Critic Vs. Critic: A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) [1/2]

Since the start of TCWreviews.com. We’ve pride ourselves with the notion that we present to our readers with critiques built on high standards and quality writing, presenting only honesty and an unbiased moral high ground, though because we allow vast freedom of speech among our writers there’s always going to be a spin zone due to difference of opinions, and from time to time one or more critics here will voice their opinion in a completely different direction of the others. So in the sprite of outspoken voices we at TCWreviews would like to present what we hope will be the first of many editions of Critic Vs. Critic!

Tonight TCWreviews’ Editor in Chief and Chief film critic Clifford Kiyabu sits down with fellow film critic, columnist and colleague Kelsey Zukowski. In this edition of Critic Vs. Critic: we talk about Platinum Dunes remake A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) directed by Samuel Bayer.



Clifford: Much like most people who grew up watching horror films as a child I was a mega fan of the Elm Street franchise, while most kids were too afraid to watch then alone talk about these films. I was staying up late into the early morning hour watching horror icons like Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, and Pinhead. So when Platinum Dunes started remaking everything I grew up with I felt like my childhood memories were being devoured right before my very eyes (with the exception of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)) and it certainly didn’t make things any better once the announced plans for an Elm Street remake was in the works. I immediately went on the fence about it because when push comes to shove you‘re only going to take so much before you start pushing back. However, shockingly enough it didn’t turn out as bad as I’d originally thought it would, because it, in my opinion, brought to the table what the filmmakers had promised, a completely new and fresh take on a franchise which kept to the same predictable themes for more then 25 years with little new marital to work with. So as much as it pains me to say it, a reboot was in it’s own right warranted and weather you liked it or not it’s here and to stay. So what do you think Kelsey?

Kelsey: The one thing I can agree with is that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre wasn’t bad for a remake. It’s actually one of the better ones we have gotten. It held on to that gritty, intense feeling of the first. Platinum Dunes horror remakes only went downhill from there though. It seems like they have progressively gotten worse with each film. The Hitcher was watchable, but only because it was so cheesy and over the top with scenes like somehow Sophia Bush’s character kicking and jumping through the air of a bolted up police van with a mini skirt and shot gun in hand. The cheese factor wasn’t just simply the ridiculousness of this, but how much things had changed from the simplicity of the original, largely underrated film. The Friday the 13th remake would have been an okay film if it wasn’t a Friday the 13th film, because in reality it wasn’t. There was nothing that defined it as such. It could have been any other killer and could have been any other film. It was simply a forced, confused rehashing and it felt like that.

Platinum Dunes reached an entirely different level of disgrace and shameless exploiting when it came to the Nightmare on Elm Street remake. When I first heard about it, of course I was skeptical; remakes alone will give me that reaction let alone one of my all time favorite film by my favorite director and a career defining performance by Robert Englund that gave birth to my favorite villain. I try to have an open mind though and I did with this remake. As it went along my confidence was dropping until it was announced that Jackie Earle Haley would be playing Freddy. Of course I was disappointed that Englund wouldn’t be reprising the role, but I had faith in Haley. He gave a tragic and dark portrayal of a child molester in Little Children, it seemed like he could bring out the twisted shades of a child murderer just as well even if it was a different version of Freddy. Unfortunately, his talents weren’t taken advantage of the version of Freddy we were left with was downright insulting.



Clifford: I couldn’t agree with you more with how Platinum Dunes have been on a one way trip downhill with the quality of their remakes, especially with The Hitcher which I thought was mildly okay seeing that they took a simple good old fashion Thriller and tried to blow it up in proportion which was highly unnecessary and unwarranted. Simple put, there was just way too much cheese being flung around for someone to enjoy it properly (which isn‘t to say I didn‘t enjoy some part of it though) and in my opinion it felt too much like 2001’s Joy Ride then anything else, but I will give it points for Sean Bean who I thought did a great job with his performance. As far as things went with the Friday The 13th remake. I disliked it a lot, much in agreement with you on this subject, I thought everything that was presented was quite enjoyable to some extent, except for the fact that Jason Voorhees was in it. I’m a huge fan of the Friday The 13th franchise, but what made the films so magical was the darkness that surrounded his origins, it was so alluring because it never started with him, though he sure did finish it. Witnessing his own mother’s brutal demise was what made him the killer we all know and love and watching this develop so carefully on the big screen was what made the original Friday so fantastic, I feel director Marcus Nispel failed the fans as well as the character when he decided to rush the entire origins of Jason in a 2 minute credit opening which is disappointing seeing that he directed The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Now let’s get back on point before we end up dissecting Platinum Dunes in general. [Laughs]

