PopSyndicate.com

Brett Sullivan has a great pedigree for horror. As an award-winning editor, he has cut such films as Saw IV, the oddball vampire flick Blood and Donuts, and the Canadian horror classic Ginger Snaps. He made his feature directorial debut on the scary sequel Ginger Snaps: Unleashed. His new film, The Chair is a creepy, old-fashioned possession film that capitalizes on a terrific setting and a pair of dynamic performances from the two young leading ladies. The Chair is one of the best horror films I’ve seen in quite a while, and I was delighted at the opportunity to have an e-chat with this up-and-coming filmmaker.

Q: How did this project come about?

A: My friend, producer Doug Patterson, had been encouraging me to make something. Doug is very enthusiastic and wanted to just get something going. He wanted to start the ball rolling (get used to the rolling ball metaphor, I’ll probably use it more) on a project in order to jump start a small production company. And, after the success of Ginger Snaps: Unleashed, I was waiting for another project. After awhile, I realized that I might as well “get something going” instead of “not getting something going.” So Doug and I agreed to make a very small, incredibly low budget film. I had been interested in all the recent Asian horrors, and that for the most part, their American remakes were disappointments. I wanted to attempt an Asian style horror with North American story sensibility. We brought on Michael Capellupo as a writer and fellow producer (and) we all did everything, basically. There were several things we wanted to achieve in the story; strong character development, mixed media, female leads, disturbing boundary-pushing scenes, and so on. We then listed our assets: my old house, Doug’s boat etc. And with those things, we struggled to find a story. I should also note, to the dismay (of) Michael and Doug, I wanted the film to be made without dialogue, a real challenge at pure visual storytelling. Well, we also wanted to start shooting in a few months, so that idea was squashed after numerous valiant attempts. Regardless, our new company, Panic Pictures, got the tiny little ball rolling with a treatment in early summer, knowing we were shooting in the fall. The whole process was just us boys from Panic Pictures figuring things out as we went.

Q: So obviously you were in on the writing from the beginning, how did you help shape the script?

A: The story was a mixture of necessity and desire. We had financial limitations that forced many issues; cast size, number of location, amount of effects, both practical and visual etc. So we set out with one of my favorite themes: nature versus nurture… we actually allude directly to it in The Chair. And with that, we threw ideas at each other. Michael had recently read a whack of short stories from Edgar A. Poe, and one intrigued him; “The Facts In The Case of M. Valdemar.” With that as an anchor, we peppered in other aspects until we had the story. It was initially called Hush, even before the it was The Chair. That is because the chair aspect of the film came later in the game. We also wanted to take advantage of some of the interesting visual aspects of my house, and one was the alcove with this great peak on my third floor… we knew something evil would happen there… not sure what though. Eventually, we came across the idea of a slow painful death that was brought on by actual living. Hence, the more you breathed life, the closer you came to death. The chair was created as a concept; then, when Adam Smith came aboard, it became a reality. Not just for the film, but for the physical building and functions of “the torture device”… that became the chair. Adam has been in the horror gadgetry genre for years working on the Saws and Skinwalker and the Romero’s … of the Dead films in Toronto. Adam took the idea of the torture device, went away for awhile to stew in the disgusting juices of the device we wanted, and came back with chair that could be built from random, everyday items. What was more impressive was that the chair he provided actually worked. Could it kill somebody? Probably not, but we never put it to that test. As an aside, he was suggested to us by Alex Kavanagh, our Costume Designer, who herself has the same horror pedigree on those films as well as the costume designer from the Ginger Snaps sequels. I digress; eventually, all those aspects came together with the concept of this weird, unexplained closet-like space that exists on my second floor. Where there should be floor space, is walled in. Weird. It’s probably a portal to another dimension or a Native Indian burial ground or perhaps a hiding place diabolical gnomes or leprechauns. So we had all these pieces and nifty ideas that Michael had to fit into a coherent story. In a couple months… the ball was rolling and as part of the exercise, and we were determined to shoot in the fall.

