DID YOU READ

James Wan and Leigh Whannell Creep Back in With “Insidious”

James Wan and Leigh Whannell Creep Back in With “Insidious” (photo)

Posted by on

Shortly after ordering a stack of pancakes on the morning of the his film’s premiere at SXSW, James Wan is explaining how he much prefers the “sugary crap” to maple syrup, a notable precursor to our conversation since the half-hour that followed was a demonstration of how sweet he and longtime collaborator, actor/screenwriter Leigh Whannell, can be. In each other’s company, the two giggle as they kid each other about Uwe Boll movies and enthuse about Barbara Hershey in a way only film buffs can. Which is why it remains something of a mystery why these two kindly kids from Melbourne, Australia always aim to scare the bejeezus out of audiences, though it’s one with considerably less intrigue than their latest film “Insidious,” a thriller that operates like a Rubik’s Cube of horror subgenres where once you’ve unscrambled one side, it’s onto the next.

This mashup stars Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne star as parents who have recently moved into a new home when their older son (Ty Simpkins) falls into a coma after hitting his head, leading Byrne’s Renai to believe their new digs are cursed, only to discover after moving across town that while the kid’s body may be at rest, he may be running amok elsewhere as a result of astral projection. As you may have heard, the film was produced by the creators of “Paranormal Activity,” which isn’t only interesting as a marketing hook, but as a union of the two parties most responsible for the direction of horror films in the last decade, considering that Wan and Whannell’s debut “Saw” would eventually popularize the gore-heavy leanings of the genre in the years that followed despite the fact the initial film in the franchise induced far more chills with its wits than severed limbs.

Although it’s no less terrifying, there are no body parts flying in “Insidious,” either, but the film does share the go-for-broke abandon that made “Saw” such a success as well as the fact that for the first time since then, Wan and Whannell have made a film completely independent of the studio system, which the two talk about, in addition to how they got into the supernatural and their friendship, in the interview below.

Leigh has said before that this was the right time for this movie to be made, so why now? I imagine it had to be a difficult film to pitch to people.

Leigh Whannell: We didn’t actually pitch the story to anyone. The producers of “Paranormal Activity” came to us and said we want to make a film with you and that sparked the idea for the film. It was like we were ready to take it easy and do nothing. [laughs] Then all of a sudden from nowhere, it was like bang, let’s make a movie and next thing we know, I was writing and then by the time I got back from Australia, they were in pre-production.

James Wan: We started making the film without him. It’s like, “Hey guys, but I want to make the film!”

LW: I came back they had finished shooting.

JW: We had to digitally insert Leigh in the film.

03312011_Insidious.jpgIn a strange way, “Saw” and “Paranormal Activity” came to represent the opposite extremes of the horror genre of the last decade, which made it easy for people to suggest there was a rivalry between the two in the media. Were you actually surprised when “Paranormal”‘s Oren Peli and Jason Blum reached out to make this?

JW: Actually, all the made-up competition came along after Leigh and I had already befriended the producers of “Paranormal Activity” and so when all that stuff was happening, it was more “huh” – one of those things that came along after. But like you say, it really was made up by the media because we all get along really well.

LW: It’s funny. We never mentioned “Saw” or “Paranormal” throughout the entire making of this film. We just talked about this film, that was the priority. They definitely love it as much as we do, so unless they’re doing some sort of drawn out conspiracy to ruin us, then they’re onboard with this film.

JW: There’s no need for them to do that, right?

LW: We did it ourselves. [laughs]

Were you a little frustrated by what you were seeing in the horror genre?

LW: We didn’t think there was anything scary out there.

JW: That was our thing. At the end of the day, Leigh and I just wanted to make something that was unique and scary, but yet people go in there and they’re familiar with it. We picked a particular story structure within the horror world, which is the haunted house subgenre that everyone gets, right? And possession. So we combined those two elements, but then within that, that’s where Leigh and I always had fun with our project – that’s where we take what you think you know about the film and then we just start twisting and spinning the film around.

Speaking of twisting, it seemed like the camera was always moving, which seems like a break from other films like this where there might be long panning shots, but the camera still might be shooting from a stationary position.

