 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
Andy Copp
Mutilating the masses.
by Allen RichardsAndy Copp is the director of the Sub Rosa release THE MUTILATION MAN and the upcoming BLACK SUN. He's also was the publisher of the underground cinema 'zine NEON MADNESS.
Q: How did the story for The Mutilation Man evolve?
A: The story started when I was taking a poetry/short story class in college about eight years ago. We were reading a lot of Kafka and that really inspired me to do something very personal yet sort of abstract from reality. I was also watching a ton of Jodorowski at the time, like EL TOPO and THE HOLY MOUNTAIN. So I read Kafka's story THE HUNGER ARTIST and was very taken with it. I sort of free form adapted it to be a guy doing shows mutilating himself as opposed to starving himself.
The first draft was a poem for the class called THE MUTILATION MAN. From there I knew I wanted to do a short film and started sketching in the past and how I wanted to go about it.
Q: How difficult was the process?
A: It was long and arduous. My first draft was very talky and not all that good really. The ideas were there but the characters spoke them as opposed to showing them like I eventually did. It is a danger a lot of low budget filmmakers succumb to. Its easier (and cheaper) to have a character go over a plot point in dialogue, but its far more compelling to see it rather than hear it.
Over all the process of writing the script took about a year or more due to many rewrites and such.
Q: You're right, many young filmmakers want to tell their stories orally rather than visually. How many different drafts did you go through?
A: I went through probably three drafts, then countless changes as we shot to accommodate location changes and such. Then there was a bunch of scenes I just thought of and shot as we went along.
Q: How different is the final version from the first story wise?
A: Story wise it is the same, but told in a vastly different way. The characters and situations are all consistent from the original draft. But I made the whole thing more visual.
Q: MM is not an easy film to categorize. It transcends many boundaries. How would you categorize the film?
A: I say its EXPERIMENTAL/HORROR. I doubt that many who do not like Horror films could even watch it, so that makes it horror right away, but the whole movie is such an aggressively non-linear experience that is has to be called more than just horror.
Don't get me wrong I love horror movies. I want to make more of them, but this particular piece is more than just a scare movie.
Q: You deal with many taboo subjects. Does the film reflect your background?
A: In some ways yes. It is a very personal movie on a ton of levels. I never witnessed the level of abuse the character in the movie deals with, but I have seen and endured my share. The alcoholic Father is a character that seems to pop up in most of my work and is definitely me dealing with that in my own life.
The movie is a journey of Forgiveness for the character. Making it was one for me as well. But then so is everyday life.
Oddly enough there are things in the movie that were never intended to be there. Like the incest theme. That was not in the script, nor something I've dealt with in my life. It came in by an accident in looping sound. The scene when Vanbebber goes into the kids room at night, he is supposed to be waking him up to clean up the murder scene (which he does), but I accidentally looped in a line of Vanbebber screaming "YOU ARE GOING TO SUCK MY DICK" and it made the scene bone chilling. SO I left it that way.
The whole scene in the bathtub full of meat was more or less ad-libbed so there was a lot of taboo material there that wasn't scripted. But it all strengthens the movie's themes.
Q: I hate to say this, but I think it attests the power of the incest scene. In a recent article I wrote for another magazine, I actually refer to it and state that Vanbebber's character went through with the act. The scene works so strongly that I remembered it as actually happening.
A: In the finished film it definitely reads that way. I'm sure that freaks Jim out somewhat because he was so opposed to the character being incestuous. HE was a cretin (the character) but had his limits. I didn't agree with that. I agree that the scene sticks in the memory the way it is now. But incest is a very common thing in the world and in America it is ignored so much. SO I have no bad feelings about the movie portraying it.
Q: has Jim seen the movie?
A: Yeah he saw it all the way through editing and saw many of the first cuts. He was always very helpful and supportive. My problem was that the movie is my first baby and it’s hard to let things go that didn't work. Jim was very good at helping me through that. There was a 96-minute cut of the movie that I was in love with, but Jim kept on me about it being too long. He was definitely right. Now I look at it in the 72 minute form and still thing I could trim about ten minutes easy.
I think Jim likes the movie. Though I'm sure seeing himself portraying the abusive drunken father bothers him quite a bit.
Q: What was Jim Vanbebber's role? What was it like working with him?
A: Jim and I have been friends for about ten or eleven years. I just approached his company one day to help out with Make up on what ever they were doing and we remained friends since.
