Patrick Meaney's wonderful THE BRINK OF (2022) has hit VOD - A review of the film and interview with the director and star.

"He's probably better for you than me"

"But I'm not better for him"

 Lena and James are the band The Brink Of...  As they were ending a six month tour and right after an influencer's tweets put them on the radar of the world at large, they disappear. As the film begins the duo is back and are on a radio show explaining what happened.

If you know director Patrick Meaney you will think either of his comic work both as a documenary filmmaker (he's profiled Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison and Chris Claremont) or as a writer, or you may know him as the director of the horror film HOUSE OF DEMONS. He would not be someone you instantly think of as a director of a sweet musical romance, but with THE BRINK OF.... he makes  romance films his own.

Beautifully acted and possessing a kick ass group of songs THE BRINK OF... soars. Director Meaney has fashioned a heartfelt and moving film. Its a film that had me misty at the end, not because it manipulated me but because it has given us a couple of people we can really root for. We like them  from frame one and are willing to go anywhere with them.

What I love is that in fashioning a love story Meaney has taken the romantic formula and used its tropes against us. I'm going to be honest and say there was a time when I just liked the film. The film was doing everything it was supposed to and hitting all the points exactly right but it didn't seem to be going the extra mile. It was technically great but it didn't seem to have all the emotion wired up to the power box... but at a perfectly placed moment there is scene where the script clicks and you realize that while we were distracted with the songs and other things Meaney was laying in the heavy gauge wire so when the big moment comes so do the the tears (and big yelp of joy which scared the neighbors). Everything that seemed to be throwaways came crashing it with a weight we never suspected. Simply put THE BRINK OF... does what few films do these days and gets the emotion and love of the audience by earning it and not manipulating us. 

Nicolette Norgaard and Tim Hoffman kick it out of the park. They make us believe that they coud be a  couple everyone knows are destined for each other but who refuse to see it. Indeed they manage to make that notion a perfectly played running gag. The pair also wrote their own songs and the emotion in them make the film even more special. Frankly while Patrick Meaney may have created the framework for the story, Norgaard and Hoffman's music, and their performances give the film life.

This film blew me away. Not just because I was sent the film totally blind and had no idea what it was at all, but because the film is just so damn good.

You must see this film because it will make you feel good.

Look for more on the film and an interview with director Patrick Meaney  and Nicolette Norgaard below

Patrick Meaney and Nicolette Norgaard talk THE BRINK OF (2022)

I have been in a constant conversation with Patrick Meaney about his movies since 2016. It seems that every time he releases a new film we have to talk about the latest one. I’ve spoken with him about every film from 2016's NEIL GAIMAN DREAM DANGEROUSLY  right up to his current film THE BRINK OF. If you read the interviews in order they read like one continuous career spanning interview that covers films, comics and everything else under the sun (They can be found here) We keep threatening to meet in person and have a real sit down chat over dinner but it has yet to happen.  I know there is no rush because there is always another film coming. 

Speaking of things that haven’t been rushed, I spoke with Patrick via email about his current film THE BRINK OF starting back in February and because of life, festivals and general madness the conversation lasted three months. For something that took that long we somehow managed to remain focused just on THE BRINK OF. And along the way we also pulled in the film’s star Nicolette Norgaard as well. 

For those who don’t know THE BRINK OF is a the story of a musical duo who disappeared on the verge of superstardom. As the film opens they have gotten back together and are explaining to an interviewer what happened. Its magnificent film with music you’ll fall in love with and want more of. It was a film that kicked me in the ass. With the film playing at the Vero Beach Film Festival this weekend I’m presenting the long time in coming interview. 

Thank you to Patrick and Nicolette for doing this.

For tickets to the Veo Beach screening go here.

STEVE: The first question I have to ask is how do you go from documentaries and horror films to love stories? It’s not a typically intuitive jump and you make it perfectly.

PATRICK: It was a bit of a winding road. After I completed House of Demons, I worked on a few different scripts that were in the horror genre and were bigger budget, and had a lot of progress and almost got them made, but nothing quite came to fruition. So, I decided to work on something I could just go off and shoot easily, and started shooting shorts for an anthology project that had a general speculative fiction/genre vibe, but each of them was a bit different, and generally a lot more grounded than House of Demons.

One of the shorts involved music, and I cast Nicolette in it. She created an original song for it, and we were gearing up to shoot right as the pandemic hit, and everything stalled. But, as time went on, I kept thinking how cool it was to have this musical idea come to life, and still in lockdown, I floated the idea of doing something on a grander scale involving music.

I was thinking about what would be an interesting concept to structure the film around, and I thought back to how fascinated people were by Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga’s relationship was in the promotion for A Star is Born, particularly when they performed at the Oscars, and you couldn’t tell whether they were playing characters who were in love, playing up a relationship for the camera for promotion, or actually were in love and were using this performance as an excuse to act it out. Those sort of layers were fascinating, and thinking back on bands like Fleetwood Mac, it’s the same sort of thing.

So, it seemed like a great foundation for a story. And, on a more general scale, I wanted to do a movie that people could really latch on to. In doing House of Demons, I was surprised by how many people said they just wouldn’t watch horror movies. And I’d say “It’s not that scary,” or “It’s really a drama with horror elements,” but still a no. So, I liked the idea that I could create something a little bit more accessible, and get to really showcase two great actors.

STEVE: How did you get mixed up with Patrick?

NICO: Back in early March 2020, Patrick was looking to cast a role in a short film he was working on and needed an actress who sang and played instruments. A mutual friend of ours referred me to him, so I auditioned and got the role the day before COVID-19 lockdown. I ended up writing a song for the short film, which was Patrick and I’s first collaboration. Because of the pandemic, the short never made it to production but several months later, Patrick came to me with the idea to make a music film with a small cast and minimal locations that could be shot safely in the pandemic. And the rest is history!

STEVE: How did the film take shape? What I mean by this is that you are listed as writing the screenplay but Nicolette Norgaard and Tim Hoffman wrote the songs, and they drive the film. The songs are vitally important to the story (as in Hedwig and the Angry Inch) Was this a traditional written script with a rigid structure or was this a kind of improvised script? And Nicolette and Tim look a bit too in love. Are they a couple and is this based on them?

PATRICK: The movie came together very fast. Nicolette and I started talking about it in January, and we worked through initial story outlines, and as the characters started to come together, I asked her if she had anyone she thought might be a good fit for the character of James, and she immediately suggested Tim. They had gone to college together, and actually put on a production of the musical The Last Five Years as their senior thesis together. I hadn’t written the character with him in mind, but it wound up being a perfect fit.

In terms of the script, it was a traditional script, and we actually stuck a lot closer to the script in the finished product than in some of my previous films. Some lines are changed, and some moments added, but what’s on screen is very close to the script as written.

Tim and Nicolette are not actually a couple in real life, but do have a really deep connection, and I think the process of writing and producing the songs was definitely similar to what you see in the film, where it’s a mix of great chemistry writing together, and the occasional argument. There are a lot of parallels between real life and the film, but they are in many ways more coincidental, as I wrote the script before I even knew who Tim was, than intentional.

STEVE: And while I'm asking about the writing did you have any input into the music?

PATRICK: In the script, I wrote out where the songs would go, and my ideas for what they would entail on a pretty general level. So, Nicolette and Tim had the mission of needing to create six or seven songs that would fulfill these various roles in the narrative.

We created Spotify playlists, and would discuss comp songs to give a general sense of what each song would entail, and the overall sound of the band.

Then they went off and pretty much created them on their own, and would come back to me with rough drafts as things came together. I’d give notes, but it was mostly them doing this, and I was consistently impressed and excited when new song drafts would come in.

With the final song, “The Cliff,” we talked a bit more about structuring it in a specific way to give the right peaks and moments of payoff as the movie came to a close.

STEVE: Did they come up with more than just the six or seven songs and if so will we ever hear them? Actually will there be a release of the music and are Nicolette and Tim going to tour?

PATRICK: There’s one additional song that Nicolette wrote that we wound up cutting from the film. Nicolette and Tim as the band - The Brink Of - are planning to release songs featured in the film starting this summer! And they are currently working on more music together. You can follow them on TikTok and Instagram @thebrinkofband for band updates and show dates.

I’m really excited about the possibilities of how having the two of them out there as a band can help get people hyped for the film, and just be cool on its own terms.

STEVE: How did you shoot the performance pieces? Some of the concert sequences involve larger crowds, did they go to a location and perform, say at an open mic night or was it specifically put together just for the film?

PATRICK: Everything was put together for the film. We shot about half of the songs live, and half were pre-recorded and synced to. I think it’s a real testament to how talented these actors are that I don’t think most people would notice a significant difference in quality between the different approaches.

Going into a movie, you’re not really sure how it’s going to go, and I think crew members in particular don’t really know what the deal is when you’re a low budget indie. But, I think once Tim played his solo song at the end of the first day of shooting, people were like “Oh wow, this is going to be something really cool.” And the songs definitely got stuck in peoples’ heads as we were going through the shoot days.