Anyway I guess my point I’m getting at here is that I couldn’t agree with you more on the notion that Robert Englund is Freddy Krueger, and Wes Craven will always be it’s creator. But, and this is a big but, we have to face the ultimate facts here, Englund is our Freddy Krueger, he’s our generation’s Freddy just like Christopher Lee is the previous generation’s Count Dracula. We’ll always respect him for playing the original Count just as much we’ll always respect Englund as Krueger. But these are new waters we’re treading in, I mean gosh we’re at a point and time in history where something like Jersey Shore is considered Primetime Entertainment! So if something as WTF like that is passable in today’s day and age I firmly believe that Jackie Earle Haley has the chance at becoming the next generation’s Freddy, and keep in mind that while you’ll probably disagree with me here, it’s not us who’ll be the judge of this but the fans in time, remember when the original was first released in 1984, critics bashed the film, I even remember reading once that a columnist even criticized that it would be forgotten in time and yet the fans like you and me proved them wrong. So keeping that in mind I have to say what I like most about this re-imagining is that it went deeper into who Freddy was before he became the dream demon, and for once we finally get s straight forward answer on weather or not he was a child molester, I perfectly understood that is was always highly suggested in the original films, but there’s a vast difference between suggestion and straight forward acknowledgement, though I highly agree that the dialog was incredibly weak and the one-liners needed more work and the pasting got a little slow at times. So kel what are your thoughts on the re-design of Krueger’s appearance and his new glove?

Kelsey: You make a good point about the Friday remake, they really didn’t show Jason at all as the killer he was. He was a killer, that’s it. There was no real reflection on his motives or who he was and the lack of concentration on his mother took a great deal away. Jason stalks and kills teens for a certain sense of personal revenge for his death, but he has always been fueled by his mother; her actions and the mental and emotional power that she alone seemed to have over him. That being said you’re right, this is a discussion on the Nightmare on Elm Street remake, not Platinum Dunes descent in to ruining classic horror films.

As far as Freddy Krueger goes, it wasn’t just the fact that someone else was going to play Freddy. Of course it posed the question of whether anyone could possibly measure up to the staples that Englund had created. I honestly couldn’t think of one actor that would be an ideal choice, let alone someone that Platinum Dunes would actually go with. Like I said, I was pleasantly surprised when Haley was the choice. Haley was not and never will be Freddy Krueger. Robert Englund would have been a part of this, but I can even understand them wanting to go in a different direction, a younger Freddy. The writing was not there, so any actor wouldn’t have been able to bring life to this psychological gripping monster out of nothing. My point about Englund was just that he created Freddy Krueger nearly as much as Wes Craven did. I am all for a new Freddy, but I refuse to believe that this version of him has any shred of Freddy Krueger in him.

As far as the look goes, I thought it was an atrocious change. He doesn’t look menacing at all. Even the basic shape of it seems so much a much lesser version without the intensity of the red burns that had become a part of Freddy’s face. I also really didn’t like how throughout most of it they almost tried to make Freddy a victim. Even in life Freddy Krueger has always been a villain; never a victim. Was there a downward spiral towards becoming the immortal monster that we know him as? Of course, but that really wasn’t what was depicted here as it should have been if they were going to go at all in to the past. The problem was this wasn’t a re-imagining. Rob Zombie’s Halloween movies are a re-imagining. He has created an entirely new Michael Myers and I embrace that new character and respect the hell out of Zombie to be so bold to go there and bring something new to the table. It’s not an issue of not being able to let go of the original character, I can easily do that, just not when it’s so watered down and stripped of its essence that it just becomes insulting.

