Martin Grove’s Filmmaker Focus – 03/07/11 James Wan – “Insidious”

As genres go, horror thrillers are one of Hollywood’s favorites.

They typically don’t cost a lot of money to make and they don’t need big stars to drive them at the boxoffice. All they really need are a few good scares to keep moviegoers — especially their core audience of teenage girls — screaming in their seats.

Although the filmmakers, themselves, don’t have to be familiar names, it’s a big help if they’ve already made some movies that have delivered the right kind of chills.

A case in point is “Insidious,” opening Apr. 1 via Film District. “Insidious” boasts the team behind the original “Saw” (director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell) and the original “Paranormal Activity” team (writer-producer-director Oren Peli, producer Jason Blum and executive producer Steven Schneider). Starring are Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Barbara Hershey, Lin Shaye and Ty Simpkins.

With the “Saw” franchise’s seven films since 2004 having grossed over $415 million domestically and with the 2009 release “Paranormal Activity” and last year’s sequel “Paranormal Activity 2” having done nearly $193 million domestically, there’s every possibility lightning could strike again now that the two teams have teamed up to make “Insidious.”

Their new chiller will be in the spotlight for its U.S. premiere March 11 and 12 at SXSW. Earlier this year it was an Official Selection at Film Comment Selects and in 2010 it was an Official Selection at the Toronto International Film Festival.

The Story (studio synopsis): “Renais (Rose Byrne) and her husband Josh (Patrick Wilson) are still unpacking boxes in their family’s new home when she first senses a sinister presence. Eerie events steadily escalate into supernatural attacks, until one day their oldest son slips into a mysterious coma. Renais and Josh abandon their ghost-ridden home and attempt to heal their broken family, turning to an unorthodox expert in supernatural occurrences (Lin Shaye). They soon discover — It’s not the house that’s haunted.”

I was happy to have an opportunity to focus recently with director James Wan on the making of “Insidious.”

Q: How did “Insidious” come about?

A: We met the guys from “Paranormal” and we became friends. And we really liked those guys. They were asking if we wanted to work together with them. It just so happened that Leigh and I have had a haunted house movie that we’ve been working through for a long time and we felt like they were the right people for it. It was an idea that Leigh and I actually had when we cooked up “Saw.” Including “Saw,” there were three ideas. Believe it or not, one idea was literally about a guy who thinks he’s been haunted at night when he sleeps so he videotapes himself while he sleeps (laughs) — which to me is “Paranormal Activity.” And that was something I’d thought of way back then when we were working on the first “Saw.”

The third idea we had was a haunted house movie that had an alternative spin to the haunted house genre. We feel that haunted house movies have pretty much been done to death and we wanted to bring something to the genre that was a bit different. So that’s how “Insidious” came about.

Q: How did you guys happen to meet?

A: We met because we’re in the same sort of social circle. That was mid to late 2009. We had a great meeting and said it would be great to work together. Leigh and I, with our strange quirkiness that we like to bring to genre films, thought, “You know what? This could be something really cool. It could be something pretty fun to have the guys who made the two, I guess, most successful genre films in the last few years get together.” And this was basically the fruit of our labor. Believe me, it was one of those things that kind of make me nervous because I’m like, “This is going to put a lot of expectations on it.” But so far it seems to be playing really well and people seem to be really digging it.

Q: Years ago haunted house films were a very popular horror films sub-genre. Then it disappeared for a while and now you’re bringing it back with “Insidious.” Is there a reason for haunted houses peaking in popularity and now returning?

A: I guess it’s just films in general. Films are a lot like fashion. It goes in and out of style and after a while people like to kind of see it again and it comes back in popularity. I really think with horror films people just want a scary movie and it really doesn’t matter what sub-genre the scary film is in. If the fans see a film and really like it, that’s what they really hang on to. So it seems a particular genre has resurfaced when it’s really just the quality or effectiveness of the film. You know, “Paranormal” was such an effective film that it brought that (haunted house) sub-genre back up again.

Q: There’s talk that you made “Insidious” for $1 million or, perhaps, $1.2 million. What would you put the film’s budget at and how did you manage to do it for so little money?

A: All I would say is I made it for far less than I made “Saw” for — and “Saw” was made for $2.50! (laughs) How did I do it? I would say the big difference compared to “Saw” is that “Saw” was my first film and it was the first movie I made in Hollywood. So I didn’t really have a huge infrastructure around me.

“Insidious” is my fourth movie and through the years I’ve made contact with really good people and become good friends with a really good crew and that’s really how we managed to pull it off. I have a great team now and we were able to come together and make it in such a short amount of time with such a finite amount of resources.

Q: How short a shooting schedule did you have?

A: 22 days. I needed to know exactly what I wanted (to do on set) because there was no time or money to waste. Part of the reason I decided to take on the challenge of editing the film myself was that I knew if I had to explain how I wanted the film cut it would take me really long. So I went into this with the producers and the financiers and I made it part of my (deal) that I will make this film with what we have, but I need to cut the movie because it means I can then shoot the film knowing exactly how I’m going to edit it later.

