Way back in January, a good number of web journalists ventured onto the set of the upcoming horror film from Lakeshore Entertainment and Screen Gems entitled “The Exorcism of Emily Rose”, scheduled for release this September. It stars an acclaimed cast of character actors, including Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, Campbell Scott, Shohreh Aghdashloo and Colm Feore and features newcomer Jennifer Carpenter as Emily Rose. Written by screenwriting team Scott Derrickson and Paul Harris Boardman, it is actually Derrickson’s directorial debut.

The plot of the film is as follows: In an extremely rare decision, the Catholic Church officially recognized the demonic possession of a 19-year-old college freshman. Told in flashbacks, the movie chronicles the haunting trial of the priest accused of negligence resulting in the death of the young girl believed to be possessed. Inspired by true events, Linney plays the lawyer defending the priest, played by Wilkinson, who performed the controversial exorcism.

We arrived onto the studio set of the movie, which held the hand-painted sets for both the courtroom and the barn where the exorcism takes place. With a $20 million budget and a 40 day shoot, the film is relatively inexpensive. But the rustic-looking barn and stylistic courtroom you would think it had the budget of a $60 million courtroom thriller. We find out that the courtroom portion of the movie will indeed be half the story. The other half will be all horror. Calling it a new-age “Rosemary’s Baby”, Boardman tells us they are trying to rely less on special effects, and more on live-action thrills, just like the days of old.

The following is the press conference that took place. Enjoy:

Where and when does this take place?

PHB: Okay. Um, we are, we are actually trying to get the, the setting for the movie to feel a little bit timeless. Um, I think when we did the production design we sort of thought if it could feel like any time from say the seventies, maybe late seventies, to virtually the present. Um, you might notice in the film there won't be people on cell phones. There won't be things that particularly date it to right now. And even in terms of the, the kind of fashions we used, the, the settings, the, the, um, physical locations, the way things were art directed in the rooms, we tried to keep it a little bit timeless like that so that it would cover that kind of period, um, encompass it a little bit, and that was partly because we did not want the film to feel like a, you know, contemporary updating of this story that was from the past, or an attempt to completely set it in the time period when the Anneliese story occurred, the, the actual case. Um, in terms of how much we used, you know, we certainly read all the material we could on that case, and we, we optioned the rights to the-- an underlying book that was, that, that had been written to cover the ma-- you know, the case as it occurred. Uh, the only book we knew of about it really. Um, but then we’ve fictionalized it quite a bit, so, um, I would say that a lot of the incidents in our movie are very different, but they are very true to the kinds of things that happened to her, uh, and the way the court case unfolded similarly there's a lot of dramatic license in our story to fit the story we were telling and make it more effective. But certainly, you know, and people can always look that up later on their own if they want to compare it, it might be an interesting thing to do and see what in the actual case occurred and, uh, what incidents we kind of changed for dramatic purposes.

Can you tell us who the girl was…?

PHB: Do I have any limitations on this? I mean you g-- you guys know the person, right? that the case is based on. That's okay, right?

I think what we need to do is say that this story is inspired by the story of the young woman whose name was Anneliese Michel.

PHB: Right, and you probably all mostly know that. So yeah, it was the-- this girl Anneliese Michel. Um, it was her story that we, uh… The question again specifically was who, who she was?

Who she was and the particulars of the case.

PHB: Um, yeah, I mean the-- in broad strokes the case was a, a story of a girl who, um, became afflicted with what may have been mental illness, may have been demonic possession depending on your point of view. And then there was a court case that came out of it when her treatment ended the way it did, um, where some priests were put on trial. Um, that's sort of the basic structure of our movie too, and that's-- And then, like I said, individual inci--incidents and individual details of our plot are sometimes somewhat parallel, but we felt free to change them because we were just inspired by that story.

Brad’s question is how much time is spent in the courtroom and how much time is spent with the flashbacks?

PHB: Yeah, without having edited it yet I, I'd say based on the screenplay and what it feels like, um, it's fairly evenly divided. I think there's probably a little bit less courtroom time then there is time for everything else, obviously, um, ‘cause there are scenes that have-- I mean the courtroom might be a little over a third of the movie or something like that, but there are also scenes that are not flashback or scenes from the courtroom. There are scenes in Erin, the lead attorney's, life that happen in the present of the story as well. So it's, you know, it's a reasonable amount of time in the courtroom, comparable to a lot of courtroom movies actually, even though we have a whole other horror movie folded into it as opposed to just the lives of lawyers drinking and talking about the case and all that sort of thing.

What is being done to set this film apart from any other film with exorcism as a theme?