READ THE SECOND HALF: HERE

Review: A Prophet (2009) [Reviewed By David Deminic Dimichele]

Directed by Jacques Audiard
For want of sufficient nourishment no need to go further than director Jacques Audiard’s “A Prophet.” It is profoundly full with top notch performances, knockout direction and a musical score meant to produce the most feeling. But what becomes more of all of this is that it is a psychological film just as much as it is a crime film, whose focus is just as reliant on social and environmental issues as it is on criminal issues. There is a current raging with more and more intensity as the film goes on and Audiard sets it loose as he sheds light on the illiteracy problem occurring in France. This subtext may seem out of place in the new crime classic but it is anything but that. It takes up residence in the film and we see the whole fruition of it when we see nineteen-year-old Malik, the illiterate prisoner, more easily able to adapt to a criminal lifestyle than it is to read a children’s book in a competent and coherent manner.

“A Prophet” aggressively traverses the toughest terrains of life inside a French prison. We take this journey with Malik (Tahar Rahim), an Arab who is now old enough to find his cell time with the big guys. Serving six years for assaulting a police officer, Malik is in over his head. He has no family, no friends and no enemies. He will make them all in prison. Within the first scene we see the disparity that is overtaking his eyes as he is stripped searched, eyed by the many savages behind bars and eventually led to his confined cell. At this moment he is at a point of no return; either be an animal or be eaten by animals.

This journey we take with him is of paramount importance. It offers us a glimpse and allows us to discern the true qualities that men possess: Will Malik conform to his harsh surroundings or will he put up an effort to remain unscathed by the violent surroundings? When Malik makes acquaintances with fellow prisoner Cesar (Niels Arestrup) and his many followers Malik finds it a necessity to abide by anything Cesar says. Cesar is evil. He demands power and people are afraid of him. When he serves Malik an offer that he cannot refuse (which would offer him protection coming from Cesar) Malik is faced with a decision that will forever alter his entire life. This is Malik’s welcoming into a Hell on earth. And what is caught on camera is downright horrific, amplifying with a consummate behavior all things that are horrid, dilapidated and worthless.

The way in which Audiard expresses the notions of depravity is unglorified in every sense of the word. The elimination of such romantic qualities allows him a clear pathway to chart an unexplainable evil that all mankind innately inhabits. With vivid precision, he is directing us to see the obscenity of not only prison life but the obscenity that is boiling beneath the surface of every man. This obscenity is waiting to be summoned so it can perpetually encompass man’s demeanor. One scene in particular verifies this as Malik shows horrific behavior, firing bullet after bullet, while wearing a sinister smirk, enjoying his immersion in violence.

There is an innate violence waiting to be set free in everyone. Literature even made this an apparent fact (Heart of Darkness); In “A Prophet” Audiard makes this most clear. This is his building block. The escalation of Malik’s violence and deceitfulness only enhances Machiavelli’s discourse on power which states that man is obligated to maintain power and if he does not he will be done away with. Watching Malik’s ascension to mafia lord in a brutally honest manner is unquestionably modern cinematic realism at its zenith.

This transformation can be seen as resembling the one Michael Corleone underwent in the initial “Godfather” film. Both Michael and Malik are hesitant to embrace a life of crime; a life that will have them in its grasps their entire existence, never being able to shake it off. Once this lifestyle is attained it is near impossible to go back. Malik is a creation that grows and grows in stature, finally breaking the binds that try and contain him. And Rahim plays this man to perfection. From weakness to powerful, Rahim portrays a man who gets just one taste of some blood and finds himself lured in by the wealth and power that comes along with it. His scenes with Arestrup as Cesar are pure magic; charting an old gangster’s passing days that give rise to a fresher face.

