In Conversation with Director Richard Griffin
Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2020
Images from the Internet
If you have read this blog, you know I’m a fan of Rhode
Island-based indie director, Richard Griffin. His love of cinema in general has
greatly influenced the plethora of genres he has covered, including comedies,
horror, Shakespeare-sourced and pangender sex. Many of his 35-plus releases
will be discussed below.
Over the years, we have corresponded about his films and cinema in
general via Instant Messaging. We have a lot in common including a love of
Italian arty and horror, the Marx Brothers, Mel Brooks, and even Bugs Bunny.
While we have never met face-to-face, I have no doubt we would be good friends.
Below is a list of questions I sent to Richard, and his responses that were
returned.
Indie Horror Films: Let’s start with an
oft-asked first question: if there was one film you saw in your youth that made
you say, “I want to do that”? If so, which one was it and why?
Richard Griffin: It’s strange, because I cannot think of one
single movie in particular that made me want to make movies. My father was, and
still is, a complete and utter film lover, and would take me to see all types
of movies, from great Hollywood fare to foreign art-house cinema. My mother
really gave me my love of horror films. My father grew up in abject poverty,
and I think he had seen enough horror for a lifetime, so it was my mother that
introduced me to horror cinema. I will say that seeing Wizards for the
first time in 1977 really blew my mind when it came to movies. That was the
year everyone was taken with Star Wars, but for me Wizards was a
real turning point.
IHF: Your first
feature was an update on Shakespeare’s infamously most violent and bloody play,
Titus Andronicus (2000). That seems like an odd choice to start, with
something that complicated.
Richard: Titus
Andronicus actually isn’t my first feature, not by a long shot. It is my
first feature listed on the IMDb. My first feature was done in 1988, and was
called The Death Card. All my early works, from 1987 to 2000, were shot
on what would now be considered vintage cameras, and I consider them more to be
sketches than anything else. But I must have, between 1987 and 2000, directed
over 20 short films, and two features… none of them listed on the IMDb. As for
why Titus Andronicus — I just love the story, and I think it’s a very
underperformed, under-loved Shakespeare play.
IHF: The film is
not widely available. Will it ever be?
Richard:
Honestly, I have no idea. First, I made the film for other people, and they own
the rights. Secondly, it was shot pre-HD video… so I’m sure it looks rather
“quaint” now. One of the major problems with movies that are not shot on actual
film stock is that the technology ages extremely poorly. My early, early movies
were shot on multiple extinct video formats like Super VHS, 3/4-inch tape, and
Video8. Not only do they look basically unwatchable to today’s eyes, but also
the tape stock degraded rapidly. I’m even noticing now that movies shot on the
early HD formats around the mid-2000s look pretty bad. The technology just
doesn’t really hold up compared to actual film stock.
IHF: The next few
films were your training wheels, like Feeding the Masses (2004), Creature
from the Hillbilly Lagoon (2005; aka Seepage!; reviewed HERE), Pretty
Dead Things (2005) and Splatter Disco (2007), and yet all got some
people noticing. How did it feel to start getting your fingers dirty on the way
films are made, and building up a stable of regular actors?
Richard: Well, I
only had one ambition at the time, and that was to make one film that would get
wide distribution, and we did with Feeding the Masses. After that, it’s
all about just having fun making movies. I started doing this stuff back in the
early 80s, making Super 8mm films with friends. And I’ve never had the ambition
or drive to work in Hollywood, or whatever. What I do is the film equivalent of
that guy who sits in a park with his canvas, brushes and oils and does
paintings of trees just for the pleasure of it. The things I did learn from
making these early features was how to schedule a movie, and how to work with a
crew. I was always so used to doing everything myself, and that took a bit of
getting used to.
IHF: Things seem
to have turned a corner and you started to hit a stride with Beyond the Dunwich Horror (2008)
and Nun of That (2008; reviewed HERE). Did those films
“feel different” in their creation than the previous ones? How?
Richard: With Dunwich
and Nun of That, the real pleasure came from having a much longer
shooting schedule than the other features. Dunwich was shot over eight
months, and Nun of That, I believe four months. It was great just having
the time to make sure everything was as perfect as it could be, considering how
low the budgets were. We also were getting some truly amazing actors, who had a
lot of faith in us and what we were doing. It stared to really feel like a nice
little family at that point.