The big thing for me was to figure out how to convey the romantic chemistry between Lena and James that is discussed so much in the film, so we rehearsed and figured out some different ways to do that, and how to make each song feel a little bit different, and position it within the narrative arc.

While the film isn’t a musical in the traditional sense, I wanted it to feel integrated, where each song really moves the story forward, and reveals something new about the characters. So, one of my favorite parts of the process was talking that over with Tim and Nicolette and rehearsing the performances before we did them to make sure that comes across.

STEVE: How did you come about writing the songs for the film? Did you write for their place in the film or did you just write the songs and then try and fit them for a specific spot? Is your writing of the songs for the film different from how you write songs for yourself? How did Tim figure into all of this?

NICO: We didn’t start working on the music until after we had a rough outline of the script, so we had a pretty good idea of where each song was going to fall plot-wise. But once we started working on the music and the script, they began to inform each other pretty fluidly!

There was an early draft of the script and one song written when Patrick asked me if I knew anyone who would be right for the role of James. I immediately thought of Tim not only because he’s perfect for the role, but also because he’s an incredible musician and collaborator. He was living in Switzerland at the time, and I FaceTimed him at probably 3am Swiss time and manically explained the situation. I sent him the screenplay, the song, and he liked both so much that he decided to move back to LA to come on board as an actor, producer, and musician! From that point forward, Tim and I made all the music together.

STEVE :I’m curious how you actually write your songs? I’m asking because I have friends who do it in different ways, some scratching things out on paper and some workout things on a computer.

NICO: Most of the songs started from Tim and I just playing around acoustically on guitar and piano and finding some chord progressions we liked. Then we would write lyrics from the perspective of the characters by thinking of what they were going through in their cinematic universe at the time they would’ve written each song. Once we had written the songs acoustically, we would go into our DAW on the computer and produce them out with more instrumentation and vocals.

STEVE: It may sound like a cliché but I am curious about what music you listen to? I’m asking because I’m curious about how what you like to listen to informs the music you wrote for the film.

NICO: Tim and I made dozens of playlists while working on the music– we both have pretty different music tastes (I am a pop-head and Tim rarely listens to music released after 1980). So the beauty of The Brink Of is that we had to find where our taste intersects, and I think what came of it is pretty unique and special. We listened to a really wide range of stuff while writing, from Beach House and Sylvan Esso, to Fleetwood Mac and Joni Mitchell, to Taylor Swift and Maggie Rogers. 

STEVE: Getting back to the script. There is the scene that shifted everything for me where Nicolette and Tim basically bleed out all of their emotions to each other. It's the moment where they basically say “But I always loved you”. It’s this wonderful summing up of everything that has happened in the film up to that point. You have the call backs to the various themes and ideas, such as having a lover who is someone to fall back on. And the notion of going to college. It all comes together. When you were writing the film did you know that everything was going to crash together in that one scene? And what I want to know is how did you manage to write up the scene so that it all feels natural and not like exposition or someone going down and hitting the required bullet points?

PATRICK: This film was kind of an anomaly for me because so much of it was really set right from the initial outline and first draft script. I looked back at the very first draft after we had finished editing the movie, and almost all the scenes are there, and even a good percentage of the dialogue is exactly like it is in the film.

That’s super unusual for me, since I’m more of a write a draft quickly and revise a bunch type of writer. That’s a long way of saying that this big blowout type scene was always the intent, but of all the scenes in the film, this one did have some critical changes shortly before we shot.

If there was one big switch as we dove into shooting the film, and in late scripting, it was really centering the film in Lena’s perspective. So, James is a bit of an enigma throughout the film, and we tried to seed these elements in the scene with Lena’s mom and elsewhere that he’s very concerned that he might ruin Lena’s life by doing this. But, she doesn’t know that, so this scene becomes an opportunity for the audience to say “Oh, this is why he did all this stuff,” and hopefully tie all these disparate thematic elements together.

The whole movie is about the intertangling of their personal and professional feelings about each other, so the scene was about laying out the very real stakes that they face. I’ve seen a lot of people who’ve chased their creative dreams and wind up giving up, being stuck in debt and falling behind their friends who had regular jobs and regular lives. There is no guarantee of success, and I wanted to explore that and feature it in the film, since I think most movies inevitably feature a moment where everything just clicks and the person has “made it,” but for 95% of creative professionals, it’s an up and down of doing a big project, then going back to a random gig for hire, or a shift at a bar.

The big change that happened in the scene was at the very end. In the original script, it had been James asking Lena to jump off the cliff with him, and she has to decide whether to face her fear of a risky future and go for it. Nicolette pushed the idea that she had already made that decision, and it is more exciting for her to take the action and ask him, so all three of us worked through the script and basically created the version that is in the film, and I think it was a really key change, to the point where we get to see her growth and self actualization by her actively taking the risk.

This scene was an intense one to shoot, since we ran it as basically seven single long takes for about five minutes each, which I then cut up. But, I think it made the scene really sing, and let Nicolette and Tim really shine together.

NICO: I think it was the right thing to have Lena to ask him to jump. I think it works better because it perfectly sets up how much he loved and loves her and how much he was holding back essentially to keep her “safe”.

STEVE: How much variation was there in each take? I’m curious from the standpoint of the camera set ups as well as the performances.

PATRICK: The way we did it was to basically block the actors’ motion, with the idea that we would be shooting it with a lot of rotating around, then we had a little convoy of crew going around following them, with camera, boom, a reflector, etc. all running around to avoid being spotted as we rotated around.

It was a good trial run for a similar setup we used later on when we shot the one take party scene, that was even more complex. But, for the end scene, as we went through, we would wind up turning different ways or grabbing different details with each take. So, there was a bit of freedom is capturing different moments and angles. But, the scene was not covered in the traditional fashion, so in editing, it was about bringing that jumpy energy to it.

All of the previous cabin scenes are on tripod, which was by design to make the move to handheld and a more chaotic energy hit harder when it does arrive.

STEVE: Jumping backward to earlier when you said that the film didn’t change from the outline/first draft. I know you said it never happened to you before, but have you ever heard of this happening to anyone? I don’t think I have. To me it sounds almost as if the film has willed itself into existence.

PATRICK: It definitely felt that way for us sometimes as well! Nicolette and Tim had never done a feature before, so I was always telling them that it was unusual for things to move this fast, or for things to just click.

I actually flipped back to the first script now that you mentioned this, and 90% of the scenes are in there, and 40% or so of the dialogue is verbatim, which I have never heard of before, certainly not for a script that was written in less than a month.

I think part of it was being in lockdown, and not having as much to do, so I really just dove hard into the script, and was excited to have something to focus on.

Part of it was also that I was deliberately trying to write something more straight forward after the craziness of House of Demons. And I think just working with Nicolette, we were able to iron out a lot of issues in the outline stage that sometimes trip up a script.

Who knows why it all came together on this one, but I’m very thankful that it did.

STEVE: I’m wondering if you’re going switch back to documentaries and follow Nicolette and Tim if they do more performances of the music? I think it would be interesting to see a film about how a film spawn s a musical duo.

PATRICK: That’s the general plan, not necessarily to do a full fledged documentary, but to put this band and these songs out in the world, and document the process as we do in web content and social media and things like that, that could ultimately form a fun companion piece short doc for a blu-ray release or additional content when streaming.

There are a lot of interesting meta layers of watching some of what happened to the band in the film happen in real life.

STEVE: Are you looking forward to touring in support of the film and the music? Are you going to perform just the music for the film or are you going to perform other songs?

NICO: Yes! We are so excited that this film brought us together as a band, and we are already playing shows and making new music. Follow us @thebrinkofband on Instagram and TikTok to stay up to date on what’s next!

STEVE: What is the next step for the film? Where are people going to be able to jump onboard? Additionally are you planning on doing some screenings and performances together?

PATRICK: In the short term, the focus is on starting to put the songs out there, creating music videos for them and pitching that first. It’s so hard to get attention on an indie film, that trying to get some profile for the songs and band will hopefully be a big help in making the film stand out.

And along the way, we’ll be doing a bunch of screenings and hopefully some more festivals that will also feature performances. The plan is to push the film in this manner for a while, and then do a wide release in the Fall.

I’m really excited to get the movie out there ASAP, but also think that building the profile a bit in advance will let us make a bigger splash and help the movie find an audience. It’s not something I’ve really seen done before, so I’m excited to dive in and see what happens.

THE BRINK OF plays at the Vero Beach Film Festival this weekend. Details here.

The Brink Of... (2022) Vero Beach Film Festival

"He's probably better for you than me"

"But I'm not better for him"

 Lena and James are the band The Brink Of...  As they were ending a six month tour and right after an influencer's tweets put them on the radar of the world at large, they disappear. As the film begins the duo is back and are on a radio show explaining what happened.

If you know director Patrick Meaney you will think either of his comic work both as a documenary filmmaker (he's profiled Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison and Chris Claremont) or as a writer, or you may know him as the director of the horror film HOUSE OF DEMONS. He would not be someone you instantly think of as a director of a sweet musical romance, but with THE BRINK OF.... he makes  romance films his own.