JW: Even though the camera moves a lot, I think it’s there to slowly build the tension and they’re not fast camera moves at all. They’re very controlled. I definitely wanted to make a very classical, old fashioned horror film based on very classical, old fashioned filmmaking. If you go back and see what Spielberg did with the first “Jaws,” it’s all very controlled camerawork – or “Duel.”

LW: I read one review that said your direction was very reminiscent of “Dressed to Kill.” That’s pretty cool. Is that something you noticed at all [with the camerawork]?

JW: I look back at my body of work and I definitely see things that excite me in the same way that excite Brian DePalma for sure.

LW: The way he loves to move the camera in…

JW: It’s not just that. He moves his camera, but he does it in a really interesting way.

LW: That opening shot of “Insidious,” to me, is a very DePalma-esque shot. [The camera] comes in upside down and then twisting around.

JW: I was very inspired by someone like [Roman] Polanski as well, [in how] he takes slow, brooding movies that are made in such confined spaces and just builds on that and builds on that and builds on that. That’s what we want to do. But instead of paranoia that we’re building on, we’re building on supernatural things.

03312011_Insidious3.jpgOne of the best things about the film is that you don’t feel manipulated by the frights, which seems to derive directly from having more control over the picture – like editing yourself. What was it like to make an independent film again?

JW: Definitely from our conception of the project to Leigh writing it to me making it, shooting and editing it, post-production and music, I would not have been able to have done all that if I had done it through the studio system. If I had funneled it through the studio system, the movie would have a very different flavor to it.

LW: If we hadn’t been given creative freedom, I think the movie would’ve been different in ways subtle and big. When I was writing, the freedom we were given didn’t manifest itself in me thinking, wow, I can do anything. I can have pink elephants dropping out of the sky.

JW: You could.

LW: I wanted to. That scene’s actually on the disc’s deleted scenes. [laughs] The freedom we’d been given meant that I felt freer with the details. Things like taking time with the characters, being able to establish who they were, having a scene there that may not necessarily advance the plot in a huge way, but it says something about who the characters are. Those were the ways I used this filmmaking capital that had been given to us, not by going and making the craziest thing ever, but by actually taking this rigid form and inserting things into it that you haven’t seen in awhile like getting to know the characters.

Think of “The Exorcist.” How much time was spent in the opening scenes of “The Exorcist” just getting to know the family? I feel like if “The Exorcist” had to be made today, I think they’d say we don’t need this stuff at the start with the mother being an actress. Why do we need to see her on a film set? That’s not important to the possession story. But in the ’70s, you had that room. So in our own small way, we wanted to hearken back to that.

Watch More
FrankAndLamar_100-Trailer_MPX-1920×1080

Bro and Tell

BFFs And Night Court For Sports

Bromance and Comeuppance On Two New Comedy Crib Series

Posted by on

“Silicon Valley meets Girls meets black male educators with lots of unrealized potential.”

That’s how Carl Foreman Jr. and Anthony Gaskins categorize their new series Frank and Lamar which joins Joe Schiappa’s Sport Court in the latest wave of new series available now on IFC’s Comedy Crib. To better acquaint you with the newbies, we went right to the creators for their candid POVs. And they did not disappoint. Here are snippets of their interviews:

Frank and Lamar

via GIPHY

IFC: How would you describe Frank and Lamar to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Carl: Best bros from college live and work together teaching at a fancy Manhattan private school, valiantly trying to transition into a more mature phase of personal and professional life while clinging to their boyish ways.

IFC: And to a friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Carl: The same way, slightly less coherent.

Anthony: I’d probably speak about it with much louder volume, due to the bar which would probably be playing the new Kendrick Lamar album. I might also include additional jokes about Carl, or unrelated political tangents.

Carl: He really delights in randomly slandering me for no reason. I get him back though. Our rapport on the page, screen, and in real life, comes out of a lot of that back and forth.

IFC: In what way is Frank and Lamar a poignant series for this moment in time?
Carl: It tells a story I feel most people aren’t familiar with, having young black males teach in a very affluent white world, while never making it expressly about that either. Then in tackling their personal lives, we see these three-dimensional guys navigate a pivotal moment in time from a perspective I feel mainstream audiences tend not to see portrayed.

Anthony: I feel like Frank and Lamar continues to push the envelope within the genre by presenting interesting and non stereotypical content about people of color. The fact that this show brought together so many talented creative people, from the cast and crew to the producers, who believe in the project, makes the work that much more intentional and truthful. I also think it’s pretty incredible that we got to employ many of our friends!

