TMS: In 2014, you released
The Taking of Deborah Logan. What has changed in the industry and
your professional career since then?
AR: Well,
a lot has changed since 2014. When Logan was unceremoniously placed
on Netflix, I had the impression that the movie had died on the vine.
Little did I know that it would become viral and people would
discover and share it and in some ways, I found a much larger, more
rabid audience who weren’t cajoled into liking it because of clever
marketing. We were just on the cusp of the Netflix explosion and
tracked as one of the more talked about and watched genre films on
the site. Many of the reviewers were generally surprised that it was
quasi-good. That was well before NETFLIX really started to up its
game and produce its own content. Now it has become one of the main
homes for independent horror. The problem with theatrical movies is
they have to hit the four quadrants typically. There is so much
pressure for a movie to play across so many demographics. The average
theatrical release is going to spend upwards of 30 million dollars to
market a film. Because of this huge financial risk, I think it’s
made theatrical movies less daring and dare I say, more predictable.
It also forces a bit of dumbing-down and over explanation. With the
advent of the streaming giants, filmmakers can now make much more
intimate and personal films that can find niche audiences. Beyond
this, I’d say the biggest single change is the utter renaissance of
TV, also born out of this new technology. TV budgets are getting
bigger and filmmakers are finding much more creative freedom in a
medium that was once very limiting.
TMS: Considering the
advent of streaming has seriously altered how we're watching movies
now, how has this effected the way you're making movies? Or has it
had any effect at all on your career?
AR: I’ve sort of
answered this a bit above but let’s put it this way: I have a
project that is a cross between Arrival meets The Thing… a super
scary, hard-core R rated monster movie.. and the first place I’m
going is Netflix. The Studios are reticent to invest in a horror film
above ten million dollars, it seems… unless it’s a piece of
massive I.P., (IT)… Ten million really seems to be the basic
ceiling because of risk and ten million usually means few locations
and characters locked in a claustrophobic environment with limited
set pieces and scares.
TMS: You ended up
directing the last installment in the Insidious franchise. What was
it like coming back to an original project after that? Is that
freeing for you creatively? And how so?
AR: Yes,
it was more freeing. I love Insidious and it’s such a cool world
but I saw myself very much carrying the creative torch of what had
been so dexterously established at the hands of Wan and Whannell. The
rules, the look, the vibe, were all pre-ordained. With Escape Room, I
had a clean slate and enjoyed the opportunity of developing and
refining the aesthetic from the ground up. Each room represented the
opportunity to reset the visual language, set design and lighting
(like five or six mini-movies within the film), so that was very
cool…. From the cold
modern blue of the lobby, to the Sam Peckinpah western warmth of the
cabin, the Narnia like wilderness of the ice room, the
Nicotine-stained walls of the 1950’s billiard hall… you get the
idea.
TMS: What are some of the
better horror films you've seen in the last five years? And have any
of them inspired your work?
AR: Hmmm,
there’s been so many. I loved A Quiet Place, and Don't Breathe,
which reminded me of the power of high-concepts. I dug Hereditary,
which reminded me of the power of drama, performance and lensing. I
found The Wailing, deeply disturbing… thought The Autopsy of Jane Doe was absolutely riveting; best genre script I’d read in years
and the direction was stellar. They all inspire me and remind me, I
have a lot to learn.
TMS: For the most part,
you've stuck to this genre. Do you see yourself expanding into
different areas or do you think you'll stick with it since you
obviously enjoy this?
AR: You
know, I’m enjoying playing in this scary sandbox but I’ll never
say never. I tend to gravitate towards dark ideas and themes but I
also have a warped sense of humor and would love the challenge of
comedy, at some point. Comedy is really a filmic cousin to our
beloved genre in terms of setup, timing and edits and I guess the
opposite of fear is laughter. I’d love to get up into the mid-level
dark-thriller space, a la Prisoners… I have a sci-fi spec that
I’m developing that involves Synthetic Humans, basically a biblical
fable. I have a western / horror love story. So I’m a bit all
over the place. At the core, I need to have a compelling characters.
That said, the older I get, the more I’d love to make a
life-affirming film someday…. Perhaps a coming-of-age tale: My
Stand By Me. We’ll see. Not everything is fire and brimstone, but
EVERYTHING is predicated on the market and what is actually feasible.