PHB: Well one big thing that sets it apart is what we're already touching on, which is this is sort of a hybrid of a, a courtroom drama and an exorcism movie, uh, supernatural story, and it really does try to serve both of those things, uh, and fold them together, weave them together in an interesting way and make the two very interrelated in terms of how one unfolds the mystery of one thing unfolding very much pertaining to what's happening in the, the present and in the courtroom attorney's life and the courtroom story. So that's very different. And then also in our depiction of the exorcisms themselves. I think some movies, you know, people talk about THE EXORCIST for example and say “Oh, spinning head and pea soup and all that,” but there were a lot of very realistic things in THE EXORCIST, and, and Scott and I both love that film. It's definitely a film we really enjoy even now. Um, but I do think that some of those things then that the film-- you know, and a lot of the depiction of how they do exorcisms and like the medical treatment the girl went through in that film was all very harrowing and it felt very real. Um, a lot of the films since then have kind of gone away from a more realistic approach and gone into these more Armaged--Armageddon type things, you know, where the devil is, you know, blowing things up and all that. We definitely wanted to go back to something closer to that, and then even take it a little further in terms of realism by studying tapes and things of actual exorcisms and try to make our depiction of it stay very close to what at least has been perceived and recorded. You know, whether you believe it's exorcism or not, or possession or not, I should say, that kind of things that she does fit into what we’ve really observed and studied. We, um, we haven't really felt constrained. It's, it’s been a, you know, I think the studios love PG-13 movies right now. Um, it's a bigger audience and, and they've seen that you can make PG-13 scary films that actually draw the whole audience, um, because I think that, you know, THE SIXTH SENSE and all these films that, that were scary and effective without being a gory type horror movie. Nothing against DEAD ALIVE and those movies. That's a different kind of movie. So we have had a lot of discussions with the studio. Ultimately they did not make us feel constrained. They let us, you know, go into this knowing that it could be R, it could be PG. Make the movie you want to make, um, you can always edit the movie as well. But I think we've kept in the back of our mind that it-- certainly we want the possibility of it being PG-13. If the content is too intense and, you know, it ends up being that way then we’ll -- it'll be R.

Did you have any concerns about using the title Emily Rose since it’s close to Audrey Rose?

PHB: Um, that was something that we did-- it did cross our minds. Um, the, the studio head really liked the name Emily Rose, and there was a-- they, there's a process they go through with legal, basically, where the studio submits a name and the other studios who have the rights to those books or whatever can challenge it. So on that level it did pass muster and it was okay. Um, you know, you, you always wonder a little bit -- I mean ROSEMARY'S BABY too. You know, there's rose in the name of various movies. Is that good or bad? Will that evoke good feelings about those movies that make them want to see this? I don't know. But ultimately I think this movie will feel so different from those movies that that'll pass, you know, pretty quickly. It was considered. Yeah.

To paraphrase we have an A-list cast and how does that change the movie and how did we get that cast?

PHB: Um, yeah. Well, um, it, it didn't change the movie in terms of the, uh, the script. We, we kind of tried to write a movie that, that, um, would deliver the scariness, but also have this thematic depth to it and some, some characters that were layered we hoped and everything. What was really gratifying was that actors of that caliber and actors with that kind of background responded to the script with a lot of interest and wanted to do it, um, and that the studio supported that. The studio supported the idea of making this not a, a genre film in a very narrow sense that we just gotta do everything about it, make it fit the genre, you know, and, and cast it that way and spend that kind of money on cast. You know, look for that audience only. I think they know that the horror audience, um, is-- can be a very sophisticated audience that can like a lot of different films. There are a lot of people that like DEAD ALIVE and they like, uh, you know, maybe they might go see CHUCKY and they also love to go to, you know, um, repertory theaters and see ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE OMEN and films from the seventies and Dario O-gen-to films and, you know, all sorts of films. And so that's a smart sophisticated audience and I think we were very happy to see that the actors responded and that was supported to go for that kind of cast. So it's helped us make the movie we kind of dreamed of making, I believe.

Does this film use a lot of special effects?

PHB: It's, uh, it's interesting, you know. We, we tried to write it again with that realism-based idea. We wanted to use them spar-- no, I wouldn't say sparingly, but subtlety and selectively in terms of special effects. Um, and, you know, we hoped we'd be able to do that. I think the casting of Jennifer Carpenter helped us in that a lot because she, as you will see...

the movie we wanted to make in terms of use of special effects ‘cause she can do so much with her body and her face and her voice, um, it kind of changed the paradigm a little bit for the visual effects people, and they just said “Once we saw her audition we all decided that, you know, we just wanted to stay out of her way.” Um, obviously they're doing more than that and, and there will be effects through it, both visual effects and special effects like the old-fashioned kind that are-- we use and have a lot of fun using. They're very effective too. Um, and I think keeping it more real like that and then having those little things just to enhance certain things that are there for this kind of movie makes it scarier because it doesn't take you outside the, the reality and make you think “Oh, gee, look, that's a cool effect.” You don't ever -- we hope -- have that kind of moment while you're watching this.

Given the obvious comparisons you’re going to have with THE EXORCIST…

PHB: Yeah, I mean well maybe not the same horror f-- gut feeling they have from THE EXORCIST, but yes, I do think-- I mean one thing people might wonder about this film is it more about the ideas behind this and the court case and the themes and, you know, more cerebral. Um, the, you know, a good half of the movie is the experience that Emily has, and we really did try to shoot these exorcisms -- that's another thing -- kind of getting back to the question before, it's different also in the approach that we had to the exorcism sequences, the way they're shot, where they're set and staged. Not just the exorcisms, but all the demonic, you know, manifestations in the movie. Um, it should feel different from what people have seen and from what-- I, I've seen most of it all cut together now, and it's very visceral and very, uh, very frightening. And I think because her performance again is so good she's very empathetic, even as she's going through these horrific experiences, and so you, you know, you feel for her. You're in there with her, I think, and that makes it terrifying.

She’s very humanized.

PHB: Very humanized, yeah. And, and so you, you're attached to her and you watch her go through this and it's wrenching to watch a lot of it.

Did you consult church representatives or mental health professionals to try to nail the realism and verisimilitude of the story?