Beautifully acted and possessing a kick ass group of songs THE BRINK OF... soars. Director Meaney has fashioned a heartfelt and moving film. Its a film that had me misty at the end, not because it manipulated me but because it has given us a couple of people we can really root for. We like them  from frame one and are willing to go anywhere with them.

What I love is that in fashioning a love story Meaney has taken the romantic formula and used its tropes against us. I'm going to be honest and say there was a time when I just liked the film. The film was doing everything it was supposed to and hitting all the points exactly right but it didn't seem to be going the extra mile. It was technically great but it didn't seem to have all the emotion wired up to the power box... but at a perfectly placed moment there is scene where the script clicks and you realize that while we were distracted with the songs and other things Meaney was laying in the heavy gauge wire so when the big moment comes so do the the tears (and big yelp of joy which scared the neighbors). Everything that seemed to be throwaways came crashing it with a weight we never suspected. Simply put THE BRINK OF... does what few films do these days and gets the emotion and love of the audience by earning it and not manipulating us. 

Nicolette Norgaard and Tim Hoffman kick it out of the park. They make us believe that they coud be a  couple everyone knows are destined for each other but who refuse to see it. Indeed they manage to make that notion a perfectly played running gag. The pair also wrote their own songs and the emotion in them make the film even more special. Frankly while Patrick Meaney may have created the framework for the story, Norgaard and Hoffman's music, and their performances give the film life.

This film blew me away. Not just because I was sent the film totally blind and had no idea what it was at all, but because the film is just so damn good.

You must see this film because it will make you feel good.

Look for more on the film and an interview with director Patrick Meaney  and Nicolette Norgaard tomorrow.

The Brink Of... (2022) Golden State Film Festival 2022

"He's probably better for you than me"

"But I'm not better for him"

 Lena and James are the band The Brink Of...  As they were ending a six month tour and right after an influencer tweets put them on the radar of the world at large, they disappear. As the film begins the duo is back and are on a radio show explaining what happened.

If you know director Patrick Meaney you will think either of his comic work both as a documenary filmmaker (he's profiled Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison and Chris Claremont) or as a writer, or you may know him as the director of the horror film HOUSE OF DEMONS. He would not be someone you instantly think of as a director of a sweet musical romance, but with THE BRINK OF.... he makes  romance films his own.

Beautifully acted and posessing a kick ass group of songs THE BRINK OF... soars. Director Meaney has fashioned a heartfelt and moving film. Its a film that had me misty at the end, not because it manipulated me but because it has given us a couple of people we can really root for. We like them  from frame one and are willing to go anywhere with them.

What I love is that in fashioning a love story Meaney has taken the romantic formula and used its tropes against us. I'm going to be honest and say there was a time when I just liked the film. The film was doing everything it was supposed to and hitting all the points exactly right but it didn't seem to be going the extra mile. It was technically great but it didn't seem to have all the emotion wired up to the power box... but at a perectly placed moment there is scene where the script clicks and you realize that while we were distracted with the songs and other things Meaney was laying in the heavy gauge wire so when the big moment cmes so do the the tears (and big yelp of joy which scared the neighbors). Everything that seemed to be throwaways cmed crashing it with a weight we never suspected. Simply put THE BRINK OF... does what few films do these days and gets the emotion and love of the audience by earning it and not manipulating us. 

Nicolette Norgaard and Tim Hoffman kick it out of the park. They make us believe that they coud be a  couple everyone knows are destined for each other but who refuse to see it. Indeed they manage to make that notion a perfectly played running gag. The pair also wrote their own songs and the emotion in them make the film even more special. Frankly while Patrick Meaney may have created the framework for the story, Norgaard and Hoffman's music, and their performances give the film life.

This film blew me away. Not just because I was sent the film totally blind and had no idea what it was at all, but because the film is just so damn good.

You must see this film because it will make you feel good.

The film World Premieres February 27 at the Golden State Film Festival and tickets and more information can be found here.

Look for mre on the film and an interview with director Patrick Meaney soon.

Stay At Home Festival: Film Fifty Five: Chris Claremont's X-Men (2018)

Back in 2018 I was contacted about doing coverage of Patrick Meany's film on Chris Claremont's time on the X-Men. I was in the middle of something or another so I asked John to pitch in with a review (it can be found here) and Ken with an interview with Claremont who was in Las Vegas at the time (The interview has still not been published. It's coming, I think. The problem is Claremont told a lot of unrepeatable stories that Ken is still trying to sort out. Ken has a way of making people tell things they really shouldn't)  while I talked to director Patrick Meaney for a third time (the interview is here). 

In the middle of all that I apparently wrote a review of the film myself, despite knowing that John was doing a killer review (which is here go read it). I completely forgot I wrote it until I recently cleaned out an email box and found the review just sitting there. 

Figuring we could use some new content for the stay at home fest I dusted it off and I present it to you now.

CHRIS CLAREMONT'S X-MEN is streaming on Amazon. And while you are it why not watch Patrick Meany's films on Grant Morrison, Warren Ellis, Neil Gaiman and the women of comics (SHE MAKES COMICS) or anything else he's directed (say HOUSE OF DEMONS)

Patrick Meaney has expanded his 2013 Focus in Comics documentary on Chris Claremont and the X-Men and we are so much better forward for it.

The film is a look at Claremont’s time on the X-Men books and is an examination of how he changed comics forever. Told by the people who were there, primarily Claremont, Louise Simonson and Ann Nocentti , the film has a wonderful lived in feel to it. We are there in the trenches with the creators and have their perspective on how things happened making this a story we all can connect to, like the X-Men stories themselves.

That the film works as well as it does is thanks to director Meaney’s choosing to have a large portion of the story told by the Claremont, Simonson and Nocentti sitting on a couch taking to each other. Their inter play brings out shadings to what could have been a purely academic tale of comics creation. Instead we get the three egging each other on to do more than just recount the facts but instead express how things happened and played out.

Possibly the most straight forward of Meaney’s documentaries (he’s previously profiled Grant Morrison, Warren Ellis, Neil Gaiman) this maybe the most non-fan friendly. The X-Men are well known everywhere, more so thanks to the ten or so films that have been made to date, so there is no discussion of esoteric titles that some people may not have heard of. This is the story of the franchise that rescued Marvel and drove the comics industry to the heights that have resulted in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

In talking with Patrick Meaney about the film he said that the film came out of his desire to highlight Claremont’s contribution to comics. I find it odd that he should feel that since Claremont revolutionized the industry with his serialized storytelling, ever evolving characters and brought in hundreds of creators all of whom were taught to love the medium by Claremont’s words and stories. His stories are still the measuring stick by which all comic stories are measured and they have been the stories which Hollywood has turned to in making their films simply because they can’t be topped.

Chris Claremont’s X-Men is out on home video in a version running some 26 minutes longer than a previous version which adds more stories and brings the story up to date.

Highly recommended.

24 Questions on Mutants and Monsters- Patrick Meaney on CHRIS CLAREMONT's X- MEN and HOUSE OF DEMONS

I never really expected to be speaking with director  Patrick Meaney about his work in detail for a third time but things sort of happened. One doesn't generally get to talk to any  filmmaker at length all that often but the chance to talk to one director about three projects in less than two years is just not done. That they were lengthy interviews each time is somehow even more amazing.

The first time I spoke to Patrick was for NEIL GAIMAN DREAM DANGEROUSLY when we spoke about the film, it's subject, comics, filmmaking and other things. It remains one of the coolest tings I've ever done (The interview can be found here).

I thought that was the end of it until I was gifted about six months later with a chance to see his film HOUSE OF DEMONS, then called TRIP HOUSE, and I was blown away. I immediately asked if we could talk some more and he agreed. We then talked about horror films and related subjects (the interview can be found here) and then I was sure I was done.

But I wasn't...

After fifteen months it was announced that a longer re-cut version of Patrick's film CHRIS CLAREMONT'S X-MEN was going to be released on the same day as HOUSE OF DEMONS. Because I like both films I started to put together coverage for Unseen Films, only to realize  I needed art for HOUSE OF DEMONS since anything I had was tagged with the original title. I sent an email to Patrick asking for the new art and one thing lead to another and I realized I needed to ask him some more questions.

What follows is most definitely both a stand alone interview, and something that is the continuation of the two year long conversation that Patrick Meaney and I have been having about, film, creativity, comics, horror movies and other things. You do not need to have read the previous interviews to know what we are talking about.(If you want to know what went before follow the links above).

Lastly I want to thank Patrick Meaney for agreeing to talk with me once more. I also want to thank him for making not only these two  wonderful films but also a large body of work that includes NEIL GAIMAN: DREAM DANGEROUSLY,  THE IMAGE REVOLUTION, WARREN ELLIS: CAPTURED GHOSTS, GRANT MORRISON: TALKING WITH GODS and SHE MAKES COMICS.

STEVE: How did you decide to make a film about Chris Claremont?

