Quality Genre Filmmaking on Horror, Rock, and Teens? - An interview with Rusty Nails

by Alan Jacobson

Alan Jacobson is a magna cum laude film school graduate who continues to look for genius in the mundane and teaches at the Facets Film School in Chicago, Illinois.

I know Rusty Nails simply because to live in Chicago and be interested in film is to know Rusty. His enthusiastic personality pervades not only his energetic films and videos, but his conversation as well. As easygoing and engaging to a total stranger as he is to his closest friend, each feels like they are getting Rusty's all and each is probably right. It was at his house and later at a street side cafe that I spoke with Rusty, his natural ease creating in this professional meeting the aura of a lunch date with an old friend. We discussed many things, but most notably his new feature, a film he worked on for five years, ingratiating himself to over 250 people in the process of getting a crystal-sharp genre piece made.

Darken theater, roll film, settle in. It all lurches to a start in the grand style of one of those crackling EC books from the Fifties; a man sinks into a gutter, gazes at his afflicted limb, screams, run title! Gorgeous black and white photography and a stinger like that key the viewer up for the balance of ACNE!, a raucous, economical, intelligent, independent horror film, dealing heavily in ideas and symbolism as all great genre work does.

Interior, Rusty's house, Stiff Little Fingers' Gotta Getaway spins in the background, the rawk informing the conversation just as it colors Acne! The film has been out just a month. Hosting George Romero, Jack Hill, and Lloyd Kaufmann at festivals celebrating their work burnt Rusty out to the point where his promotional skills were tapped. But a man who shares more with Orson Welles than just his star sign cannot be kept down long.

Alan Jacobson: Acne, symbolic of teen threat, the unpleasantly visible part of adolescence. Why a plague that affects teens only?

Rusty Nails: Good question. I'm very interested in the phenomenon of "adolescence to adulthood". It's at that time when people are becoming who they're going to be. They're finding their place and ideals, but at the same time, they're still children. It's at that point in time when you become aware of what society's like. You're getting into junior high and understanding group & clique dynamics. Clubs at school. All these different things where kids join these sects. You also become more aware of politics. Politics sort of hit you; the teaching of history focuses more on current events, generally. You start forming opinions of what is going on in the world. But at the same time you're still a kid, still playing, just this tactile being, you still are lawless, go out and do whatever you want. Not 18 yet, don't have to think about registering, you continue to be a kid, have this great lawlessness that children have. But at the same time, your parents start enforcing a different set of rules: "if you're going to go out with these people, then you have to be back at this time. And don't drink". Which you hadn't really even thought of before, just that so many things, so many changes, and with this new set of rules, new set of awarenesses, you're becoming this sort of Frankenstein creation of different things that are going on. Where F has this new birth into the world, this innocence, but then again has other people's pasts which are being bred into him. It's a really simple time, then it's also...for me, at least, it was also a crushing time. Also, with junior high and highschool, it's where you learn of the brutality that other kids have. There's this rage other kids have. This bizarre rage.

A.J.: Disconnection...confusion...on the scene where the preacher has the Peanuts teacher voice...is this kind of what you're trying to express? Especially with the authority figures pushing things on kids.

R.N.: A gobbledeegook. He's just saying a lot of garbage and at the end he's doing a lot of hand movements where he's just wrapping things up at the end. I'm sort of working on another script that's all about the way adolescents are sort of formed. Has a lot to do with the connection of adolescents and how they become adults, having a lot of adults in it, but you never see their faces.

A.J.: So you'll become the "teen threat" film maker, the go to guy for the teen films?

R.N.: I wouldn't necessary be against that.

A.J.: If you have an understanding for it, why not? It would be better than a lot of the stuff that's out there about teens.

R.N.: Maybe it's because I'm locked into the teenage years, both in a good way and a bad way. I'm also interested in the dynamics of how boys & girls relate with each other.

A.J.: The Politics of Acne! are pretty blatant without being obvious or insulting, because there are more subtle forces at work, room for the listener to think, such as your choice to shoot a close up of Zooey's peace ring as he chugs a cup of corporate-infected water and collapses. What's your rule on staying subtle versus going overt?