As an example of the enthusiasm and dedication of the crew, Alex Kavanagh, one of the top Costume Designers in Toronto, really wanted to work on this unique, outside-the-system project. She worked within a nonexistent budget and brought so many other ideas and concepts to the film. She challenged our ideas. Just because something may have been a “wouldn’t it be cool if” scenario, Alex challenged us to make sure it was right for the story and character. And she came and used her contacts and resources to help our project. There are also many nuances that are her influence. Like the button bracelet that Crowe wears. We never mention it or really draw specific attention to the buttons, but Crowe, the Child Killer, has a bracelet of buttons. He takes a button from each of his victims. Most of the audience will never even clue into this… but it is a layer, a nuance that I love and hopefully others will enjoy as well. The wardrobe that Danielle (Alanna) wears transforms from feminine to more masculine as the story progresses. Another subtlety from Alex. She didn’t just show up for the job, she was enthusiastic and put thought and effort into the story and the character development. These traits went deep into all the crew. I hope we created a very open, fun and unique environment for the shoot.

Q: What was the budget and how was the film financed?

A: I don’t want to be coy, but I’m not at liberty to discuss this aspect in detail. The budget is really small.... I will say that producer Doug Patterson was able to secure some financing from a group of enthusiastic and adventurous men from Saskatchewan. They are a secret gathering of elite men similar to Illuminati, or Oceans 11 or CHAOS. They go by the name of “Thursday Night Poker Club” which I’m sure is code for something else. So Doug, Michael and I worked our asses off pulling favors and cutting corners. So many organizations and companies that work on HUGE movies liked the idea of us just doing it our own way outside the system, so they donated services or greatly discounted the fees.  We owe our extreme gratitude and souls to many great and generous people.

We also had a very structured and unique financing model that involved profit sharing & deferrals with mirrors and smoke and many promises of foot rubs… I have very strong hands and Doug is an excellent salesman. At present, The Chair isn’t sold in the majority of territories, so we are not even sure what the financial outcome of our experiment is going to be. Doug, Michael and I are keenly aware that we made many mistakes and learned from the experience. At present, as The Chair is finally getting distributed and sold, we are still being “taken to school” by the complicated and detailed process. We are all hoping to work on that model and roll whatever money does come in towards our next project Denise’s Back.

Q: Do you have a sense of the filmmaking climate being different in Canada than, say, Hollywood?

A: I have a theory about the films that get made in Canada and Hollywood. I am by no means an expert, but just guy with a small iota of insight. It all comes down to money. Hollywood has it, Canada has much less. I know for instance, when making The Chair, I couldn’t compete in the gore, special effects, and car chase aspects with films like the Saw‘s or whatever. And that goes with most films in Canada; without the money, we can’t have the wicked car chases, the dynamic stunts, the bullet count, the star power.... whatever. Because of financing, we don’t have the resources for “cool” stuff, nor the time to spend time and resources on shooting scenes. For instance, say on The Chair, I had to shoot an average of 4-5 pages of script a day compared to a bigger budget that only needs to shoot 1-2 pages a day. That means less time for lighting, less time to shoot multiple takes, less time the actors get to rehearse and so on. But that is just for the tangible on-screen stuff. But because we can’t draw an audience with the Pitt’s, or the explosions, or CG Dinosaurs, we have to draw an audience with great story. And sometimes to make that story interesting, we need to make it unique or bizarre or we need to push the envelope, be it horrific, or sexual or dysfunctional etc. That is one of my layman theories. But overall, let me say this of the filmmaking process, wherever it may be. Making a movie is $%^#&^% difficult. And most people set out to make a GREAT film. Making a great film is even harder. But what the hell do I know....?

There is a huge talent pool in Canada, but unfortunately, the money is hard to come by. That is why there are so many Canadians in the American system. We are very good at fitting in, but every now and then we drop our guard and can’t resist showing how patriotic we are. Be careful, the person next to you may be a foreigner… they may be Canadian and we are a very sneaky and clandestine group.

Q: What was the casting process like?