PATRICK: I’ve always felt that Claremont was underrated as a comics creator. Stan Lee has done an amazing job of branding himself, but I care a lot more about Claremont’s characters than those that Stan created, and I found it odd that someone who created such a key piece of our pop culture remains so obscure. I suspect in the future Claremont will gain a reputation like Jack Kirby has today, as an underrated genius. When he died, Kirby was not viewed as the creative god he is today, and I think Chris will have a similar critical reevaluation in the future.

And it was very interesting for me to break down the process of how these works that have become so iconic were created by a small group of people. It was Chris and Louise Simonson and Ann Nocenti and the artists bringing these iconic stories to life. I’m sure that Dark Phoenix and Wolverine will be being rebooted on screen fifty years from now, so why not hear the people who made these characters tell the story?

STEVE: Was the X-Men Your entry into comics or did you come upon them some other way?

PATRICK: It was actually. I got Essential X-Men Volume 1 when I was around 13. It’s a book that compiles the first twenty-five issues or so of Chris’s run, and I was totally hooked. It was so cool to see the start of all these characters, and the subtle evolution of Wolverine, Storm and the rest. I read what was in print in Essential format then, which was up to #161, and then a few years later I tracked down all the issues of his runs and read it through. It took a few months, but it was incredible to see the evolution of the characters in the stories, and to see how Chris updated his writing style, and art changed from the very clean John Byrne and Cockrum era to the much more stylized Silvestri and Jim Lee eras.

And even though it ended abruptly, I do feel that Chris’s run has the sense of being one story from beginning to end. It’s an epic with characters moving in and out, and constantly changing. That’s what’s so unique about his work, there was no stagnation and no archetypes, it was slow and steady change over the years.

The style can be a bit dated, and there are ups and downs throughout the run, but I think it still holds up today as an amazing single piece of work. At the time, there was no long form serial television, but Claremont was doing what we’d see Buffy or The Sopranos do years later back in the 70s and 80s.

STEVE: The film has actually been around for a few years now, why did you go back and decide to revisit and expand it?

PATRICK: There were a few reasons. I really wanted to get the film out there, but there’s not much of a market for a 40 minute film, so I knew that doing a feature would be advantageous. And, after shooting She Makes Comics and getting to know Louise and Ann better, I wanted to incorporate more of their story, and more of Chris’s backstory into the film. And, I felt like there was so much cool material that wasn’t included, so when I started looking at pulling together a feature a version, it all just fell into place and I think this a much stronger and complete project.

I also think that the film is in some sense about the things that we’re struggling with as a society today. Marvel in the 60s and 70s was a company that was innovative and driven by creativity, and the employees were very loyal. And with Chris’s work, there was a long term investment in the characters and stories. By the end of his run, the company was driven by quarterly profits, and the kind of short term thinking that says that variant covers and crossovers are more important than consistently strong storytelling.

I think you can see many parallels with what big corporations are doing, where their primary loyalty is to shareholders, and not thinking about the long term health of workers. Chris’s work paid dividends and by letting him tell his stories, Marvel laid the groundwork for so many comics, movies and shows that are inspired by what he created. Who knows what else could have emerged if they had let him keep writing the book?

And, in our society today, so many corporations are driven solely by short term profit and not long term building of a relationship with workers. If you watch the movie, you can see why that’s a bad idea.

STEVE: What changes did you make? Was the Macbeth discussion in an earlier version of the film and if so what images did you use instead? What stories didn’t make the cut that you wanted to include (and is everything in the deleted scenes on the DVD?)

PATRICK: The major changes were expanding the stories of Chris himself, delving into his background and how it influenced the stories, as well as the background of Louise and Ann. I also included the section about media adaptations of Chris’s work, and his feelings about those, as well as some more input from other people who were inspired by and loved his work. The MacBeth part is new, as is the wild story of how Jim Shooter became a comic book writer as a teenager, which still blows my mind.

STEVE: You edit all your films to the style of the person you are profiling- however the film is the most straightforward of the films you’ve made. Why did you choose the straightforward approach?

PATRICK: This film is a little different because it’s less of a dive into someone’s mind than a piece of advocacy for Claremont’s position in pop culture history. Most people already put Neil Gaiman or Grant Morrison on a pedestal, but I don’t think Claremont has the same respect. So, I deliberately chose to include voiceover for the first time, since I wanted to be clear that this movie is an argument for Claremont’s importance to storytelling, both in comics and beyond.

My other big stylistic choice was to shoot the comics themselves rather than digitally scan the images. I wanted to capture a 70s analog feel, and make for a bit of a different experience. We were lucky to get access to a collection every X-Men comic from #1 on, and it was really interesting to hold a copy of Giant Size X-Men #1 in your hand and see that amidst this iconic storytelling are ads for gum. I wanted to embrace the fact that Claremont was telling stories in a format that wasn’t really suited for artistry, but he made it work.

STEVE: The way the film plays out it is not just about Claremont or the X-Men but so much more. How do you consider it- a Claremont film? an X-Men film or even a Marvel film?

PATRICK: I think it’s a bit of all those things. To me, Claremont and the X-Men are inseparable. He’ll give credit to Len Wein and Stan and Jack, but to me, the X-Men is a Chris project, and everything else is riffing on what he did. I love Grant Morrison’s New X-Men, but it inherently exists in conversation with Chris’s work. And everyone else who writes X-Men is basically doing a cover of Claremont.

So, my goal was to show the way that even though the X-Men has become a kind of cultural mythology at this point, it didn’t just come out of nowhere, it came out of the work that Chris, Louise, Ann and the artists did over the years.

And, the story of Marvel is definitely a big part of it. I loved Sean Howe’s “Marvel Comics: The Untold Story,” and I think this film touches on a lot of the same changes and struggles chronicled in the book.


STEVE:  Its clear in the film, but I know from talking to you about your Neil Gaiman film you like to talk to your subject repeatedly. So I was wondering How many times did you talk to Claremont? How much material did you actually shoot? How about with Louise Simonson and Anne Nocenti?

PATRICK: We interviewed Claremont three separate times, one of which was the round table with him, Louise and Ann. We also shot some b-roll of Claremont at a couple of events. We interviewed Louise and Ann in the roundtable, and then separately interviewed Ann once and Louise twice.

There’s a lot less material than Neil Gaiman, since that had all the road trip footage and is by far the most of any project. This was comparable to Warren Ellis or the Image guys.

STEVE: Do you know if Claremont has a formula for writing comics? If so what is it Does he have say a ratio for dialog to image?

PATRICK: He’s definitely doing a lot more dialogue and captions than is in vogue for books today, especially in his early work. I know he talked about trying to use less dialogue when the art can convey it. There’s a section in the film where he talks about how wonderfully Paul Smith was able to convey character beats through art, that Chris was able to reduce the amount of dialogue. But I’m not sure if there’s a specific formula.

STEVE: What do you think of the X-Men films? If you could make one yourself would you want to tell a classic story or would you want to tell one of your own?

PATRICK: I have mixed feelings on the X-Men films. I think the thing that made Claremont’s run so special was how it unfolded slowly over time and the characters changed gradually. So, no movie can capture the slow burn of the Dark Phoenix Saga, or seeing Storm or Wolverine’s journey over the course of 180 issues.

I like, but don’t love the first two Singer films, and the more recent trilogy started out strong, but went down hill with Apocalypse. That said, I loved Logan and think it’s not only a fantastic X-Men film, but an amazing movie in general, and shockingly emotional. I think that film did what a book like Dark Knight Returns did in the 80s of presenting a very unique take on an iconic character and making it work.

If I had the chance to make an X-Men movie, I’d want to hone in on a specific character and story rather than try to capture the whole body of work. I think Legion did a great job of isolating one element of Claremont’s run and bringing it to life. So, maybe a LifeDeath movie, that has a bit of a Before Sunrise feel and is a romance between Forge and Storm. I think that’d be a really fun way to bring some of what makes Claremont’s work strong to the screen.

STEVE: How much of your material from one project ends up in another? Do you raid yourself and if so how do you decide what to use and what not to? How many films are you working on at the same time?

PATRICK: A bunch of material from She Makes Comics wound up in this movie, and hearing how many creators we interviewed cited X-Men as a touchstone was part of the reason for going back and expanding the movie to include that. And, this movie is almost a prequel to The Image Revolution, in that it sets up the way that Marvel changed from being a very creatively free place to more restrictive, and I imagine even though they replaced him on the books, the Image creators must have been wary seeing how easily Claremont was pushed to the side after all his years of work at Marvel.

I’m always up for using material across multiple films, and at the time I was working on this, we were also shooting Image Revolution and She Makes Comics. So it was fun to pull material from all these different sides of the story together in each different film.

STEVE: Would you ever consider doing a film on Louise Simonson?

PATRICK: I think between this project and She Makes Comics, we covered a lot of her story. But I would love to hear her talking about Death of Superman and more about her collaboration with Walt. She’s a really fun person to talk to, and has so many iconic stories from her years in the business.

STEVE:  Was the end of the film always the story about the woman talking about the nature of the characters not having stories but lives and the important nature of them to fans? How important is that statement to you as a fan and as a filmmaker?

