HYPER-REALITY
QUESTION AND ANSWER with Montreal-based director, Maurice Devereaux
This interview was conducted via e-mail in March of 2004. I admit I have never done an interview using this method. It was immediately clear to me that there is a certain awkwardness and inefficiency since the interviewer can't roll with the answers given to him from previous questions. And the interviewee can get “stacked” questions since he or she might have already answered these in broad terms – so there tends to be a repetition to the exchange. Maurice's answers were, at times, highly charged.
At any rate, I have kept the document intact for the most part with very little editing. I would like to thank Maurice for his time... as it turned out, this was no small amount of work on his part. As he said after generously answering all the questions, "whew!".
S. St. Laurent
QUESTION – S. St. Laurent: I liked “Slashers” even though I’m not a big fan of Slasher films. I do admit that you have succeeded in constructing a film in which you appear to be at ease with the material. Its also obvious that you understand your market.
ANSWER – Maurice Devereaux: Well I’ve always been a big fan of horror films (as well as every genre of cinema), and since my love of filmmaking began at a young age, I have a tendency to make movies that I would’ve liked as a teenager, although as an adult my tastes are much more varied.
SS: I have the impression that this film was something you have long wanted to make and not just something to fulfill a three-picture contract. “Slashers” certainly had the healthiest budget of anything you have done keeping in mind that the budget is always relative to what the script demands.
MD: I have never made anything any movie as a job while waiting to do what I really wanted. Each film was a labour of love, warts and all. As for the budget, well ask anyone, it doesn’t really matter how much money you have, you never have enough money or enough time. It’s the nature of the beast. And many times, even if the budget increases, sometimes it’s all in salaries, so what’s on screen, is not necessarily more.
SS: You have stated in previous interviews that you are a fan of Dario Argento, David Lynch, etc. These are talents most have heard of. Are there any obscure filmmakers you are influenced by (the kinds of names that might draw blanks from most people when you mention their names).
MD: Well it depends who you’re talking to (a lot of people would draw blanks even at Argento), but most aren’t really obscure: Nicholas Roeg, George Romero, Michael Haneke, Lars Von Trier, Henry Jaglom, The Coens, John Carpenter, Wes Craven, Philip Kaufman, William Friedkin.
SS: As previously noted, I’m not a big fan of these kinds of films, but one of my favourites is a little ditty entitled, “Doctor Death: Seeker of Souls”. I liked the film because, although there were some moments of genuine horror, the screenplay is infused with sly wit. The filmmakers clearly had fun making this film and its obvious they knew exactly why they were making it. Watching it, you get the feeling the writer and director were making gentle fun of the horror film but never losing sight of what cinematically produces chills for the audience. Have you heard of this flick and do you agree that many filmmakers often don’t know why they are making a particular horror film?
MD: No, I’ve never seen or heard about it, but I will try to find it, it seems interesting and has Vincent Price, nuff said (sic)! As for filmmakers not knowing why (or what) they’re doing. Well unfortunately, horror films attract a lot of hack businessmen out for a quick buck, because horror films are easier to sell then let’s a drama about ovarian cancer, so many horror films aren’t made with integrity.
SS: It is said we all have a dark side. Over and above the Entertainment answer, do you think we sometimes derive some satisfaction from watching simulated violence? Is your interest in decapitations, dismemberments, and general carnage to a human body appealing to a certain side of your psyche or would you simply dismiss it as pure entertainment and harmless entertainment at that or are there more complex emotions at play?
MD: Of course we derive satisfaction from horror and death, because it is HIGH DRAMA, any strong emotion (laughter, sadness, fear) are the basis of EVERY film, book, song etc. Is it harmless, yes. The long standing debate about violence in movies and TV being responsible for the woes of society are ridiculous, man has never needed movies to inflict pain, war and suffering on his fellow humans. History is full of horrors (Spanish inquisition anyone?) and if the culprit for thousands of years of murder was ART (movies, books, etc) then I would be the first to get rid of every movie ever made if it meant peace on earth, but anyone who truly believes that, this is the solution is extremely naïve and is pointing his efforts in the wrong direction.