In light of his recent outbursts people always expect me to have some sort of horror stories to tell but I really don't. He was a very active member of my team to get this movie done. He dove into the roll whole heartedly and was always ready to go as far as I needed him to. Except once. Originally there was a nightmare sequence (that was way too reminiscent of TETSUO so I'm ultimately glad we didn't do it) where the fetish demon is beating the shit out of the lead character. That is still in the movie. But in the script it continued with her attempting to sodomize him with a big steel dildo. Then the camera pans to the back of her head and it is the Dad's face there laughing. The idea being that everyone abuses the character and it all comes back to the Dad.
Jim wasn't having any of it. He wasn't gonna be the character that buttfucks his son! SO we did it with the whipping scene instead and it worked out for the best.
But Jim was great. He helped me get equipment and good lab prices. He even shot some of the footage when I had to step in and body double Terek!
Q: I remember when I first met Jim on the set of Jackhammer. He was very warm and personable. I had just seen Deadbeat at Dawn a few days before, he actually looked awkward and embarrassed at my praise.
A: That's the Jim Vanbebber that I always knew. Yes, he was a partier and wildman, but since that was never my lifestyle we could always connect on other levels. So I, probably, am among the lucky few who know the real man and not the image.
Q: MM is a very complex film and it is not an easy movie to watch. How do you feel the viewers are reacting? Do they get it?
A: I am shocked at how well people are getting it. I expected the worst reaction possible. My lead actor (Terek Puckett) hates the movie with a passion. He didn't want it to even be released to the public at all! That caused me a lot of doubt about the project because we worked so closely to make it happen for so long. But once I got the nerve up to send it to SHOCK CINEMA for a review and Steve Pulchalski loved it then I felt a lot better.
Q: Terek didn't like it? I know I gave him marks for his performance, it was pretty ballsy (no pun intended). How has he reacted to the praise?
A: He just ignored it really. I sent him the reviews but he has never mentioned them. He has made up his mind that he hates the movie and that is it. I agree he is great in it. His performance is brave and gutsy and he lived that godforsaken character for the four-year period we shot. I would hope he can at least see that he rocks in it.
It’s very disappointing to have you lead actor despises the finished movie. We worked really hard and really closely to make it happen. I think the main issue is that he doesn't like these kind of movies to begin with. He's a much more Hong Kong action sort of guy.
Q: Somehow I don’t see the Mutilation Man being a very long movie it Terek sported a pair of .45s.
A: The character is so fucked up he would have killed himself.
Q: What did you do to pull the performance out of Terek?
A: I didn't have to pull it out of him at all. He is a very professional and good actor. He was able to internalize the character and when I needed it he was there. For instance the scene where he is crying in the woods. I've met many actors who wouldn't have done that scene because it made the character look weak (really it made him look human). Actors are very vain and only want to look cool. Terek never had that problem during shooting. He was always willing to strip down, get covered in mud or hyperventilate while hysterically crying (for real). I gave the part 100%, which is why it bothers me that he hates the movie so much.
Q: What do you say to people that criticize the film for being non-traditional?
A: In fact as of right now I have only had one bad review and that was from some guy that was friends with a guy who was trying to get me to lose my job! So that wasn't even about the movie at all.
That was the only criticism I got for it being non-traditional and they kept saying it needed to be like BLAIR WITHC PROJECT or something. If you see the movie and think that, then you definitely don't need to be watching the thing in the first place.
Q: The BWP was such a huge film that studios want to create "the next BW." Describe your audience.
A: The audience for MUTIALTION MAN is more aware of cinema outside the mainstream. I would think most of them would see BLAIR WITCH and see that the marketing made the movie a hit, not the movie itself. My audience is people who have spent years seeking out the odd and unusual and understand thing slick limited budgets and experimental approach.
Q: You made some interesting choices involving mixed mediums, Super 8MM and 16mm. What was the reasoning behind that? What does each medium represent?
A: No one has accused me of this, but I want to say it anyway just for clarity. I was well into shooting when NATURAL BORN KILLERS came out. I loved the movie and it gave me hope that I was going in the right direction with what I was doing, but at the same time I felt a little dismayed because Stone was using the same sort of technique I was going for. Like I said no one has really said anything so I suppose it didn't hurt my movie.
I just wanted things to look disjointed and fractured. Nothing in the movie really represents reality and I wanted the visual style to reflect that. I also wanted the whole movie to feel like it was decaying or falling apart as you watched. That’s why film grain and colors and such play such a big role in it. The visual progression is the main character’s psyche melting down in front of us. Occasionally we get flashbacks that seem absolutely reel (like the abuse scenes) and then there is the newsreel footage that we know is real. But it all collides in his head.