PHB: Yeah, the question is, uh, did we consult, uh, church representatives or, or mental health professionals or whatever as we were trying to get the realism here, verisimilitude to this story. We did. I mean we, um, we did a lot of reading. Scott's wife works in the health profession and we talked to people that she knew and other people we knew about it. Read a lot of abnormal psychology things. Um, we had a priest who came in to consult with us, um, and with, uh, Tom Wilkinson about-- we had some meetings with him to-together with Scott, myself and Tom, and just to talk about what would the real props be that he would have? Um, you know, how would he use them? What would a priest do or not do? You know, obviously you take all that in and then you look at the scenes and you see if there's certain adjustments you might need to make for dramatic purposes. But we tried to be very cognizant of all of that and do our homework and help the actors to do theirs, so that Tom particularly could feel comfortable being this guy, uh, going into this. One interesting thing too and I don't think it gives too much away is, is he's not the exorcism expert that, you know, that, uh, Max Von Sydow was in THE EXORCIST for example, who comes in, who's kind of this is-- he's got this long history with this. This guy is doing an exorcism for the first time, and so that was also something we really wanted to talk to that priest about and Tom wanted to get a handle on that of if this is new to him, he's a-- he might be a priest, a parish priest who's been a priest for a long time, but he's never done an exorcism -- hardly any Catholic priests have. What would that be like? And how would, you know, and we wrote it that way in the script that he goes through that experience trying to find out what to do as he does it. And, uh, I think he played that very well.

Any help from church representatives or mental health professionals to try to nail the realism and verisimilitude of the story?

PHB: The question is about, um, various news accounts of, of-- I mean current exorcisms and exorcisms that end tragically, the one maybe of an epileptic person. Um, I, I seem to recall that one and I also recall the one where someone was smothered during a particular kind of laying on of hands they do where they cover them up with blankets and try to squeeze the demon out or sweat the demon out or whatever. Yeah, you know, those things come up and we've read all those. I think that the epileptic connection, um, was in the underlying case and is also an ancient thing, you know, like that's back in the olden days people probably who were epileptic or had that type of mental illness were often said to be possessed by the devil, and that all plays right into the background of this kind of story because it's, you know, if, if, if possession isn't real, that kind of looks like a horrible thing, and look at it-- it's medieval to say that people like that are, are possessed when they're just crazy and they don't get the treatment they should -- unless possession could really be real in which case it becomes a matter of which time is it really possession and which time is it these other things? -- and this case kind of turned on a lot of that and people's perspective on that. Um, but yeah, we, we've been reading those all along as well and kind of-- it factors into the back of your mind as you work on it.

How important was it for you to take a realistic and serious dramatic approach to the subject matter?

PHB: Um, a question about the realistic approach, I guess, and maybe a serious dramatic approach to the subject. Um, yeah, we felt like the subject matter merited that, you know. Obviously several -- even THE EXORCIST was based on a true story, um, and that-- and they took that pretty seriously, I think. It wasn’t a completely exploitative kind of film, um, again despite how some people remember some of the more lurid things about it. I think we felt like because of the, the court case, the themes involved in-- and as we talked about it, um, that it merited that approach and we felt like that also would give this movie something to say, uh, that would be different and we could come at it in an intelligent way and give a broader audience a chance to deal with this, um, and reach out to a bigger audience. I think the audience for this movie should range, um, from people who-- a younger audience that might go to horror films maybe more for the, you know, the ride, the thrills of it. Although I hate to underestimate those audiences ‘cause I just-- I still think the fifteen year old precocious horror film fan who's very bright is also going to think about some of these other themes, even if he's mainly talking to his friends about how cool that was when, you know, this thing happened. I mean it's all everybody starts thinking about these things, so we don't think that's an audience we don't want. But I think the audience for this could -- because of the, the kind of movie it is and then the cast we brought -- we hope that it'll also reach out to people who are just the, you know, thoughtful filmgoer in their twenties/thirties, you know, or older if those people go to the movies, whenever they rent it or whatever. Whatever that audience can be, um, because I do think if they can handle the intense visceral scary stuff then there's enough drama in it that a wide variety of people should enjoy it. The only thing I can think of is that some of them will be scared away because I certainly have some relatives who won't see a movie that's this scary, and they'll be like “Oh, I’d love to see it, but I can't watch that, you know.”

How is RASHOMON in your film in terms of the splits between the flashbacks and the present?

PHB: A question about the RASHOMON aspects of it and, and the, the split between the flashbacks and that sort of thing. Um, you know, those things, if you're thinking about RASHOMON that's really based on a court case. That’s once they start, you know, going to these men giving their testimony that you really go into the flashbacks, and in that sense our film is structured that way as well. So once-- the court case starts pretty early and runs throughout the film, um, so once it gets going, which is in the first act, then we start interweaving, interlacing the past and the present for the rest of the way, and we just try to balance it. It was a very tricky thing to do too in the writing and in the filmmaking has been to do justice to both of those stories and then weave it together in a way that's balanced and, and builds tension in both as you go through both the past story and the present story, and how they're connected. So...

Did the true story basis have any effect on what the film is trying to say in terms of assumptions about the reality of the supernatural or not?