SS: My impression is that Slasher films appeal more to the young. Do you agree? If you do, why is that?
MD: When we’re young we’re most of the time, oblivious to the real causes of death (aging, disease, accidents) so the only thing we can see ending our life is this outside force of mayhem present in horror films, that will physically kill us. It’s a way to start confronting mortality.
SS: I remember watching a "60 Minutes" segment on director Martin Scorcese a few years ago where Diane Sawyer asked a very pointed question of her subject. It went something like this:
Sawyer: When I watch your films I see a lot of anger in them. So much anger!
Scorcese: Of course there is! We’re the way we are because of our environment as we’re growing up. Our upbringing, what we’ve experienced.
I think you get the gist of that conversation. We are influenced greatly by what’s around us, especially during our formative years. Do you have a certain interest in slasher horror films based on the ideas put forth by Scorcese, or do you feel that horror films by their very nature exempts you from that argument? Can the graphic element of many horror films be a product of a filmmaker who has been influenced? Is a horror film, by its very nature, so absurd (with exceptions like "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer") and "out there" that it is more the product of true showmanship... the purest form of concoction?
MD: I think we can’t lump every horror film in the same boat, many are just thrill rides but some have inner demons and views the filmmaker is expressing, and I think this is true of every kind of film.
SS: Do you think there is a degree of Schadenfreude experienced in watching a horror film, effectively a safe venting of such an emotion?
MD: Man I had to get out a dictionary for that one. Sure, watching any film is a safe way of living a strong emotion or event without any real risk. As for "talking pleasure in other people misery", I think we all know it’s not for real, so if we’re enjoying watching a movie were people are hurt and killed, it’s not the same as if we were walking on the street and would laugh at homeless or crippled people, that would be REAL "Schadenfreude".
SS: I saw your earlier film, “Blood Symbol”, a few years ago and I was impressed with a film making prowess however early in your craft, and I detected the film was made by someone who was brought up and influenced by the horror films of the late ‘70s/early ‘80s. Outside of the crudeness in the filmmaking by someone who is learning his craft (and not just a case of simple mimicry), how do you feel about that film today? Do you get the urge to publish some kind of accompanying pamphlet outlining your excuses for its obvious primitiveness, or do you think it fits comfortably into your filmography?
MD: Look, if someone wants to rag on me because the shot in Super-8 movie I made when I was 19 isn’t up to a certain quality level they would want it to be, fuck em! I’m proud of each of my films for what they were to me at the time I was making them. I gave 100% dedication to each of them, to the maximum of my creative, technical and financial capabilities at the time.
SS: I remember lending my VHS copy of “Blood Symbol” to a filmmaking buddy of mine – one who liked horror films – and asked him days later what he thought. His response was quite forceful and a touch venomous, "I hated it! The violence against women". Everyone is a series of piano keys and he, obviously, didn’t like which ones were being played. What is your response to such concerns? Are you dismissive reactions like this insomuch as "they don’t get it" or are you genuinely concerned by such responses even if the won’t force you to ultimately put similar story ideas on the shelf?
MD: Well if "stylized" horror film violence against women is a concern of his, I guess he shouldn’t be watching horror films (or any Hitchcock film for that matter), but let me tell you what I consider real violence against women: Not getting equal pay, sexual harassment, rape, no easy access to birth control or abortions (thousands die each year in botched ‘home abortions’), denying them the right to vote and to own property for thousands of years (and in many countries still today), clitoral excision, forced marriage, slavery to their husband, illiteracy, these are REAL concerns millions of woman face every day. I am a strong advocate of feminism, and each of my film has strong female characters who defend themselves and don’t take no shit, they might get killed but not without a fight (see “Lady of the Lake” as a prime example, where the Lady is killed for refusing the advances of an abusive man, then comes back as a ghost to kill men who are abusive)! Once again, if you’re interested in making a difference in the real world, don’t waste you’re time attacking movies, try helping out your local woman’s shelter, vote for politicians who encourage better funding for those shelters and for daycare centres and financial help for single mothers and a million other real concerns for a start.
