HORROR’S THREAT

IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL SCREAM

Horror’s Threat

Article by Ray Schillaci

Is that a meat cleaver behind your back or are you just happy to see me? This can be taken in several ways when referring to low budget horror films. The genre has always been the red-headed stepchild of cinema. Yet, time and again, it roars back with a vengeance, gobbling up high returns and garnering a larger than cult following.

Due to the resurgence of grindhouse movies, ‘60s schlockmeisters Jack Hill and Roger Corman, and the proliferation of horror features flooding the DVD/Blu-ray and VOD markets, the state of horror may be a toss-up in an industry that thrives on bottom dollar entertainment. Do fans and the dedicated artists who love their craft stand a chance of survival?

Karl Schanzer came from the Hill and Corman camp and has seen the rise and fall of the industry individual’s dreams and nightmares. He worked with Sid Haig (“The Devil’s Rejects”) on Jack Hill’s “Spider Baby” and Francis Ford Coppola’s first commercial (horror) film, “Dementia 13”. Later, he went on to be a producer and writer of several independent films. Schanzer agreed to give his vulture’s eye view of the state of horror films: “The problems with low-budget filmmaking (horror or otherwise) will always be the same. Technically they may change, but the thing is; gathering things, getting it the cheapest you possibly can, squeaking it through… Eventually, it’s the last little thing you can do to live by your wits in making movies.”

A number of industry pundits, which I had the opportunity to interview, agree that the biggest advantage horror movies have over other genres is that even the more successful ones have been made on shoestring budgets (i.e. “Halloween”, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, “The Evil Dead”), thus encouraging more creativity. Even the paltry sequels prove to be successful and could probably be summed up best with a quote by Stephen King from Entertainment Weekly (August 22, 2003), “Always They Come Back”. He says, “I know ‘Freddy vs. Jason’ is gonna be terrible…but the fear generated by a horror picture is a drug, and you go on chasing the high long after the high is gone.”

Successful horror has supplied that “high” for years. But what makes a successful horror film? Marcus Nispel, famous for the reboots of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Friday the 13th,” had his thoughts on the subject: “Very few manage to make you suspend belief. I don’t believe in the devil, but after a two hour viewing of ‘The Exorcist’, I did. There are many forms of horror that all have their different criteria…creepy, dreadful, gross, etc. I like conceivable, reality-grounded horror above fantasy or special effects-driven horror…they all have their own rule book.”

Accomplished thrills and chills have accompanied many low budget efforts from the past that had baby boomers transfixed to local late night channels displaying “Queen of Blood”, “The Little Shop of Horrors” and “Dementia 13.” They would go on to influence filmmakers for generations. According to Schanzer, the years have not changed the struggles or the tactics.

When relaying Schanzer’s comments to director Ben Rock (“Alien Raiders”), he agreed: “You go to weird places, meet interesting people, and push yourself to think on your feet.” Rock is well aware of the complexities and the love for the genre, having worked it for over ten years, including having the opportunity of being the production designer for “The Blair Witch Project”.

Horror film legend George Romero admits in Paul R. Gagne’s 1987 book, “The Zombies That Ate Pittsburgh: The Films of George A. Romero,” when working on “Night of the Living Dead”, he was almost willing to do anything to get his film done: “I was willing to bend in every direction in the interest of a communal sense of collaboration with creative contributions from all involved. I knew that in order to finish the film, we would need a lot of working contributors and, since there was no money, I felt that creative expression would be the only reward for those that joined in.” But by the time he was finished, he lusted for control and was frustrated by compromises creatively and socially.

Most agree that guerrilla filmmaking is still going on today. “Paranormal Activity” and the slew of “First-Person” shot movies or “mockumentaries” prove the ingenuity of future filmmakers. One would think with such cooperation from the crews that camaraderie would likely prevail in smaller productions. Schanzer laughs and retorts, “Well…the same camaraderie that’s in a baby shark tank. You’re all in competition, but on the one hand, you’re all working for one thing and most of the time it’s very good.”