IHF: Around this
time you really started to build a troupe of strong actors who would continue
to appear in a number of your films, such as Sarah Nicklin, Michael Reed, and
Ruth Sullivan, with Michael Thurber (founder and artistic director of the
Theater Company of Rhode Island) joining shortly with The Disco Exorcist (2011; reviewed
HERE). Did
that make a difference in the way you approached your filmmaking?
Richard: Well,
yes. We all became friends and would hang out between shooting days. These are
also extremely professional actors, so it takes a lot of the load off of you as
a director. They would come to the set prepared, know their lines and their
characters, and just work and do some amazing performances. And because we were
all friends to some extent, it made the set a lot lighter, which — of course —
makes the work considerably more pleasurable.
IHF: You once
referred to Nicklin as “your muse.” Why is that?
Richard: When you
make a movie, the first thing you have to learn is that nobody will ever love
the movie as much as you do. The crew, the cast, your audience. Nobody. So, you
tend to want to gravitate towards people who will love it closely as much as
you do. Who will share the same passion for the material. Sarah is that kind of
person.
IHF: Nun of That got some really nice
reviews and notices for you. It’s a film that I see mentioned when your name
crops up in conversation. When you look back on the film today, what do you
think of it?
Richard: I love
it, but maybe for different reasons than the audience. I can never have the
pleasure of seeing one of my movies as an actual movie. With Nun of That,
I co-wrote it, edited it, and directed it. I know that film so inside and out,
it stops being a movie. The pleasure of that movie comes from my memories of
making it. I wrote it with my husband [Ted Marr – Ed.], so that was
extremely wonderful. And everyone in the cast and crew just “Got it.” Nun of
That was just a really nice ride.
IHF: The first
film of yours that I saw and became aware of you was The Disco Exorcist. It was pretty
sexually explicit (in a softcore way, gentle readers), reminiscent of some of
the sexploitation films coming out of Europe in the 1970s, like The Devil’s
Plaything (1973) . Were you thinking of these as an influence or as a homage
for this film?
Richard: There
really weren’t any influences with that movie. The idea popped into my head one
day with a tagline before anything else, even before a title. It was “Michael
Reed IS The Disco Exorcist,” and I cracked up laughing. In about five
minutes, I had a rough plot, and then I told that idea to Tony Nunes, and he
started writing the screenplay. The main thrust of that movie was though, “What
if a porno movie had a really well-written screenplay and good actors”? Now,
the movie isn’t pornographic, it’s all simulated, but that basic idea was the
crux of why I wanted to make the movie.
IHF: While The
Disco Exorcist is quite racy, it is all straight sex, and it that would be true
for your work for a few years before you started more of a pan-sexual exploration
of cinema. Did you see that coming at this point, or were you just tied to the
story in this case?
Richard: Well,
we’ve had gay characters pretty much since day one, in movies like Creature
from the Hillbilly Lagoon and Pretty Dead Things. Why I started
becoming more explicit about it was that I was watching a lot of LGBTQ+ films,
and they seemed so tame. Like, it was okay to have a gay character, but you had
to de-sexualize them to make them palatable to a mainstream audience. That’s
the main reason I did Strapped for Danger.
IHF: You have
often stated that you don’t consider yourself a horror director, and certainly
a chunk of your films are not, but starting with The Disco Exorcist, you presented a
string of films that could be counted as horror, or at the very least
thriller-themed. What is your thoughts on that?
Richard: Well, I
just don’t like to be called a horror director, because it’s misleading. I’ve
directed comedies, action films, science-fiction, and just straight-forward
dramas. I just really don’t want to be put in a box in any aspect of my life.
IHF: The Disco Exorcist, a very broad
comedy, was followed by the serious Exhumed (2011; reviewed HERE), brilliantly
written by Guy Benoit, which I consider one of your strongest films; I often
compare it to (a more successful) Woody Allen’s Interiors (1978), which again, is a
departure from your straight-up horror and comedy to-date canon. How did it
feel different making this kind of film?