R.N.: What I tried to do...there were certain things that are definitely right in front of you, but there are other things I wanted to be a lot more subtle with. I am a pretty motivated person politically. When I do things in a political way, I almost feel that they're an anti-political thing. It's like writing an intelligent female character is very political, but at the same time I feel it's in no way political, because women are intelligent, so how is that political. But it ends up being political because there are so few intelligent female characters in film. In a way, I feel that nothing I write is political because everything the government does is ignorant, backward, and motivated by power, monetary lust. In a way, it's almost like nothing's political, but everything is. In the end, the most important thing for me is to making sure that everyone is intelligent. People that appear stupid to you, like if you have any enemies, people that are ignorant towards you, do ignorant things that appear stupid to you. But I tell you, I've had a couple stupid people in my life (laughs) that seemed pretty ignorant and dumb, but there are things that people like that do that are so manipulative and controlling, so organized in the deceit that a while ago I came to the knowledge that they're not ignorant not stupid...they're...

A.J.: It's more like they're deformed rather than stupid.

R.N.: Right.

R.N.: All right, fits nicely into the horror aesthetic....or the true horror of people doing awful things not because they're desperate or ignorant, but because, stemming from the darker side of human nature, they want to. Scary stuff. To brighten a bit, we'll conveniently shift scene to a sunny exterior, a street side cafe. Rusty feeds birds, I ask about Acne!, he answers, and it all works out as a nice way to spend an afternoon.

A.J.: Music, and more particularly, the ROCK, seems very important to you. Do you use it because you feel it expresses something deeper, as countless philosophers have suggested? Or is there something else at work here?

R.N.: Music is almost more inspirational than film for me. Music can stir more emotions. I can listen to the same song thousands of times where I can't watch the same film thousands of times. For ACNE! the music was very specific. Zooey awakens to "Moon over Marin", a Dead Kennedys song about the land's deterioration through chemicals and pollutants, obviously informs what's going on. It's a radio alarm. Part of the film is about how these adolescents are becoming politically aware. And some of it is used because it's funny, like a goofy take on Jingle Bells for the bowling scene. Every song is important, be it for comic or lyric effect.

A.J.: Adding dimension and emotion rather than saying "isn't this song cool".

R.N.: Right. When we were doing the soundtrack, we worked on it for two years. Song after song for scene after scene. Some were just right, but there was a lot of hunting. Fortunately, the music was small-label, so it was easier to get. A good portion is composed. We had two great composers, Scott Lamberdy and Lisa Brandt. And both of them, I'd sit with for hours. I'd be like "I need some tympani here, less rolls here". The soundtrack was really, really important and moves the film along. And I love a lot of great composers like Bernard Herrmann.

A.J.: The Ramone's-style Acne tune (coincidentally, was this an inspiration for the film?)

R.N.: That was written with my band, The Creeps.

A.J.: Was that the germ of the idea, then?

R.N.: It was weird because I thought of the concept for the film much before I was in the band and I think it was some weird serendipitous coincidence. I thought of the concept, nothing was written for a few years but hadn't really thought of the name, and was in the band between that time. I wrote the song, Acne, and it was perfect for that scene. I just love those 1930's "showcase" films where in the middle of the film, "ladies and gentlemen, Y'ma Sumac", because for me, one of the greatest things about film is creating this new existence, this fantasy place. And I hope to make a film one day that has musical numbers. And I added this to express the mayhem; I'm a big fan of it in the Marx Brothers films.

A.J.: Iconography plays a heavy part in any genre work, such as the choice of the names, Franny and Zooey, what about these names, and perhaps Salinger's story appeals to you? How does it parallel ACNE!?

R.N.: The reason I chose the names was that I like his work a lot and my Franny & Zooey are definitely different than Salinger's. But they're similar in that they're both questioning the circumstances of their lives. Mine are lower-middle class versus his. But the confusion of being an adolescent. The beauty and questioning of being one, they're similar. One of the reasons that there's a number of literary references is that I wanted to add something different to a genre piece, a lot of smart as well as ridiculous acknowledgements because I felt like it wasn't done very often.

A.J.: Adding depth, like with the music.

R.N.: Right. I had so many interests and ideas that I wanted to start off with...because I basically financed the film myself and I'm a person with very minimal cash resources, I felt like this might be my only chance to make a feature film. I wanted to go for broke, give it as much complexity, as many layers, as much loving care, reckless abandon as possible. I figured since I'm producing it and there's no hand over me telling me what I can or can't do, well then I should put everything I want in it and not worry about any censure...go full out and put as much craziness, love, and insanity into it. The picture can be framed as horror, or sci-fi, or Noir, or American New Wave, but I feel like it's something new unto itself. Basically I just wanted total freedom. In making this little $16,000 film, that I did have that: total freedom. But, then again, I also took 5 years to produce it because I was just putting in $3,000/year.