High-Definition Picture: “A Prophet” is easily in the running for best high-definition transfer of the year. It seems to have an innate perception for things that are ghastly and things that are beautiful. This differential of imagery is the key to the transfer’s success. The wet and deteriorating prison cells are meticulously captured, engulfing the viewers into this atmosphere and leaving them there to fend for themselves. Contrasting with this imager is a following scene that finds beauty and sincerity in the works of Mother Nature. As the snow falls on the grounds of the prison recreational area there is a sense of comfort and equanimity. The transfer makes this scene resonate even more with the clarity and purity of which it is captured with. This is a Blu-Ray transfer that treats with equal care both the beauty and brutality, making each in its own distinguished way impossible to not look at.
Special Features: Commentary with director Jacques Audiard, actor Tahar Rahim and co-writer Thomas Bidegan
Deleted Scenes: SD (11mins) - Four in total that aren’t a necessity to the film’s overall narrative.
Rehearsal Footage: SD (9mins) – Three scenes of the actors doing separate shots.
Screen Tests: SD (5mins) – Tahar Rahim doing tests for five different scenes.
Trailers: HD - A stunning trailer of “A Prophet” is displayed (as well as other Sony Picture Classics films).

MOVIE: **** out of ****
PICTURE: **** out of ****
Special Features: ** out of ****
Verdict: MUST OWN

Review: Prevues From Hell [Reviewed By Kelsey Zukowski]

Prevues From Hell is a collection of classic horror trailers that are funny, exploitative, and gory. The DVD is hosted by ventriloquist, Nick Pawlow, and his zombie doll, “Happy”. The trailers are from Mad Ron’s collection, who is now chained up and fizzing at the mouth. In between trailers we get cheesy jokes and gags between the two. Half the time they’re not actually funny, but they’re goofy and good natured. Plus, the over the top angle works and it’s clear that they’re in on the joke too.

We are shown horror favorites like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Last House on the Left, and Night of the Living Dead. The Last House on the Left’s trailer brings up the advertising campaign that ended up working wonders. In the trailer over and over again we hear, “To avoid fainting keep repeating, it’s only a movie, it’s only a movie, it’s only a movie…”. Scaring the audiences in to watching worked, but it was also a nod to Hershell Gordon Lewis’ Color Me Blood Red, which plays immediately following The Last House on the Left trailer, claiming it’s a motion picture which you dare not get too involved.

A common theme with the vast majority of the trailers are how completely horrifying and repulsive they are, warning the viewers to leave the theater. The Undertaker and his Pals claim it’s a vicious part of the young, sick generation and if you don’t like scalpel stabbing or ax murdering you should leave. A very similar warning plays before The Wizard of Gore trailer; pausing it to warn those with heart conditions and impressionable young children.

There are also a number that are heavy on the sexploitation mixing with the gore. One of these is Lady Frankenstein. My favorite part of the trailer is how they make out her unreasonable sexual desires being far too strong for any man. Not only that no man could possibly please her, but that they paralyzed by her “strange cravings”. The only creature that can meet these desires is her own creation. The nazisploitation film, Ilsa: She Wolf of the S.S., was another great trailer with the perfect serving of horror both in the form of torture and sex. They blended together to become one; once Ilsa seduced someone they never lived to tell about it. ”Out of all the butchers in the Third Reich none was as brutal as Ilsa, even the S.S. feared her”.

Prevues From Hell doesn’t focus on one type of horror film too much. There are a few popular horror trailers that are more mainstream, or have become so since their original releases. There are bloody B movie trailers, exploitative trailers of many different bizarre sub-genres of horror, and even lesser known obscure trailers. They all have a similar style of being sleazy, horrid, and better not to be viewed in the first place, often encouraging the viewer further.

Exclusive Interview with Director David C. Snyder

Administrator and Editor in chief Clifford Kiyabu sits down with Writer/Director of The Quiet Arrangement, David C. Snyder, for an exclusive interview! There’s something to be said about the hard work a filmmaker puts into making a movie, from the harsh hours of planning, to making sure everything’s in order for pre and post- filming on each and every scene, the stress that comes with this line of work can sometime be overwhelming for some. No matter how big or small a movie project may be, not many moviegoers realize how much hard work and effort is put into each and every film. Today I sit down with a filmmaker who’ll explain the hard work that’s put into making a movie.

