Amongst horror’s most enduring monsters, the vampire has long been the most romantic, and even most accessible. The charming nature of undead bloodsuckers can be traced back to Irish author Bram Stoker’s classic 1897 novel Dracula, in which an English lawyer gets seduced by the pleasantries of the titular count and succumbs to the mind-controlling powers of Dracula and his sexy vamp brides. Director Tod Browning’s 1931 adaptation, the most iconic of all book-to-film versions, deleted the brides but cast Bela Lugosi as an exceedingly charismatic incarnation of Stoker’s character. Save for German filmmaker F.W. Murnau’s ghoulish Nosferatu (1922), all of film’s Dracula translations have paid as much attention to vampires’ appeal as the creatures’ scare tactics.
And that’s never been the case more so than today, in a popular horror landscape dominated by Tiger Beat-worthy vampires (Twilight, The Vampire Diaries) and sun-haters who drink blood for the sexual thrill and regularly fang-bang humans (HBO’s True Blood). Once monsters become sex symbols, it’s almost impossible for them to be scary.
That is, unless they’re taken seriously as the murderous, flesh-biting dead things they’ve always been. With Stake Land (in stores on DVD and Blu-ray today), director Jim Mickle has done just that, saving his dialogue for human characters and treating the film’s ferocious vampires as hideous, veracious killing machines. The filmmaker’s second feature, following 2007’s super-low-budget Mulberry Street, a zombie film in which the zombies are human/rat hybrids, Stake Land follows a rugged wanderer (co-writer Nick Damici), his young road companion (Connor Paolo), and a pregnant woman (scream queen Danielle Harris) as they search for salvation amidst a post-apocalyptic America ravaged by vamps.
More specifically, legitimately frightening vamps. For Stake Land’s DVD/Blu-ray debut, Complex chatted with Mickle about reinstating an old-school monster’s scariness, making a small film look huge in scope, similarities to Zombieland, and why teen horror movies suck.
Interview by Matt Barone (@mbarone)
Complex: When Stake Land hit theaters this past April, the release was quite limited, a common problem for most interesting yet smaller genre movies. Do you see the DVD/Blu-ray platform as the real test for a film such as yours?
Jim Mickle: Yeah, I think it kind of is. With VOD [Video On Demand] and that kind of stuff, having that available during a film’s theatrical run is good, but a lot of people don’t know about it; even though a lot of people have it, it’s not that easy to find. But when a movie like this comes out on DVD, people then think, “Oh, I can actually see it now!” [Laughs.]
Did that play into how you approached the DVD special features, in terms of fully taking advantage of having more eyes on the film now?
Yeah, we really wanted to pack that full. I’d always hoped for a bigger theatrical release; I’d always hoped that they would do a little bit more with the movie. But I am happy that they seem to have taken a bit more care of it on DVD. We did short films for each character that went online during the theatrical run, so it’s good to have those all available in one place, so they make more sense. I like it when I love a movie and the DVD has tons of stuff on it for me to lose myself in, and that’s what we tried to do with this one. We didn’t want to just fill it with fluff.
The idea behind Stake Land started off as a web series, right? Was it always a vampire set-up?
I think it was, yeah. I remember Nick [Damici, the film’s star and co-writer] sent the first script, and it was just this creature in a trunk—he didn’t know what it was yet. I remember calling him and saying, “Dude, we already did Mulberry Street—it’s not going to be another creature movie, is it?” [Laughs.] We talked about it, and he presented this cool take on how we could take vampires and try to make them cool again, try to make them scary again.
So the impetus was looking at all of the vampires that are out in pop culture these days and realizing that they’ve fallen off a bit?
Well, at the time, I think the first Twilight movie was close to coming out, so everybody knew about it, and True Blood was out for a season or so. But I love Let The Right One In; I think that’s the best vampire movie in quite some time. Once that came out, then True Blood started to get more and more popular, and Twilight was about to come out, so it just felt like, “Wow, it’s been a while since vampires have been really dark.” More like Near Dark—that realistic sense, but there’s an intensity to it.