A: For casting, once again, it all came down to money. Meaning we had none. All of the cast in The Chair could easily have the credit “and introducing.....” All of them were newbies. The producers and I decided to firstly look non-union for our cast. We couldn’t afford to work within the union guidelines. It just wouldn’t be fair to all the other crewmembers sacrificing the niceties of union filmmaking for this project. But we knew that any film, in particular ours being so challenging for the two lead girls, had to have very strong, believable performances. We set out a wide non-union casting call and promised ourselves if we couldn’t find a cast we were confident with, we would delay the shoot and reevaluate the finances and the process. We saw many people. But the most important was that we found two attractive young talented girls for the role of Danielle and Anna. Luckily we found Alanna Chisholm and Lauren Roy. Both were enthusiastic and threw themselves into the project. In particular, I must praise Alanna, as she was in almost every scene and every day she brought it. As for Lauren, from day one, I realized how beautiful she was and I couldn’t wait to cover her face with blood and get her dirty.... and now, after the fact, I think I should have made her way bloodier and amped up her disheveled-ness. But again, as I remember, it came down to budget… I know it keeps repeating itself, but we couldn’t afford all the various wardrobe changes and time to mess her up that much. Shooting out of sequence, the wardrobe has to match and be distressed in stages. We didn’t have the money to ruin, tear, muddy and bloody too many duplicate sets of Anna’s clothes. Ahhhhhh excuses...... Regardless, I wish she Anna (Lauren) was smothered in more muddy, caked-on blood.

Q: I thought the two leading ladies (Alanna Chisholm and Lauren Roy) were terrific, although they don’t look much like sisters!

A: I haven’t thought about this for awhile, but they were not initially supposed to be sisters. The characters of Danielle and Anna were supposed to be best friends. But rightfully so, writer Michael Capellupo knew that for the drama and stakes to be high enough, they had to be sisters. And of course, they don’t look like each other and we thought of that. But I have brothers that look nothing alike… they are twins too.  That just reminded me, there was a time before shooting, that I wanted the characters of Anna and Danielle to be played by the same actor like Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers. One of my first short films had Matt Frewer (Max Headroom) playing multiple characters (Nathan, his mother, his father, his wife). I thought that would have been a great challenge and be visually interesting. Of course it would have been, but it also would have meant the shoot would take so much longer. And the actor would have way more pressure to perform both roles. Doug was right to let me play with that idea for about a week before he put a stop to it and called me crazy.

Q: I was thinking what a great location you had, and was surprised to learn it was your own house. What were the pros and cons of filming in your own personal space?

A: I knew from the start of the project that my house, which I own and live in, would be used, as it was one of our original assets and a source of the story. Basically it meant we had to “distress” my house for artistic reasons. But it also meant that when we were done shooting, I got to make it new again. Which it is now. But during shooting, it was mayhem. It’s an old Victorian home not meant to be shot in. Every bit of space was always occupied. We need a wardrobe/make-up/dressing room. We need a place for the equipment. The crew needed a place to be. And a production works on its stomach so the kitchen was functional. We were in a constant state of moving gear and people from one tight space to another. We didn’t have trucks or studio or whatever.... so if we shooting in the dining room, the equipment and crew and everything was shuffled to a different space. It was a constant battle for territory and keeping the gack/crew out of frame. And that also meant shooting way out of sequence. Once the dining room was clear, of course we tried to optimize the time by shooting all the dining room scenes etc.  It was &^%$&^% crazy.  I was still living there during the shoot. So after a 13-14 hour shooting day my bedroom would still be set up for shooting and I would just collapse amidst the gear. I would go to bed and wake up with crew in my house at all hours. If we were shooting late, many of the crew would stay over. And if the call time was 6am, people would show at 5am to make sure there was coffee and breakfast ready and Michael Capellupo had a grilled cheese making fetish… he’s still in my kitchen. So for those weeks of shooting, my sleep was lessened dramatically, my stress level increased. It was pure bedlam and havoc. At the time, I wanted to strangle Doug for getting my house and me into these weeks of seeming anarchy. I remember on many occasions yelling at the crew, half kidding, half serious “GET THE F**K OUT OF MY HOUSE”. I’m not kidding when I say I was a non-drinker before the shoot. But if you can’t beat ‘em… In retrospect, it was a wild and incredible experience that I remember very fondly. I had an extremely outrageous autumn.

Q: Any good stories from the filming?