SS: We’ve heard it said many times that people often find implied or psychological horror much more effective than the graphic variety. That graphic horror, after a time, becomes boring and ineffective. Is it time to give the whole slasher film a rest? It could be argued that this has all been done to death (although I’m sure that some filmmakers would think, "we haven’t seen a young woman hacked to death by an unwashed pastry chef on an unpaved concession road on a Tuesday night during the summer of a leap year, so let’s make it!”).
MD: I think I ought to make a point here, I am NOT a fan of "Slasher" films, except for a few rare exceptions (the first “Halloween”, “Psycho”, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”), I do not care for movies like "Friday the 13th", "I Know What You Did Last Summer", "Urban Legend", etc, I haven’t even seen most of them. They are of very little interest to me. My film “Slashers” is a commentary on REALITY TV, I do not consider it a Slasher film in the mold of a “Friday the 13th”. As for graphic versus subtle horror, each film has different needs. The graphic violence in “Slashers” was a necessity, because that’s what they would show if this reality show I created in the film really existed. The whole Roman gladiator aspect of holding up the head to the spectators type of deal (which I recreated in a key scene).
SS: I think that most people are terrified by horrific concepts that they could imagine themselves being in. After all, Psycho’s most famous scene plays well since most would probably take regular showers. We all know what its like to be standing alone (and so vulnerable) in the shower with the curtain acting as some kind of screen for a shadow show, the kind of show that gets the mind racing with any movement on the other side. Most don’t know what its like to be chased by what appears to be a hatchet wielding cousin of Gerry Cheevers'. Therefore, horror of the fanciful kind is harder to relate to for the majority, causing a certain disconnect. Do you agree?
MD: It’s funny the two examples you give Jason (dressed like a hockey player) with a hatchet or Norman Bates (dressed in drag) with a butcher knife, are BOTH fanciful when you think about it, it’s just that one of them is a masterpiece. As I mentioned before, most of us in North America WILL NEVER be in any kind of life threatening situation fighting against madmen, neither we will travel to other planets or encounter aliens, or movies can take us into worlds and situations we would never encounter in real life.
SS: Do you think that perhaps slasher horror is just too easy to do, that perhaps it is much more difficult to construct horror of the psychological kind? Slasher horror tends to provide for a common "entry-level" type of film making. And when you think of it, how many horror films have been made like "The Haunting" (the Robert Wise version, of course) or any of the Val Lewton pictures? Let’s be realistic, buckets or cans of latex and theatrical blood are in plentiful supply.
MD: As I had mentioned before, many horror films (including the Slasher type) are made to make money, and yes they are easier to do then a scary ghost story that would depend more on quality acting, photography and atmosphere.
SS: What is horror to you?
MD: Death, suffering, disease, cruelty and trying to find money for a new film and retaining creative control.
SS: Different people have different claims on what is horrifying to them, certainly in the movies. I admit I was a little surprised by the varied reactions to the very real events of so called "9-11". Political leanings aside, there was no constant in the level of shock and horror felt from person to person within what is generally considered to be a day of horror. Everyone perceives, to some degree, external horror at a different level or intensity. Obviously, most didn’t enjoy what happened that day, but as some of the "ground zero" security police pointed out when the site became open to the public soon after, many visitors exhibited an almost morbid fascination with the carnage and death displayed before them. Do you have any feelings on this either way?
MD: I do not have a fascination with REAL DEATH, I won’t gawk at a car accident to try to get a peek. As for 9-1-1 it’s a tragedy, in a long list of tragedy’s caused by human stupidity, cruelty and the belief in a reward in an afterlife.