Richard: The
screenplay. The screenplay was the best written script I have ever read. And it
was because of Guy’s screenplay that we were able to get people excited about
the project. It wasn’t farcical like my films before it, but a truly brilliant
screenplay full of complex characters and themes. It was one of the rare
scripts that you read and it just jumps off the page. It presents itself. And
everyone was 100 percent on board on that movie, because of the quality of that
script.
IHF: Murder University (2012; reviewed
HERE) is a bit of a new chapter after the
taste-change of Exhumed,
returning a bit to a thriller of ritual murder with a dark humor to it. You
added Samantha Acampora, Elyssa Baldassarri, and brothers Jesse Dufault and especially
Jamie Dufault to your troupe, who would appear in your next string of features.
What do you think they contributed to your art that made you want to keep them
around (and I’m glad you did)?
Richard: Once
again, it’s finding actors that “get it.” I’m a difficult person to work with
sometimes, because I can easily sense when actors are on a set for reasons
other than just the movie, and that — to be honest — pisses me off. If you’re
going to be there, be there for the movie. Don’t be in a movie because you
think it’s going to be another notch on your resume, or you just want to kill
time, or you want to fuck your co-star. When you do that, you’re just screwing
over anyone on the set who actually cares about the project. And those actors
gave a shit about what they were doing, and they were pros.
IHF: A lot of
your films are homages to styles of films you like (more on that later). What
films influenced Murder
University, which has a stunning surprise early on in the film?
Richard: You
know, when you’ve seen as many movies as I have, they all just blur together
into one big movie. When I approached Lenny Schwartz about doing the script, I
just told him I wanted a slasher film set at a college in the ‘80s. But I don’t
think we actually ever really talked about influences. It’s hard to say the
movie is like ‘80s slasher films, because it’s so berserk. It has a musical
number in it. I don’t think you’d see that in a movie like Final Exam or
Graduation Day. It’s its own thing, regardless of genre conventions.
IHF: You went
even further on a limb with your next film, the weirdly titled (yet accurate) Frankenstein’s Hungry Dead (2013;
reviewed HERE), which was
originally titled Frankenstein’s
Wax Museum of the Hungry Dead. First of all, why the name change?
Richard: The
distributor wanted a shorter title. We weren’t forced to do it, but I
agreed.
IHF: Frankenstein’s Hungry Dead [FHD]
was more of a return to the broad horror comedy. Do you approach doing a comedy
differently than more serious ones like Exhumed?
Richard: In one
regard, yes. Because you want the performances to reflect the material. But
even in an over the top movie like this one, I still wanted to make sure there
wasn’t any real winking at the camera stuff, and I truly love the performances
in that film. In many ways, Frankenstein’s Hungry Dead is almost a
return to the Super 8 film I made with my friend when I was a kid. I love the
energy of that little movie.
IHF: You also do
a lot of shorts of all different genres. In one of them, a mock trailer for They Stole the Pope’s Blood (2014;
reviewed HERE) and
in FHD, you
mention the saved head of a famous historical person in both. Why twice?
Richard: Beats
me! Probably from watching The Brain that Wouldn’t Die as a kid. There’s
also the talking severed head of Hitler in a short film I directed called Mutants
of the Apocalypse. Good lord only knows!
IHF: FHD was quite the homage to
director Jesse Franco. How was he influential on you, and why?
Richard: Jess
Franco is a true cinematic artist who always stayed true to his vision and his
obsessions. You know within five minutes of watching one of his films that he
directed it, and you can’t say that about 99 percent of film directors. He also
made his films with such passion. You can love or hate his films, but you can
never say the man didn’t love making movies.
IHF: FHD is also
the first of your feature films that truly introduces a gay couple as major
characters. Had you been biting the bit before this and found this as your
chance (as it would become a major theme going forward), or was it more
organic?
Richard: I
try to make movies that the 17-year-old version of me would have enjoyed. And,
lets face it, there were no gay characters in Friday the 13th or A Nightmare
on Elm Street. It’s all about representation with me. I would have loved to
have seen a happy, healthy gay couple in a horror film… but when I was growing
up, that just wasn’t a thing. So to me, it’s all about making the movies I
would have wanted to see as a teenager.