PHB: Um, the question I guess about whether the true story basis has any effect on what the film is trying to say in terms of assumptions about the reality of the supernatural or not, and also just that in a general sense what are the movie's assumptions about that? Um, the-- in the true story I think it was, you know, people had enough ambivalent responses to it that that really wouldn’t have had an effect in the-- ex-except just in the sense that because the true story had both arguments made so coherently that we wanted to do that as well, but that appealed to us anyway. And our idea in the film is definitely not to, um, make any presu— pre-previous assumptions about the validity of, uh, possession or the, you know, or the lack of that and the fact that it's always mental illness or it's always, you know, that they should have just done a medical approach. We want the movie to really have both of those things articulated very well and shown very, very well in the film and, and compellingly so that the audience will walk away and make their own decisions. Uh, we just want to get people thinking about it and, uh, and create discussion about it and also just people examining, you know, the world like a movie like that might make you do. You go out and look around and see if maybe there's magic in the world -- something in the world that I'm not always aware of or could be there and, and it's a provocative thing to think about. Something beyond what we always pay attention to.

Is there a lot of striking imagery in the film?

PHB: Um, I hope that there is a lot of, uh, really interesting imagery in the film. It's definitely, um, you know, Scott and I have a very eclectic interest in film and I think I was talking about earlier that, you know, sixty/seventies European film and, and more recent European film as well as all sorts of horror films. I, I-- we don't feel like it's mutually exclusive to have kind of a European drive-in movie as we've called it or a, you know, art house horror film or whatever you want to be, because there's a lot of vis-- the visual opportunity in horror films, um, with metaphors becoming, uh, coming to life in a sense and being able to deal with these things so directly is, is great, and so we wanted to really explore that. So yeah, you'll see influences that probably feel pretty eclectic and from a number of filmmakers that you might not necessarily associate with the genre, or you might. You know, uh, th-they're both in there as well as, you know, we looked at a lot of art and, and like you always do when you're thinking about a film like this, you know, paintings and, and various things.

How close to the true story is the time span of the film?

PHB: This film, I mean, compresses the experience, her whole experience, into a much shorter period of time than in the, in the underlying case which, you know, took place over many years, like you said. For dramatic purposes I mean it's a-- we made it, um, and some people do have much more intense and faster on-set experiences of these sorts of things, both in the Catholic tradition and in other countries where they have these sort of ecstatic experiences and transported like this. So we felt that was valid, but also dramatically it was a lot more effective to do that.

Have you found a composer yet, or have you picked a particular musical style?

PHB: We, uh, in terms of composers we have not found one yet. Um, we have, you know, gotten tapes from people and, and resumes and had some discussions, but it's, it’s pretty premature ‘cause I know that the last time Scott and I talked about it it's-- he's still got a lot of ideas and we have ideas that we've talked about and it's, it’s been a little bit put aside now until we finish ‘cause we're so close. Um, that'll be probably one of the biggest things we jump into as soon as we wrap, is thinking about the composer. And we agree a hundred percent that it's hugely important. Sound and music are things we're really interested in, in using, uh, to the fullest in the film.

What message do you want the audience to walk away with after the film?

PHB: Wow, um, what message or th-- would I want them to take away? Um, yeah. I think, you know, it's not a specific thing. It's not any, um, it’s, it's almost easier to define it first in terms of what it's not. Uh, there's no overt political or, or overarching political doctrine that we're trying to say, or religious doctrine that we're trying to say is valid, more valid. Um, or even having a religious doctrine at all. Um, it's much more about if you think about the journey of the main character she, she has a journey that is about examining the life she's living, ethical questions, um, and, and, and how this story of what this girl goes through and what she sacrifices and experiences because of her beliefs in something bigger than herself, um, effects the lead character in terms of her own value systems and looking at her life. And I think if anything that's what it is. It's these kind of movies that draw back the curtain on a world that maybe you believe in, maybe you don't, but that is more than just the reality of getting up in the morning, going to your job, whatever, you know, and, uh, trying to get ahead, trying to do whatever we do -- it's a way to sort of awaken you to the idea that life, an examined life is worth living. Maybe there's more to our experience than what we always see. There's-- like I was saying before you open your eyes to a more magical world, that there's something there. And in the end if you don't believe that any of it exists on a supernatural level it's still worth thinking about in terms of taking a step back from the quotidian reality of your life and thinking about bigger, bigger issues that could inform your life: your choices, your decisions and stuff, being inspired by that. And I think there is something very inspiring in this story beyond the scary movie that could make you, you know, think hard about your own choices and your own life.

How was the creative collaboration process?

PHB: Uh, the creative collaborative process. Um, it’s, it's been very good. Scott and I actually met in film school and we've been working together for quite a few years, um, and in our case it's, it’s really good, you know, it's one plus one equals more than two kind of thing. Um, if you don't find a good collaborative partner I think it-- one plus one equals negative two and chaos and, and violence and whatever. It can be very difficult. I've seen partnerships where they slow each other down a lot. Um, I think we have a partnership where we definitely both do things we would never do if we didn't work with the other person in terms of subject matter, in terms of how we approach it. Um, we collaborate very, very fully from the beginning to the end, and that's our ideal on films we get to make, you know. We’ve, we've written for some time together and on those you-we collaborate on the screenplay from soup to nuts and then we have to let it go. Um, our goal has obviously always been to get to a point where we had sort of a, a partnership where we could make films, and in that sense we, um, so far it's been really good. We've been able to, uh, collaborate the way we always do on the screenplay and, uh, work together very much on that and then in the film process kind of divide up our creative, uh, contributions in that as well, and sort of each one watch the other-- the things the other person, you know, doesn't have to focus on as much. And it's worked out very well.

Can you talk about your background?