SS: Do you suffer from nightmares? Rod Serling had many and put these to use as story ideas.
MD: As a general rule, no. I’ve had a only a handful, so no story ideas from there.
SS: There have been a few examples of television horror. Some episodes of “The Twilight Zone”, “The Outer Limits” (the much superior original), “Night Gallery”, and “The X-Files” would classify as horror. Do you think that horror has succeeded on television as a regular series or as "one off" films, or is television generally not suited for this?
MD: TV Commercial interruptions are terrible for suspense or horror, it really breaks the tension. Although I agree some episodes of "Twilight Zone", or even "Twin Peaks", were real scary. But films have a distinct advantage.
SS: What were some of your favourite television shows growing up? Do you think any of them have influenced you at all as a filmmaker?
MD: Well I watched a lot of TV growing up but most of it was crap, I don’t think "Gilligan’s Island" is influencing me in any way (although!)... but shows like "The Twilight Zone", "Star Trek", “Mash”, and later, "Twin Peaks", for sure had an influence.
SS: What are some of your favourite films? What films left an impression on you growing up?
MD: As a kid, “Star Wars”, “Superman the Movie”, “The Empire Strikes Back”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. Spielberg and Lucas were my rock stars growing up. Then “The Shining”, “A Clockwork Orange”... Kubrick became THE film grammar teacher.
SS: Do you consider your taste in movies to be fairly broad or narrow?
MD: Very broad! I’ve seen all the movies of Orson Welles and Ed Wood, Eric Rohmer and Dario Argento, Lars Von Trier and Steven Spielberg, the Coens and Lucas! I feel I’ve got a pretty good range... on a given week I could see a film by Aki Kurismaki, Tarantino, an old Hollywood classic, then some obscure indy horror.
SS: Going back to “Slashers”: I’m impressed that you were able to stage and finish this film with the restrictions of limited time and money. Cutting the film some slack due to the limited budget, schedule, etc. my only real criticism would be that I didn’t get a sense whether I was supposed to be scared or amused. Granted, the idea of a real slasher television show is obvious enough but the film tended to oscillate awkwardly between horror and comedy. There were some genuinely spooky moments as in when we see the Preacherman making his way slowly toward Megan as she is standing in the middle of the arena (venting to the camera). So there was some success there in a gothic sense, but I felt that the flavouring changed whenever there were decapitations and the like. The killings were so cartoony that the picture, I felt, was shortchanged. When the moments of intended horror occurred, we the audience who had been made to believe this was all supposed to be so horrible, were now instantly reminded that we are to think this a joke and that we are not to take the events seriously. Am I missing the point here? Is this odd fusion of realities or universes meant to make a greater point – close to my earlier points about our perception of horrific moments? Or is this odd conflict and lapse of constant aesthetic solely due to the lack of time and money?
MD: Well graphic horror and comedy are close cousins, the situations in “Slashers” were so absurd, that laughter is the logical conclusion to all the rampant insanity. More time and money would’ve helped the realism of certain aspects (acting, sets, FX) but the inherent humour would still be there.
SS: The acting has been criticized by some (even those who like the film) but I felt that everyone on the set gave it their all. I sensed that the actors thoroughly enjoyed what they were doing. This no doubt made your job easier. However, not to dismiss what your cast accomplished, would you ever consider remaking “Slashers” if offered a greater budget and therefore allowing for a more seasoned cast?
MD: I would rather make a new film, but I’m not crazy! If Hollywood came a calling with millions in budget and and all star cast, of course I would do it.
SS: Having access to such a large space to shoot – meaning the paintball arena – definitely gave “Slashers” a bigger feel, more production value, as it were. How much time did you have after you scouted and secured the location, to do the storyboards and blocking of the action?
MD: There were no storyboards, blocking was done on the spot on the day of the shoot and most locations were found a few days before shooting or created and built the night before.
