Filmmakers Jim Mickle and Nick Damici sit with actors Bill Sage and Julia Garner to discuss their collaborative process and why their film is not a remake of the famed 2010 Mexican horror classic. Oh, and did we mention they really hate found footage horror? The saying you are what you eat has never been more true than in Jim Mickle's and Nick Damici's We Are What We Are. Their debut feature, Mulberry Street, played to raves at TFF 2007, and the two filmmakers continue to collaborate. From a mutant rat plague in NYC in Mulberry Street to the post-apocalyptic vampire-controlled world in Stake Land, Damici and Mickle's content has been fiercely original, so horror fans were baffled by the news that they would be working on a remake of We Are What We Are. True to their filmmaking process, however, the two took the original premise of the film and ran with it in unexpected directions.
We sat down with Mickle and Damici and their two lead actors, Bill Sage (American Psycho, Trust, Boiler Room) and Julia Garner (Electrick Children, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Martha Marcy May Marlene), to discuss their latest feature, the family atmosphere on set and what horror trends they think should go away forever.
Tribeca: I don't think I would even consider We Are What We Are to be a remake or a reimagining. It's more of a reinvention of the cannibalistic clan subgenre, if anything. Were you two at all daunted by taking on this project?
Nick Damici: We werent daunted by it. We were baffled by why anyone would want to remake it when there was nothing wrong with the original. Obviously, the idea is to do an American version, so I get it I guess. Once it was clear that the producers really did want to greenlight this project, we didnt want to pass up the opportunity. We took really a good look at the film and asked, what can we do with it to make it different enough to make it worth doing again.
We didnt want to venture too far from the original because we did like the dynamics of the family structure. We did decide to flip a lot of the other elements of the original to see where that put us taking it out of a city and putting it in the country; making it about two daughters instead of the two sons; having the parent be the father instead of the mother; and substituting the corrupt cops with an honest doctor. We went through an interesting exercise in how to translate and reinvent something. I think you can watch both movies back to back and not necessarily realize you are watching the same movie, except for the cannibal theme.
Tribeca: There was this fascinating religious aspect to the film. Ritual is involved in the first movie, but the motivation is more "eat to survive" than fulfilling an ancient tradition. Why did you choose to emphasize the religious part of the story?
Jim Mickle: A lot of that comes from Nicks script. I jumped on it because, for a long time, I wanted to make a horror movie about organized religion. I felt like there was a great story to be told there. Once the first draft of the script was done we felt that we had done it. It felt like we didnt set out to comment on organized religion; it just happened I think. The original film gave the characters vague motivations for why they acted the way they did, hinting at the competition between the brothers.
In our film, we try to provide strong enough motivations so that by the time the audience realizes that the girls are doing these horrible things and that the father is doing these horrible things there actually are reasons for their actions. We wanted to be sure that the audience could almost understand why the characters are acting the way they are.. We asked what are the things that would motivate people to do these horrible things? Love or fear of God? Very few things are enough. We settled on fear of God because that is a motivation that is understandable and that makes the audience feel for these girls in a way.
Tribeca: The final sequence is so wonderful. It's almost like Rose and Iris are taking communion from Frank. What initially drew you both to the script?
Bill Sage: I was really fascinated by exploring why people do strange things. Plus, like Jim said, the strength of this family's beliefs really drew me to the script. Fear of God is just an extreme motivator, especially in this country, and it was interesting to explore how that fear might manifest itself. The character of Frank is falling apart, and he is what drew me to the story.
Julia Garner: The dialogue drew me to the script. I remember that when I was reading it, I couldn't put it down. I'm really not even into horror films. I first thought it would be unthinkable to do this because I would have to completely trust the director. But I had a great first meeting with Jim, and I knew that it was going to be good. Then I heard that Bill was doing it too. [laughs]
BS: I thought, this is gonna be great. I read it and I said to my wife: This is a great script. Oh, and honey, they eat people.
JG: Honestly, when I first heard that I was like what!?
Tribeca: Jim, how did you know that Bill and Julia were your Frank and Rose?
JM: I met Julia first. There's something about Julia that's sort of indefinable. You can see it when you meet her in person and from her work. I saw scenes from Electrick Children with Bill and I knew that Julia could give us exactly what we wanted for the character. The Martha role is so similar, and Julia came in and immediately started asking all the whys.
JG: I was so interested in the script. I never read anything like it!
JM: What's cool is that her character asks questions the whole time, and Julia is like that as an actress. As an actress, you have to understand your motivations. Her character has the same need. She doesn't just do something because her dad tells he
