MY SKIN/SCREAM FOR ME - an Interview With Christopher Alan Broadstone

> It certainly was a haunting and very emotive piece of music. Did it take long to turn the idea for both films into a finished script, were there many rewrites?

In either case, “Scream For Me” or “My Skin”, you could say that they exploited ideas and concepts that had been brewing within me for a long time. Because of that the scripts were written relatively quickly and with few rewrites, although I was still massaging dialogue in both films up to and through production. Even in post-production, for that matter. It’s the curse of never being entirely satisfied, but the blessing of being able to make changes.  

> Were you conscious of people’s possible objections to scenes of gore or sex? I thought it was a sensible move (and one probably out of economy) not to show the full knife attack in SCREAM FOR ME, the sound and blocking made it gruesome enough. Do you care what people think? Was that the kind of reaction you wanted or did you want to go further?

“Scream For Me” was a big challenge on many levels, and the nudity and violent sexual content were two major concerns.  But they were also the reasons I wanted to do the film –– I hoped to show the unbelievers that I could present potentially tasteless and horrifying material in a very intelligent, professional, and tasteful manner.  Anyone can make a shocker, but not everyone can do it with an artful sensibility and a little style. My only disappointment with the film was my failure to get a profile tracking shot of Madman (played by Tony Simmons) with knife in place and hovering over Garrott (played by Gabriel Sigal) for the big finale. I think the addition of that shot would have helped to clarify exactly what was happening. As it is, all the necessary elements are in the movie, but it requires a little more imagination than some viewers are willing to give. The shot was written and schedule for production, but time simply ran out.  

As for what people think, I do care quite a bit. I don’t mean that I want to cater to their every need and desire, but I do want them to at least understand what I’m driving at with my films. I also want to bring out thoughts and emotions in my audience that they might not have otherwise had. To me one of the worst things that can happen to a movie is that it’s presented in such a way that the viewer doesn’t comprehend it. I don’t want people walking out of my films with their last thought being, “I don’t get it”, because if they don’t get it, they probably won’t come back for more. If they simply don’t like my movies, well to each his own. 

According to DP Robert Yeoman (BOTTLE ROCKET, DRUGSTORE COWBOY, ROYAL TENENBAUMS, among a zillion others), who I took an AFI cinematography seminar from, you should always try to avoid shooting only in one room, and never shoot anyone wearing sunglasses. Especially mirrored sunglasses. The issues regarding unwanted reflections (lighting rigs and crew members, etc.), he said, could kill the scenes. The problem I had, of course, was that I wouldn't have had the same story –– or film –– if I moved SFM out of one room and took away Madman's glasses. As for the nudity, well...most of the AFI types claimed you shouldn't complicate your life on your debut film –– having to deal with the possible discomfort of actors and crew could result in less than par performances. Again, if I had followed the advice of those in-the-know, SFM wouldn't be what it is.

Again harking back to the scenes involving nudity. The hardest trick was really just to get that one establishing shot perfect, so the audience would know the character was actually nude –– then I just had to design every other bit of coverage to only imply the nudity, so the actor could work wearing shorts or underwear. In other words, always keep the privates just out of frame. Tony was only naked in two angles, and by the time we got down to shooting those it was all very clinical and a matter of "go, go, go, we're running out of time, just get the shot!" 

> How long did each take to shoot? 

Ironically, both “Scream For Me” and “My Skin” were shot over four long days and with a pick up day a week later.  

> I was surprised at the completely different tone in each film, almost as if from different genres, apart from the fact that both involve women as victims. MY SKIN has a Roald Dahl/Hammeresque vibe to it with an immortal/supernatural character shaping his revenge and SCREAM FOR ME has elements of Transgressive cinema, with its use of taboo subjects. Were you consciously trying to explore different moods/areas? 

Funny that you mention women as victims. Some have said that I must really hate females. But how I feel about the softer sex is actually just the opposite. I simply think that a woman with a sweet face is a much more sympathetic victim than any male, other than a male child, that is. As for the different tone and visual style of each film, I really don’t want to copy myself. Not for as long as I can help it anyway. Ideally I would like my work to always be unique, yet be undeniably me –– just like Hitchcock had a voice that carried through everyone of his films, or David Fincher or Tim Burton, today. You can see these guys thumbprint a mile away, even though each project is different. I guess the real key is to be true to your self, but try to always tell a different story. Also, I don’t usually see my films as visuals first. They grow in my head as ideas, philosophies, concepts.  The bigger these elements grow the more they sprout little buds that become pictures or props and/or the more they begin to express themselves with their own unique visual lexicon. I really do like to let the story I’m trying to tell dictate the shot to be captured. In the case of each of my films, I have to say that every bit of coverage was designed to bolster and propel the story forward –– even if only on a symbolic or subliminal level. The day I shoot a cool shot just because it’s cool, is the day I’ve failed.