I like the fact that they made them real in Let The Right One In, but there was also the unavoidable fact that it’s this sweet tale of a little boy who meets a little girl. So it became a question of, How do we maintain some of that but also give it an edge and make it scary? How can we make people afraid of these things again?
Both Nick and I love zombie movies, because I think there’s so much that you can do with them. They can stand in for social commentary, and they can also be characters in their own way because there is a piece of humanity left in them. You can make them fast or you can make them slow. There are all these different angles you can go with zombies, and I think vampires are kind of the same thing, in a way. You can go classical, with the Bram Stoker idea, and you can also go into different cultures and see what their ideas of vampires are, which is often really surprising and different.
I think that’s where we kind of came from in the beginning, especially Nick. He was in the middle of reading a lot of stuff about foreign vampires, and, like, what the Chinese idea about vampires is. The webisodes originally took each type of vampire; it was almost like a school where Mister [Damici’s character] was teaching Martin [Connor Paolo’s character] about the different kinds. At one point, they got a call to go into Chinatown and check out a vampire that was in a basement somewhere. It was interesting, because it had this element of an almost-scientist teaching you about the different types. We kept some of that for the feature, like the “berserkers” and “scamps.” But ultimately when it became a feature, it became more about the characters themselves.
Mulberry Street was a clear homage to the old classic zombie movies, specifically Night Of The Living Dead, and that element of “multiple threats versus a few survivors” is at the heart of Stake Land, as well.
Definitely. I don’t think we set out with the feeling of, “Oh, we didn’t get to do a lot of things the first time around, because we didn’t have a lot of money.” But I think, at the end of the day, it kind of was. [Nick and I] both love Mulberry Street; that was such a great experience. We didn’t know if anyone was going to see it, and it wound up doing fairly well for what it was. I know there were things I wanted to do that we couldn’t do because we didn’t have the time or the resources, and I think it’s the same for Nick; with his script, there were a lot of things we had to skip over at the last minute, because it became a thing where we said, “Look, we have to be realistic about what we can actually pull off here.”
It was nice this time around, even though there really wasn’t that much more money. [Laughs.] I felt like we had more tricks this time; it was a little bit more of the sense that we knew what we could get away with, in a way. We didn’t have much more money, but we did have many more people involved, and I think a lot more people psyched to help out. And, ultimately, that’s how you get these kinds of movies made—a lot of people putting in a lot of time.
It’s interesting to hear you say that Stake Land didn’t cost much more than Mulberry Street, because it looks like a big-budget Hollywood movie by comparison. For such a small flick, Stake Land looks pretty amazing, visually, setting-wise, and overall scope. How’d you pull that off with such little resources?
That’s a good question. I think a ton of that is Ryan Samul, the cinematographer. The first time around, on Mulberry Street, it was literally just a few lights we bought at Home Depot and a DV camera; this time, for Stake Land, we used a Red [digital] camera, which makes a huge difference, because the information we can get on that is amazing; the lens is amazing. It just has a very cinematic look. We also shot in wide screens to make it feel like a big, epic western.
We went into it saying, “This isn't going to be another claustrophobic little Manhattan movie.” It’s a movie about Americana, open spaces, and all of the details and textures. A lot of it is the music, too. We went for more of a classical vibe, which I think really feels big. It’s kind of like the movie itself: It’s small, but it feels big, in a way. The scale of it is big, even though it’s kind of a sweet and innocent score. We just treated it like we were making a western, and made sure that every extra had some dirt on their clothes. We just pretended that we were making one, even though we really didn’t have the money to do it. [Laughs.]
The score is very reminiscent of the music heard in The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, actually.
Yeah, I love that. We looked at that movie a lot. It’s also an ode to the beginning of Days Of Heaven. I love what Jeff [Grace], the composer, did—he really took the cool familiar instruments of classical music and gave them a modern sound, to bring them into a horror context.