Q: What was the hardest scene to shoot? How did you over come it?
A: So much was hard to shoot. We would just overcome it by plodding forward. The worst was when we first shoot the Mutilation show in the cage. The day started out wonderful and sunny. Perfect shooting weather, but by the time we shot the clouds had rolled in and fucked up continuity really bad. Then the downpour happened. This was a day with a crowd of extras, extreme make up effects and large set pieces/ props. Then to top it off when the film came back the gate of the camera had slipped loose and exposed the film in large vibrating streaks!
All of that footage is in the movie now. I just used it as transitions and such because it looked really cool. We re-shot the entire scene a year later and it all worked out fine. But I was pissed for a long time about the footage until I found a way to integrate it.
Q: From where did you pull your ideas?
A: All over the damn place! Like I said some was from Kafka and some from watching too many underground movies. Others were just a raging pit of anger in myself because I was just kicked out of the film program in College that I had worked so hard to get into. I also listened to a lot of music while putting the movie together. THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL by NINE INCH NAILS almost became an emotional soundtrack to the production. I made the key players listen to it a lot. I also played music on the set to make the mood right. In the behind the scenes footage you can hear THROBBING GRISTLE playing in the background in many parts.
Q: What was your experience at film school like? Did you take anything away with you?
A: Film school was weird. For a year or two it was the best experience of my life to that point. Even though I was completely vilified for creating horror movies there. The teachers wanted young documentarians or the next Jim Jarmusch and I didn't fit that mold at all. I was often told I needed to grow up. But when I did finally make a movie that was serious and dramatic they accused me of trying to be morbid and mine the depressing nature of the world!
Where I went to school they actively try to discourage everyone so they have a small group by the junior year. You also had to go through a re-admittance process for Junior year. Basically they latched onto a very small element of the criteria (one that they over looked at least half of the students they let in that year) to keep me out. Then one teacher made it a personal crusade to fracture my character and keep me from moving forward in the program. I looked into legal ways to handle it since the whole situation was a complete violation of my rights, but once the lawyers and the ACLU found out the teacher who was doing this was gay and handicapped, they said I had a snowballs chance in hell of winning any case against this man and backed off, leaving me to swallow the whole situation. SO that anger really came out in MUTILATION MAN.
Though I must admit as much as I despise that teacher he was very good at what he taught. I learned a tremendous amount in his film theory classes and walked away from there with enough film knowledge to make one on my own.
Q: You and I went though the same program and had similar problems. The faculty in the program does know their stuff, there's no denying that, but you can't beat your personal views over your student’s heads. That's not what the tuition money is for. Many established filmmakers tell students to save their tuition money and actually go out and make a film. How do you feel about that?
A: To an extent it is a good idea. But I would make sure you have some basic knowledge of what you are doing so you don't spend a ton of money on something unreleasable.
Q: From where do you draw your inspiration? What filmmakers do you look up to?
A: Alexandro Jodorowski is the top influence for me. The way he wove religion, mysticism, and everything else into his own tapestry is amazing. I also love that his films are what you the viewer make them. If you are shallow and unresponsive to thought then his movies are confusing pieces of pretentious trash. But if you can open up to the experience then the movies are moving, thought provoking even life changing experiences.
The Mutilation Man's whole look is my nod to EL TOPO.
But I love so many more too. Abel Ferrara, Martin Scorsese, Shinya Tsukomoto, Dario Argento the list goes on and on. I am really impressed and have become a huge fan of Darren Aronofsky.
Q: What does it take to impress you?
A: Originality and balls. Aronofsky has both in spades. There had never been a movie that was like PI and now he has made a follow up in REQUIEM that is even more adventurous. I was also very glad to see him put Jennifer Connelly in it movie that demanded so much of her. I love her and always have but people always look past how good an actress she is. After REQUIEM I think that will be impossible to do now.
I hate movies that go for the lowest common denominator audience. Much of Hollywood cinema is like that. That's why I despise Kevin Smith's movies so much. They are aimed squarely at crotch level and even when the story demands more (such as DOGMA) he can't deliver. He is much to much in love with dick jokes and hating women to capitalize on his own good ideas. If he had cut out all the Jay and Bob shit in DOGMA it would have been a better movie. So what does he do next, a JAY AND SILENT BOB movie! He is the perfect example of a director who got into the business to be a celebrity and could give a fuck about art. As you can tell that bothers me.