Rock has a more palatable view. “Every film I’ve worked on had a completely different vibe. I’ve worked on films with budgets between $65K and $2.25M, and each had a different sense of camaraderie, something that comes from the director, producer, and department heads on down. It’s a chemistry thing.”

Joe Skorpen, stunt coordinator (“Asylum Days”), had an interesting take, having been involved with both big and low budget productions, when questioned on the subject: “Small budget film vs. a low budget film is a lot like a large company vs. a small company with any genre. When you have fewer people, it can be more intimate, but if you don’t get along – there’s no escape. Although it appears that on the low budget films, friendships form everywhere and it seems you get a lot of new people and they’re looking to increase the size of their Rolodex.”

In Roger Corman’s heyday the “King of the Bs” nurtured a great deal of talent (Coppola, Scorsese, Cameron), which appears to be lacking from many of the horror or schlock churners of today. “That’s because Roger gave you a chance to do everything,” Schanzer muses. “If you worked for him, you could be acting one day, driving a VW bus the next, and running continuity the following day. As a result, you kinda gravitated toward the place you did best or where he thought you did best and behold you became successful, and successful on that kind of thing.”

“Look at (James) Cameron (“The Terminator”, “Aliens”, “Avatar”), the whole time Jim was with Roger, he would not let him direct. He told me, one time Roger was looking around and was disgusted at the shoot we were doing and he said, ‘Dammit! Anybody that could work a turret-lathe (form of metalworking lathe) can direct a movie.’ And, Jim yelled, ‘I can work a turret-lathe!’ But Roger wouldn’t let him direct anyway; Jim was doing miniatures for Roger at the time.” Later, Corman would relinquish directing reins to Cameron for the sequel to the highly successful ‘Piranha’, proving Corman was willing to give someone a shot if they had the talent.”

Dave McNary, columnist for Variety, cited back in October 10, 2007, that the closest to Corman’s stature in early 2000 was the head of Troma Films and IFTA (Independent Film and Television Alliance) chairman, Lloyd Kaufman (“The Toxic Avenger”, “Class of Nuke ’Em High”). Kaufman, like Corman, produced or acquired early films of rising talent such as Billy Bob Thorton, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and J.J. Abrams to name a few. Kaufman has stated that he is a true believer in the notion that indies are the “wellspring of creativity”. “It’s the Indies that are the ones who figure out how to build a better mousetrap,” Kaufman claims.

With the proliferation of retreads, re-imaginings or, as some studio execs spin it, “reboots,” and the glut of DVD/Blu-ray, VOD and low-budget horror productions, one cannot help but wonder if the chance of experiencing another “Halloween” or “A Nightmare on Elm Street” on the big screen is rare if any. Fans and filmmakers alike think otherwise. “I don’t think so,” insisted Darrin Ramage, President – International Sales Division ACORT International (subsidiary of Maxim Media Marketing, Inc, Midnight Releasing, Brain Damage Films) when I had posed the possibility, “However, it’s not going to be a big studio that’s going to make it happen. You must keep in mind that ‘Halloween’ and ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’ were big in their day…and much later the ‘SAW’ series (2004-2010)…just as big if not bigger than those mentioned.”

“Simply put, there is more heart and soul in low budget films because you don’t have tons of money to blow. The filmmakers and the entire team: cast and crew, REALLY have to care about the project, and if properly produced, it shows. The studios are a business and have to make $ for the shareholders, so they are far less likely to try something new…thus be all the remakes.”

Mike Flanagan, director of the much heralded low budget “Absentia” and the very popular and successful “Oculus,” has a different take, believing “that there definitely is” the chance for another big budget horror to grace the screen: “The bigger the budget, the bigger the risk, and more sterile and homogenized the product must become in order to appeal to a wide audience. Studios will still spend larger sums of money on a project if it has a mass appeal and/or a particularly meaningful cast attachment, but typically a wide release horror film is being run through a series of processes to make sure it’ll appeal to as many viewers as possible, which can hurt the narrative. If you have Brad Pitt starring, you can get ‘World War Z’ out there on a big scale… but even that project went through an awful lot to get to the screen.