Sport Court

Sport Court gavel

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Joe: SPORT COURT follows Judge David Linda, a circuit court judge assigned to handle an ad hoc courtroom put together to prosecute rowdy fan behavior in the basement of the Hartford Ultradome. Think an updated Night Court.

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to drunk friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Joe: Remember when you put those firecrackers down that guy’s pants at the baseball game? It’s about a judge who works in a court in the stadium that puts you in jail right then and there. I know, you actually did spend the night in jail, but imagine you went to court right that second and didn’t have to get your brother to take off work from GameStop to take you to your hearing.

IFC: Is there a method to your madness when coming up with sports fan faux pas?
Joe: I just think of the worst things that would ruin a sporting event for everyone. Peeing in the slushy machine in open view of a crowd seemed like a good one.

IFC: Honestly now, how many of the fan transgressions are things you’ve done or thought about doing?
Joe: I’ve thought about ripping out a whole row of chairs at a theater or stadium, so I would have my own private space. I like to think of that really whenever I have to sit crammed next to lots of people. Imagine the leg room!

Check out the full seasons of Frank and Lamar and Sport Court now on IFC’s Comedy Crib.

Watch More
Brockmire-103-banner-4

Millennial Wisdom

Charles Speaks For Us All

Get to know Charles, the social media whiz of Brockmire.

Posted by on

He may be an unlikely radio producer Brockmire, but Charles is #1 when it comes to delivering quips that tie a nice little bow on the absurdity of any given situation.

Charles also perfectly captures the jaded outlook of Millennials. Or at least Millennials as mythologized by marketers and news idiots. You know who you are.

Played superbly by Tyrel Jackson Williams, Charles’s quippy nuggets target just about any subject matter, from entry-level jobs in social media (“I plan on getting some experience here, then moving to New York to finally start my life.”) to the ramifications of fictional celebrity hookups (“Drake and Taylor Swift are dating! Albums y’all!”). But where he really nails the whole Millennial POV thing is when he comments on America’s second favorite past-time after type II diabetes: baseball.

Here are a few pearls.

On Baseball’s Lasting Cultural Relevance

“Baseball’s one of those old-timey things you don’t need anymore. Like cursive. Or email.”

On The Dramatic Value Of Double-Headers

“The only thing dumber than playing two boring-ass baseball games in one day is putting a two-hour delay between the boring-ass games.”

On Sartorial Tradition

“Is dressing badly just a thing for baseball, because that would explain his jacket.”

On Baseball, In A Nutshell

“Baseball is a f-cked up sport, and I want you to know it.”


Learn more about Charles in the behind-the-scenes video below.

And if you were born before the late ’80s and want to know what the kids think about Baseball, watch Brockmire Wednesdays at 10P on IFC.

Watch More
Brockmire_101_tout_2

Crown Jules

Amanda Peet FTW on Brockmire

Amanda Peet brings it on Brockmire Wednesday at 10P on IFC.

Posted by on
GIFS via Giphy

On Brockmire, Jules is the unexpected yin to Jim Brockmire’s yang. Which is saying a lot, because Brockmire’s yang is way out there. Played by Amanda Peet, Jules is hard-drinking, truth-spewing, baseball-loving…everything Brockmire is, and perhaps what he never expected to encounter in another human.

“We’re the same level of functional alcoholic.”


But Jules takes that commonality and transforms it into something special: a new beginning. A new beginning for failing minor league baseball team “The Frackers”, who suddenly about-face into a winning streak; and a new beginning for Brockmire, whose life gets a jumpstart when Jules lures him back to baseball. As for herself, her unexpected connection with Brockmire gives her own life a surprising and much needed goose.

“You’re a Goddamn Disaster and you’re starting To look good to me.”

This palpable dynamic adds depth and complexity to the narrative and pushes the series far beyond expected comedy. See for yourself in this behind-the-scenes video (and brace yourself for a unforgettable description of Brockmire’s genitals)…

Want more about Amanda Peet? She’s all over the place, and has even penned a recent self-reflective piece in the New York Times.

And of course you can watch the Jim-Jules relationship hysterically unfold in new episodes of Brockmire, every Wednesday at 10PM on IFC.

Watch More
Powered by ZergNet