It bothers me when movies like his get repeatedly good reviews and movies that are challenging like FIGHT CLUB get lambasted by critics. It seems to me America is terrified of intelligence in their films.
The movies that do it anyway impress me.
Q: What can we learn from the film?
A: Not to beat on your kids! And that holding on to past pain only leads to pain in the present. It’s all about letting go man!
Q: Was the movie how you let go?
Somewhat. Letting go is an ongoing process for everyone. Then naturally we have other disasters in our lives that affect us and have to be dealt with too. I paint a lot when I am not writing and making films so I find that to be very therapeutic as well. But the movie did function as a huge valve for a lot of anger that we built up over twenty some years.
Q: What can we learn from your experiences?
A: That you can make this work on your own. You don't need Hollywood or producers or big money to make a film. Also that personal vision movies do get noticed. I mean I am not making any money but the movie has achieved a certain amount of respect and that means a lot to me.
Q: Any anecdotes or interesting stories?
A: The whole thing was one long anecdote. The movie was a long, hard to endure process. It took its toll on my personal life in a big way. But I am glad I did it.
The weirdest thing that happened was when Terek passed out from having a blood sugar low. That first scene of the movie (incidentally the first scene we shot too) when Terek is strapped to the tree he passed out. In the final movie he nods down and it fades to a credit. In real life he was out cold. We woke him up and gave him a twinkie so everything was fine. But it marked an interesting beginning to shooting.
Q: That's pretty interesting. It’s one of those happy accidents that came together in the editing room. How difficult was it to cut the film?
A: Cutting the film took about a year or so. I did most of it linear too. I did have access to an Amiga video flyer for a while so I was able to do some effects and fades. But most of it was tape to tape. I also did a lot of sneaking around at places that had editing equipment. Lock myself in all night to work and that sort of thing.
Q: What would you have done differently?
A: The biggest thing I would have done differently is mastered the footage to tape more carefully. And I don't mean the final release transfer. I mean the initial raw footage. I was very familiar with film because of school but had almost no knowledge of video when I began. I knew the edit equipment I would have access to was VHS based so I had all the footage dumped to VHS for editing. Big mistake. The raw footage is so gorgeous and the final movie doesn't reflect that all.
There are loads of other things I would do differently but none if then interesting enough to go into. The movie is what it is and warts and all I am happy with it.
Q: What are the chances we'll get to see a new transfer that does the film justice?
A: Nope. Not a chance in hell. The new Sub Rosa Release will be as good as the movie will ever look. To remaster I would have to go back to all the original negatives and do a new film to tape transfer then re edit the entire movie over again! The money and most of all the time just aren't there to do such a massive undertaking. Plus the movie is done and I can't go back to it or I'll keep making changes and fuck it up.
Q: Any problems during production?
A: Oh sure there always is. My producer and best friend started fucking my girlfriend behind my back because I was so busy with the movie! Naturally they are married now and I haven't spoken to them in five years.
Lets see, what else. Terek moved to LA and we needed to do some re-shoots, so I had to body double him (I body Jim in a scene too but no one has ever spotted either one).
Money is always a problem. We would run out, shut down for a while then gear back up a few months later.
The worst was when it came time to process and transfer the super 8 footage. The lab I found to transfer it to tape took a look at the footage and freaked out. They refused to do the job because of the content. Even though I expressly detailed it for them before sending it. I eventually found some old man here in Dayton who transferred old home movies as a side business and he did it for me. But the footage wasn't time base corrected and looked really bad, so I had to try and color correct as I edited. Then the old guy forgot to cash the check for 8 months. I had forgotten about it when suddenly the account cleared out and a bunch of checks bounced. SO it was a nightmare.
Q: What was the final budget?
A: Around ten grand.
Q: Was this all credit card financed?
A: I got about a $1500 from relatives and such. But the rest was credit cards and my own pocket.
Q: What advice would you give to an up and comer?
A: Find financing and DO NOT USE CREDIT CARDS! That's how I did it an it ruined my credit history forever. Unless you are making something that will get noticed and lead to other jobs like LERKS or HOLLYWOOD SHUFFLE. Those lead to more money and you can pay off your debt. But if you plan on making some experimental splatter film then you will be broke for a long time!
For more information on the work of Andy Copp just head to any of the following sites.
Andy Copp
Neon Madness
Sub Rosa Studios
This article originally appeared in SCAN issue number 8 from Draculina Publishing.