A: Well, one really comes to mind and I’m hesitant to mention it. We were going to dedicate the film to Donny Mcready. We were also thinking of putting a small little video of him on the DVD extras. He was a gregarious Production Assistant that was happy and a joy to have on set. He did it all, emptied garbage, served snacks, cleaned toilets.... he did it all with a smile. Well, the last anyone ever saw him was just before the shoot in the woods on Halloween. We are sure it had nothing to do with the film, but he just seemed to disappear. Not sure if that is a good story.

I also remember having the crew break in to song on many occasions.  I have a fond memory of the whole house echoing to “Bohemian Rhapsody.”

Another interesting fact is that we went from a 15-day shoot to 22. It became a joke that we were on day 19 or 21 of 15. After the second day and the completion of a very rushed and compromised scene (which didn’t make it into the film by the way), I met with Doug and Michael and told them that I thought the schedule was too tight. Sure, we could get the story in the can but it would mean compromising the atmosphere and creepiness of the story and the house. The shots and storytelling would have to be economized at the detriment of the film’s sense of dread and eerie tone. They agreed and we gathered the crew together on the third floor. It was a very nervous moment for me as I told the crew my feelings and I felt guilty about admitting we had made a mistake scheduling. I told them I was afraid with a 15 day schedule was too short. I explained that with the 15 days, many of the scenes would end up being creatively compromised for economic reasons and lack of time. And if we extended the schedule by a week, we could do much better. We took a vote everyone agreed to the extension. I recall some crew approaching me later and mentioning that they appreciated being involved in the decision and having the situation explained to them. I learned from that experience to include people in the process and not just dole out the instructions.

Q: I assume the film was shot digitally; how did this differ from doing Ginger Snaps 2 on film?

A: On Ginger Snaps: Unleashed, we shot on 35mm film compared to shooting on MiniDV for The Chair. Of course I would have loved to shoot The Chair on film, even 16mm. But again, it boils down to finances. Film stock, processing that film, the camera and lenses, more camera assistants, are all massive costs that we couldn’t afford. To me, film still looks way better and creepy and moody than video… but the MiniDV format that we used certainly had its advantages. On GS2, I was keenly aware of the amount of film that was shot, as were the producers and financiers. Film cost is a major budget expense and consistently tracked by the crew and accountants and money people. Ballpark figures, if you shoot an extra 10 minutes of negative, about 1000 feet of 35mm, that is going to end up costing thousands more dollars. For the stock, for the processing of that 1000 feet, then for the transfer of that film to video. It is a domino effect. Hence, for lower budget movies shot on film, you must be extra considerate of when the camera rolls versus rehearsals etc. On MiniDV, the camera is much smaller and could be easily moved and managed. And I could let the camera just roll and do multiple takes or version without cutting. It’s a battle between stock and time; on film, the stock wins sometimes, but on tape, time is paramount. Also on tape, the latitude of exposure is compromised. Meaning there the tape cannot handle the difference between light and darkness as well as film. Our fantastic and gentle Director of Photography Kiarash Sadigh was always wary of daylight and windows and reflections “blowing out.” Meaning that there would be no detail in the hotspots. For the most part, I just try to embrace that characteristic or else you go nuts. The overexposure just becomes part of the shot. You hope that the majority of the audience doesn’t care. If the story was strong and the audience is keenly interested, then I think it is forgivable. Also, the ease of use with the MiniDV is just so great and liberating. There are so many shots that would have taken hours longer with a bigger, more cumbersome camera. And if you think that The Chair was 90% in one location, the variety of those shots helps make the film more interesting. But the great downfall is the look of final product. I think the Kiarash did a super job making the video look rich and The Chair looks terrific in my opinion, but not as good as it would have on film. In fact, because I am VERY fond of mixed media, we did shoot a tiny amount of film. The Zymytryk film from the turn of the century, some flashbacks and certain shots of the house are peppered through-out the movie… just to add a bit a creepy atmosphere and give the film a greater sense of “history.” We actually used an antique hand-crank film camera to shoot the Zymytryk footage. I think it looks wicked and authentic. Overall though, we didn’t really have a choice and the end product is what it is.

Q: I loved that the movie had a more traditional sense of pacing, but were you concerned about creating a horror film in today’s market with such a low body count?

