anarchy and chaos as Carlsen and Caine try to track down the vampires’ lair. Though, it has to be said, the F-sized beam of light shooting into the sky should probably have given them something of a clue.
The story logic does leave a little to be desired: as Chris pointed out, if vampire victims automatically resurrect themselves two hours after death, why did this apparently not happen in the month or more it took the Churchill to return to Earth? And I can’t say the vampires’ plan makes a great deal of sense, either, sending one of their number off up to Yorkshire, to hide out in the asylum mentioned above, for reasons best described as murky. Still, as a loony slice of eighties apocalyptic sci-fi horror, it’s probably among the best, and this has to go down as one of the masterpieces of Cannon Films – albeit that both of those are somewhat small fields in number. Hooper certainly hasn’t done anything better since, either. I’ll close with this immortal exchange between Col. Caine and Dr. Fallada:
Colonel Colin Caine: You mean life after death? Dr. Hans Fallada: Yes. Colonel Colin Caine: Is there? Dr. Hans Fallada: What? Colonel Colin Caine: Life after death? Dr. Hans Fallada: Do you really want to know? Colonel Colin Caine: No. Dr. Hans Fallada: Well, to answer your question, yes…
The film only opened on Friday, but I have already had it up to here with the cinematic incarnation of Stephenie Meyer’s massively-selling doses of what should probably be called “teen fangst”. I can’t honestly claim to have read the entire book on which the movie is based, but I’ve read enough – for reasons which I’ll get to shortly – to be able to label it as sub-Anne Rice hokum, aimed at undiscerning teenagers with no literary taste, in search of something undemanding to read in between updating their MySpace profiles and writing really bad poetry. It’s not “bad”, per se: though quotes such as “He unleashed the full, devastating power of his eyes on me, as if trying to communicate something crucial,” might make you think otherwise. But it’s just phenomenally mediocre.
I will admit that a copy of Twilight can be found in TC Towers. It was bought for a curious Chris earlier in the year, and she did read it, though doesn’t like being reminded of the fact, and pulls unpleasant faces whenever the author’s name comes up. It’s particularly galling to her, I think, that the idea is one of those “Why didn’t I think of that?” ones. Not that vampires at high-school is exactly ground-breaking. Josh Whedon would be quick to remind you, he took the whole “high-school as hell” metaphor to its literal interpretation, beginning with the movie in 1992. All Meyer has really done is take the Buffy-Angel scenario seriously, and beef up the drooling adjective count by several orders of magnitude.
It has some local resonance too, as Meyer lives her in Phoenix – just up the road in Cave Creek, actually – and went to the same high school as our kids. But perhaps most irritating is the fact that she’s a Mormon. Not that I have anything against Mormons, as such. But there seems something sacrilegious about one of God’s chosen people using the undead to make serious bank. Though it is easy to see the parallels between Edward and Bella, and the restraint they have to show in their relationship and the sexual restraint preached by the church. The irony is that Meyer was inspired to write the books by a dream – just as Joseph Smith was inspired to start the religious faith by a dream…er, divine vision. Why can I get to have dreams that generate quite the same level of revenue?
Typically, it was Trey Parker and Matt Stone who provide the most fitting commentary on the current fad. In the latest episode of South Park, the local Goths get upset at all the vampire wannabes that start showing up in school because it’s become cool. They abduct the leader of the vampire cult, and send him off to the most horrible, and miserable place on Earth.” That would be, according to the response, Scottsdale. Living in 85254 [Scottsdale zip-code, but legally in Phoenix] I am not inclined to argue. In the end – and I hope I am not spoiling this for anyone – they destroy the wannabes by burning down their lair. Or ‘Hot Topic’ as you or I might know it.
Still, in protest at the dumbing-down of the vampire to PG-13 sexlessness, we will be watching an example of the genre tonight – and one about as far from Twilight as can be imagined…
The Ghost of Mae Nak tells the story of Nak and Mak, a newly-wedded couple who find themselves haunted by the restless spirit of a woman from the past, which is now trapped inside an amulet. When Mak is involved in an accident, it’s up to his wife to resolve the mystery, as her husband’s only hope. It’s a successful fusion of Hollywood film-making with Eastern horror, taking the “dark-haired ghost girl” motif, familiar from many recent entries, but adding some new elements and delivering it with Western polish – as well as impressive moments of gore! We talked to writer/director Mark Duffield about the legend behind the film, and the difficulties of making a movie in a language you don’t actually speak…
Trash City: Tell us about your background – and how does a British cinematographer end up making a Thai horror film? Mark Duffield: I was born in India, raised and educated in England and I live in London. My passion for film developed at an early age and I made several short films on 8mm, 16mm and video. I started professionally as a stills photographer and developed my passion for cinematography. I built up a showreel and eventually got to work on 35mm feature films. I have worked as a cinematographer on 8 British feature films. I have also developed my skills as a writer and have written and directed several short films. Recently I teamed up with Brian Clemens writer of 1960’s TV series The Avengers and writer/director of Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter as well, as many other genre movies. Together we made a short film called Face to Face.