‘Oculus’ met industry standard expectations. We gambled on a wide release and it paid off, the studio and distributors have been very happy with its performance. Because we didn’t attempt to jam the picture into a mold that would appeal to the lowest common denominator, it provided something horror fans bemoan is missing from the wide release horror market… something different. “

Some may look at Marcus Nispel having successfully launched the reboots of “TCM” and “Friday the 13th” and wonder how he triumphed where so many others have fallen way below the mark. He offers a very blunt answer: “Fear of failure. I have never confessed to that before, but these adaptations were not really honest and true horror movies in the way that the originals were…horror purists already know that.”

“These ‘re-imaginations’, as we like to call them, are action movies in disguise, set in a gothic or horrific environment. They were even shot like action movies, and as such they were actually completely novel. We get credit and blame for having heralded the remake craze but really we super-sized establishing horror franchises with action…we had to bring something new to the party and with Michael Bay producing, ‘action’ was kind of expected. All these franchise remakes follow a similar genesis: they start with a very simple but high concept idea…then somebody adds VFX, another throws star power into the mix, comedy, better photography, more marketing…we added action…3D was next.”

“It’s all fair game and worth the effort. As a filmmaker, you can do whatever you want as long as you do something new. People think we are being convenient with all these remakes…granted, marketing an established gravy train is much easier, but remaking a movie is not easy at all. Just ask a contractor…it is much easier to build a house from scratch than to remodel.” Interesting side note, Nispel’s latest horror opus is an original story that was a hit at AFM (American Film Market) and it was still in the working stages.

In regards to how hard it may be to get a genuine scare fest on the big screen again, Andrea Beesley of “Midnight Movie Mamacita” fame adds, “I think there will always be exceptions to trends and break-through films that will find the right distributors and programmers and emerge a success; but there might be less of them than in the past. However, I think there are so many low-budget horror films that are filmed in digital and then released exclusively on DVD/Blu-ray and VOD, that filmmakers who strive to be recognized will pursue the 35mm theatrical route to stand out and distance themselves in an effort to not appear “low-budget.”

“Horror films can generally do well in a tough economy for two primary reasons,” Joe Skorpen claims. “Most independent people do horror films because they’re not paying for big named actors; your monster becomes your star. The other benefit to that is if your monster does well, with the exception of a few – like Freddy Krueger, Robert Englund playing him, you can always switch out actors and not generally impact the character itself. They had several Jason’s in ‘Friday the 13th’. Kane Hodder, who was a stunt guy, was Jason for years and no one even knew who Kane was. So, there is a definite advantage to it.”

“Horror films seem to get away with a lot more. They don’t have to have that expensive film look and they still sell as a horror film. I mean, look at ‘Blair Witch’. That impacted the genre, the supply end of filmmaking. If finances dictate what gets made, then these kind of productions propagate because they can afford to be made.”

“Everyone came to the realization (in 2008) that there were frankly just too many films being made,” Rock adds. “The AFM was kind of a bloodbath in terms of investors losing their shirts. It sucked, because it means that it’s going to be harder to get a film made for a while, and that probably means that only ‘safer’ films (read: less creative) are going to get shoved through the process more easily.”

“There are many reasons for the glut. In a way, the fact that film technology has gotten cheaper has empowered a lot of bottom-feeder types to run amok and sell their films very cheaply, and that’s hurt indies overall. There are companies (who will remain nameless) who specialize in cranking out the schlockiest junk in history, as cheaply and as quickly as possible. For some reason, these companies have distribution deals with certain cable networks and DVD/Blu-ray/VOD distributors, so they turn a profit by clogging the market. And they cheapen every straight-to-DVD film by doing this, but they’re making money so what do they care? I assume that consumers will eventually get wise and stop buying their stuff, but they haven’t yet.”

Rock does cite the “awesome” exception to the rule with “Splinter”, “The Burrowers” and “Midnight Meat Train” getting released straight to video. “Some may spawn further video sequels like ‘Rest Stop’. I think the straight-to-video world could perhaps appeal to the genre audience more directly by taking their films on the festival circuit and meeting fans as well as having a more communal online experience. Right now they’re going out to the Wal-Mart crowd, which is fine, but there is such a loyal fan base out there for cool genre movies, and I’d like to see that niche audience be treated with as much legitimacy as possible.”