PATRICK: That was always the end, because I think it’s the best demonstration of why Chris’s work was powerful. Wolverine today is like Batman, an icon you can take in all kinds of directions. He’s an archetype who can be funny or serious or tragic. I loved the film Logan, and think it’s an incredible riff on the character, in the same way I love The Dark Knight.

But if you go back and read Claremont’s story from beginning to end, Wolverine is not an archetype, he’s a guy who changes over the years. It’s such a long body of work, and there are ups and downs in quality, but when you look at the growth and change of Storm or Kitty, it’s remarkable. And, due to the extended serialized nature of the story, it really does feel like these characters are living their lives. And whether you read it month to month at the time, or read it in a row now, that’s what reading Chris’s stories feels like.

STEVE: And now to shift gears to the other film that is coming out today HOUSE OF DEMONS. Because I asked it about Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison wom you've profiled, easiest way to transition is how did Chris Claremont and the X-Men influence HOUSE OF DEMONS?

I think on a general level, I loved his focus on character, and a lot of my writing is very character-centric. But, there is one very specific influence. There’s a story Chris did, during the Fall of the Mutants, where Storm and Forge are in another dimension and watching time pass at a very accelerated rate, and dealing with this sort of alternate version of themselves. I liked the idea and had something similar happen to Matthew and Katrina at one point in the film.

STEVE: I saw the film originally very close to the film being completed in October 2016. Have you gone back and tweaked it all?

PATRICK: I think the sound and color weren’t 100% locked when you watched it, so those got finalized, but otherwise it’s the same. I delivered the film almost a year ago, so it’s just been waiting for the most opportune time for the distributor to release the film to market.

STEVE: Why did you change the name of the film from TRIP HOUSE to HOUSE OF DEMONS?

PATRICK: The name was changed by the distributor. Basically, we got some push back on the drug connotations of Trip House from certain buyers, so we had to change the name to ensure that it got out there in the right way. Thankfully the film itself was totally unchanged, so it’s okay.

STEVE: When I originally spoke with you about the film you said that the original idea was that the film was partly to be set in the 1920’s and then you changed the film after you heard the story about seeing Charles Manson dance and lightning coming off him. I was wondering how a 1920’s setting would have changed how the film operated.

PATRICK: My original idea was that it would be more that this house was a soft spot in time and each of the characters would encounter people from a different era. So, the stories wouldn’t tie together as tightly as they do in the final film. But, as I was writing it, I realized it made more sense to have it be one emotional journey, rather than something so split up, and wound up focusing on the 60s cult and the present day characters. I think a lot of the writing process of any movie is winnowing out ideas that might be interesting, but don’t necessarily fit into the story you’re telling.

And there’s so many elements in the movie already, whatever I could do to streamline was good.

STEVE:  When I originally spoke to you about HOUSE OF DEMONS while I asked about the writers you had profiled, but I never specifically asked you if there were any films or stories that influenced what you were trying to do with the film?

PATRICK: On the film side, Magnolia was a huge influence. I loved the way the movie told the story of all these different characters, but structured in such a way that it felt like one single story gradually surging forward. When I was first talking about the movie, I would describe it as Magnolia meets The Shining, since the idea was to have the creepy, time bending feeling of The Shining mixed with the ensemble structure of Magnolia.

Another huge influence on the storytelling style was the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion. Obviously we didn’t have giant robots, but the way that series dove into the characters’ minds was so powerful, and I loved the editing techniques that Anno used. There was one sequence in particular, where there’s a bunch of still frames and Gwen VO that was inspired by Evangelion.

And definitely Grant Morrison’s work, particularly The Invisibles, expanded the boundaries of the kind of story I felt I could tell.

STEVE: When we last spoke you had said that the work of both Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison had influenced Demon House, I was wondering if they have seen it since then and if they gave you any feedback? How about Chris Claremont or Warren Ellis?

PATRICK: Nobody’s seen it yet, but I’ll be sending them DVDs once I get them from the distributor.

STEVE: In the year since I first saw the film I find that the film remains fixed in my mind, not so much as a horror film but as a solid character drama with fantastical overtones. Would you be unhappy if the film found life as a drama rather than as a horror film?


PATRICK: That’s always how I saw it too. I love the weird elements, and time travel and demons and cults, but the whole conceit of the movie is really a way to dive into the characters’ minds and have them deal with their issues. I think some horror filmmakers feel like they have to just put enough character moments in to get to the killing, but I never felt that way, I wanted to really focus on the actors and bringing these characters to life.

I think there’s also a flip side of filmmakers who do genre to get a movie made, but seem to feel like they’re above it, and I don’t feel that way. It feels natural to me to have a scene about a real life issue like a young woman feeling an inferiority complex about herself or a guy feeling angry about a breakup, and juxtapose it with a demon. When they work together, it amps up the whole experience and makes everything more potent.

STEVE: Slightly off topic- How long does it take you to edit your films? Now that you've gone back and expanded the Chris Claremont film do you have any desire to do something similar with your other films?

PATRICK: It usually takes about a year to edit a movie. With docs, I’ll be editing as I go, and eventually you reach a point where the movie just feels right and it’s wrapped. With House of Demons, I got a lot of feedback and had to make many changes to get it to the point where I wanted it. I think I learned a lot, and incorporated that into writing scripts, so I’m hoping it’ll be faster next time.

The Claremont project was a specific case, since the original was short form, and I always had a feature in mind. That said, I have thrown around the idea of doing a Grant Morrison: Talking With Gods: 10 Years Later update, and adding an epilogue (or making a standalone piece) that would catch up with what Grant has been up to since we shot the film. The ten year anniversary of filming is next year and the movie came out in 2010, so we’re getting close and I hope to do that.

I’ve talked to Grant about all the upheaval of the world today and he has a lot of interesting takes, plus he’s been moving more into Hollywood, so there would be a lot of interesting material to talk about.

STEVE: How do you decide to take a project that isn't wholly your own? If say Marvel came to you and offered you a film but gave you no input but might give you autonomy don the road - would you take it over another project where you could help shape it but no guarantee of anything?

PATRICK: That’s something I think about quite a bit, since it seems to be the primary path for new directors today, from Ryan Cogler to Rian Johnson to directors not named Ryan. I used to feel down when directors I love “took the paycheck” and worked for a big company like that, but today I understand how stressful and challenging the world of indie film can be, so the idea that I could be paid a ton of money to make a Marvel movie sounds appealing.

That said, I’d rather make a $10M movie I had full control over and was original than make a $150M Marvel movie. I don’t know what it is, but it seems like most directors aren’t able to do the thing that Grant Morrison does in comics and bounce from big corporate superhero stuff to original properties. James Gunn hasn’t made a movie besides Guardians since he started, Rian Johnson will be making Star Wars movies for the next ten years. I’m happy for them, and it must be a lot of fun to get to mess around with those characters and budgets, but we’re also losing something in the process.

Ultimately, I’m hoping to make the next Star Wars, the kind of movie that gets rebooted in thirty years, but I understand that’s an uphill battle in this market.

STEVE: Since we are talking about two of your projects finally hitting home video I have to ask what we can expect from the Blu-ray and DVD release of your Neil Gaiman film, what can we expect in the way of extras, out takes and deleted scenes?

PATRICK: The Blu-Ray/DVD is supposed to come out in July. I’m compiling material now, and it’ll probably be about 20 minutes of edited material that I deleted along the process of making the film, along with a Q&A I did with George RR Martin in New Mexico after a screening of the film. But, I’m confirming all that now. I’m hoping that librarians will really embrace the film and get it out there, since Neil is such a librarian’s darling.

STEVE: In a kind of follow up to our last interview - As a horror filmmaker what horror films or recent vintage have impressed you?

PATRICK: My favorite movie of last year, and an all timer for me, was mother! I understand it’s not for everyone, but it’s precisely that extreme and unique vision that made it so exciting for me. I was shocked by the turns that movie took, and the boldly allegorical storytelling style. I love the chamber drama of the early part, the “please leave my house” feeling of the middle, and the craziness of the ending. And the more you think about it after, the more layers it reveals.

I think there’s a real tendency in today’s culture for people who like a movie to want everyone to like that movie. There’s this obsession with Rotten Tomatoes scores, and such hostility towards those with different opinions. The movies I really love are rarely the ones that would get a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, since the thing that makes me love it will also be divisive to others. And I have no problem with mother ! getting a razzie nomination or with people calling it the worst movie of all time, since it’s designed to produce an extreme reaction.

And I think it works wonderfully as a horror film, and shows the way the genre can be very broad and incorporate a lot of artistry and style, while still being as genuinely scary and disturbing as anything I’ve seen in a while.

STEVE:  With HOUSE OF DEMONS finally getting a release and CHRIS CLAREMONT's X-MEN getting an extended home video release and the film SHE MAKES COMICS which you produced on Netflix, I was wondering what you have up your sleeve?