IHF: Speaking of
which, next up was your infamous sci-fi horror short, Crash Site (reviewed HERE and
available on YouTube), one of my favorites of your shorts. I’ve probably
watched this more often that I should have (Jamie Lyn Bagley’s performance is
stunning). Yet you once told me that this film did not get a great reaction
upon its release. Why is that, and has that response improved over time?
Richard: No, it
was hated, and it still is hated! And I love that! Why didn’t people like it?
Who can tell. I make movies exclusively for myself, and if anyone else digs
them, that’s just gravy. I have a rather particular sense of humor, and I guess
that it doesn’t translate to the majority of people, but who cares? I know
there was a review of Frankenstein’s Hungry Dead that said the movie
“Set the LGBTQ agenda back a 100 years”. Now that’s complete and utter Internet
hyperbole, but for some people if you don’t show LGBTQ+ characters as
completely saint-like, they’re going to be offended. But, you know… most people
watch a movie and they get no reaction at all. It’s nice to see people being
passionate in their reactions.
IHF: This was
your first film starring Johnny Sederquist, who I once referred to
(affectionately) as a human emoticon. He would come to be in quite a few of
your films, including as his more recent drag queen persona of Ninny Nothin,
playing Piñata Debris in Strapped
for Danger).
Richard: I love
working with Johnny / Ninny. Outside of being a total sweetheart, he is a
tremendously good actor who brings a lot of himself to every role he
plays.
IHF: The film
that got me to contact you the first time, was Normal (2013; see review HERE), the next serious follow-up to Exhumed. Did you feel it was time
to take a dip in the intensity pool at this point to shake things up?
Richard: Not
intentionally, no. I mean, honestly I have no plan from one movie to the next.
If the screenplay catches my attention, and I feel like it’s worth spending six
months to a year of my life on, I’ll do it. And Lenny’s screenplay had a very
profound effect on me. My husband jokes that I tend to go from a serious
picture, to something completely goofy, but that’s not really the case. I have
definitely directed more goofy movies than serious ones, but that’s really just
how I look at the world.
IHF: I do believe
this is Michael Reed’s finest work to-date that I have seen.
Richard:
Michael’s performance is chilling, and beautifully shaded. It was a very
difficult role to get across, because the character could just come across as
completely distant and hateful, but Michael infused a lot of humanity into the
part.
IHF:
Stylistically, it’s also different than your previous films in that it flips
about in time a bit and is a bitter deeper, on a psychological level. Who or
what influenced it?
Richard:
Honestly, I rarely think of influences when prepping a movie. I just try to
find the tone of the screenplay, and be true to it as best I can. Lenny writes
very “visual” screenplays, which is unusual for a playwright who typically gets
very hung up on the spoken word. Lenny writes in images, which is perfect for a
screenplay.
IHF: And speaking
of different, the next of your feature films is Future Justice (2014; see review
HERE). This is more in the realm of
post-apocalyptic. It’s also your first sci-fi since Atomic Brain Invasion (2010). Why go in that direction at that time?
Richard: I always
wish I could give more of a deeper meaning to this, but honestly, it’s just
what pops into my head on any given day. It must have been a “Lets direct a
post-apocalyptic film” kind of a day. This basically just comes from the fact I
work in instinct more than intellect!
IHF: Future Justice both starred and was
written by Nathaniel Sylva, who also occasionally works for you as Assistant
Director. Did he have more to do with this film that just writing and starring?
Richard: Nat also
choreographed all the fight scenes, and did a brilliant job! Truly Nat’s
fingerprints are all over this movie. A tremendous talent!
IHF: Around this
time you started to pick up other “regulars,” such as Anna Rizzo, Steve
O’Brion, Carmine Capobianco (of 1987’s Psycho’s In Love), Jamie Lyn Bagley and
Derek Laurendeau. Comments?
Richard: Well,
you need to inject some fresh blood into the works from time to time. These are
all brilliant stage actors, and in the case of Carmine, I had known him from
his cult classic Psychos in Love, and really wanted to work with him. He
is a true sweetheart, and a lot of fun to have on a set. What more could you
ask for?
IHF: Hammer Films
with a twist comes to mind when I think of The Sins of Dracula (2014; reviewed HERE). The twist is both
the inclusion of comedy and the influence of Christian films from the 1970s. Is
there a specific film that brought this to mind, or the genre in general; and
what ever happened to those films, you think?