> Was it a dedicated shooting schedule or did you have to take advantage of people's schedules and shoot around nights and weekends/whenever possible? 

The schedule for both films was dedicated. Each was shot over a long weekend –– Friday through Monday. We would start about 8 or 9am in the morning and go till 9, 10, 11 at night, depending on the day’s problems or successes. I remember that on “Scream For Me”, some days went as late as midnight.  

> Did the length of shooting and cramped conditions cause problems – such as frayed tempers, or did enthusiasm for the short shoot keep going? Or Did you find it easy to be the centre of attention and drive people and your vision forward?  

On either film, being the centre of attention was the last thing on my mind. I prefer to lead by example, rather than bark orders at people.  Especially on a film set, which is an extremely exhausting place for all involved. So far I’ve been fortunate and haven’t had to fight any bad tempers, except for me just being angry or frustrated with myself.  In fact, I’m always more pissed off at the clock on the wall than I am at anybody or anything –– Father Time just keeps right on ticking whether the shot is finished or not. There was one issue on “Scream For Me”, however, that did nearly push me to kill.  We had been sent two extremely immature girls to do makeup, and they arrived hung over from the party the night before. As well, they wanted to leave early to go to another party. I let them off because I didn’t have time to put up with their crap, and, as is often the case with small films, they weren’t getting paid anyway. By the grace of God they did show up for filming the next day, but by noon informed me they couldn’t emotionally handle working on such a violent movie any longer. That was quite an irony, considering they’d only had to manage a bloody lip, some bruises, and a cut temple at that point. To boot, they weren’t ever even on the set during filming, because there wasn’t any room for them.  On one or two occasions they did have to dab on a little blood and then run and hide in the bathroom, but it seems that only served to inflame their claustrophobia. I could no longer deal with their irrational idiocy, or even speak to them. So, before I bashed their heads in, I promptly walked back onto the set and told my AD to go tell them to get the hell out! And fast! They did, and that was the end of that.  Fortunately my actors were talented enough in the art of makeup to carry us through. Thanks again Gabriel, Lora, and Tony. Also, the shoot really lightened up without the whiney makeup girls around dragging us all down. Losing them also brought the crew and actors closer together, creating and even stronger team than we had previously.  

> What sort of Equipment did you use? Digital/Video camera? Sound gear? Was it Nagra/DAT? What sort of Lighting rigs? Was the gear all on loan? Hired from colleges? Stolen?

“Scream For Me” was shot on 16mm Kodak Vision 500 stock using a rented Arri camera, and then an Arri high-speed camera for the black-and-white slow-motion. Both cameras were operated by DP Stewart Eastham. The production sound was recorded by Enzo Treppa using a boom mic and crystal synch DAT machine –– all recording was done without time-code, however, due to budgetary restraints and limitations on time. The lighting was designed by myself to make the greatest use of practical lights incorporated into the shots I wanted. I had rented a full lighting setup, but Stewart only utilized one 500watt or 1000watt Fresnel at a time –– mostly to beef up the practical lighting you see in the movie.  My tiny guesthouse, which was where the set was built, couldn’t handle much more of an electrical load than that.  

“My Skin” was shot on Mini DV using my Sony TRV-900 camera and an old Miller tripod.  The sound was again recorded on Enzo’s DAT, but it was Rick Wildridge (who plays George in the film) that took over as production soundman –– Enzo was becoming a new daddy. As fate would have it, however, outside noises seeping in from the surrounding neighbourhood rendered our DAT tapes virtually useless. All of Tony’s dialogue was rerecorded later during ADR, and all incidental sounds were created during extensive Foley sessions.

As with “Scream For Me”, the lighting for “My Skin” was also designed to exploit the use of practical lighting within the room, most of which is seen in the film. Two borrowed halogen photo lights were utilized as fill and to create the blue-green ceiling of the room. 

> Was your choice to change medium dictated by budget as DV is cheaper or also as a learning experience and chance to try something new?  