CK: First off, I’d like to thank you for taking the time for doing this interview with me on TCWreviews.com.

DS: My pleasure! Thanks for having me!

CK: Before we go into talking about your film, I think it’s important that my readers get the chance to learn a little about the person I’m interviewing. So tell us a little bit about yourself, David.

DS: Well, I found myself fascinated by film at an early age. I remember my parents taking me to the drive-in (late 70's, early 80's) and then finally to a movie theatre (I could be wrong, but the first film I remember seeing in the theatre was Conan The Barbarian!). I had two younger brothers, so I can only imagine that my parents didn't have a whole lot of options as to what to do with us while trying to get out of the house. So we saw a lot of films as kids.

In 1984 we got cable for the first time, including HBO. Then we got our first VCR (a top-loading Panasonic) and we would record movies and music videos from the good ol' days of MTV. In 1985 my Mom and Dad bought a video camera, and, once I was able to convince them to let me use it unattended, everything changed. My brothers and I took our years of role playing different adventures to the small screen and we made at least 100 different short films over the next two summers. Most of them were terrible, but there would be a flash of inspiration here and there.

What also helped us was the involvement of a neighborhood friend of mine, Don Haring. Don was a year older than me and was one of the most talented artists I had ever met. He also had a great eye for picking up on composition and framing, so when he would come around and direct our films, they turned out noticeably better. We weren't doing any editing of any kind at this point, so it was all in camera.

When I was a kid, I thought I was going to be an architect, because I was good at drawing designs. I thought of film as some sort of magical thing, not as an actual profession, so it never occurred to me that I could get a job doing what I really loved. As I started to watch different films and really pay attention to the details, I started to understand the process of filmmaking better.

In 1990 I did a film project in my French class for extra credit. My teacher, Florence Kairys, knew I was into film and she was really fascinated by that. I think she also saw some potential in me and she took an interest in what I was doing. She was a true Renaissance lady and was also really interested in Napoleon. So my extra credit project was a 45 minute film about the Napoleon's downfall and last days. It's a bunch of kids in crappy costumes shot at my house, but I think it finally convinced my parents that I should really go after filmmaking.

I went to film school at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio for a year and a half and then I ran out of money. But I learned some things about production and theory and I met some great people that I'm still in contact with today. I continued to make stupid short films and one of them, Rogue Cop, became a bit of an underground sensation in North Eastern Ohio. People started trading tapes of it and sometimes my friends, who were the actors in the film, would be recognized by total strangers. It was all a bit surreal.

I'm also a music producer and Hip-hop musician and in 1999 I met Chuck D of Public Enemy. We became fast friends and I began doing music for his new internet label, SLAMjamz. In 2003 he saw a video I directed and another artist on the label, Kyle Jason, asked me if I would do a couple of videos for him. That was how Kyle and I started working together.

Eventually I became the head of the video department for SLAMjamz and I've been the director of all of Public Enemy's videos since 2005. I've also gotten to work with some Hip-hop legends like MC Lyte and D.M.C. I've also done a couple of solo videos for Flavor Flav, which is surreal in it's own right!

CK: I understand you also wrote the screenplay to TQA (The Quiet Arrangement). What was the inspiration behind it’s conception?

DS: A couple years back I wrote a screenplay called The North Woods that I wanted to get into production. However, I didn't prep it well enough and it all fell apart. But I had done casting for it and I needed to get something going.

I was lying in bed one night and I was trying to think of a new story to write. I was thinking in broad strokes and I thought about doing a kidnapping film. But then I thought about Fargo and how the Coen brothers had done it so well. But then I thought about doing a film where the woman who is kidnapped might not actually want to be rescued by her husband. That was intriguing to me, so I started working out the details.