Richard: That
entire film started with one idea that I bounced off writer Michael Varrati.
And the idea was this: “What if a church came into a little bit of money, and
wanted to make a film to scare its teenage members away from the evils of
premarital sex? And what if they thought that what scared teenagers the most in
1975 was Dracula?” … honestly, this is how my brain works.
IHF: In The Sin of Dracula, Michael Thurber
plays a very Christopher Lee version of the Count, with an enormous Bela
Lugosi-type ring. He is nearly completely silent, and also, he seems to be
almost secondary to the real villain of the piece, played by O’Brion. What was
the meaning for these?
Richard: The
meaning came entirely from Hammer’s Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966), where
Dracula never says a word. I find Dracula films where Dracula actually talks to
be extremely silly. But in Prince of Darkness, he’s more of a symbol of
death, and probably the most terrifying version of Dracula ever shown in a
movie.
IHF: One of my
favorite scenes in the film is when Acampora is trying to seduce Jesse Dufault
in a classic floating-outside-the-window trope, and then just says, screw that.
Richard: It was
funny in the screenplay, but Sammi truly made it one of the best scenes in the
movie. She has second-to-none comedic timing.
IHF: When you do
the mash up with the straight couple and the gay couple, depending on
interpretation, this could be saying either "both are equally healthy,"
or because it's pre-marital, both are equally unhealthy.” Did I get that right?
Richard: Well my
thing was that the straight couple were having boring, vanilla sex, while the
gay couple were swinging from the ceiling.
IHF: Speaking of
comedy, Lenny Schwartz’s Accidental
Incest (2014; reviewed HERE) is arguably one of the most
outrageous film you had done to-date, overall. Why did you choose to do that
one?
Richard: I saw
the play performed in New York City, and after it was over I knew I had to make
it into a movie. It was such a profoundly unusual, yet perfectly balanced mix
of humor and pathos. One of the many things I love about Lenny’s plays is that
he’ll have you laughing one minute, and before you know it you’re crying your
eyes out.
IHF: I know it
started out as a musical play, and while a touch of that was left in, why was
most of that excised from the screenplay?
Actually the play
wasn’t a musical at all. The musical numbers were added for the film.
IHF: When it was
staged in the theater by Lenny, did you have anything to do with that?
Richard: Nothing
at all. That was all Lenny.
IHF: I thought it
was very brave performances by Sederquist and Baldassarri, considering the
amount of nudity involved. Did you need to give any special direction for that?
Or were you given any demands by the actors?
Richard: No. They
were just extremely brave. But thankfully both Elyssa and Johnny knew each
other before the movie, so there was a level of comfort there that you
typically wouldn’t get with two actors who just met on the set.
IHF: Did Johnny
have any issues playing a relatively straight hedonist?
Richard: Not in
the slightest. Johnny attacked that role with a great deal of skill.
IHF: Your next
feature length release is probably the one I have rewatched the most, Seven Dorms of Death (2015;
reviewed HERE). You
take a cliched story of a “cursed play” that leads to its actors being killed
off one by one, but you take two different motifs and mash them together. While
in the style of the Italian cinema of the 1970s and ‘80s [the name is obvious a
take-off of Fulci’s 1981 The
7 Doors of Death, aka The Beyond], you also take it purposefully to
an amateurish level with multi-levels of set-up mistakes (every time I watch
it, I notice something different), such as people wandering off the set. What
was your thoughts behind that blending process?
Richard: It was
mostly all in the screenplay by Matthew Jason Walsh. Then when we would block a
scene, we’d think of ways to screw the scene up but without taking it too much
over the line. It was a hell of a lot of fun to make that movie, and I think it
shows in the final result.
IHF: It also
contains one of your most famous lines, spoken by Aaron Andrade in his defining
role as Detective Vargas, “Fuck you, skeleton!” How did that line originate?
Richard: It was
right there in Matthew Jason Walsh’s screenplay! And actor Aaron Andrade
completely knocked it out of the park!