Primarily I changed to DV because “Scream For Me” cost so much to make on film. Also, now that I’d had the celluloid adventure I originally craved, I didn’t mind going to video. I wanted to learn Final Cut Pro anyway, and “My Skin” was a great vehicle to make me do it. Mini DV is a wonderful medium to work with, because it’s so inexpensive and so easy to manipulate.

> How much did each take to write/storyboard/rehearse/shoot/edit/transfer onto DVD? 

“Scream For Me”, from preproduction though post, took two years working nights and weekends. “My Skin” took a year and a half, also working nights and weekends.  

The lengthy time period required to finish each project was primarily due to my learning curve. For “Scream For Me” I had to teach myself how to use a 16mm flatbed editor, and also how to cut and synch production sound that had been transferred to mag film. Once the edit was locked, the mag film was instrumental as a guide track for Enzo Treppa, so he could build the master soundtrack in Pro Tools from the original DAT tapes.  

Forgive me; once again I’ve gone off on philosophical tangents.  But you soon realize that the technical side of moviemaking isn’t what making a worthwhile film is all about. The hammer doesn’t build the house, nor does the conductor build the train. Everything is important and everyone plays their part.

What proved to make most scenes in “Scream For Me” troublesome was simply that we could only afford to shoot a finite amount of film. Also, we only had a certain amount of props to exploit. For instance, there was only one TV to smash and one chance to get it right; we only had one lamp for Madman to stomp as well; and we were only able to prep two pairs of jeans for him to cut and tear from Garrott’s body. Tony’s skill and consistency from rehearsal to shooting was outstanding, and in every case where he inflicted damage on the set or a fellow actor, he always got it right the first time. In these situations Gabriel Sigal was also under pressure to maintain his character from the word go. If Tony was perfect and Gabriel wasn’t then the shot would have suffered greatly, or possibly wound up on the cutting room floor. And even if both performances were pristine, there was still the camera to contend with –– framing, focus, movement, lighting. Getting a good shot on film can often be one hell of a balancing act. Props can also be an issue: on the behind-the-scenes gag reel (on the DVD) there’s a very funny outtake of Tony trying desperately to duct tape Gabriel’s chest, but the tape just won’t cooperate. Fortunately, though, we had no shortage of duct tape.

In “My Skin” one of the most difficult shots to get was the opening on Death, as the birdman, and the contiguous pan down onto Cindy (played by Lisa Montague). It required great timing, and a bit of contortionism, on the part of DP Schwarz Nipfargen, but was executed splendidly nonetheless. Lisa as the corpse was again a thankless yet demanding role. She was literally bound with wire for hours at a time, and then during filming had to endure a bloody plastic bag over her head, with only a small hole for breathing.

The spinning shots of Death amending George’s poem were also tricky to get right. I built a special camera rig just to film that sequence –– I named the rig “The Device”, due to its crude rack-like framework, Frankensteinian control box, and the vertiginous torture it put the camera through. “The Device” required four people to operate –– two to facilitate the vertical movement (from desktop to ceiling), one to work the spin-speed control box, and one to help maintain the horizontal position of the rig over the poem and Death’s head.  Managing continuity in regard to the poem also proved to be one of the biggest headaches. We had many versions of the poem in various stages of completion on hand. This was not only necessary for multiple takes, but also to create the illusion that Tony (Death) was progressing in his writing of the amendment from start to finish, when in reality he was only scribbling little snippets and stopping; after we got what we needed from one angle, we’d move the camera to a new setup and Tony would start scribbling on another poem that was in a more advanced stage of completion. Once in the editing room and properly organized, the shots cut together with relative ease.

As an aside, the handwriting in Death’s ledger book was actually done by me, although it was supposed to be Death’s script; the amended poem, which was supposed to be George’s handwriting was actually Tony’s. Confusing to think about, but in the film it worked like a charm.

The third most difficult scene in “My Skin” involved the extended handheld shot, which begins with George answering the phone and then Death launching into his read of the full love poem, including amendment. I believe we did 14 takes of that one. It was so tough because the entire shot was about timing and rhythm, which had to be right on the money. The camera had to hit specific marks in regard to what line or word of the poem Death was reading at any given moment. I wanted the shot to emphasize, punctuate, and help tell the story that Death was relaying through his reading of the poem. Once again Tony’s skill and consistency as an actor was invaluable –– 14 takes, and very long ones at that, of any scene is daunting and utterly exhausting. Luckily most shots in the film were acquired with no more than 7 takes. That might seem indulgent, but DV is cheap, so why not take advantage. Overall, 15 camera setups and 90 shots were used to create the finished film. My greatest challenge in making “My Skin” was to keep an audience entertained by watching nothing more than one guy sitting at a desk and talking on the phone to someone we never see. I think it worked.