PATRICK: I’ve spent the past year or so writing scripts and developing projects. I have a new movie I’ve been working on with House of Demons producer Amanda Sonnenschein and Tiffany Smith that I’m hoping to shoot this year, and several other scripts line up and ready to go once we get the funding together. We’ve been very fortunate to get a really big distributor for such a small film, and I’m hoping to keep the momentum going and just make more stuff. I’d love to be making a movie a year, but for now it’s been mainly writing and building relationships on the distribution end.

Both CHRIS CLAREMONT'S X-MEN and HOUSE OF DEMONS will be available on VOD Tuesday February 6th

House of Demons hits DVD Bluray and VOD Tuesday

With HOUSE OF DEMONs coming out on DVD  and VOD Tuesday I'm going to republish the review I did back in 2016 when the film had literally just been completed. I love the film and think it's beautiful film tat transcends genre to be something special. I liked it so much that I interviewed director Patrick Meaney about it (The interview can be found here).  This is definitely one you're going to want to try.

Patrick Meaney's film HOUSE OF DEMONS is a gem. Destined to be called a horror film because that is the easiest thing to call it, it is in fact something more than that. It simply transcends genres and easy description. I suspect that if the film finds the right audience it will end up a touchstone film for many people for years to come.

Possessing elements of not only horror but fantasy, science fiction and thrillers as well HOUSE OF DEMONS is in fact best described as a Vertigo comic book melded on to a 1970's drive-in movie. I think the best way to describe it for people who know comics and films is imagine if Grant Morrison decided to make a film version of Steven T Seagle's House of Mystery in a style that approximated 1970's drive in films where there is a secluded house some where. (I'm thinking something with the feel of THE EVIL or EQUINOX or WE ARE STILL HERE) If that happened you'd end up with an exploitation style film with very high literary aspirations which is what you have with HOUSE OF DEMONS.

Because the film is hasn't been released I don't want to say much about the plot other than a group of friends go to a house to crash the night before a mutual friend gets married. The past is recalled as the friends talk about their time apart. Things of course happen as there are other forces at work.And if you think you have any idea where this is going you are wrong. Where it goes and how it goes is nowhere near what you'd expect.

I'm not sure where to begin taking about the film. Should I mention the cast which is pretty much great across the board? Every one here is excellent and believable. Other than one awkward performance in a flash back everyone is spot on. These are well rounded characters created by actors who do more than just give line readings to the dialog. There is a physicality to them that makes them more than typical "horror" film characters.

Should I mention the technical achievements which create more than your typical amounts of tension? So much to say about the editing, music, camera works and everything that goes into a film that I'm not sure where to start...worse because of the construction of the film it's hard to really discuss sequences since to do so will give spoilers. I don't want to do that. I will say that the opening two minutes before the credits got my attention and I sat bolt up right just as the title popped on screen. All I could ponder was wonder what the hell I had gotten myself into since the sequence makes clear that the technical crew have made a very tactile, very visceral film that gets inside you and makes stare at the screen.

Should I talk about the script which uses horror movie tropes and turns them upside down to create what amounts to drama about the the past? While it's clear Patrick Meany is working in the fields harvested by people like Neil Gaiman and especially the aforementioned Grant Morrison, he has marked out a little piece of property of his own. Meaney has taken what he has earned from the master storytellers he's profiled and in a way, uses it against the audience. We expect the story to go a certain, the film is throwing up various tropes left and right, but it isn't using them the way we expected.

The most obvious way to see that is that Meaney has structured the story like a horror film, but it's not, there is something greater going on. The best example is if you compare what it is to Neil Gaiman's Sandman. Nominally Sandman is a fantasy comic, but the reality is it's ultimately simply a drama about people that uses the fantasy elements to accentuate the discussion of the human issues, which in Sandman would depend on the story arc. Here its about how we deal with our friends and our shared pasts. Are we chained to the past or are we going to move forward unencumbered? Can we even move forward? More importantly is hat we remember correct?

And at the same time HOUSE OF DEMONS reaches into your belly and twists up your insides as things happen that don't bode well for anyone...because despite my insistence that it isn't, the film is very much a horror film, or if not straight on horror, a fantastical thriller.

You will forgive me I so want to write about the film but I don't feel it's fair because this is the sort of film you need to discover on it's own. If I knew when the film was going to be out for you to experience I would say more, but I don't want to dangle the film's delights until I know when you'll be able to experience them for yourself.

And I need to really ponder the film, perhaps see it a second time or two, since the film shifted before me as one thing that's promised in the first two minutes before the title to something else after the title to something else once things begin to happen. I was never on solid footing and I was never certain where it was going. That's a good thing, since it kept me interested and wanting to know how it was all going to play out.

I have to say that this is the best sort of film - one that sticks with you and makes you think about it, not in a "that was good" or "that was scary" sort of way but rather 'I need to think about what the film was doing and trying to say" way. HOUSE OF DEMONS is a film that I and hopefully you too will be pondering for a long time to come.

This film is highly recommend. A beautiful marriage of genre and literary ideas this is a film that will delight anyone who wants more than hack and slash or blood and guts in their "horror" films.

Entering TRIP HOUSE: Patrick Meaney on making horror movies

Patrick Meany, in the white shirt behind the camera, directs

(Please note TRIP HOUSE has been re-titled for its February 2018 release)

2016 is the year of Patrick Meaney. 

Earlier this year he released the critically acclaimed NEIL GAIMAN DREAM DANGEROUSLY a documentary about the bestselling author. I found it one of the best cinematic biographies I’ve ever seen (Here’s my review). Recently Patrick has shift gears and has begun sneak peaking his genre busting horror film TRIP HOUSE and again he’s hit it out of the park.

For those who are unaware Patrick Meaney is a filmmaker best known for his documentary work focused on comics and their creators. He's done films on Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Warren Ellis, and Chris Claremont.  It’s one hell of a body of work, with most of films considered the source for information on their subjects. TRIP HOUSE his new feature and with it he moves away from documentaries into the realm of horror films. And again he has made a film that hits the ball out of the park.

TRIP HOUSE is the story of four old friends who meet up on the eve of the wedding of one of  one of their number. Wine is drunk, conversations are had and intruders arrive. Unexpected things happen and the horror genre is turned on its head in unexpected ways. 

I was blown away by TRIP HOUSE (my review is here). It marvelously didn't go where I thought it would. It scared me and delighted me and made me go "wow".  Best of all it made me think a great deal. And when it was done I did what I did after I saw DREAM DANGEROUSLY, I emailed Patrick to ask if I could send him some questions concerning the film. He said yes and what follows is out brief email conversation.

A couple of quick notes

First because the film is only beginning it’s journey to you I have intentionally not steered this into a deep discussion of the plot. I’ve tried to not be specific- despite my wanting to be. That said there is one spoilery exchange toward the end (the question begins with a mention of it being a spoiler). I know that may clue you into stuff but it was something I had to ask

I also want to say that because I spoke with with Patrick earlier this year I didn't cover the same ground as the first interview (the earlier interview is here).  This interview is much shorter. Yes there is some overlap but that was because the questions are referring to different films.

Before I give you over to our talk I want to thank, Patrick Meaney for letting me see his films and talk to him about them. I want to thank him for his unending patience. I also need to say that in all seriousness it has been one of the coolest things that happened all year. Getting to talk to a director twice is an extreme rarity, and to do so twice in one year on very different films is pretty much unheard of.

Patrick, the next time you're in New York I owe you dinner.

Steve Cleff's poster art

STEVE: The most obvious way to begin this is to ask since you are best known for directing documentaries, did you have any trouble going from doing films like DREAM DANGEROUSLY or TALKING WITH GODS to doing the narrative TRIP HOUSE?

PATRICK: I’ve always directed narrative stuff, from back when I was in high school, so I’m used to that form of storytelling. The biggest adjustment was just the challenge of getting the project going. Docs require a budget, but there’s a much lower barrier to entry. You can just get the camera and go, narrative, even at the absolute bare bones micro budget level that we were working with on this project, requires a lot more resources, prep and is a more intense process. It’s more about executing a clear plan than filming a bunch of stuff and seeing what happens. So, it was harder in that respect, and more challenging to raise the money for, but creatively, it was a pretty smooth transition.

STEVE: This leads me to ask the typical questions- what was the budget? How long did it take to out together? How long did you shoot...

PATRICK: The budget was micro budget, under $150K, and it took me about a year of talking to people and hunting around to find the financing. Not easy!

We shot the film for thirteen days, so it was on average seven pages a day. And when you have a bunch of action scenes, makeup effects and so many cast members, is pretty tricky. It’s not only hard on a logistical crew level, of setting up lighting and shots, but for actors, it can mean swerving between wildly different emotions and moments in the character journey in quick succession, so it’s not easy.

STEVE: How do you classify the film? The easiest thing to call the film is a horror film, but that is kind of lazy since the film straddles so many other genres. Are you okay with it probably ending up with a horror classification? Were you looking to upset the status quo and expectations by crossing genres?