So Leigh and I were very cognitive of how we were going to proceed with the film and how we were going to approach it with the resources that we had. It blows my mind when the critics (say) it’s my best work. I think it’s technically the one that was the most challenging I’ve had to do, but I was very fortunate to have the right group of people including the producers on this film to support me.

Q: Did you storyboard?

A: Even though for a guy like myself who’s a big visual fan — I’m a very visual guy — I’m not a big fan of storyboarding. I find storyboarding really confines you to a certain look and you don’t discover the film as you’re making it. I really go through a film with a very strict vision as to how I’m going to make it, so I don’t need to storyboard it. On top of that, it was an idea that Leigh and I had had for many, many years so it wasn’t like I just went in there kind of going, “Okay, how am I going to shoot this today?” (laughs) I went in there with a very strict and concise vision for the film.

Q: It’s said that teenage girls are the audience for horror films.

A: I know. Isn’t that amazing?

Q: It always stuns me because it just doesn’t seem as though that should be the case. Do you target young women specifically?

A: I actually do believe this is the case. I really did discover after the process of making “Saw” that our biggest demographic for the “Saw” films were young females – like they were 16 year old girls. They did a focus group and we constantly found that our biggest fans were (laughs) young female audiences. That was really interesting to discover that. There’s something very primal, I think, that the female gender really takes to horror. If you look at pretty much all the horror movies in the past, they have protagonists that survive the villain. It’s always the women that survive. All the guys get killed off in the end.

So even though women are the victims in these films, women at the end of the day are also the heroes. And I think in some ways that’s very empowering to a young female audience. I’m not quite sure what it is from a psychological standpoint, but I definitely think women are more attracted to the horror genre and males tend to be more attracted to the sci-fi genre. Once again, you look at “Twilight” — it’s the sexy horror aspect of “Twilight” that women really took to. You don’t hear women going, “Oh, we love that sexy robot.”

As for whether or not I target them specifically, no I don’t do that. Leigh and I make movies for ourselves. The way we see it is, if we make a particular kind of movie that we enjoy there’s a very good chance that there are people out there that will like what we love, as well, so we always use ourselves as the main gauge and try not to make movies by committee.

Q: Years ago horror films played to a broader audience, including adults. I’m thinking of movies like “The Exorcist” and “Rosemary’s Baby.” That’s a type of film we don’t seem to see anymore. Why do you think that’s the case?

A: It’s interesting that you pick those two films because I think back then it wasn’t as niche driven as it is today. Horror movies back then weren’t really aimed at teenagers like they are today. “The Exorcist” and “Rosemary’s Baby” were grown-up films. I think especially in Hollywood they realize that the general moviegoing public tends to be teenagers. They’re the ones who actually spend money to go see these films. So, I think, movies these days are more skewered to a younger audience.

Q: Franchises are the name of the game now and you certainly created a big one with “Saw.” Is there a franchise in “Insidious?”

A: Well, here’s the irony. In the first “Saw” film Leigh and I really kind of saw it as a one-off film despite the fact that we left such an open-ended ending to the movie that naturally lent itself to sequels. We never really expected it to become the franchise that it became. It just kind of naturally worked out that way.

Do I see this as a potential franchise? Listen, you know, it really comes down to how well it does. That’s the bottom line. You know, you can kill your villain so many times, but if the appetite for sequels are there, you just keep making them. It is show business, after all, and they do look at it from a different standpoint. For me, it’s all about make the film and tell a good story. Even if it’s in a genre that is sort of done to death, try to find a new spin to it and that’s what we tried to do with “Insidious,” find a new spin to a genre that is rather familiar.

Q: Your film has had some big festival exposure, including at the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival, and now it’s having its U.S. premiere at SXSW.

A: Yes, March 11 and 12 our film’s playing there.

Q: It’s a little unusual to see a film like this get such prominent festival play.

A: The reaction so far is that it’s got very positive word of mouth. I’m very excited for that. That was part of the reason, too, why I made the movie the way I made it, which is almost a garage filmmaking approach. I really wanted to make a movie that kind of would take me back on to the film festival circuit. I really want people to know that this isn’t a blood and guts movie.

In a lot of ways the “Saw” franchise has kind of given me that reputation and I really wanted to show that what I believe made the first “Saw” film successful was the unique story and the suspense. It was a psychological thriller and, ultimately, it had a really cool ending that people really dug and there was more to it than just blood and guts. That was part of the reason I wanted to make a haunted house film — because haunted house movies aren’t about blood and guts.

Haunted house movies are about genuinely creepy atmosphere. It’s about the creaking of a door. It’s about a rocking horse that rocks on its own. And that’s all it takes to send chills up your spine. If you can do it right, it doesn’t matter how many times you’ve seen something like that that is so familiar. It’s effective if it’s approached and executed correctly. And that was one of the reasons I wanted to do it as small as I could so I could have complete creative control. I would say this is the first movie I’ve made that the theatrical version is the director’s cut. No one can force me into making it a certain way. The final film is my final vision. And I’m really happy and excited that it’s been really well received so far.

---