I first traveled to Thailand in 2001 to work on the British feature film Butterfly Man. In 2003 I was awarded Best Cinematographer at the Slamdunk Festival in Park City for my cinematography. During my stay in Thailand I became fascinated with Thai ghost stories and heard of a shrine that is devoted to a Thai ghost called Mae (Mother) Nak. I visited the shrine as was fascinated to see hundreds of Thai people pray to Mae Nak and ask her for a blessing or guidance.
TC: The legend was also used as the basis of Nang Nak, one of the biggest Thai films of all time. How would you say your film differs from that, or other versions of the story? MD: The film was conceived because I became fascinated with the Mae Nak legend and her tragic love story. I also discovered that there had been many films about her over the last 50 years. I watched the definitive Mae Nak film, the period film Nang Nak, directed by Nonzi Nimibut. This film concluded with the ‘evil’ spirit of Mae Nak being held captive in a piece of bone cut from her forehead by an exorcist monk, and the bone was lost in time. It was here that I was inspired to write my script and continue the Mae Nak story. I feel that Ghost of Mae Nak is an unofficial continuation of Nang Nak so it was good to have a comparison or connection.
In Thailand Mae Nak is a legend and there are many stories about her. A lot of people believe the legend to be true and the monk who exorcised her did exist. The legend is as famous to Thailand as Dracula or Jack The Ripper is to the West. My film differs because it is a contemporary version set in present day Bangkok and told with my Western influence as writer and director. I was keen to show Mae Nak as a protector of the young newly wedded couple but also show the dark side of her terrorizing or cursing those who try to come between the couple.
Apart from some of the classic Mae Nak films of the 1950’s and the definitive Mae Nak period film Nang Nak, most Mae Nak films were hysterical horror comedies with very low production value. I felt I was doing something new and original so I was very excited by the script and the reaction I was getting from Thai industry professionals. I had total freedom to make my version and was totally supported by the Thai production and distribution companies. As a Western film writer and director I was keen to give the Mae Nak legend a Western or European feel. This would mean authentic casting, realistic locations, special effects and a different faster pace. I was not telling the Mae Nak legend again but introducing it into a contemporary modern setting and giving the Ghost of Mae Nak ‘closure’. She is a ghost who needs to find peace so she may be with her true love. I wanted to make a film that I felt was truthful to the legend and myself.
TC: Would it perhaps have been easier to take the script, and re-locate it to the UK or US? Was translating your story into Thai tricky? MD: The Ghost of Mae Nak is based on a Thai ghost legend and I wanted to be truthful to that legend and make the film in Thailand. But your observation is accurate, in seeing the ease in making the film in the UK or US, this is because the story is a universal story and works in any part of the world. Translating my English language written script into to Thai was tricky because it was important for me to get an accurate translation and clarity in the story. This process took 12 weeks to do. With regards to re-locating the script in the UK or USA, I think it would be possible but it would mean reinventing the legend. I do own all the script rights and have an outline for an American version that is very original.
TC: I believe Pataratida Pacharawirapong is a pop singer and model in Thailand, without much movie experience – did you have any qualms about casting her in a film such as this? MD: Yes, you are right: Pataratida Pacharawirapong (“Tangmo”) is a pop singer and model, but she has also acted in serious television dramas. I actually auditioned her on the set of one of her television soaps because of her tight schedule. I wanted to find lead actors who were the characters. A Thai casting agent and myself auditioned many new actors. We would look for new up-and-coming actors and luckily we were able to secure “C”, Siwat Chotchaicharin, to play Mak and “Tangmo” to play Nak. They had both worked in Thai television dramas so this was their first feature film. During the filming, they were both awarded ‘Best New Talent for Television’ which was a bonus for the Ghost. This brought a lot of attention to the film, which was great. What I really like about them is that I believe in their relationship and they look like they belong together; an important casting note for directors.
