Turning a True Tragedy Into a Very Dark-Comic Thriller - on a Budget
His newest film, Stuck, is based on a grisly true story – a woman ran into a homeless man with her car, and drove home with the victim alive, but impaled on the shards of glass in her broken windshield. Instead of seeking medical help for the man, she left him to bleed to death in her garage – and was eventually sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. This version of the story, which stars Mena Suvari as the driver and Stephen Rea as her victim, is rewritten by Gordon and screenwriter John Strysik to give the poor guy a fighting chance. It’s a violent B-movie that’s as disturbing as it is funny, a black comedy that’s genuinely interested in the psychology of a driver who could ignore the dying man stuck in her windshield.
FILM & VIDEO: When I heard you were working on this project, I was kind of fascinated by it, because I know your work. But when I told other people about it, I got one of two reactions. One of them was, “Wow, that sounds really interesting.” And the other one was, “Why would you make a movie about that?” So, on behalf of those people, why would you make a movie about that?
Stuart Gordon: Well, I was reading about it in the newspaper. It was on the front page every day for weeks. It was one of those stories where you just couldn’t believe it. If you made this up, nobody would believe it. What would make a woman who works as a caregiver lock a guy who’s half through her windshield into her garage instead of taking him to the hospital? This is what’s so shocking about it. It’s a normal woman. It’s not some monster or freak. Why is she behaving this way? That was what intrigued me and made me want to do this movie.
Did you think of it as social commentary in a way?
No, initially not. That came through when we were writing it. We started connecting some things and realizing that the reason that she behaves this way is she’s afraid. Our society is now so fearful, and when people are afraid they’re very dangerous. It’s a real dog-eat-dog world.
The fact that it was based on true events and real people – did that make it more complicated as you and your screenwriter, John Strysik, were trying to find the drama in the story and work on the narrative arc? Did you worry about the implications with real people?
In what regard?
In regard to possibly offending somebody, or hurting feelings.
We got into approaching it as a story, and trying to fill in the blanks. We were just basing it on these newspaper accounts. I think that’s one of the reasons we fictionalized it. It’s not a documentary about those particular events, and we actually veer away from them. The ending is completely different from what really happened. Our feeling was no, we’re not saying that this is exactly what happened, so for that reason no, I don’t feel obligated to any of the people it’s really about. It became – it’s a term you see a lot these days – “inspired by a true story.” It was a story that was a springboard for us, that got our imaginations engaged.
I wanted to ask you about the look of the film – what did you have in mind?
We were trying to give it a feeling like a documentary, that this was taking place in a very real world. I didn’t want it to look like it had been lit. Our cinematographer was Denis Maloney, and he and I had done Edmond together, which had a completely different look. It was a beautifully shot film. This one, we deliberately wanted it to look like someone just happened to have a camera and was shooting in someone’s garage. That was intentional. It also has a very cold look, which is something that Denis helped along, just in the way he shot it and the kinds of colors he used in his lights. The original story took place in Texas, and we were shooting this in St. John, New Brunswick, in the middle of November. There was a kind of starkness that Denis really captured. There was a coldness about it, and, considering the way people behaved, it’s very appropriate.
Was there a specific scene or aspect of photography that was a particularly big challenge?
There were several huge challenges. Shooting the accident itself was really difficult. Denis did something that I didn’t think was going to work at all, but it worked beautifully. We could only do the accident a certain number of times because we only had a certain number of windshields that we could break. Originally they were supposed to have sent us 11 windshields, and five of them were destroyed shipping them to us. So we only had five for the whole picture – we were trying to get that accident without destroying our entire supply of windshields. So Dennis put one of the cameras in the car and the other cameras outside the car. He was able to essentially accomplish – I thought we would have to do each of them separately, but he was able to get so many good angles on that accident that, with cutting, really made it work. We had a wide angle and a tighter angle, and then the one inside the car. That gave us most of the coverage we needed.
How many windshields did you end up going through?
By the end of it, we used them all. But I think we did the accident twice.
