MovieChat Forums > The Possession of David O'Reilly (2010) Discussion > An interesting interview with the direct...

An interesting interview with the director Andrew Cull...

posted 14 years ago by sheilam240
6 replies | jump to latest

I found an interesting interview that provides some good insights into the making of the film. The text of the interview is below, or you can go the original website link here:http://drgoresfunhouse.com/interviews/filmmakers/andrew-cull-talks-the -possession-of-david-oreilly/

Enjoy!

Sheila
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

INTERVIEW – ANDREW CULL talks The Possession of David O’Reilly

Published on: 24th April, 2010

INTERVIEW - ANDREW CULL talks The Possession of David O'Reilly | read this item

Supernatural horror is not an easy formula to pull off, with the majority of the audience being skeptics. The Possession of David O’Reilly is Andrew Cull’s contribution to the genre and has already begun to attract attention from various websites.

Andrew discusses both the movie and his own personal beliefs on the supernatural…

To make an effective horror movie, filmmakers must confront certain subjects or themes that they fear themselves. What do you feel you are scared of the most and how have you dealt with this in your work?
“If you don’t draw on things that frighten you how can you expect your audience to be frightened in the theatres? I don’t feel I scare easily and I won’t write a story in the horror genre unless it genuinely unnerves me. I hope that means that the ideas in my scripts are frightening to the viewers of my movies. As far as themes that frighten me one of my greatest fears has always been madness. It’s more frightening than otherworldly monsters as it’s so tangible. Most people’s lives have been touched by it at some stage or another. Whether it’s dementia in an elderly relative or a personal experience. It’s a sense of plausibility that I often look for when I write horror. I’m interested in the places where horror crosses into our everyday lives. Kind of the cracks through which it creeps into our reality.

My other great fear is of death. Oddly possibly for someone who write and loves horror movies but I have a morbid fear (no pun intended) of my own mortality. This obviously sneaks into my work and I think strengthens it. When I wrote D.O.R I really wanted any death in the film to have meaning. That’s something that I don’t feel you see a lot of in horror films. I wanted a sense of real tragedy when someone died. I really wanted the audience to feel that it mattered. Ideally I’d want a situation where the audience feels a range of emotions that they don’t normally get with a horror movie. Obviously I want to create suspense and tension but I’d also like them to really care about the characters they’re watching and feel true horror and sadness when they die. I hope that comes across in the final cut of D.O.R.”

The Possession of David O’Reilly is described as a supernatural horror, but what are your own personal beliefs with regards to ghosts and afterlife?
“That’s a BIG question. I’m a sceptic but I’m very much open to persuasion. I’d love to be proven wrong! The problem is that I’ve never seen or experienced anything to change my opinion. If I made lots of money from a movie or a book I’d love to dedicate some time to being involved in some proper paranormal investigation. I’m talking more James Randi than Most Haunted though! Don’t get me started on that terrible show. Grrr!”

Many horror movies that deals with ghosts suffer from similar clichés: eerie whispers, figures running passed the door, etc. Is this something that you have tried to avoid or embrace?
“If you don’t try to avoid cliché and create something new then you aren’t doing your job properly. There’s a lot of lazy writing in horror. It’s often seen as a second class genre, one that’s easy to make money with but doesn’t require writers and directors to invent or move the genre forward. I hate that attitude. OK, I won’t always be right with my ideas, some will work and some will fail but I definitely try to bring something new to everything I do.”

How do you feel your movie compares to the horror movies that have been released over the last couple of years and what makes it stand out from the rest?
“I’m really pleased with the performances in the film. There’s a real depth to them that you’re unlikely to see in other micro budget movies. That’s one of my real strengths as a director.”

There are few successful horror movies shot in Britain compared to American and Europe, how difficult is it for a filmmaker in England to fund and promote this kind of work?
“Honestly, unless you’re born into the industry and nepotism carries you through it’s practically impossible. The British Film Industry ™ is not a meritocracy regardless of what people would have you believe. I wasn’t born into it so it’s been an uphill struggle. I wrote Inside (later David O’Reilly) back in 2003 and it wasn’t shot till 2009. That gives a bit of an idea of how long a road it can be. For others it’s much longer. I count myself as one of the very lucky ones.