PHB: Sure. Well, uh, I think Scott and I both were kind of storytelling people for a long time. Um, I was probably more experienced in writing per se and he was more experienced in filmmaking, uh, when we, when we met at film school. But we both were doing both, um, and at USC you get to do all of that. You get to write scripts and you get-- if you choose to do the production program you get to actually make the films as well. Um, my own background was, you know, English major, uh, creative writing studies at Hopkins and then USC film school. Um, no screenwriting until film school, so I had done other types of writing and then had to learn that, you know, that medium, that, um, the craft of screenwriting specifically, but had done some playwriting and, and poetry and fiction writing and that sort of thing. Um, and, uh, and I think Scott's background as well -- he had done some theater and, and different things related to film and then he'd also made films at Bi-o-la (Loyola?) where he went as an undergrad. Um, since then our experience has been, you know, working together. We've studied some of the courses that are out there. We've, uh, we took courses at film school. We’ve stu-- read the books on dramatic structure. I think all that's very valuable. Um, written a lot of scripts and gotten feedback from each other and other people, which is very valuable. Um, you know, the-- one of the hardest things about screenwriting is to sit down and really do it and finish and do the next one, uh, not just talk about it or think about it. So that's the big step. But I do think doing your homework and, you know, going to film school is valuable, but we also learned a lot outside of both before we got there and since then, um, through the process of doing it and also, you know, certain select courses we've taken and things like that.

Any pitfalls you want to avoid in this horror genre?

PHB: I think in terms of avoiding pitfalls of the horror genre in, in doing this, um, I, I never felt conscious too much of pitfalls specifically of the horror genre, as much as just thinking about the movie we're trying to write and make and then just avoid the pitfalls of, you know, bad storytelling or, you know, easy things that aren't the best way to, to do a scene or do a moment or do a, you know, tell the story, trying to always have the surprises and the, to build tension and just make a good story. Good characters. I mean one of the pitfalls might be-- sure, you know, there are pitfalls, now that I think about it, you know, the sort of “Don't go in the house, you know. Why are you doing that?” You know, you don't want the talk back to the screen kind of silly -- those can be fun, but that's not what we were doing. So yeah, trying to write characters who were very intelligent people, um, who aren't getting into situations just to con-contrived things so that you could see a scary moment or a cool effect, or whatever. It's not that kind of movie. So, you know, we never-- the subject matter was so different I did never find that I was in a scene almost going that way because that just wasn't the kind of movie it was. Um, I think we've had that problem more when we've tried to work in other movies and maybe people want you to make that movie and you're trying to subvert it. This time we didn't have to too much.

Can you set up and talk about the exorcism that takes place in the barn we’re in?

PHB: Um, you know, it’s, yeah, the family lives on a farm, um, and, um, we thought it'd be interesting to subvert somewhat the idea of the exorcism movie, the, the exorcism, the girl in the bed, the exorcists gather around and, and, uh, suddenly kind of rip the fourth wall away or, you know, or whatever, your expectations and put it into a whole different setting and situation, which felt, you know, organic to where this girl is from, what her world would have been, where she grew up and, and the idea of nature all around her and getting that integrated into her experience, uh, separate from the city and the world where the case takes place and all that. So all of that was part of what we were doing and we also just thought also visually and dramatically it would be very interesting if we could make use of her world. Um, so this barn was a fantastic set. Um, unfortunately they took a lot of it apart, but we had this sod down that the first time we walked in here we thought, you know, maybe the production designer's gone a little too far with his realism because it smelled like there was manure in here. But in fact it was just some kind of mulch that they were using that had that smell. But it really felt like you turned the corner and stepped in here and you were on some farm, uh, in a barn. And I grew up in Tennessee and I've been in barns, so I can tell you it was, it was very real. Um, and, uh, it was fantastic. It worked really well. I think the scene looks amazing. And the fact that it was all shot here is, is pretty, pretty impressive.

Those of you who are acting, were you familiar with the story underlining this? Did you do any research into the true story?

LL: Um, no, I knew nothing about it. Um, and while it is… There is a, a similar story that it is based on, but it is not a recreation of that story, so there, there is a book that was written about the events and I did read that, um, and then just talked to Scott a lot.
SD: I filled her in.

This question is for Tom Wilkinson. You probably have the most to do with the horror element in the film. How was it working in this genre?

TW: Almost everything I ever do in a film I haven't ever done before. Uh, what was interesting, um, for me at least, I mean is kind of relates to your question as well as far as research is concerned, I didn't do any. I mean if I can possibly ever not do any research I won't, (LAUGHTER) because like this-- what was interesting about this for my character is that it's the first time it's happened to him, the first exorcism that he's been involved with, and so I thought it would be quite interesting if you could just do it from the, you know, from the kind of both my character and I were kind of beginners. So, uh, that's-- that’s-- it was an interesting aspect of it. You allow the events to sort of happen to you in a certain sense rather than controlling them, like an expert might have done. So, um, and I welcomed, welcomed the idea of doing something that I had never done before.

My question is for Scott. I saw THE EXORCIST in the seventies when I was very young and it really scared me, and when I saw it again in the re-release the whole audience was laughing at parts that should be scary. Since this genre has been spoofed so much, how did you approach writing the script and how are you approaching the direction of it?

SD: Um, I mean how was it approached? It, you know, I think… I saw the, the same re-release and, uh, had a different experience. I mean the audience I saw it with liked it quite a bit, so-- and I am a big fan of that picture. But I, I think that whenev-- if you're going to make an exorcism movie of any kind, you know, you certainly have a, a certain burden or hurdle -- burden to carry or hurdle to get over with, with that film. And, and for me -- I think if I understand your question you're asking how did I sort of treat that...