I also decided that I wanted to use some of the actors that I had already cast in The North Woods and that I would write characters specifically for them. Of those actors, I only used two: Kyle Jason and Rob Stone. I also decided that it would be easier to shoot the film if I divided it up into
Chapters that focused on four of the main characters. That way I could treat each chapter like a short film and not have to have all the actors around all the time. This proved to be more of a challenge than I initially thought, but it also gave me the unique structure of the screenplay.

CK: I found it to be quite interesting that every character has their own story to tell with it’s own set of problems, which helps set the tone of the film as well as a link of events which connects them in one way or another. What does this say about the world in which you’ve created in this film?

DS: Well, I wanted to treat the situations and the characters as "realistically" as I could. There's humor in the film, but it doesn't come pre-packaged in the form of the funny sidekick. I also wanted to use certain Hollywood conventions and turn other ones on their heads. In that respect, the film would seem familiar and fresh at the same time. I'm not sure if it totally worked or not, but I think that it did for a lot of people.

CK: Actually, it worked out pretty well from my point of view as both a critic and a spectator. In my honest opinion, and I mean this as a Compliment; my first reaction while viewing the film was the overwhelming feeling of familiarity, and yet there was something I‘ve never seen. in short it felt like something out of a Tarantino film, which believe me is a good thing.

DS: We have gotten the obvious Tarantino comparisons, if only because the structure of the film plays with time as his films usually do. I think it's a shorthand description so that people kind of get what you're talking about, but other than that, and the fact that it's a genre film, it really doesn't resemble a Tarantino film at all.

CK: Interestingly enough, the first rule moviegoers should keep in mind when going into TQA, is you shouldn’t be too hasty to judge a book by it’s cover, because while certain characters are at first presented with vilifying qualities to them in one point of view, we giving a much different take that show depth to who they are on the inside rather than what we’ve perceived on the outside in the next segment. Why is that?

DS: That was a very conscious decision on my part, early on, so as not to give away certain details. The film unfolds itself in a way so that the audience gets specific information at very specific times. It's also meant to put the idea out there that "anything goes," so don't get too comfortable with any of these characters, because they all have something going on and it may not be what you think it is.

CK: one of the biggest attributes that caught my eye with the film was the stunning visuals and how it guide it’s viewers into focus on specifics areas of the film. What was the cinematography like and what form of cameras were used on the film?

DS: We shot the film with the Panasonic DVX-100A. It's a great little camera that achieves terrific results and, when used correctly, looks more like film than video. I had been using it for 4 years prior to making the film, so I was very comfortable with what it could do and I had a pretty good idea of what I would be able to achieve in post.

Cinematography is extremely important to me as a filmmaker as it can obviously be used to great effect. I take a lot of care and interest in the look of the film, in camera placement, composition, lighting, and color because it can quickly set up an environment and immediately let the audience know where they are and what might be happening in terms of mood and ambiance. I'm also a big fan of using the camera in interesting ways to tell a story, so I try to push myself all the time in giving the audience a new way to look at things.

I began The Quiet Arrangement with a basic set of visual rules: very little use of wide angle lenses, a lot of hand held, Cinema-Verite style camera work, and a different color palate for each chapter.

CK: What was the filming like for the cast and crew and how long did filming take place?

DS: We started shooting on January 6, 2009 in the middle of an ice-rain storm. The first thing we shot was Sharon Brigg's abduction from the motel. At first I thought we were cursed, because it was so cold and wet, but it turned out to be a blessing in disguise, because it set the whole visual tone of the film. It wouldn't be the same picture if it was all in bright sunlight.

From there, we shot periodically over the next 5 months. We had to wait on the weather and we hoped for gray days where it looked like it was about to rain. As the weather got warmer, it was easier to shoot, but things became difficult when we were trying to get shots outside in early May and there were leaves on the trees.

Because it was broken up, it was a fairly easy shoot. Kyle Jason lives in New York, so we brought him out twice and had to grab his stuff in a total of 5 days. But we even managed to get some reshoots in, so it wasn't bad at all.

CK: Did you encounter any problems while filming?