I’d imagine it’s hard enough if you want to shoot a Rom Com (that UK brand of films) but if you want to make a horror, especially one that does things differently, you’re practically dead in the water.

In 2006 no one would listen to my ideas and so I decided to go it alone and make In The Dark. (www.louisepaxton.co.uk) I shot the Louise Paxton project for two reasons. I really liked the story and thought I could do something with it and because I really wanted to show off the style in which I wanted to make Inside (D.O.R.). It was In The Dark that cracked David O’Reilly for me, that got people interested. Even then some people in the industry looked at Louise Paxton and thought it was too homemade and that the style would never sell. Paranormal Activity anyone? That’s the level of forward thinking and vision I was dealing with.

It’s not all doom and gloom though. I used YouTube to get my ideas out there and all these sites which weren’t available when I started writing are a real plus to first time filmmakers. If you can get hold of a camera, shoot something and get it out there it’s a great platform to show off your style and abilities.

My only other advice is persevere. You’re going to get knocked back a thousand times but eventually, if your work’s good enough, someone will take notice. Remain true to your ideas and don’t be swayed by people who are more interested in money than film making.”

Whilst attempting to avoid comparisons to Paranormal Activity, some websites constantly reference the movie when discussing your film. Does this frustrate you and how do the two movies differ from one another?
“I’ll tell you a little bit about how David O’Reilly came about. When I wrote David O’Reilly it was called Inside. It was 2003 and I was fed up with glossy US horror movies that didn’t relate to me in anyway. They were all set in places that I had no connection to and were often populated by characters that were completely unbelievable at best and generally hateful. I wanted to find a way to bring horror back to its audience, to make it relatable and hopefully all the more frightening for it. It didn’t take me long to realise that I had to somehow set the film in the audience’s home, in the place where you live, the place where you turn the lights out every night and are swallowed into the black.

I knew the film had to be shot in a documentary style but I didn’t want to be as constrained by such a realistic choice as something like The Blair Witch. I always imagined some of the monster sequences in Inside as being like watching a documentary and then seeing something amazing and impossible happening. I wanted to audience to feel as stunned as the characters when something you’d feel was impossible burst into the film.

Originally the film was going to be about a husband and wife documentary team who set about documenting a haunting. Imagine what that could have been like!! I didn’t go with that idea in the end because I wanted to create something that looked like a documentary without the constraints of the style – someone being behind the camera all the time and the often questions of plausibility in such a situation.

I’m not unrealistic. It’s no wonder to me that other people (since 2003) have thought of similar ideas and explored similar styles. That’s the nature of film making. I don’t find it frustrating to have people reference Paranormal Activity when talking about Inside (D.O.R.). The film coming at this time it was always going to be the case. If Paranormal Activity hadn’t come about we might have been compared to Rec or The Blair Witch. David O’Reilly shares elements with these films but I think once an audience get to see it they’ll see there are marked differences between the projects. I’m still fascinated by reality in horror and it’s something I’m going to continue to explore. With that in mind I’m sure the comparisons will continue for a long time.”

[–] Xcalat3 13 years ago

thanks

When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

[–] equalizer5150 13 years ago

Here is an interview from http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/interview/606

The Possession of David O’Reilly: Director Andrew Cull

By: MrDisgusting

"The film a terrifying supernatural shockumentary about a demonic presence in a young couple's home in London."

BLOODY DISGUSTING: Tell me a bit more about the story?

The Possession of David O'Reilly

ANDREW CULL: David O’Reilly turns up at Alex and Kate’s apartment in the middle of the night. He tells them his girlfriend has been cheating on him, and Alex and Kate let him stay. But David’s not told them everything. For the past 2 weeks he’s been seeing and hearing things in his house, terrifying things and finally he fled to his friends place to escape them. It soon becomes clear he hasn’t left “them” behind - the haunting has followed him. The chilling story unfolds over the next 2 nights to a harrowing climax.

BD: What inspired the film?