Did you see that as a challenge? Were you excited about it? Or were you like …

SD: (OVER) The subject matter is-- well the subject matter is profoundly compelling and I think that what everybody knows is that it is a real phenomenon out in the world whether you believe it's-- there's anything spiritual to it or not. It happens. People get exorcisms. And, and there are lots of stories of lots of cases, um, and that fact alone makes it interesting. And what I wanted to do was approach the subject matter in a, in a bit less exploitive way. You can't out exorcist THE EXORCIST and so you, you sort of have to almost go under it in a sense, you know. You have to-- you-- I certainly want the film to be scary and I want it to be compelling to watch, but in some ways, um, I think to really frighten a contemporary audience you just can't do that with special effects and sound and, and camera tricks and sort of the manipulative, uh, tricks of the trade that were implemented there that were extraordinary at the time, and now those same sort of-- that same sort of approach has been used in a, in a million different horror films. And so I think that with this one certainly my intention -- we'll see if, if we pulled it off -- but certainly my intention was to, uh, for the effectiveness of the sort of horror elements and the exorcism itself to be rooted in the reality of these real characters portrayed by great actors and, um, and for the phenomenon that you watch to be very counter-intuitive but not over the top. And, and for me the result is that it's, it’s effective and it's really frightening and, and, and it really puts your head in a space of thinking about whether or not you believe that this sort of thing can happen. I don't think anyone really watches… anyone watching THE EXORCIST, I don't think people watch it and wonder if that's what it looks like. A lot of people know that that was based on the St. Louis case and, and I don't think that-- Something happened in St. Louis. It was a boy, not a girl, but something happened there. I don't think it looked like THE EXORCIST. So I think what we're trying to do is make a movie that's a little bit more of an exploration of what does it really look like and what, what's the range of possibilities there and what can it mean? And that's, that’s what we're trying to do.

For Tom Wilkinson. How do you feel about the decision that your character makes to perform an exorcism on the girl? What motivates him and what scares him, and how would you personally feel about it if you had been put in a similar position?

TW: Big question, isn't it? Well I'm very glad that, that he does decide to do it, otherwise I wouldn't be in the movie. (LAUGHTER) I'd be passing by the window on a bicycle. Um, the, um, the, the, the-- What, what is, what is crucial about it and it doesn't really involve my decision-making process, what I feel about it, because it's, you know, I play this character. What is interesting about priests when they take on, uh, an exorcism is not-- they don't do it on a personal-- they are not there personally. They are there as a kind of embodiment of the Catholic Church. It's a, it’s a Catholic priest who's doing it. So they have to be shriven, they have to have, you know, gone to confession. They have to have fasted. They have to, you know, be in a state of grace, I'm told, so that they can be-- then they become merely a conduit. They don't-- they are-- they themselves are not there to sort of grapple hand-to-hand with, with the demons, but to act as a conduit from, from God through the Catholic Church into the, into the body and soul of the person who's possessed, and that's how that works. So in a certain sense his private feelings and for certain my private feelings, but his private feelings are kind of irrelevant. And that's the best answer I can come up with.

This question is for Campbell. Tell us about your character and how do you come up with the look? You’re usually a dashing lead and this is more of an aged look.

CS: (LAUGHS) Holy moly. Um, thank you, Dan, for half of that question.
LL: I think, I think he's one of the handsomest men I know.
CS: Uh, yeah, it's been a long time since I've been the young, uh, whatever you said, but, but thanks anyway for remembering. Uh, and how did I come up with the look? I don't know. I always try to come up with some kind of look that's going to be different from the last look, to tell you the truth. Um, and, uh, this is my real hair and my real mustache and my real color, uh, which you often see removed, uh, for, uh, for other jobs. So, uh, that's-- -- but, but, uh, I play Ethan Thomas, who's the prosecuting attorney. I'm, I’m, I’m, uh, uh, in fact, uh, acting on behalf of “The People,” uh, in the film, uh, and, uh, he's a very kind of no-nonsense, intense, uh, character who does not obviously believe in this type of spirituality and, uh, but does believe that this little girl was har-- that this young woman was harmed, uh, uh, by the, by the neglect of this priest. He probably doesn't really go for Catholicism. He's a very intense Methodist in the movie. And Paul and Scott have made a, you know, a very light but nice, uh, point of, of saying that he is in fact not just a factual guy, he's a religious guy, but he's a different kind of religious guy. And, uh, I don't know, the look just seemed right, you know. You, you, you walk into things and you think, you know, I, I, I always, I always… Personally my, uh, looks are always based on two, two things: what's going to be different from the way people have seen me before -- 'cause I find that interesting -- and also what's going to work for the guys.

My question is for Scott. Given your previous credits for doing films like Urban Legend 2 and all these sequels, how do you make the transition….

SD: Write a good script, you know. We just-- we, wrote, we wrote the script and, and developed it, uh, with, uh, Beau Flynn and Tripp Vinson, and, and we developed it outside the studio system and I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that the script, the script didn't have to go through… it wasn't a concept, a studio concept before it became a screenplay. We, we wrote it pretty much on our own and did it the way we wanted to do it, and then, you know, it just found the right home, found somebody who, you know, it’s with Screen Gems and Lakeshore they just understood it, you know. And there, there was a lot of interest around the project as soon as it became kind of available to the studios and, and we ended up where we did because we felt like that was a place where they were going to let us make it the way that it was. And, and, you know, it's a great-- it's very satisfying, because I love the genre, you know, and, and this isn't even really a-- purely a horror film. It's a courtroom movie as well and it's, it’s got very dramatic characters and, and, um, I certainly don't ha-have anything but really positive feelings about the horror genre in general. But I do think that, you know, there are sort of two tiers to it, you know, and, and this one's-- is sort of going to that second tier, which is, which is great. And so far that's the movie we've been shooting.