TC: The culture in Thailand seems much more spiritual than in the West – everyone seems open to the idea a restless spirit is involved. Was that part of the appeal of locating the film there, and are there any cultural references Western viewers might miss? MD: I had spent some time in Thailand and got to know the culture well. I was fascinated by the ghost stories, Buddhist rituals and the very contemporary way of life people have there. I was keen to explore these themes in my script and researched and interviewed many Thai people about their experiences and beliefs. The importance of family, wedding ceremonies, use of language and exorcism rituals made them vital to get right. It took a lot of work but it was exciting and fun to do. Thai people do believe in ghosts and are very superstitious – ot’s common practice for Thais to wear Buddhist amulets to protect them from evil spirits. Some of my crew constantly wore them to protect them from Mae Nak.
Before we began filming, the entire Ghost of Mae Nak cast and crew went to the Mae Nak shrine to make an offering and ask for permission to make a film about her. This is an actual shrine to Mae Nak where many Thai people ask her for guidance and blessing. I felt she gave us her blessing as the filming went very smoothly and it was a joy to direct. The film was released all over Thailand and went to #3 in the Thai box-office. There was a big media attended Premiere in Bangkok. The distribution company actually built a Mae Nak shrine outside the cinema on the sidewalk. They had an official Buddhist consecration ceremony with monks and the cast attending, that was headline news on Thai TV. This was to pay respects to Mae Nak and bring good luck to the film; people took the shrine very seriously and would even pray in front of it.
As for a Thai cultural reference, I was keen to show and include the Fortune Teller in the story. It is normal practice for newly wedded Thai couples and Thais in general to visit fortune tellers for astrological guidance in all occasions. Thanapath Si-Ngamrath the actor who played Master Tring is a well-known celebrated Fortune Teller and I was delighted to have him in the film. He brought some of his authentic amulets and ritual objects to use in his scene.
TC: How does shooting a film in Thailand compare to shooting one in the West? Were there any unexpected difficulties? MD: As a British director making a horror movie in Thailand I faced many challenges. The most obvious one is the language. I don’t speak Thai even though I had written and directed a Thai-based horror story. At first it was difficult, but filmmaking is a slow process and we eventually learned to find ways to communicate. Of course I had translators, and there was the script, which was written in English and translated perfectly into Thai to work from. As a director I had to be precise about what I wanted and always double-checked the information was clearly conveyed. A film director is highly-regarded in Thailand which also means it becomes a responsible role.
Bangkok film crews are highly-skilled, so the film making process was no different to making a movie in the West and the language of filmmaking is universal. I guess the biggest difficulty and challenge for me was directing a movie in a language that I don’t speak, but I was congratulated by many Thai people, film industry professionals and the movie going audiences on how successful the film was. I guess the biggest “unexpected” event that took place during the filming was that it was a wonderful trouble-free shoot. Filmmaking can be a bit like walking a tightrope, and things often go wrong during it, but I felt as though Mae Nak wanted us to make this film.
TC: The Bangkok that you show is different from the one usually portrayed in the West – it’s very much a “working” city, chaotic, crowded and lived-in. Was that a conscious choice? MD: Yes. I was keen to show a modern side of Bangkok that was truthful to my experience and to the story I wanted to tell. I am pleased that you have observed my choice. I hope my vision of Bangkok will show Westerners a realistic and exciting portrayal of Thailand that we don’t usually see.
TC: The scene everyone remembers is the one involving the falling pane of glass. What was the inspiration for that, and how did you go about carrying it out? MD: The sheet of glass death scene was inspired by The Omen. I wanted to try and further that idea. Originally I was going to have my victim sliced in three but then I saw Final Destination 2 had a similar freak death-scene. [TC: Amusingly, those are the exact two mentioned in my review, written before this interview!] I then went to an exhibition called Body Worlds in which German scientist/artist Gunther Von Hagens displays dissected human bodies in his Plastination process. One display showed a body being sliced down the middle and I saw the potential and came up with the concept.