AC: The story of a domestic incident a few years ago inspired the film. Police were called to a block of converted Victorian apartments, and what they found inside one of them was puzzling and disturbing. There were no signs of a break in, or reason to suspect drugs or other foul play and police attributed the events to a domestic dispute or love rivalry gone wrong. A diary was found full of strange ideas and drawings.

In most cases we settle for rational explanations, but our film portrays an explanation from beneath the surface, an explanation that defies logic.

BD: How do you respond to the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY comparisons?

AC: Ever since Blair Witch came along filmmakers have been trying to replicate the found footage or documentary approach of that film, with varying degrees of success. It’s a tremendous way of giving veracity and immediacy to a film. So anything that utilizes those techniques is going to be compared to Paranormal given its success. There are sure to be a lot of filmmakers out there making documentary, found footage films. Paranormal has broken out, because of the major marketing the film has enjoyed, but primarily because Paranormal is a good story well told, and word of mouth is very important.

The Possession of David O’Reilly was actually written about 5 years ago, and we were actively developing the script through last year and pre-producing it over the winter, and shot it early this year. Being in the UK, none of the production team has actually seen Paranormal Activity yet, but from what’s been written and the trailers, we share a documentary approach, and clearly there are supernatural elements. It’s also set in an ordinary London apartment with the characters being in their 20’s. In fact we made a web series like this back in 2007. A Youtube series about a young woman who moves to a London apartment and keeps a video blog for her friends back home. At first all is well, then strange things start to happen, she thinks she’s being stalked, and then some very supernatural things start happening. So perhaps Paranormal Activity was actually influenced by that?

Ultimately who cares – fact is Paranormal does the job well, wherever it got its influences, and whatever the techniques used. Our story is different, just shares some techniques.

BD: What makes this different?

AC: Our film is shot in a documentary style, hand held, with a lot of point-of-view shooting, really putting the audience into the characters heads. We build suspense with show not tell, and there’s a narrative flow. Key to understanding our story is that the haunting is not attached to a house, it follows David himself, is attached to a person.

BD: How do you create scares in your film?

AC: There are plenty of shocks, but suspense is built throughout the film, by showing the fear in the characters, with what they do to escape, and also importantly really showing the horrors they see, what David sees.

BD: What film would you say this is most similar to?

AC: There are elements that are like a mix of The Shining, The Thing and Rec, amongst others.

BD: How was the movie filmed? What camera was used?

AC: We shot the film on Red One, at 4k, since a lot of it was going to be in darkness with what’s in there, and we wanted resolution aplenty to get into that. We took a documentary approach and filmed long sequences. It was all hand held.

BD: What type of budget did you have to work with?

AC: We were very low budget, we shot in one location with a short shoot .

BD: What are some of your favorite horror films?

AC: All time greats like The Exorcist, The Shining, The Omen, The Thing, Alien, and more recent films like The Ring, Tale of Two Sisters, Rec, Hidden, Session 9

BD: What’s next?

AC: Lots of ideas in development we want to make. There’s one project, a supernatural story, literally stops your breath and makes your skin crawl….

BD: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

AC: We’re huge horror fans and we made this film as something as fans we’d like to see – supernatural, terrifying, and intense.

~ "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

[–] keeleevoncupcake 13 years ago

I think I would have loved this movie if they had ACTUALLY used the "documentary" approach like he goes on and on about here, haha. Not wanting to be "constrained" to the style by having to write in ways to make it plausible, while still shooting half your film that way to try and recreate that sort of scary atmosphere, seems like a bit of a cheat to me and was confusing as a viewer. He also mentions how supernatural it is when I took away from it that everything was in the main character's mind . Also funny.

But it was still a mostly enjoyable film, and I applaud his efforts and all the work and thought that he put into it (even if I didn't have the same reaction). Both interviews were very good and interesting as well, thanks you two for posting them. I'm actually going to look into that Youtube series he mentions making previously now.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fiatlux-1 12 years ago

It sure sounds like to me that the director intended this to be a supernatural horror movie, NOT a psychological horror movie.

But then, I always thought from first view of this film that it was a supernatural ending.

"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."

[–] tbonesays 10 years ago

Yes I see no distinction between PODOR and Blair Witch, other than one is shot indoor with violence. I think the film had no supernatural element until the twist in the last shot.