A: We knew from the beginning that there would be a limited body count. I wanted to make sure that the audience got to know our characters and had a sense of dread. I pitched it to the producers from the start as “slow burn.” I wanted a sense of dread and suspense. I wanted to be creeped out in this house and I wanted to have the audience guessing as to the next scene and development. In screenings, most people love the time we took to build the tension. But of course, some people are used to the very high body count. In The Chair, there are few characters, and therefore few people to kill. And that goes back to the Asian influence I wanted on The Chair. If you think about The Grudge (Ju-On) the body count is low and the real first kill takes awhile to get to if you discount the girls in the teaser. It is more about a building a tautness in the atmosphere.  If I remember correctly, in the successful Audition, the body count is non-existent until the last act. But the anticipation and foreboding feeling is dripping. Now the question remains, will an audience go for it? I sure hope so. I want more than just the torture porn I want to care about that person and the motive and I would prefer more story. Death and killing is horrible and I think more weight should be placed on it. The killings should have meaning. But hell, I am thrilled and disgusted (in a good way) at a fantastically gruesome death. What the hell do I know?

Q: There seems to be very little CG in the movie; was that purely a financial decision or also an artistic one?

A: There is very little CG in The Chair. Partly out of necessity and lack of money and partly by choice. I love playing with camera movement and doing things naturally and practically. I hate to slag a particular film, but if there are many things seemingly to be “scary” but are obviously CG, it just doesn’t frighten me. From my experience on the Ginger Snaps, one of our mandates was “no CG.” Sure, it made things more difficult and it was sometimes cheesy… but I think audiences appreciate it. There were a few werewolf films out around the same time and they decide to go with CG creatures. In my opinion, those creatures were not scary. Basically the lesson for me was to do as much practically as possible. Even when the viewer doesn’t 100% acknowledge/realize that the effect is real, I think subconsciously, it is more effective. And we had a number of great gags that could have gone the CG route; the red-hot pair of scissors to Danielle’s arm, the hanging chair, the cutlery sculpture etc.  But for me, and the crew, it was more of a challenge creatively and practically to do things for real. Brainstorming with camera angles, fishing line, magnets, hiding underwater, glue, fake floors and thinking outside the box. And for me, it would be delightful if just a small percentage of viewers wonder how a shot is pulled off. For me, just having Danielle appear behind someone in the same shot where she obviously is not there, is a triumph.

In particular, the scene where Anna needs to escape from her capture. From the writing stage, I wanted something visceral and clever. I challenged us to come with something that could work and be really gross. And playing with the idea of “breathing kills you,” what about “injuring yourself saves you,” that’s when we came up with the idea that Anna needs to cut her head open to facilitate her hurried escape. Our enthusiastic yet neophyte effects team toyed with many ways for this happen; blood bladders, hidden hoses, creative editing. Well, a few days before we shot the scene, I was concerned that none of these solutions was good enough. Their early solutions just didn’t look convincing enough. I’m sure they despised me for not being satisfied and pushing them for more with the precious little time they had. It was a tense situation and we needed solutions. I won’t divulge how we did it, but under pressure, with the help of other crewmembers a very imaginative and clever answer was devised. It was *&^$%&* brilliant and worked marvelously. It is always an Eeeewwww moment for the audience and is very gross. But we did it practically. In the end, the effect team was very proud of their achievement… even though all their hard work amounted to about 3 seconds of screen time. That’s the film for you.

Oh, and there was some CG that we conceded. There are some smoke effects in the film. After spending hours trying to get the smoke to do what we needed using smoke machines, tubes, vacuums, fans, people blowing and sucking, producer Doug rightfully put his foot down and demanded we stop the foolishness. I reluctantly agreed and in the film there is a mixture of practical and CG smoke.

Q: How does your experience as an editor inform your decisions as a director?