PATRICK: I’d say it’s a horror film, but that’s partially for ease of marketing. Horror is an easier label to get people engaged with than “psychedelic head trip” or “magical realist thriller.” I wanted to have enough horror tropes in there to help us make the film viable to appeal to the kind of genre audience that is willing to watch micro budget movies like this. I’ve seen a bunch of really good low budget dramas or comedies at festivals that just don’t have a viable path to get out there. But the genre audience is supportive of lower budget and newer content, so it’s a nice place to be.

But, part of the goal was to do something different with the genre. I wanted to bring some of the more out there concepts and storytelling that are commonplace in comic books to the screen, and have the sort of ‘casual surrealism’ that comic book readers are used to, but can sometimes be hard to grasp for movie audiences.

STEVE: One of the things that sets the film apart from anything remotely similar is that the film has a weight to it. The characters all seem to have back stories and lives that bleed off the screen. There is weight to their choices and their lives that you don't find in most films never mind horror films. It's almost as if the film was a novel or was adapted from one. Was that intentional and how did you manage to achieve that?

PATRICK: It’s funny you say that since some elements of the film were inspired or based on a web series that I had created with co-producer Jordan Rennert years back. The process of doing that web series was shooting stuff over a way too long period of five years or so, and in doing that, it was fun to be able to write things based on what I saw the actors doing or new ideas popping up over time. So, the characters of Matthew and Katrina were heavily inspired by material created for the series. It was streamlined and changed a bit to fit into a film context, but the essence of the relationship came out of years of work and thought about those characters. The same is true for Spencer, whose story was drawn from the backstory for one of the major characters in the web series.

One of the things that I do when I write a script is write lengthy backstories for the characters, even minor ones, to try to figure out where they come from and why they behave the way they do. So the character of Gwen actually started out as a supporting character in another script I was working on, someone who was very sarcastic and cynical, and I started to write up a backstory for her, and came up with the idea that her father was a professor who’s slept with one of his students. Normally you’d take that story from the angle of the professor whose life is in upheaval or the student who is suddenly in an awkward situation, but I tried to think about what it would mean to have that legacy and live in a college town where everyone knew what happened.

So I really liked this character and felt like she would have a lot of interesting conflicts and personality. So, when I was coming up with the idea of Trip House, I wanted to bring these characters who I had developed and put them into a story that would largely delve into character rather than being plot centric. And, I had a lot of details in mind that didn’t necessarily make it into the script but informed how I saw the characters.

Then, the actors bring their own spin to it, and their own experience. I sent these backstories to some of the actors, but others preferred to create their own spin on it. But, it was rewarding to hear Chloe as Gwen’s mom echoing stuff from the backstory when we were improvising on set that wasn’t included in the final script.

STEVE: What is the web series? If we watched the series will we see the connections?

PATRICK: It’s called The Third Age. I’d consider it basically my film school, getting to shoot a lot of content and experiment and have fun just making stuff. You’ll definitely see the connections, and a few shared cast members, though it’s nowhere near as polished as Trip House. There, we were working with only a budget to buy the actors lunch, so having 12 crew members and a little bit of money on Trip House felt incredibly luxurious to me.

STEVE: I can sense that you were influenced by Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison and other writers but at the same time you don't play by any of their rules. You steadfastly and brilliantly go your own way-several times I thought you'd go left only to go right. Did you find it hard not to riff or borrow on material from people who are obviously important to you? The same question goes for the conventions of the horror genre did the story go as you wanted it or did you have to steer it away from being cliche?

PATRICK: I was definitely influenced by Grant and Neil’s work, but for me, it’s more about them staking out new territory in which to tell stories than looking at specific stories of theirs that I wanted to homage. So, having a more flexible reality, where time and space and fantasy and reality can all blur between each other is something I love in their storytelling, and wanted to do in the film.

I think the biggest influence for me from the two of them both as writers and in the context or interviewing them was hearing about how they pull stories from the world around them. Grant pulls so much from himself and Neil pulls from the things he sees in the world and I tried to similarly bring in the conflicts that I observe in the people that I know or the struggles that people have and make it relatable.

I think there’s some people who want to make horror movies, with blood and gore and just want enough character stuff in there to get the plot moving. And there’s other films that are more slice of life, think the new wave of TV comedies like Master of None, Girls, Love, etc. that are all about showing everyday life for a certain group of people. I’m equally interested in both aspects, I love the horror and weird elements, but I also love the simple character scenes, and finding a way to marry the two of them I think helps steer clear of horror cliche, because I’m not thinking how can I get another murder in this script, I’m more thinking what is true to the experience for this character.

STEVE: That's one of reasons I think the film is as strong as it is it is entirely character driven. I love that the fantastic element fits in perfectly and doesn't seem tacked on.

PATRICK: That goes back to one of the things that Grant told me, which was he tries to make stories that depict the way he feels about stuff, rather than the way it actually is. So, a grand cosmic Superman epic represents his inner turmoil when his father passed away. I like the idea that when thinking about a character, you use what’s possible in film to bring the emotion to the audience and immerse them in it. I don’t generally like movies that put a lot of distance between the character and the audience, I prefer getting immersed in someone’s subjectivity.

STEVE: Did you intend to structure the film as a "horror" film from the start or did the story just evolve that way? Do you think it could have worked any other way?

PATRICK: That was always the intent. I was looking at pretty limited resources and trying to figure out how to make a unique movie that was mostly in one location and be doable on a small budget. So, I liked the idea of a house that was a kind of crossroads in time/space, where strange things happened. I think you could make a movie with a similar story that doesn’t have the supernatural elements, but is more of a Big Chill vibe, where the characters all interact with each other and come to the same conclusions in a different way. With the actors we had, I think it would have been a good movie, but I think that’s been done before, and using the genre elements let me approach that same sort of story in a fresh way.

STEVE: Curse you for coming up with the Big Chill reference I wish I had thought of it.

PATRICK: I had actually never seen the movie when I wrote the script, but someone who read an early draft of the script was like “Oh, this is like The Big Chill meets The Shining.” So I checked out the movie and saw there was some structural similarity. It’s such a great structure as a writer because you have this inherent mystery and tense dynamic when people who were once very close but have drifted apart come together. Learning more about them makes you understand each person in different ways.

STEVE: Was the cult in the film based on any real group?

PATRICK: Once I had the idea for this house where strange things happen, I was always imagining it was due to a “reverse seance” where someone in the past opens up a gateway to the future. My original idea was that it would be people from the 1920s, which might have been too close to some of what Grant was doing in The Invisibles. But, I started reading a book about Charles Manson, and the opening of it had Manson on a dance floor and people saying they saw lightning coming off him.

So, I extrapolated the idea of what if someone like Manson really could do magic, and had these sort of powers he claimed to have. I was particularly fascinated reading about how Manson was able to manipulate people into following him, killing for him and doing whatever he wanted. I wanted to create a character who was charismatic and watch him break down the psyche of someone to the point where they would kill for him.

But, I also wanted to have Frazer be a bit more sympathetic than the real Manson, and developed the idea that was a scientist who got lost in his quest for power. It was a hard part to cast, and we read a bunch of people, but when Dove came in, he had this intensity and charisma that made you feel like “yeah, joining this cult is a good idea.”

STEVE: Where did you get the idea of how to cross the time barrier? That was something that has hung with me since I saw the film.

PATRICK: It all started with the idea I had of someone killing themselves, but smiling as they do it, because they’re just that much of a believer in what Frazer was trying to do. So, the original opening scene was someone slitting their throat and smiling as Frazer watched them die. I changed it to a drug since that fit better with the scientist idea and felt a little fresher and more thematically on point.

And there’s power in that sacrifice, it’s a classic magic or sorcery trope, a blood ritual to affect the world.

STEVE: I don't think the throat slitting would have been as effective because the shock is we don't know for certain what is happening. I think it’s perfect the way it is.

How much research did you do in to magik and sorcery? Did what you learn that make you change your script, of course that’s assuming you weren't well versed going into the writing.

PATRICK: I read a bunch of things about magick when working on the Grant doc, and just generally being interested in the occult and strange things. So, this is a mix of riffing on that, plus trying to imagine it from a scientific perspective, since that’s who the character is. He says when they’re doing the ritual “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed,” so it’s applying a scientific principle to this weird ritual.

But, as far as I know, no one is able to manipulate space-time like they do in the film, so you can’t make something like this too realistic.

STEVE: When you were shooting did you stick strictly to the script or did you allow things to play out and see how they went?

PATRICK: We changed things often on set. When you’re writing a script, there’s always a desire to “trim the fat,” so if a scene begins with someone saying “Hello, how are you?” you’ll probably hear a note of get right into it, and wind up with scenes that are very business oriented. But, that can be tricky for the actors since you have to jump in in the middle of something. So, in most scenes, we’d have the actors improv a bit before getting into the scene as written. In some cases, we didn’t use it, but a bunch of exchanges in the film do come out of that dialogue.

The biggest change was Chloe Dykstra’s character, who has barely any lines in the script. But, watching the scenes as we filmed them, it felt too fast and too impersonal. So, we came up with the idea of having her talk to Gwen quite a bit, and shot a lot of improvs of her trying to dig into Gwen’s insecurities. And it was a real product of collaboration, with the actors all thinking of what she could say to get under Gwen’s skin the most.