> It definitely did work. Although I was surprised to find you didn’t use a body double/appliance or touch up in Post to give the girls in both films an easier time. 

It never seemed financially practical to go to the expense, let alone the time, of having realistic body doubles created. In fact, I never even entertained the idea. I felt that keeping a living actor in the role at all times would maintain a higher level of realism, even if they were playing dead.

> So are you currently working on anything at the moment? A new script/Putting together a new Film?

Currently I’m focusing on the final polish of my novel, while speculating on what film project I would like to tackle next. Ideally, I would love to do another short with Tony Simmons, but I haven’t decided what direction I want to go with it –– I have several ideas taking root in the back of my mind, and hopefully one or more will start to grow soon. Also, I have a feature I’ve been hoping to shoot for quite a while, as well as a second feature I wrote with actor/writer John Franklin of “Children of the Corn” fame. In either case, investors are still needed. 

> How did you go about choosing the actors? They were all stellar. Was casting difficult? Especially for the madman role? Tony Simmons does an excellent job in both and shows and incredible range. 

Casting was a real headache. I don’t care for it myself, it just slows me down. When the ad for “Scream For Me” went out I got about 300 headshots back a week later. That was

Although I’ve enjoyed working with all of my actors, Tony Simmons has really gelled with me. He has a great look and acting talent that I love to stretch. Every time I write something new I always see him in one of the parts. I hope we can continue to work together for a long time to come. 

> How did the shoots for SCREAM FOR ME compare to MY SKIN? Was it more difficult as it involved more blocking and more direction of the actors? 

Each film was difficult in its own way. “Scream For Me” was a huge challenge simply because it was my first real attempt at filmmaking but also because I chose to shoot on film and edit on film. Celluloid is a very complicated medium to work in, and that’s why I wanted the experience. Everyone was going to digital video because it was cheaper and easier to use, but all of those folks were missing out on a world that is truly magical, although mercilessly cruel and unforgiving. If you shoot on film you’re only granted so much leeway. If a shot is bad, or you didn’t get enough footage, you can’t hit command “copy” and duplicate a frame or sequence, nor can you distort another to meet your needs –– not unless you’re loaded with cash and can afford a visual effects house to swoop in and fix your problems. With film you have to push your creativity to the limits, if only because film limits you.  In other words, making a film on film is an overwhelming exercise in fore planning, technique, sensibility and, ultimately, humility. It will teach you your true worth and it will separate the men from the boys.

“My Skin”, on the other hand, was an exercise in controlled indulgence. Having expounded the horrors and humbling curse of film, video is also controlling in its own way. Too many options and endless possibilities can cause any filmmaker to toil over a project until there’s nothing left but a whisper of their original intent. The story, the look, and the flow of a film become a product of technology, not human ingenuity, heart, or art. This is a crime and a gift. It’s a blessing to be able to save your rear end with a “click” and a “drag”, but it’s a nightmare to lose sight of the soul of your project. This nearly happened to me with “My Skin”. In the end I was able to compress time and manipulate visuals in a way I had not envisioned when writing the script (or even filming it), but I had to make a tortuous and diffident journey through technical hell to get back to my original vision. A vision that was ultimately true to my initial concept, ironically, but one that had somehow morphed into a hybrid. Had I rushed through the process, or succumbed to the awe-inspiring technology too quickly, “My Skin” would not be what it is today: the film I originally wrote, but with a poignant flare.

To more specifically answer the question asked: the blocking of the actors was definitely more challenging in “Scream For Me”, but the harnessing of the power of the digital media used to bring “My Skin” to life was more precarious, at least to the story.  And for me that can make or break a film.

> You mentioned the ‘technical hell’, did this change the films from what you originally envisioned? They looked very controlled and everything seemed very well planned. 

