|
The
Interview
CampBlood: How did you come up with the
idea for "Scream for Me"?
Chris Broadstone:
SCREAM FOR ME is based on an unpublished short story (of the same
title) that I wrote many, many years ago. The original idea, and
core theme, which pervades both story and film derives from my personal
fear that there is nothing beyond life -- no Heaven, no Hell, no
God, no Devil, and no reward or punishment. No justice. For me that's
the real horror of the story. It's also the underlying motivation
for the entire structure of the piece, and the development and arc
of each character: Irene, Garrott, and Madman. The story also hinges
on a concept of abnegation that has always haunted me: to be personally
responsible for keeping the absolute truth from myself; although
not because of fear of the unknown, but because of the fear of what
I already know to be true and just can't accept. That's certainly
the case with Garrott (Gabriel Sigal) in SCREAM FOR ME. He
knows that the truth of what lies beyond life hides within the screams
of his dying victims, but he habitually keeps that truth from himself
by strangling his victims so they can't scream.
CB:
In your film the real victim of the story dies early on and the
film focuses on the killer getting his "just desserts".
What compelled you to tell the story of justice being served, or
-- considering that the girl is still dead, do you even consider
it justice?
CB: From my perspective SCREAM
FOR ME isn't about justice being served, it's about injustice running
wild and reigning over all. The girl, Irene (Lora Cunningham),
represents an innocent, a victim of circumstance, a statistic: your
average man or woman. She's someone trying hard to get ahead in
life -- someone willing to sacrifice her own dignity and work as
a stripper in effort to put herself through college. But what does
she get for her trouble? A manic strangulation, a couple good slaps
in the face, and then death by crushed windpipe and several hard
blows to the head. Now that's where the story takes a left turn
and things get kicked up a notch. Madman (Tony Simmons) enters
and immediately transforms Garrott, our despised killer, into a
victim as helpless as Irene. The tables are turned, but is justice
really being served? In my eyes, yes and no. On one hand Garrott
deserves whatever he gets (and he does get it good), but on the
other hand he's also a victim of circumstance, just like Irene.
If you listen to what Garrott is saying in the film, he's desperately
trying to explain to Irene why he's become what he is and why he
does what he does. He's compelled by his conscience to rationalize
his insanity for his victim, as well as for himself. In doing so,
he also conveys his deepest fear: my fear, that there's nothing
beyond...my loved ones will not be waiting for me...there will only
be oblivion, and it will be endless. Once again, no reward for being
a good person and no punishment for the truly wicked. Again is it
justice being rightfully served? Or is it just another -- albeit
a more extreme example -- of injustice stampeding unbridled through
this great plain of madness we all call life?
CB:
Some might argue that you use the image of two men together as a
'horror element', a common occurrence in a heterocentric genre.
CB: I never intended the Madman/Garrott
relationship to be a homosexual 'horror element' to freak out heterosexuals
-- although I knew it would on some level and in certain environments
(but hey, I'll take my scares where I can get them). What I did
intend was to portray a very skewed heterosexuality, which I think
is what really disturbs those of us who are straight. Tony and I
had many discussions about Madman's sexual orientation and possible
abuse as a child, and we both agreed that the character was most
likely not gay; although he walks and talks like a redneck homophobe
that's quite arguably a closet case. Within the framework of the
story, however, it's far more unsettling that he isn't gay at all.
He's just Madman! A highly strung maniac that wants what he wants
when he wants it, and is willing to do anything to get it. He's
also clearly driven by raging social dysfunction and sheer lunacy.
His mental and physical torment of Garrott is simply an effort to
get his rocks off by pushing the parameters of his own madness to
the absolute extreme. In other words, just killing Garrott isn't
good enough for Madman, or fun enough. He has to twist and blur
the lines of all he can, be it homicide, brutality, romanticism,
reality, fantasy, homosexuality, or heterosexuality. His creative,
and enthusiastic use of duct tape to give Garrott cleavage and tape
down his privates is an example of that. Madman creates woman! And
with his creation SCREAM FOR ME takes another left turn and suddenly
slips into a very dark, claustrophobic world that is neither gay
nor straight, real nor unreal, but is purely and uniquely Madman.