So the other films you’ve done didn’t quite get there, are you saying?

SD: For what they-- no, I think that for what they were, you know. They, they were, they were both sequels you know, and they were, they were movies that were green-lit before there was ever a script, and whenever that's the case there's just-- and, and they had their, their constraints and their limitations and they were there to serve, you know, a very narrow purpose. And when you're in that kind of situation and in the case of URBAN LEGENDS you know, you-- there were a lot of producers and there was a lot of different input, so it, you know, it just ended up becoming… I think that project belongs to a lot of different people, you know, and whenever that happens you end up with something that sort of can lose its way a bit. But I think, uh, that didn't happen on this at all, you know, and, and I'm very happy to have worked on those other films. They were, you know, it was a great place to start.

I’m going to break the rule here slightly. My question is for all of our thespians. Have any of you had anything close to a supernatural experience that might have informed your performances?

TW: No. (LAUGHTER) No. I once lost a glove and found it the following week. (LAUGHTER) I, I don't suppose that counts.

Laura, this seems like a departure for you. Did you have to be talked into doing this?

LL: Um, well, no, I had made MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, so that's, that's in there. Um, (CHUCKLES) and yes, I did have to be talked into it. Um, uh, I, I did have-- I was interested-- there were things about the script that interested me that have nothing to do with horror or with typical horror. Um, the whole idea of people's personal demons, whether you're religious or not, whether that's depression or anxiety or stress or whatever, interested me, and there’s, there's a line in the script that deals with that, and I found-- that's what I found really interesting. Um, but yeah, I had very very long talks with Scott. I had very very long talks with Clint Culpepper, one of our producers, um, just to see where they were and what they were thinking and what kind of movie they wanted to make and were they both on the same page -- and, and was this something that, that I thought that I could contribute to in a positive way? And would I have a good time making it? Um, so yeah, I was thoughtful about it, definitely.

Was there any one thing that finally convinced you to do it?

LL: Scott, you know, talking to Scott. You know, and his, you know, sincerity about wanting to make a good movie, you know, and wanting to be true to the story first. Um, that went a long way.

Laura, I wanted to ask you about your next movie, JINDABYNE?

LL: JINDABYNE.

What is different about that from this?

LL: Oh, JINDABYNE is not a-- has no horror in it whatsoever. No, no, no, no. It's-- no. I think, I think there’s-- that's out there somewhere, but it's, it’s not. It's based on a Raymond Carver short story. Um, it’s a, it’s a…. it's an excellent question, you man from the disgusting website. (LAUGHTER) It's, uh, it's, uh, it's an ensemble piece that's being directed by Ray Lawrence, who did LANTANA. Um, it's set in Australia, it's based on a Ray Carver short story that deals with-- it deals with death, and it deals with ethics. Um, but, but not necessarily horror.

This question is for Scott. It’s my understanding that you’re playing the film in an ambiguous way where you’re letting the audience figure out is she really possessed or is she not? Do you find yourself having to self-censor yourself visually when you’re filming the exorcism scenes because you don’t want to make them too horrific and imply to the audience that she is possessed ….?

SD: Yeah. I mean yeah, it’s, it’s, it's a real-- it's a real, uh, tightrope walk that, um, balance, and, and I, you know, and again I don't know how well we've achieved that. I do know that it hasn't been terribly difficult, like I haven't been distracted by it because I think that there was so much rigor put into that in the screenplay. And, uh, uh, I think that our actress, um, Jennifer Carpenter you know, who plays, who plays Emily Rose is, you know, she's so extraordinary, um, in the role that it, it actually took a lot of that weight off of me because wh-- you know, I really reconceived how to do the entire movie at her call-back audition because she was so frightening, and she was-- it was so surreal, just her in a, in a room full of guys, you know, behind a desk, uh, behind a ch-- you know, a table like this. And what she was doing was so counterintuitive to watch -- what she can do with her body, the way just-- and the realism to it -- and I had this terrible sense of gosh, how am I going to make these possession and exor scenes-- exorcism scenes frightening, you know? Well what camera tricks can I use? How far can I go? And then when I saw her I was like “Well, you've just gotta point-- turn the camera on and point it at her, you know.” And, and when she is doing things that are more representative of, you know, sort of mental illness and something that's not so supernatural it's really equally disturbing. And, and I think that's one of the things that's interesting about it. So she took a lot of the burden off me in that, in that respect. Um, but you do have-- from a story point of view, you know, there are certainly-- there is a good amount of kind of paranormal things in the, in the story, and so you're always trying to remember who's telling this story, you know, and, and of course in that respect it was, you know, very influenced by RASHOMON . And there's a, that’s a, you know, a RASHOMON type story, that's a phrase that gets thrown out a lot, but it's oftentimes not really a RA-- you know, just because something's fragmented it's not RASHOMON, but when, when there's a same event that really is being remembered different ways or being thought of as (MUMBLES) different realities are being presented, it's incredibly interesting because memory does warp history in some regard, and so you get, you get a certain range of, of freedom when you're telling a story like that too because you-- when you, you can go a certain distance and think boy we're really making this look supernatural and this is supernatural, but then you're remembering “Oh, but that's the priest telling his, his version, you know, as opposed to someone else who's talking about, uh, the same situation from a much more skeptical point of view.” So, but it's-- that’s what's fun about it, and it's what's interesting about it and, and somewhere in the heart of that is what the movie is about, I think. It certainly is for me.