One of the great things about doing a movie as opposed to a book or a comic is you have a unique person whose only job is to be each character. They’re thinking about only one thing and it’s great to use their insight and personal perspective to bring something to a character that I might not have thought of.

STEVE: you budget time for the improv when planning the shoot?

PATRICK: The whole process of making a movie, on this budget, is figuring out the right compromises to make. Every person is looking at their specific element, be it lighting, production design, or whatever else. So, they’re going to want to take longer, and the director’s job is to figure out when something is “good enough” to move on because I’m always aware that having the perfect lighting or set design doesn’t mean anything if we have to rush through the time with the actors.

So, it’s a flexible thing. But my goal was always to light in a way where we didn’t need to switch lighting setups once we got going and could just focus on the acting. And I think it comes down to knowing when there’s a scene you need to spend a lot of time with and develop in more depth, but if it feels right from the start, just shoot on and move on and bank that time.

STEVE: The casting is damn near perfect, so I was did you write to the cast or cast to the script? Did you have to change things up?

PATRICK: There were a few people in the movie I knew I wanted to be in it right from the start of the script. I had met Amber Benson doing the Grant documentary, and I love her acting, so I’d always wanted to do a project together. I had just shot a short with Tiffany Smith and Chloe Dykstra so I had them in mind pretty early in the process.

In a lot of cases, there were people I had in mind who didn’t work out for whatever reason. But, I could not be happier with the cast we had. I did auditions with co-producer Jordan Byrne, and we saw a lot of people. I’m not sure how it is for other people, but when I’m casting, you get a lot of “I guess that person could work” auditions, then when it’s the right person, there’s no doubt. So, when Kaytlin Borgen auditioned for Gwen, everyone in the room instantly knew she was perfect. Same for Whitney Moore as Katrina.

I was so impressed with what everyone brought to their part, and it was just fun getting to work with people who knew their characters and were ready to bring this crazy script to life.

STEVE: Spoilery territory- How hard was it for you not to go for the gotcha ending that everyone expects? Also none of the main characters die. Did anyone try to talk you out of the happy ending?

PATRICK: I hadn’t even really thought about that until we started screening the movie for friends to get feedback and they were surprised that everyone lives. The movie, despite being a pretty rough ride for the characters, ultimately has an optimistic message. And I never thought about having any of the characters not make it to the end of that journey. I wanted them to overcome their issues, and it just felt right to have it end that way.

STEVE: How do you feel about the modern trend toward gotcha endings so you get that final scare/sequel opening? How do you feel about horror films seeming to always end pessimistically? Are you an optimist or pessimist?

PATRICK: I’m not a huge fan of that final zinger ending in most cases. Looking at a movie like The Guest, it has a really great, organic ending, then just tosses a final twist out there. It doesn’t feel true to the movie, but I also understand why and allow it since it doesn’t really negatively impact my opinion of the movie. It’s been happening since Carrie, and is sort of a trope of the genre.

But, that’s also where I didn’t see this in typical horror movie terms. I wouldn’t want to have an essentially optimistic ending, then have a twist that it was all a dream they had while dying or something like that.

While it’s certainly hard to stay optimistic on a week (ed. Note- This was done a day after the Trump election as President) like this, I think people are essentially good and things are getting better, but it’s not easy. And that’s what this movie is about, it’s about going through a lot of awful stuff to come out cleansed. So I think I’m an optimist, though it’s not easy.

STEVE: Did you have to change things to get financing or any other reason? Is this the film you intended to make?

PATRICK: I was very lucky because I had almost no oversight on the movie. I reached out to a contact I had met a while ago with information about the project to see if he’d want to invest. He called me and said “First off, I’m going to invest. Second, send me the script, I know you don’t want my feedback so I’m not going to give it to you. But I’m just curious.” So, that was great.

The thing I will say is that artists are often romanticized for having no oversight and total creative control. But, along with my producing team, particularly Jordan Byrne and Amanda Sonnenschein, we really put this movie through its punches in post. I got a lot of feedback from people and made many, many changes to try to make it the best movie that it could be. That meant shifting some scenes around chronologically from the script, changing voiceovers to clarify things and making all kinds of other changes.

It’s very hard to finish a cut of the movie, feel like you’ve nailed it 100%, then get feedback from people saying they’re confused or had problems with certain stuff. But, I always think of the fact that on Game of Thrones, their first pilot got a disastrous response. They retooled and now the show is a legend. So, I tried to figure out the way to make the best version of this movie, and one that is accessible to people without compromising the integrity of it. I know it’s not a movie for everyone, but I think that thanks to all that feedback, the movie turned out so much better, and is the best representation of what I set out to do.

STEVE: I have to applaud you for understanding that some people may not like the film. I know some filmmakers don't understand that, I had a PR person tell me recently that one of their clients can't understand why everyone doesn't love their film. Is this acceptance something that you've learned or always had? Do you read all your reviews?

PATRICK: It’s so hard in the test screening process because you’ve worked with a big team to create a movie that you feel is incredibly special. It takes so much time to make a movie and so much hardship, you have to believe in that story, and are incredibly invested in it. Plus, no matter when in the process, when you finish a cut you feel like “Wow, I nailed it. This movie is great!” So, to have someone come in and say “Yeah, but this is confusing and this just doesn’t quite work” is not easy to face. But, I always see it as the difference between the original Star Wars and the prequels. It’s not great to do exactly what you want without facing honest feedback from people.

When it comes to actual reviews of the finished film, I like to read them all, but what I keep in mind is that there are movies I absolutely love that were poorly received by critics and audiences. But, it’s the very thing that some people don’t like that makes me love it. So, a movie like Michael Mann’s Miami Vice is a good example. He could look at the critical response and feel disappointed that the movie didn’t resonate, but I loved it so much.

I just try to be realistic that even the best movies have people who don’t like them. I try to take lessons about why people might not respond to a movie, but trying to please everyone is insane. You’ll never do it.

Patrick Meaney and Neil Gaiman

STEVE: Because you've made films about Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison I need to ask, have they seen the film?

PATRICK: Not yet, but I’m definitely going to be sending it to them to check out. I think it will be cool for them to see the influence of their work spreading out beyond comics and on to the screen.

STEVE: Where do your viewing tastes lie? Are you a big fan of horror and of the "cabin in the woods" genre that this riffs on?

PATRICK: I watch a lot of movies, and particularly here in awards season I’m freaking out and seeing three or four movies a week. I love really good genre movies. Something like It Follows or The Guest were a big inspiration in carving out the sort of sophisticated genre nitch I’m hoping to hit with this movie. But, I like all kinds of movies beyond genre stuff. Directors like Wong Kar-Wai or Terrence Malick are a huge inspiration in the way that they construct their films. They feel more like music than traditional narrative cinema, and that’s something that I tried to replicate.

In terms of the cabin in the woods genre, I loved Cabin in the Woods. I saw it opening night in the theater and it was such a crazy ride. Evil Dead 2 is also deservedly a legend. 10 Cloverfield Lane from earlier this year was also a fantastic riff on the one location horror genre. But, most of the horror that I like is more in the “elevated genre” realm, and I’m not someone who grew up watching every Friday the 13th or Halloween movie.

The most recent movie I saw that I really liked was 20th Century Women, which is beautifully constructed and features fantastic acting all around. Would definitely recommend it.

STEVE: Have you met some of the directors who have inspired you?

PATRICK: Living in LA, I’ve been lucky enough to see a lot of the directors I like to talk, but I haven’t met too many of them in depth. The best moment for me was meeting Wong Kar-Wai at a party at comic-con. I was there with my DP Jordan, and we always talk about a shot we really like that Wong Kar-Wai does, so we asked him to recreate the shot with him and us in it. But, he was like “No, let’s do it different,” so he put my girlfriend in there, had a guy at the party use his hand to bounce light on to us then took an awesome photo.

STEVE: What are the release plans for the film?

PATRICK: We’re hoping to play some festivals early next year. I’ve been fortunate enough to work with a sales team who sold several of my docs, and they’re going to be shopping the film. It’s hard to say now, but I’m hoping it will be available on VOD by Spring or Summer of next year. Keep an eye on my twitter (@patrickmeaney) or the Trip House twitter (@triphousemovie) for all the details. I can’t wait for the movie to get out there to an audience.

STEVE: What's next for you?

PATRICK: I’ve been busy working on three scripts that I’m going to work on developing and hopefully be shooting sometime in the not too distant future. One is a Western tinged noir thriller, one is a conspiracy thriller and the other a grounded fantasy. But I’m hoping to reteam with some of the Trip House cast and team to bring them to life.

I’m also working on a couple of documentary series pitches, which hopefully will be going forward next year. It’s so tough raising the money and setting up distribution for each project individually, being able to do a series would be fantastic because it would mean just focusing on making the best movie.

Patrick Meaney (to the right in the jacket) directs a scene