SS: Were the “money guys” ever on the set, or did they let you do your thing with minimal interference?
MD: I was alone to do my own thing, there was one visit from the rep of the completion bond company on one day for 10 minutes, they walked in, took a look around and left.
SS: In Jean-Denis Rouette’s superb "Making Of" documentary you mentioned that you don’t particularly enjoy directing but at the same time would never give it up either. What is your next dream job? What would you be doing if not making films?
MD: If I could draw, I would’ve loved to be a comic book creator when I was younger. Now it’s filmmaker or bust!
SS: The DVD commentary track (and documentary) revealed that you are a "thinking" director. You are very conscious of what you are doing – making choices based on involved consideration. Does this mean you should be making more "thoughtful" films in your opinion? I do mean the kind where you have characters in a coffee shop, spewing philosophical meanderings on why they exist. Do you have a film in you like "Le Rayon vert" (Eric Rohmer’s gem) or "Lost in Translation"? Or do you feel that you have to concentrate on what you are good at, knowing that there are others who are better equipped to make such films?
MD: I love the character driven movies of Eric Rohmer, Henry Jaglom, late '70s to '80s Woody Allen (from “Annie Hall” to “Crimes and Misdemeanors”), Richard Linklater (“Before Sunrise”), etc., (I haven’t seen “Lost in Translation”, because I wasn’t a fan of “The Virgin Suicides”), but for now, filmmaking for me is more of an escape from reality, but I do enjoy those films as a spectator. But I believe the moniker of "thoughtful films" is not reserved to this type of film, there can be stupid and empty "character films" and thoughtful fantasy/horror films (see the works of Romero, Lynch, Cronenberg, etc.)
SS: Do you feel you are confident with technical issues and machinery? Do you feel comfortable operating the camera for some shots? Do you have a background in sound recording, cinematography/lighting, acting, etc? It is said that the so-called "movie brats" like George Lucas, John Milius, etc, are well versed in all things technical due to their film school background. They’ll have a hand in on the sound, camera/lightingand so on. Do you consider yourself part of this pack or are you content with letting people run the various departments since you might feel that you are not so efficient in those disciplines?
MD: Well I do what I enjoy and feel I’m good at. I write, produce, direct and edit, I also supervise every other aspect (sound, music, mixing etc) but I happily let other areas Photography, Music, Costumes, Makeup Fx, be handled by other collaborators.
SS: One of my favourite areas of film making is that of music scoring. It was made clear in the documentary that you were instrumental in shaping the score. You probably realize that, in Hollywood, this isn’t the norm. Many directors have the attitude that the music is something that you stick on in post-production. The music score is one of “Slashers” strengths. Your attention to detail in the score and understanding its importance to the film has paid off dividends. And that great catchy theme tune! You picked the right composer. A weak music score is almost always a given with many low budget films but you parlayed this to a strength, effectively breaking this unfortunate trend.
MD: I’m lucky to have my friend Martin Gauthier as my music composer, we have a great working relationship, and our collaboration on the score is usually one of my favourite parts of the film making process.
SS: Its obvious you are serious about your work, but as rendered in the various "making of" elements on the DVD, you realize that much of film making is one of many compromises... many, many compromises. You can only laugh sometimes at the chaos and lack of control when making a film, certainly a film with little money. You can’t take the art form or its fabrication too seriously or you’ll end up booking a room for yourself in the local nut house. Do you agree?
MD: During the filming process I can’t laugh, everything is deadly serious for me, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD! Hopefully I’ll be able to relax more on future projects.
SS: You were blessed with Neil Napier and Chris Piggins as your villains. I’ll admit that when I first heard of your film – and subsequently investigated your website – my first reaction, when reading about the actual slasher characters, was, "Chainsaw Charlie, ha, ha. Dr. Ripper, very funny... whatever". But when I saw the film I actually thought the slashers were outstanding, due, no doubt, to the dynamic portrayals. My personal favourite is probably Preacherman – he is the creepiest: He reminds me of a sort of Pat Buttram on acid. Actually he’s more like Pat Buttram in acid. Too bad you had to kill them all.