Now that's entertainment!
Tony Simmons: To be honest,
I wasn't terribly concerned that the role of Madman could demonize
male-male contact. As Madman pretty directly expresses, he actually
wanted pussy and very simply just had to make do with what was available
(that was 'warm and squirming', of course). I believe that Madman
is a really damaged person, whose sexuality is a non-issue. Madman
actually isn't gay, although I do think that sex and anger and self-preservation
are a little jumbled for him. I viewed him as a person who has suffered
much abuse and as a result is so confused and socially twisted that
he really just doesn't know how to relate very well with other people.
He doesn't play well with others and it's a direct result of learning
very conflicting things at an early age. In the same way that Garrott
at times sees himself in Madman, I think there are also very distinct
times when Madman sees himself in Garrott.
CB:
You mentioned that you've had some straight festivals interpret
your piece as homophobic, while gay audiences don't.
CB: I think it's just the current
social climate of political correctness. More simply put, it's OK
for an African American to refer to another African American as
a "nigger", but not OK for a white man to do so. In the
gay community the same ideology applies. It's perfectly all right
for one homosexual to call another a "fag", "fairy",
or "butt pirate", but it's considered discrimination,
harassment, or just plain bad taste to use such terms if a straight
man is referring to a gay man. In the context of the film, Madman
is constantly mocking Garrott with negative homosexual epithets
-- calling him every name in the book and then some ---- from "faggot"
to "bum boy" to "porno projector queer" to "worm-cock
homo", and the list goes on. Most film festivals just don't
want to show any films with characters openly, and so ebulliently,
derogating ethnic groups of any color or sexual orientation. I think
they believe that the general festival audience will be offended
and, consequently, lash out against them for supporting such a film
by allowing it to be screened. But it's not just fear of stepping
on the toes of the gay community, or soiling the gay/straight peace,
but it's also about the dreaded taboo of degradation toward females.
On the surface SCREAM FOR ME is a grim portrait of man brutalizing
woman, even if revenge is somewhat served later on in the film.
And, of course, Madman constantly referring to Irene in terms that
never elevate her beyond an object for sexual exploitation doesn't
help. One thing you can say about Madman, however, is at least he
doesn't discriminate in his bigotry. At heart he's really just an
egalitarian trying to level the playing field for all. (Just don't
get in his way.)
CB:
Nudity, murder, and rape - I imagine that could make for a tense
set. Any difficulties shooting?
CB: I'd
prepared a very detailed shot list, so there wasn't a lot of mucking
about. We were all working constantly and had little time to think
of much but making the best film we could make. Everyone, actors
and crew, were well aware we were dealing with difficult subject
matter and, consequently, were very supportive of each other. All
of the violence was extensively rehearsed and choreographed in preproduction,
and as for the nudity...well, on day one we were all a bit nervous
(especially me and Tony), but by the time we got around to the big
bare-bottom reveal 3 days into shooting, we were all deep in moviemaker
mode and time was starting to run out. So it was all very professional
-- clinical even -- and very much about hurry, hurry, hurry let's
just get the shot! OK we're rolling... bath robe off...and action...magic,
magic, magic...and cut!..bath robe back on. It was all a concerted
effort that played out extremely well and is a testament to the
professionalism of all involved. Glad we didn't suffer any "injustice"
during those times. Or later at the film lab, for that matter. It
would've killed the movie. And me.
CB:
Tony, you must trust Chris immensely.
TS: As far as trusting Chris
goes, I'm still missing some cash that I had laying around the house
the last time he visited.
Ooooooooh. You mean artistically! I have to say that Chris's writing
automatically lead me to believe that he was a sensitive and creative
person. Luckily, we spent time rehearsing, since there was plenty
of choreography with regards to all the tying up and stuff. That
time gave us the opportunity to get to know each other and gain
each other's trust. I have to say here that working with Gabriel
was a really wonderful experience. He's a very talented actor. On
a certain level serendipity brought about a very good mix of individuals.
Everyone working on SFM was wholly committed to the project (with
the exception of two makeup girls who weren't mature enough to work
with the material).