Sure enough, the films mentioned by Rock are superior in quality and leaving one to wonder why they settled for straight-to-video. For many people, it’s purely financial and a chance to be seen. Unfortunately, numerous films are tied up with budgetary issues and never see the light of day since some films do not have the advantage of securing funds of a pre-sold deal.

This echoes Schanzer’s feelings: “First of all, it’s hard enough trying to get anything out to the screens these days, and secondly, the DVD market can be so immune – that’s why not go straight to DVD? People are making movies professionally strictly for that (i.e. Warner’s Raw Feed division) straight-to-video. They make them on a dime and collect fifteen cents and horror pictures are perennial. No matter how much they look like they are dead, they’ll be back, same with science fiction. People will say science fiction is dead, but someone comes along with a good story and they’ll do it.”

Whether or not the multi-platform availability (DVD/Blu-Ray, VOD) is a hindrance or a help to future filmmakers is up for a heated debate. Nispel offers an insight that very few touch upon: “I’m sure it’s a hindrance and probably a good outlet for uncompromising fare that would never get a theatrical release. There are more reasons now to stay at home, I get that. Most movies are just blown up TV anyway so what gives?”

“Watching horror, however, is a ritual, a communal experience…often a painless rite of passage or a dare. Not many genres can claim that for themselves. Like any good ride, we like to laugh together and scream together. The big screen makes funny more funny and scary more scary. For the first time, we get horror on cable and TV now, but is it really delivering the jolts?” Nispel poses a question that will probably haunt many future filmmakers.

Another question to consider, can the VOD/DVD/Blu-ray and streaming markets also be considered a double-edged sword for genre filmmakers, since for some investors it’s considered an easy out for a quick buck? Does it encourage tighter budgets for horror films and lower expectations for a theatrical release? Mike Flanagan agrees on both counts:
“VOD and home video are unfortunately a dumping ground for a lot of content that wouldn’t ever have been deemed suitable for an audience ten years ago, and because of piracy and a variety of very inexpensive streaming output options, the DVD market (which used to be a hugely profitable avenue for distributors) has all but dried out. The odds of making your money back on a straight to VOD or DVD release are much smaller than they used to be, and so it means budgets have to be tighter.”

But the other factor, and a great enticement whether it is for box office or DVD/Blu-ray/VOD sales, is marketing. “Marketing is not only significant… it is mandatory for success,” insists Ramage. “The cool part is that for the filmmakers it’s not really that expensive at all because it’s mostly about viral marketing: forums, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, etc. Conventions are OK and ads in print magazines don’t really help a lot although an article is always solid, but you HAVE to get the word out to the fans about your film or it is destined to fail.”

Back in the ‘60s, William Castle was practically the P.T. Barnum of marketing. His antics of having flying skeletons come out of the audience and joy buzzers underneath theater seats proved to be very effective. Even creative DVD covers (lenticular box art) and movie posters can capture attention more than critic reviews. In the 1991 book, “Clive Barker’s Shadows in Eden,” horror icon Barker (“Hellraiser”) reminisces about the ads to “Suspiria” and relates that the makers of the movie announced, “This horror movie is the way that you always imagined horror movies to be before you could get in.” Upon hearing the hype, he made sure to be the first in line. “Because invariably, your imaginings are much better.”

Well put by the person that can have people cowering at night, afraid to look under their bed, and at the same time hand over their hard-earned money for a frightening thrill ride. Perhaps the dollars will always be there like the lines at a roller coaster. However, as long as greed remains behind the silver “blood-splattered” screen perpetuating anyway to make a quick buck that meat cleaver may remain hidden, threatening the red-headed stepchild forever more.

My sincere gratitude to the following people for their time and consideration:
Andrea Beesley
Mike Flanagan, director, “Oculus”
Marcus Nispel, director, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (2003), “Friday the 13th” (2009)
Darrin Ramage, President – International Sales Division ACORT International
Ben Rock, director, “Alien Raiders”
(the late) Karl Schanzer, actor, “Dementia 13”
and Joe Skorpen, stunt performer, “Asylum Days”