DS: Of course. The first two days of shooting, in January, were really cold days. And, right when we got to the set of the safe house, we discovered that the furnace didn't work. So we had to buy space heaters and try to warm up the rooms we were shooting in.

CK: Where did most of the filming take place and what was the reason behind those locations?

DS: We shot in and around the Pittsburgh, PA area, as well as shots in Youngstown, Canton, and Cleveland, Ohio. It was really all about ease and convenience. Most of the actors were from the area and we relied on a lot of favors from people donating locations and time to the production.

CK: What was the most difficult scene to shoot?

DS: Logistics wise, the scenes where the drop takes place in the field, if only because you see what happens there from three different perspectives, and you have to keep that all in mind when you're shooting it. You have to get a shot of something from one angle, for Chapter 1, let's say...and then you have to do it all again, from a completely different angle, for Chapter 3. It's the same event, but it might have to convey a different feeling. So that was a bit of a challenge.

CK: I’ve learned after watching the documentary on how the film was made that you and the crew took some big risks while filming in certain locations. What was that like?

DS: I'm used to guerrilla filmmaking, as I've been doing it in music videos for years. But sometimes the script would require an important detail and we had to come up with some extremely creative ways to get shots. We were extremely lucky in the few instances where we didn't exactly have permission to be shooting in certain locations.

CK: It’s been awhile since I’ve seen the original cut, but from what I can tell by watching the director’s cut is that the film in general felt more polished than it did from my last experience with TQA. What was the reason for going back and re-cutting the film, and what were the scenes in particular that were edited?

DS: I was talking to another filmmaker that I know, Lathan Hodge, and we were discussing documentary filmmaking. Lathan said to me that when you make a film you end up writing it three times: the first time is the screenplay, the second time during shooting, and the third time during editing. After he said that I realized that I only wrote the film twice in that original cut. When I edited the film the first time, I went back to the script and cut the film to that. After really thinking about it, and some comments that I had gotten about the picture, I decided to go back and really look at it again. That's when I rewrote the film for the third time in editing. At first, I actually took too much out, but then I think I was able to find a balance that worked for the benefit of the picture.

Luckily, this being a completely independent production, I had that luxury to do so.

CK: Without giving any spoilers away, I wanted to say that the way the film pans out set the stage for a possible continuation further on down the line, is that by any chance in the cards for you someday?

DS: I never thought about a sequel when I wrote it or shot it, but I joked afterward about the possibility of two of the characters running into each other down the line and teaming up for some kind of adventure. It's in the back of my mind, so I won't ever discount it...but at the moment I have some other stories to tell.

CK: Looking back at the hard work done in making TQA, is there anything you’ve learned from making this film that you’ll take with you to you’re next project?

DS: Always! Preparation is the key thing. You can't prepare for everything, but if you do as much as humanly possible then you'll be ahead of the curve. Also, if you cast right, everything is easier in the long run. That's the most important part of making a film: casting. Even if the script needs work, you can sometimes get away with it if the cast is right.

CK: What does your family think of TQA?

DS: Ha! Good question! Mom and Dad thought it was good, as did my brother Phil. My Mother told me that I had to be a little more family friendly for the next film...I told her the next film will probably be worse! My brother Jeff, for whatever reason, hated the picture. He gave me his reasons why, and they were just personal opinions really, so I can't take those comments for anything other than what they are. Oh, well. My Aunt was really impressed, as was her husband(Joe Lane, who plays Carter Booth) and I'm glad that the cast and crew are very proud of the work. My cousin Ralph and his wife thought it was great, too...so the family seems to dig it overall.

CK: This next question I’m about to ask you has become somewhat of a tradition for interviews here at TCWreviews.com, so don’t worry, you’re definitely not the first one I’ve asked this question to, and you won’t be the last. [Laughs]

DS: …

CK: The term ‘For The Sake of Art’ have always been coined in the entertainment industry for how far an actor/actress or filmmaker would be willing to go for the sake of art. So my question to you is; How far are you willing to go for the sake of art in this industry?