A lot of the interesting action in the movie took place in the garage, which was tight and claustrophobic. It felt like a fairly tight location.
That was actually the only set that we built. We had a makeshift stage where we were able to take walls out and things like that, which made it more possible to shoot it. We actually had built both garages – the one we used as the exterior, as well, because we had to burn it. We did do some shooting in the real garage as well. That was really tight. There was no room for the crew.
But everything else was shot on real locations?
Yeah. We also used a set for her bedroom, which was how we were able to get those high angles.
How about the opening scene with the hip-hop soundtrack?
I have to credit my editor, Andy Horvitch, for that. Originally the music that was playing was like a Montovani – “Some Enchanted Evening” was the song, which is what I thought would be playing in a place like that. It was like taking a sleeping pill. One day, Andy said, “Well, listen to this.” And he had thrown a rap song on it. It was a song called “When the Shit Goes Down You Better Be Ready.” It worked great. I was surprised. I couldn’t imagine it, but it was great. It describes the clash of these two worlds. My only regret is that I didn’t have Mena wearing an iPod as she was giving them their meds.
It’s almost more thought-provoking this way.
It’s weird. That’s what’s nice about it. It gets your attention because it’s incongruous.
Did you do a digital intermediate?
No, we didn’t.
Was that a conscious decision or a money issue?
We didn’t really need it. We didn’t do much in the way of digital effects or anything, so we just didn’t do it.
A lot of directors use the DI just to fix lighting or tweak colors afterward.
We did not. This was done on a fairly tight budget, so that really just wasn’t an option.
Well, if you get everything you need in camera …
We did. And I really have to credit Denis and our production designer, Craig Lathrop. It looked good. It was real. It was all there.
Have you ever shot in HD?
I have never directed using a digital format, but I produced a film that was shot digitally. It was a script also written by John Strysek called Deathbed.
Did it save you money or time?
It did. That was a super-low-budget affair. I think the total budget on that was – gosh, it was under $50,000. I enjoyed it. I would like to do more that way. But it’s funny – the people who are financing the films are still kind of leery about that. Every film I’ve done they’ve insisted that it be 35mm.
But it’s not something that you object to aesthetically.
I really like digital films that I’ve seen. People are always trying to make digital look like film, and I think that’s a mistake. Let it be what it is. I thought Cloverfield was kinda cool just in the way it was shot, because it wasn’t pretending to be 35mm and it looked terrific. There’s an immediacy about it that’s great.
What are you working on next?
I’m in the process of casting a Lovecraft story called The Thing on the Doorstep that I hope to be shooting this fall.
That’ll be another feature project?
Yep.
35mm?
It probably will.
And we’ll probably see that next year, if it starts shooting this fall.
God willing!
Red Hen is the name of your production company, right?
Yeah, that’s right. It’s been my production company for a dozen years, at least.
Is it named after a theater company you were involved with?
No, it’s named after a fairy tale. “The Little Red Hen” is about a hen who is very self-sufficient. I don’t know if you remember the story, but it’s about her wanting to bake some bread for her chicks. She asks, “Who will help me plant some wheat?” And none of the animals in the barnyard will help her. She says, “All right, I’ll do it myself.” And making it into flour, and baking the bread, and so on, no one will ever help her until finally it’s all done. And then she asks, “Who will help me eat the bread?” And of course everybody wants to. And she says, “Well, you didn’t help me plant it. You didn’t help me mill it. You didn’t help me bake it.” So she and her chicks ate the bread. And it was delicious. That’s the last line. [Laughter.]
That’s great. Is that a statement of independence?
Yeah, well, it’s sort of the way movies get made. It’s not that I do it all myself. But you can’t expect somebody to come in and do it for you.
You’re not leaning on anyone else to get things done.
Well, you have to engage other people to get things done. You literally can’t do it yourself. But you have to be the one that makes it happen. I learned a long time ago that you can’t wait for someone to come riding in on a white horse to save you.
Did you enjoy this article? Sign up to receive the StudioDaily Fix eletter containing the latest stories, including news, videos, interviews, reviews and more.