Since SFM, Chris and I have become friends and so the trust level
has grown or deepened. But I suppose at the time, it was a matter
of finding the material appealing, experiencing a really positive
vibe from the people working on the project and kinda just going
with it and hoping that my gut wasn't misleading me. Chris is pretty
specific about what he wants, which is nice in the sense that you
have some guidance. At the same time, he is also very willing to
let you go out on a limb and try something different. If he likes
it, cool. If he doesn't, cool. There's no issue of ego involved.
He wants the movie to work. I know he'd rather the movie work and
he be allowed to take credit for someone else's idea (because ultimately
he gets the blame or the credit), than for the movie to not work
and for him to have won some stupid ego-battle.
CB.
As a gay man and an actor, do you feel a responsibility to the gay
community to play gay characters?
TS: As a gay male, I feel absolutely
no responsibility to play gay characters. The only reason I say
it that way is that although I am very much gay I am also very much
white and very much liberal (politically) and very much brown eyed
and very much lower middle class (or upper lower class) and very
much non-religious and very much... Please keep in mind that I am
not coming from a closeted place. I've actually spent a lot of time
immersed in the gay community. That is perhaps a part of what makes
me a bit of a cynic when people talk about the gay community as
if it's this altruistic utopia. There are plenty of sexists and
racists and assholes in the gay community as there are plenty in
any other 'grouping' of humans. I happen to believe in equal rights
across the board. Whatever freedom or right one person has, it should
be shared by all others. The one responsibility I feel is to be
true to whatever character I have the chance to portray. If that
person is an upper class, well educated, gay, republican, conservative,
I would want to portray that person as honestly and dynamically
as possible. I know that if I were offered a role of a stereotype,
I would be inclined to think twice about it. Unless it was something
that was stylized in such a way as to be artistically appropriate.
SFM was an over-the-top stylized short that used those qualities
to present an idea. Sort of like impressionist painting, or jazz
music. My personal politics are pretty distinct to me and if I were
to try and limit my acting to characters who reflected those political
beliefs, I would work less than I do already.
CB:
And none of us needs that! There is a LONG tradition of horror films
using gay themes as horror elements, rather than as character traits.
Oddly, though, many gays (like myself) associate with the horror
genre closely, even though we are encouraged to identify with the
queer villain rather than the victim. How would you feel about gay
men identifying with Madman?
TS: That's
a tough one. To be upfront, I have never been one who watched horror
stuff. When I was a kid, I was a huge Edgar Allan Poe fan,
but scary movies were never something that drew me in. It's this
creepy mug that seems to attract me to folks doing horror. As much
as I am personally inclined to play the young, delicate, virginal,
engenue, they just aren't calling my agent with those roles in mind.
So, I have to say that I've not seen that much in the way of gay
villains. Other than in gay bars, that is. Personally, I find the
darker characters are often more richly drawn or offer a greater
variety in the means of portrayal. It doesn't really matter if the
'good guy' or 'bad guy' is of one sexual orientation or another.
That said, I suppose it's a matter of popular public opinion as
to when a character's sexual orientation is as uncontroversial as
character's race or sex or hair color. As far as gay men identifying
with Madman, I can only say that if you identify with Madman, perhaps
you should see a doctor. Or at least a dance instructor!
CB:
What do you have on the slate for future projects?
CB: Right now I've got a lot
on my plate. Last Labor Day I shot another short film starring Tony
Simmons, titled HUMAN NO MORE. Due to festivals and promoting both
my previous films, however, I haven't yet had any time to get into
all the editing and post sound work. I'm also finishing the publisher's
proofs for my first horror novel, PUZZLEMAN, which will hopefully
be available by February 2004. As soon as the proofs are completed,
however, I'll definitely be hitting HUMAN NO MORE hard, and hope
to have it finished in time to submit to next year's NYCHFF. Wish
me luck!
TS: Although I've got a couple
of flicks I had small roles in that are in post-production, I've
nothing on the drawing board right now. So, I am just prostituting
myself around as the opportunity arises, which unfortunately, isn't
that often. There's really not much sadder than an old prostitute
trying to hustle up tricks, ya know. Okay, Brian, you can uncover
the furniture and let the pets back in the house.
|