IHF: This was
followed by a more serious nunsploiation horror flick, Flesh for the Inferno (2015; see
review HERE), a subgenre that seems to have gotten a bit of
a resurgence lately. But what is it with you and nuns (e.g., Nun of That), and other
religious-based themes (e.g., The Disco Exorcist, Exhumed, The Sins of
Dracula)?
Richard: I don’t
know! I wasn’t really raised with any religion at all, but I think nuns have
this weird element of looking both comedic and scary all at the same time.
Plus, we have the costumes, so it saves money!
IHF: After all
the blood and gore in the past few releases, you completely switched gears and
went back to your roots by doing a rather loyal telling of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream (2017;
reviewed HERE). Why
the change and why that particular film?
Richard: I’m a
huge fan of Shakespeare’s work, and I wanted to do another Shakespeare piece
after Titus Andronicus, but I wanted to make something more fun that
could also be very visual, and obviously the magical aspects of Shakespeare’s
play lends itself to that style.
IHF: Long Night in a Dead City (2017;
reviewed HERE) is more of a bunch of set pieces
staged around a bookend story, which is quite different than your previous
features. It’s almost a dreamscape. Why did you choose this at that time, and
how did you get that effect of that kind of visualization?
Richard: Long
Night in a Dead City is an oddly autobiographical film. And for years I was
trying to get it off the ground. But when I would write the screenplay it was
more of a realistic reenactment of the events as they actually happened, and it
just didn’t work. It lacked the emotional weight from its attempts at realism.
What Lenny Schwartz did that was so brilliant was to make it like a dream,
which is really how we perceive our youth as we grow older. He basically wrote
a very impressionistic film, which is what I’m more comfortable directing than
something that exists purely as reality.
IHF: I really
enjoy that shot of Aidan Lailberte disappearing behind a van as it passes him.
Richard: That’s
something I'm proud of. The shot of Daniel disappearing as the van passes
him... that's not an edit. That was done in-camera. Aidan just ran really fast
to the left as the van passed him. That was my assistant director Nat Sylva’s
idea, and it was brilliant.
IHF: This film
kind of ended a phase of yours that I would call horror of different subgenres,
but then you seemed to start afresh with a short series of wild sex-oriented
comedies that what can only be described (by me, paraphrasing Mel Brooks) as
comedic gay romps in a garden: the crime spree Strapped for Danger (2017; reviewed
HERE) and
sci-fi/superhero-themed Code
Name: Dynastud (2018; reviewed HERE). What
was the thinking behind the switcheroo?
Richard: I grew
tired of horror films and I wanted to make some more playful types of movies.
As I said before, I make films I would have wanted to see as a 17-year-zold.
And man, I would have loved to see a gay sex comedy at 2 AM on Cinemax!
IHF: Oh, by the
way, was Sarah Reed's accent om Strapped for Danger supposed to be NY or
NJ? Her snort was quite funny, and what makes me think it's New Jersey... you
know how New Yorkiz feel about those from Joisey, hahaha.
Richard: I told
her before we started rehearsals, "Come up with an annoying voice."
And boy did she ever. It's supposed to be a little Long Island sounding. It
makes me laugh, and that’s really what counts!
IHF I'm not sure
I'm reading this correctly but I found it amusing that the two main women in
the film were made to look or sound somewhat unattractive. Anna Rizzo comes
across as uptight and a bit wiggy, and Sarah Reed, well, she is the villain of
the piece.
Richard: I think
both of the women look beautiful in the movie. Maybe that's just me. I mean,
they're the villains, but then again, the three male leads are bad guys as
well. The only two good people in the movie in my eyes are the two pledges that
fall in love. It’s very complex!
IHF: One of the
thoughts I had is that this is the flip of Thelma and Louise, or most chick
flicks, where the men are the heroes (or anti-heroes), and the women are the
jerks.
Richard: That's
probably screenwriter Duncan Pflaster’s take on it. That's the interesting
thing for the movie with me. All my films have a strange sort of moral compass.
Except for this one!
IHF: In Code Name: Dynastud, what's with
Vargas' (Aaron Andrade) voice? I ask in a friendly way, out of curiosity. He
sounds so different than in Seven Dorms of Death.