What about your own spiritual beliefs. Do your spiritual beliefs change as you’re working on….?

CS: Yeah, I would think that happens. Yeah. I, I would think we wouldn't often admit it, uh, but I, I would, uh, uh, conjecture that that's part of the reason -- those of us who are actors -- became actors in the first place. There's something about… not necessarily changing outwardly, but there's something about learning about something that you-- someone's point of view that you would have never considered before, whether you're playing a military person or a priest or a lawyer or a… I mean to me this is the attraction, because suddenly instead of immediate labeling, which we're all very fond of because it cuts the fear down, you're suddenly looking at someone/something from someone else's-- literally walking in their shoes. Now, you know, we joke around all day. It's an exorcist movie. Do we really believe this stuff? No, late at night is probably when we really think about what you're asking about, and personally I think those things change as your life goes on too. There, there have been points of my life where I might be much more open to the kinds of things that we're talking about, whereas another part of my life I might be much more solid and think no, no, no, I don't believe in that. It just depends on your track. But the cool thing about being an actor is that when you get a job you get to go and spend one or two months or whatever f-finding that out, and usually nobody gets hurt which is a very, uh, a very satisfying way to live. Not always. I mean it can be-- by solving those problems can be very frustrating and piss you off or whatever, you know, or scare you. But most of the time it's very, it’s very rewarding.

The question is for Scott. Who is actually doing the effects and what kind of budget do you have?

SD: Um, to be honest with you I don't know exactly what the budget is on it. Uh, Captive Audience is doing it, and Captive Audience, (MUMBLES), I talked to a number of people about special effects and, and, uh, the reason why-- There were two reasons why I really chose Captive Audience. One) they did all the-- they did the effects on THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. They did both makeup and digital effects, and, and so much of that was dealing with the human body, and there was a seamlessness I thought to a lot of the effects in that in terms of both makeup-- the blending of makeup effects and digital effects and they just-- there was a, there was a realism to it that I thought was very very effective. Um, but they all-- again they were also the, the company that I think best just kind of understood the aesthetic of the movie, you know, and they, they seemed really excited about, about, uh, making something that was intelligent and, and they, they recognized that it was very important given the quality of the actress that they would be mostly working with in Jennifer, um, to stay out of her way, you know, um, and, and rely on her performance, let her performance do what it do-- let it be what it is, and, uh, and only enhance it rather than distract from it. So, um, and so, you know, they-- as they've really been getting underway I've been really happy with them so far.

Yeah. (CHUCKLES) Well I mean I th-- you know, I think that it, it, it is, uh, it certainly, it certainly is different I think in its, in its ultimate intention. I mean I think, you know, I think RASHOMON the in-- the intention is to, to really-- to communicate the idea that you, you never really can know the truth of history, and it’s-- things were left so opaque. Um, I don't think this movie's quite that opaque, um, but, but yeah, I can't really go any farther than that without, without giving things away that probably shouldn’t.

This is for you, Scott. Other than musicals horror films have probably created the most rabid expectations. … How do you view the genre in its current state, and where do you think you’re contributing to it?

SD: Uh, that's an excellent question. Um, yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about, you know, ‘cause-- because I've been in-involved with. And I've been to all of these websites at some point, so, you know, none of you's names are, are, are surprising me. Um, I mean hor-- yeah, horror fans are rabid fans, you know, and they-- -- I, I think what I love the most about horror fans is, is just-- it's not the-- and I think the greatest misconception about horror fans is that they just-- they love, that they love gore and they love-- they, they, they love cinema, and they really love this kind of cinema and they love the, the, the things that horror cinema can do that they can't get anywhere else, not in horror novels, not in graphic novels, not in anything else. And, um, I think…. what was the second part of your question?

I was just asking you about the current state …?

SD: Well, I think that-- I think that it's, it’s, um, it's a very exciting time to be working with this genre because it's beginning to branch out where it belongs. I really feel that -- this is pure abstraction, so, you know, and I, and I, uh, I don't want to be too, too abstract about it -- but I really think that this is a genre that, that historically, you know, hasn't gotten the respect that it deserves. I don't know how else to put it. And I, and I, and I mean in cinema. But if you look back at the rest of history, you know, literary history and history of the theater, you know, the macabre and the horrific and the gothic, these are things that were so integral in all of the great arts and the cathedrals have gargoyles on them in Europe. But, you know, our-- the churches nowadays don't have horrific things in them like they did back then. I think that, that, that there's something about cinema this century that, um, as it went on and special effects developed it began-- it, it sort of began to pander I think, um, a little bit to the lower common denominator, and it's almost like now people are realizing wow, you can really, you can really brancout with this genre. You can really get into ideas and you can really get into characters and get into situations that are, uh, as, as provocative as anything you're going to find in any movie. And I, you know, I look at the great sort of-- whether it's THE OTHERS or THE SIXTH SENSE or THE RING, you know, these are all movies that, that have I think started to open up the possibilities of, of the genre. And I think that, uh, you can even be more frightening than those films and still have great characters. And the seventies gave the promise of that with ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE OMEN, and those are my favorite horror films, you know, certainly, and, and, and THE EXORCIST. So I think I'm, you know, I'd love to think that this is gonna fall in that line, but, you know, that would be presumptuous to think that until it's done, you know.

Any questions or comments? Email me at dan@latinoreview.com.