MD: Well you can’t make an omelet without... yes I was very lucky to get Neil and Chris.
SS: What are some of your favourite movie villains, and why?
MD: Good villain many times equals good movie, Darth Vader and the Emperor, Belloque in “Raiders”, Allan Rickman in “Die Hard”, the villains in “Dirty Harry” and the “Warriors” (come out and play!).
SS: Have you seen “Ginger Snaps”? I thought it was quite good.
MD: Me too.
SS: Talking of Canadian films... do you, like many, think that Canadian films have a tendency to be weak or often fall short of the mark?
MD: Well I think there are a lot of great Canadian filmmakers: Cronenberg, Egoyan, Arcand, Lepage, Vincenzo Natali. But many films that are financed by the government with the mandate of having Canadian content and themes are many times bland TV movies that would never be made by private investors because no one wants to see them.
SS: We’ve all heard theories as to "what is wrong with Canadian films". Opinions come from filmmakers, critics and common folk. What do you think plagues Canadian films, if anything at all?
MD: Not in touch with it’s audience (this is for English Canada only).
SS: What are some of your favourite Canadian films and filmmakers?
MD: DAVID CRONEBERG: AND HIS ENTIRE FILMOGRAPHY (except “Fast Company” and “M.Butterfly”) NUFF SAID!
SS: Do you consider yourself a patriotic enough Canadian or Quebecer to want to stay and try to help develop a domestic film industry and identity or would you scram as soon as someone calls from the U.S. saying there’s $200,000 (U.S.) waiting to be turned into celluloid?
MD: Film making knows no politics, I want to make MY films, I only care with whom I work, not where (although shooting close to home is convenient) but if Japanese investors want to finance my next film on the condition I shoot in Tokyo, SAYANORA SUCKERS!
SS: Do you read horror fiction? Have you ever read any Edgar Allen Poe or Robert Bloch, for example? Having asked that, have you read anything by the likes of (I’m pulling names out of a hat) Charles Dickens or Emily Bronte? Do you read books by contemporary writers?
MD: As Homer Simpson would say, "does TV guide count as a book?!". Seriously, I’ve read a bit of horror fiction (King, Koontz, Rice, Matheson) and a few classics (Salinger, Vonnegut jr, Golding, Hemmingway) but I more of a lazy movie person.
SS: I realize your answer may change from day to day, but what is your postmortem on “Slashers”?
MD: I think it’s a pretty fun movie with good ideas and a point.
SS: What are you most happy about with “Slashers” and what are you least happy with? Is there anything about the film which might wake you up at 4 a.m. and force you to repeat over and over, "why didn’t that work better for me" or "why didn’t I do that instead?". Or are you good at cutting it all loose and just moving on?
MD: I’m happy all the ideas I wanted to explore were done, nothing about it keeps me awake at night, except for the fact that it was not handled properly on the sales and marketing end. I do believe with more money behind it, it could’ve been a big hit!
SS: Would you be interesting is creating and producing a television show or does the weekly grind of series production hold no interest for you?
MD: Never thought about it.
SS: You’ve made a couple of films that have taken a few years each to make. Do you try to keep several irons in the fire to expedite a greater number of realized projects?
MD: Nope, one at a time.
SS: What’s on the burner, creatively speaking?
MD: I wrote a script called “Sawney Beane”, based on the legend of a 16th century family of cannibals who live in a cave in Scotland.
SS: I look forward to your future projects. You have shown perseverance and dedication to your craft. Many start films and don’t finish them (through lack of motivation) or they dream often enough without actually lifting a finger to even initiate them.
MD: Thanks. Good luck with your projects too. By the way, this is officially the longest interview I have ever done. Kindest regards.
Copyright 2004
HYPER-REALITY.TV