Richard: Well, as
you may have noticed the entire film is dubbed. I wanted an Enter the Ninja
(1981) vibe where the dubbing isn't as off as a Godzilla film, but you're like
"What the hell is up here?" Which leads us to Vargas. I wanted some
big indicators that the movie was dubbed so people wouldn't be all like,
"This is a mistake!" So, I asked Aaron to do a completely different
voice. And he came out with that, and I almost had a stroke laughing. Do you
know of the actor Matt Berry? He was in “The IT Crowd.” I think Aaron was doing
a riff on his voice. British actor with a very pompous voice.
IHF: While the Strapped for Danger sequel is in
the line-up, meanwhile you recently released the Gothic-toned Before the
Night is Over (2020; reviewed HERE). Would
you say this was influenced by Whatever Happed to Baby Jane? (1962) or
possibly Hush… Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964)? What else influenced the
feel of the film?
Richard: The way
I typically describe Before the Night is Over is that it’s “If Tennessee
Williams had a stroke and wrote a horror screenplay.” That script was literally
written on instinct. Plus, I have a lot of fun writing southern characters. I
don’t know why, I just always have!
IHF: I'm assuming
the front of the house was a different location than the inside.
Richard: No,
that's all the same house! If it wasn't for that house, we couldn't have made
the movie!
IHF: Wow. In
Rhode Island?
Richard: Yep!
You’d never believe it!
IHF: I found the
end to be a bit vague.
Richard: When I
was writing the script with Lenny, I wanted it to have a very Euro vibe. So,
one of the things I've always noticed and loved about Italian horror films is
that they don't actually make a lick of sense. So, I made it a point not to
explain almost everything. But, much like the run time of the movie, a lot of
that film is a reaction to Hollywood's insistence on having films that are way
too long, and explaining everything to the point of boredom. I mean, what the
hell does the ending of City of the Living Dead [1980; aka Gates of
Hell] mean?
IHF: Most independent
films today seem to rely on the big-name cameo to draw in the fans. You don’t
do that often, and the only big cult names I can think of in that area are Lynn
Lowry in Beyond the
Dunwich Horror, and Debbie Rochon, who rather than having a cameo was such a
major part of Exhumed (2001); she was also in Splatter Disco with
Lowry and Ken Foree of 1979’s Dawn of the Dead.
Richard: As much
as I loved working Ken and Lynn, I don’t find the money spent on “name actors”
to be worth it. I’d rather give an upcoming actor their shot.
IHF: What was it
like working with Ms. Rochon?
Richard: A true
pleasure. Debbie is a complete pro, and she’s also amazingly wonderful to have
on a set. A professional all the way, and very funny and passionate. What more
could you ask for in an actor?
IHF: Along with
directing, you have also been doing quite a bit of acting in both film and on
stage in Rhode Island. Is it hard to let go of the reins to let someone else
direct you, or do you chime in with ideas; or do you just go with the flow?
Richard: To be
honest, I love acting more than directing. It’s very pure and immediate. And I
love being clay in a director’s hands.
IHF: What has
been your favorite role to play, to-date?
Richard: Playing
Jimmy in Almost, Maine.
IHF: Okay,
lightening round: Laurel and Hardy or Abbott and Costello, and why?
Richard: Laurel
and Hardy. Never could stand Abbott and Costello.
IHF: Charlie
Chaplin or Buster Keaton, and why?
Richard: Buster
Keaton. His films are more visual.
IHF: Woody Allen
or Mel Brooks? Why?
Richard: Mel
Brooks. Blazing Saddles is the greatest American comedy.
IHF: Lucio Fulci
or Dario Argento? Why?
Richard: Dario
Argento, because his films are more personal.
IHF: Bela Lugosi
or Christopher Lee?
Richard:
Christopher Lee, because who else had the career that man had?
IHF: Famous Monsters of Filmland or Castle
of Frankenstein?
Richard: Famous
Monsters of Filmland.
IHF: The Bowery
Boys or the East Side Kids?
Richard: The
Bowery Boys.
IHF: And finally,
what is the air speed velocity of a coconut-laden sparrow?
Richard: I’m not
dead yet!
Note: Richard has
a new film out since these questions went out called Undercover Vice: Strapped for Danger
Part 2. And yes, it is reviewed, HERE.