Everything was very well planned. But even so, it’s hard to plan for everything that could possibly go wrong. The ‘technical hell’ I went through for both films was really more about understanding the technology than being enslaved by it. It took me along time to make each movie because I had to fight my learning curve and still maintain loyalty to my original vision. When you’re in the dark abyss of post production, it can sometimes be very easy to say “OK that’s good enough”, just because you’re too tired to go on, or think you won’t ever be able to figure out how to really manipulate the overwhelming technology to your advantage. Part of the battle is simply remaining fresh when you’ve been working on the same thing over and over for weeks or months. Also, the editing process is extremely tedious and time consuming. It can be great fun, and very rewarding, but it can really wear on you sometimes. There’s always a point in every project I’ve ever worked on where I truly wonder why I ever started –– I feel like I’m trapped inside my head and will never get out again. But then suddenly one day the script is finished, the movie is done, or the book is written, and then I really don’t know what to do with myself. So I launch into another project inspired by the thrill of new ideas. 

> How did you finance the movies? Did you find it was easier to get the budget together a second time round?  

I used credit cards to finance both films. The only thing that made “My Skin” easier to budget was simply that it didn’t cost nearly as much as “Scream For Me”. Now that’s the one of the best things about DV, and that’s why my next short will also be on video.

> Have you changed the way you approached filmmaking? Was there any one occurrence/Mistake you made making MY SKIN/SCREAM FOR ME that will make you do it differently next time?

I can’t say that my approach to filmmaking has changed with the advent of either film, but I have learned some very important lessons. #1) Even if it’s not what you originally wanted, it’s better to shoot a scene anyway you can than not to shoot it at all. #2) Never underestimate the amount of coverage you will need –– when editing a film, less is not more! And #3) Always listen to your first instincts, no matter what the pressures around you try to dictate. That isn’t to say you shouldn’t listen to others and think twice –– because you most definitely should –– but you have to learn to weigh the options and remember that at the end of the day you’re still the director and, consequently, you’ll be the one blamed if your film turns out like crap. No matter whose fault it might really be.  

Sometimes you've just got to throw caution to the wind and go with your gut. If you fall flat, well...just don't let yourself fall flat. Keep flogging the film until it submits to your vision. 

> Since your positive reviews in UNRATED and on our website and the NIGHTMARE COLLECTION Release of MY SKIN, have you benefited from the recent exposure? Have you considered obtaining a producer/marketing /Distribution firm to help get the word out next time? 

In the movie business any exposure is good exposure, and there’s no such thing as bad press. My greatest aspiration is to be able to continue writing stories and making films, to do that I need an audience. Without fans and viewers my art doesn’t exist. In spite of my preoccupation with death, I have no desire to die to become renowned or infamous, notorious or noteworthy. In a word, “yes”, I have benefited from UNRATED, RUMOUR MACHINE, and NIGHTMARE COLLECTION. And I am forever grateful. If nothing else, it’s just plain nice to be noticed.  Films, books, scripts, are all attempts –– often desperate attempts –– to communicate with the outside world. If you can actually achieve this communication, then a connection has been made with an individual mind.  To actually worm into the psyche of a singular human being is really the greatest accomplishment of all. Because that means you made a difference in someone else’s life. And if you can make a difference in one person’s life then you have changed the world.

As for producers, marketing, and distribution, well...at the moment those are future projects in themselves. Right now I’m still building my resume, proving my worth, and galvanizing my vision.  Forging ahead isn’t just about conquest and commission, it’s about substance, stability, and longevity. And that’s what I want. To go to my grave as the spirit of a body of work, not just the apparition of a fleeting fancy or a pop culture infatuation.  

== Thanks for your time Chris I appreciate it.

Christopher Alan Broadstone was born in Oklahoma City, raised in Dallas, Texas, and is now a filmmaker living in Los Angeles, California. Serving as writer, director, and editor, he has produced two short films to date, "Scream For Me" and "My Skin". Also a musician, he has previously toured and recorded independent records and CDs with his bands "About Nine Times" and, in recent years, "The Judas Engine". Currently, he is in the midst of publishing his first horror novel, "Puzzleman", which will be available in October 2003. As well, he has completed two feature length screenplays, "Retard" (with actor/writer John Franklin) and "Love Me", a supernatural erotic ghost story that he is actively pursuing as his next cinematic project.

If you haven't already seen the films, You can read my review HERE, or visit the Black CAB Productions website to find out more: http://www.blackcabproductions.com/ and tell them the RUMOUR MACHINE sent ya.

If you have seen them, let him know what you thought and spread the word...

Lee