DS: Wow...does one really know? In art, I think, you have to pick and choose your battles carefully. You don't want to fight a losing battle for something that will ultimately get you nowhere, but, at the same time, you have to stand up for what you feel is right. And that is difficult in it's own right, because art comes from creation, inspiration, collaboration, and feeling...and feelings can change from one day to the next.

If I really believe in something that is worth fighting for, I'll do it. I'll be there in the battle, trying to get it done. There were days on The Quiet Arrangement where it would've been a whole lot easier to compromise and cheat, but then it would be compromising and cheating the integrity of the film, and you don't want to do that. If you believe in a project enough to start it and fight for it, then you owe it to yourself and your people to do it right.

CK: Last question, now that TQA is making it’s round on the independent film circuits. What do you have in store for you next, is there another project in the works?

DS: As to not get pigeonholed into any one thing, we actually have 3 or 4 new films in the works. They're all in the planning stages right now, and some require more financing and preparation than others, but that's the point. That way, in case the more expensive project falls flat on funding, we can go to one of the cheaper projects and knock it out, much like we did with TQA. Once you start this journey you don't want to lose momentum, and unfortunately for my team and I, we've lost a little bit. However, some things have presented themselves that will be more beneficial in the long run, new alliances and ideas, so the outlook now is better than it ever was.

It's going to be an interesting trip, and we really want to tell stories and entertain people, so we'll keep on doing our very best to get the word out and move forward. It would be a sin to do otherwise.

CK: Well thanks for chatting with us about the film and yourself, David. We certainly look forward to hearing from you again and would like to invite you to come back and do this again someday in the near future.

DS: Thank you, Clifford! Any time. It was my sincerest pleasure.

And that concludes my interview with Writer/Director David C. Snyder. We chatted for a while longer off the record and talked about possibly returning for a second interview in the near future. As a film critic, I communicate with quite the amount of independent filmmakers, and so rarely do I find a filmmaker interesting enough to actually interview, so believe me when a filmmaker is being interviewed by the likes of me it’s either because I think that their work is fantastic or simply unique from the general group. Luckily for Mr. Snyder his work on The Quiet Arrangement proved to be both entertaining and thought provoking, and stands as a prime example to his creativity as a filmmaker who I believe will make some marks, no doubt. The trailer to The Quiet Arrangement can be viewed on it’s official website and more info on the film can be found on it’s Facebook and MySpace page be sure to follow David on Twitter.

Kirsten Vangsness of "Criminal Minds" makes an appearance on "Vampire Mob"

Kirsten Vangsness of Criminal Minds makes an appearance on episode 2 of Vampire Mob, a crime-comedy vampire web series about a vampire hitman who’s stuck with his mother-in-law living with his wife and him for eternity. Vangness plays Laura, one of the daughters of the mother-in-law (played by The Simpsons Marcia Wallace).

In this episode entitled, “You Can’t Choose Your Family”, the most recent episode of the series that can now be viewed only at VampireMob.com, things get heated as the debate of what to do with mom arises.


The cast includes Chris Mulkey (Twin Peaks and Boardwalk Empire), Elizabeth Beckwith (Curb Your Enthusiasm), Andrea Cansler (The Groundlings Sunday Program), and Cris D’Annunzio (Chasing 3000). The show was created by award-winning filmmaker and comedian, Joe Wilson.

There isn’t a vicious or tragic story behind the family’s vampirism. Hitman vampire, Don, simply turned his wife even though he never planned to because ”he got hungry”. He didn’t turn himself for power, strength, or immortality, but mostly just because it suited his nocturnal life style and made it a bit easier to do his work. The immortal strength certainly didn’t hurt when every day used to be a life or death situation for him. Things got a bit more complicated when Don’s wife decided to turn her sick, dying mother; unable to watch life drain from her.

Vampire Mob has a different way of releasing its webisodes; it’s based on audience views. The next webisode is only available when the previous one gets 5,000 viewers or more. This is how the rest of the initial 6 episodes will be released through VampireMob.com. Updates to let viewers know when the next episode has premiered are available through Twitter And Facebook .