TMS: If there were another
franchise to work with, which one would you pick and why? Or would
you consider rebooting a branded series with your very own mark?
AR: This is always the
question. I’d LOVE to do my own version of The Brood, since I
loved it so much. There has been some flirtation with it, but the
rights are hard to come by. Not sure… there is one franchise being
discussed right now but unless I have a homerun take, there are many
pitfalls with reboots, obviously. I loved Friday the 13th
and thought we had a really cool pitch for a new one, but they went
another way. Let’s put it this way: Crystal Lake during the winter.
I’d LOVE LOVE LOVE to make a version of Pumpkinhead, but again, you
need the right resources to pull off that seminal creature work. I
love all of Barker’s stuff… the Books of Blood is like my bible.
We shall see… the long-winded point is, if I could actually move
the narrative forward and create something wholly unique, within a
particular universe / brand, only then would I take it on. Some folks
claim Escape Room is just a rehash of Saw or Cube and while I’m
honored that they’d lump us into that category, (they are the
gold-standard for locked in a room thrillers)… I was excited by the
conceit of the room itself being the death device and really a
character that would change as the players interacted with the
puzzles and felt that gave it a reason to exist.
TMS: This latest release
is much bigger on a production level (at least it appears that way).
How was working on Escape Room different from your last couple films?
AR: There
was no other place in the world we could have shot this movie other
than Cape Town, South Africa. My production designer, Ed Thomas, is
world class and he had an incomparable construction team behind him,
for these astonishing builds. Shooting in Capetown, we had 43 days of
photography and 13 days of splinter. This allowed us to pull off
something so ambitious with the resources. I
had a very productive prep period on Escape and my cinematographer,
Marc Spicer… took me under his wing. We had a lot of visual effects
and logistically challenging sequences.
Because the mandate going in was the film had
to be “not gory” and PG13… we relied more on suspense than
shock. This was a fun challenge. How do you create a sense of fear
and tension and hopefully hold on to it? We also did a lot of
previsualization, particularly the Billiard Room, which helped
everyone get on the same page. Other than having more time and more
toys, the approach and process is typically the same on every film.
 |
| photo courtesy Sony Pictures |
TMS: How did Escape Room
come about? Where did the ideas come from? And who came up with those
rad designs and effects work?
AR: I
was in post on Insidious: The Last Key when my agents called and said
the producers, Neal Moritz and Ori Marmur at Original Film, had a
script they wanted me to read. I went over and read the great first
draft by Bragi Shut, under lock and key. Once I signed on, we
developed the draft further, with Maria Melnik. Maria was very
particular about certain aspects—she’d grown up in Siberia and
pitched going from Fire to Ice, which I loved. I put together a very
detailed Look Book of inspiration that was the brief for my
department heads. The development of the rooms was iterative and a
real team effort between me, Maria and Ed Thomas / Marc Spicer. By
the time cameras were rolling, everything was on the page with a
startling level of detail, I have to say. There were like twenty key
hero props, that all had to be built and fabricated. The whole art
department was incredible and really excited about this particular
film because there work was so front and center. Marc Spicer worked
hand-in-hand with Ed Thomas, in terms of lighting changes and how we
could make each room transform from a shadow and light perspective.
TMS: There are some Final
Destination and Saw influences with your latest. This movie
definitely has the markings of a franchise. Do you think it will go
that way? And would you come back to direct another one?
AR: Never
say never… one only hopes but it’s up to the market and whether
the studio deems it worthy. It would be fun to do a second one but I
also have a lot of other projects I’d love to do. Time will tell.
TMS: Deborah Logan was
obviously a launching pad for you. How do you think that movie
established your directorial career and how would things be different
if that wasn't made?
AR: I
think more than anything Logan resonated because of the script and
Jill’s performance. People were genuinely surprised to see a fully
realized human being and the relationship between a child struggling
to care for her infirm mother, was so universal. If I didn’t get it
made, well I wouldn’t be doing this interview right now. It
certainly launched my career and I’m beyond grateful—in some
ways, it’s my most personal film and the film I’m still, most
proud of.
TMS: What projects are
next for you or are you planning on taking a much deserved vacation?
AR: I’m really hoping to
crack that much vaunted… TV nut! I have a horror series I’m
developing with Darren Aronofsky’s company that I’m super stoked
about.