A: I guess being an editor definitely helps me direct. But to be honest, it is not something of which I am conscious. I have to think about it specifically. I feel the same about being an editor. I’m not really “trained.” Editing is a craft I experienced as I worked my way through the editing process on many shows. I started in film as a trainee editor. Which, at the time, meant picking the film up from the lab, getting coffee, logging edge code. Not much editing involved. Even to this day, I honestly don’t know how to describe it. I edit for me. If I think it looks good, I hope other people do as well. There are no real rules. I’m surprised I have fooled as many people as I have into believing I know what I’m doing. People always say that I must be cutting in my head. Well I guess I am, although I am not particularly aware of doing that. I guess I just “feel” I need another shot or take or angle. And I know I sometimes drive the cast and crew crazy as I keep rolling and may ask for a particular movement or look because I “feel” the need for this one more piece to complete the puzzle. Well I lied, I do have one “rule” for myself as a director and an editor. I strongly push myself to always have at least 2 shots of any scene. Even if I plan on having the scene play in one shot, I know from experience that so many things can happen that demands you need to cut to something. Technical issues, performance preference, timing demands are a few of the reasons you may need the “cover your ass” shot. Three months later in editing, you may need to cut your scene that you believed was a “oner.” This question has forced me to think about this. I also have realizations, having been on set and seen a project from beginning to end from the set and the cutting room. Much of the crew has not done the same. They may be very good at their job, but are not aware of the whole process. Actors, camera, sound, script whatever have a specific point of view and want to make sure that they achieve the best for their craft. Well, sometimes some craft has to be sacrificed. It’s just a reality of time and money. I am lucky to have insight into what I think I might need for the final product. And when people learn I have editing experience, they accept my decision to sacrifice their craft. I may not be right, but it is always a judgment call. I think it is a balancing act of time, politics, money, egos and storytelling among other things.

Q: There’s a long tradition of possession in horror films, were there any films in particular that inspired you? Or things you wanted to avoid?

A: I think The Exorcist is one of the best films made. Not just horror. And think of that film, it has a tremendously, torturous “slow burn.” I love it. Also, one of my favorite themes comes from that movie and so many other horrors: The Omen, Ju-On, Chucky, The Shining and many others. It’s “innocence as evil.” It can be seen in The Chair and in Ginger Snaps – Unleashed.

Q: The titular chair, while a very neat piece of design, almost seems ike something from a Saw movie; was this a conscious nod to the torture porn genre?

A: Of course, I have seen many of these. But I made The Chair before I edited Saw IV. In fact, while shooting Saw III, the wildly energetic Darren Bousman, the director, was encouraged by Alex Kavanagh (costume designer for both films) to attend one of our rough screenings. Darren gave us some great critiques and suggestion to make the film better. Neither of us knew I would be cutting for him a year later. But I remember during the editing process, Darren, very fond of teasing would often say, “Hey Brett, Saw called, it wants its Chair back.” Well Darren was also a fan of Ginger Snaps and Unleashed… I had a few great retorts that I won’t repeat.

Q: What’s coming up next for you?

A: I am scheduled for the end of May to direct and edit for a great new kick-ass, high profile Canadian series called The Border. It’s a fast paced action drama show about an elite team that defends the Canada and its border.

But Panic Pictures and I are planning on shooting our next wickedly perverse and twisted comedic feature called Denise’s Back. We are going to take all we have learned from The Chair experience to make this film. And, as expected, we are awaiting financing, as it will be slightly more expensive to make than The Chair. It is more drama/dark comedy than horror but still contains a foreboding tension and sense of evil and dread. I can’t wait.

The Chair

Midnight Specials
(2007, 89 mins)

Brett Sullivan’s The Chair weds iconic images of Japanese horror with North American storytelling, spawning a chilling tale of possession.

Danielle, a young psychology student, sublets a century-old Victorian house. After one night in the home, she discovers she’s not alone. A mischievous presence occupies the hallways at night. Danielle enlists the aid of her sister, Anna, to document this madness. While researching this phenomenon, Danielle discovers a hidden room and in it a music box that holds a horrifying secret. Opening the music box, she unleashes the soul of Edgar Crowe, a vicious child killer, who quickly seizes control of her mind and body. Crowe uses Danielle like a pawn to resurrect his ghastly ‘Panic Chair’.

The Chair is the type of film that makes you jump when the toast pops up in a toaster. A slick ghost thriller that goes from creepy to full on smack in the head scary in the matter of minutes. This is one film that’ll make you squirm in your seat…pun intended.

Screening Times

Saturday, April 5th Midnight
Angelika 6

0