We filmed this scene at the Tobacco Studios backlot where we built a street set lined with market stalls and traffic. Nirun Changklang, the actor who played Ant, had to visit the effects company First Ideas to have made a full life-size cast of his entire body in latex. The authentic looking body-cast was literally sliced in half from his head through to his groin and then joined back together with a hinge. On set the stunt company Baan Rig wired up the two large sheets of glass (Plexiglas) to fall on cue. The life-size Ant figure was treated like a giant puppet with wirework to support him and control the split. Later the CGI effects company Digital Lab would enhance this with computer generated wire removal and digital blood. The scene also required a stunt vehicle and driver for the screeching bus, stunt extras to jump out of the way, a trained dog to pick up Ant’s severed arm, and a bucket full of animal offal to add grossness to the “Grand Guignol” scene. The Ghost of Mae Nak DVD will feature my Director’s Video Diary as an extra that will visually show how the death scenes were filmed as well as the day-to-day film making process.
TC: I kept expecting the character of Kong to meet a similarly gruesome fate, but he almost vanished from the movie, in a way that seemed somewhat sudden; was there an intention to do more with him? MD: Originally Kong the stalker was going to die; this was written in the script and filmed. But I decided during the edit that his death would only make the ghost vengeful so I cut the scene out, and in the finished film his fate is to stare at the empty grave of Mae Nak. Kong’s death scene involved the following: Kong stares at the empty grave of Mae Nak’s skeleton. He goes to leave but discovers the metal gate is shut tight. He then sees the pickax on the other side of the grave. He returns to the grave, jumps over it and trips and falls with his head narrowly missing the sharp point of the pickax. He straightens himself up, grabs the pickax and turns to see the ghost of Mae Nak at the gate. He is mesmerized by her and steps forward, falling into the open grave. The pickax he holds impales his thigh pinning him down. He looks up from the grave screaming and calling for help but sees the ghost standing over him with her ‘death face’. The ground rumbles, earth crumbles and Kong is buried alive. The grave is filled and camouflaged with falling leaves.
TC: Did you make the film principally for the Thai market, with international distribution a secondary aim, or was it the other way around? MD: I made the film for the Thai and International markets. I am a Western filmmaker so I was keen to get my film seen internationally. I also felt I had written a universal story that had a uniqueness for an Asian horror film. Surprisingly Ghost of Mae Nak has been selected for several International film festivals across the world and not just the ‘horror/fantasy’ festivals. It has had a great reception from a wide range of audiences.
TC: This marked your feature-directing debut, as opposed to being a cinematographer. How was the experience, and what was the biggest thing you learned from it? MD: Yes, Ghost of Mae Nak is my first feature as writer and director and cinematographer, and I had a wonderful journey making it. The speed in which the film developed was like doing a studio movie. The script took three months to write and was funded with a Thai distribution deal a few months after that. I spent four months in pre-production, six weeks production and four months post production. So, from concept to the Bangkok premiere was exactly two years and the Tartan USA DVD release will complete the third year.
Being a first time director and handling the cinematography was exciting. Cinematography is a passion and I had shot eight feature films before this. I think visually, so it was a joy to light my own film. Because this was a big production on a low budget with its many locations and sets, I was able to work very fast and concentrate on lighting just the areas I knew I would film. However, I did have a camera operator, Ryan Goddard, a Canadian based in Bangkok, who was excellent at handling the 35mm camera, which can be physically demanding. I would have no problem working with a cinematographer on my next film – if that is the case, I’d support them 100% as I know what they have to go through to achieve results. And the biggest thing I learned is, that it would be fun to do again – but ideally it would be nice to have more time and budget like the Hollywood movies do.
TC: What are your future plans? Do you plan to make further movies in Thailand? MD: I am writing an exciting new horror script set in the US in English language. I do have several other spec horror scripts I have written and I am also rewriting or fine-tuning them. This is something I always do with my scripts until they get made. My subjects are vampires, the occult + paranormal and witches; I do have a new Thai/Asian horror script but with Western characters and English language – it’s a great idea. I am keen to develop my passion for horror/fantasy films, and have some great, original ideas; however, I’m afraid I don’t want to reveal anything about my scripts as yet, but I will keep you posted.
Finally, I would like to thank Trash City for showing interest in the Ghost of Mae Nak and myself as writer and director. I would like to thank the fans of Ghost of Mae Nak: I appreciate your support. For those who have not seen it, I hope you will give the Ghost a chance, and allow yourself to be taken for a ghostly thrill in Bangkok, Thailand. It will be released on DVD, with extras, by the Tartan USA Asian Extreme label on 10th October. I hope fans will want to learn more about the making, and newcomers will discover a new horror legend from Thailand in the Ghost of Mae Nak.
[Many thanks to Debbi at Tartan for arranging the interview, and Mark for his detailed responses]