A.J.: How long was the actual shooting?

R.N.: Well, the initial script, my first, needed a lot of work. I would end up cutting about 20 minutes out of the film and shooting another 20 minutes. Initially I wanted it to be a 90-minute film because I felt that's how long a feature is, but I asked myself as time went on, is it more important to make a regular film or to make the best film that this film's going to be? Why adhere to a length, some baloney that film fests and distributors want, when it might ruin the film.

A.J.: Fine production values, such as the New Jersey Post headline declaring a ban on candy sales to teens. Was this difficult to keep up with such a small budget?

R.N.: I just felt like we really had to, even though it is low-budget, people really love films. Doctors, Lawyers, a lot of people want to be in films. Maybe dreams, a side of their regular jobs, to be a part of that magic reality. To act, play, create this new reality. I was lucky to find over 275 people who, when they realized I was dead serious about making this film, people really respect that...when you're intent is serious and you love it, a lot of people are ready to add to that. People trust you a lot more when you have that faith in the project, are willing to donate. I lived with a really great artist, Patrick Ruillier, who did the really beautiful painting (video cover), an amazing artist. I went to these painstaking lengths to make sure the film would be the best it could be. I had to or I just blew five years. Everything was direly important. We paid a lot of attention to detail. I was lucky to know a lot of skilled and great and generous people.

A.J.: The grocery store guy, the psychic, all the locations-how do you drum it all up? Are people anxious to be in films? DO you need to stay on top of them? This seems like, in addition to heart, the secret to independent film. Elaborate.

R.N.: Yeah, for sure. The lead actress and myself definitely had a lot of squabbles and one of the camera people-we had a good amount of arguments. Fortunately, the film is episodic, spans a portion of the Northeast, even though it was shot in the Midwest. So the thing about it being episodic is that people are around for a day or two. They're not going to get too annoyed. I also worked with a lot of teenagers and younger people, they're first film, they don't realize how boring a film set can get, but at the same time, there's a lot of energy, budding romances, stuff like that. A mixture of professionals, semiprofessionals, and people who hadn't acted before...and I think everyone was really great, except for maybe two people. So I rehearsed them on set 20 times, which was good for everyone, and the film, especially.

A.J.: It's not an ego thing.

R.N.: Not about that, it's about making sure the film works. Because if it doesn't, in the end, the film is going to suffer and it won't get shown. That's not good for anyone. I'm very into collaboration, the electricity and energy of a film set, even the frustration of pushing through it.

A.J.: Nice camerawork as well-the beautiful, low angle shot of the Mershey's factory as well as similar shots of afflicted kids tromping through the woods. Does it take an incredible amount of time and patience to coax these images, or just working with good people you trust?

R.N.: I'm very specific. I want the shot itself to be part of the story. The framing is very important, symbolic, to generate an idea within a story. It's painstaking. In the execution, I will say what I need, the cameraperson will put the shot together. I'm a very visual person and to me it's very important that the visuals are a part of the story. Everything works together as a whole. I believe in the idea of the "total filmmaker" as Jerry Lewis said. Something like 80% of the time, I know exactly what I want; if the cameraperson has an idea and we have enough film and enough time, we'll definitely try it out.

A.J.: It sounds like it's definitely a matter of respect. You're not going to be like, "hey, Gordon Willis, shut up, this is my film!"

R.N.: There have been moments where a cameraman has told me "well, I don't know about that". I respond that I understand that, but this is what needs to be done for the story. Again, it goes beyond the ego, ego has to be thrown away...

A.J.: Especially if you've written it, lived with it for years, have it completely visualized.

R.N.: Right. Sometimes people get frustrated because some directors will be like, "I need a wide shot, make one." I'm very precise: "I need the wide shot to include these details and I need to see the actors positioned like this". And it can be very frustrating because they've only worked with the less-specific kind of director. Again, I have to be concerned with the film, the story.

A.J.: The intertitle, what happened to that footage? Is this homage to the lost pieces of great films or just a shot that was lost forever? Or don't you want to say?

R.N.: It comes about because I love in-camera effects-though this isn't one. Tape, Vaseline, slow, fast...I like silent films, intertitles, and I talked to my friend Mark who made a really pretty intertitle, a nice way to connect the pieces. Again, not worrying about the "rules" of narrative cinema, just doing whatever would be great for the story.

A.J.: You've done rock videos and have just pulled together a tight, quality low-budget feature. How did you do this? Any words of inspiration for others who might want to do the same?

R.N.: Maintaining your original vision is the most important of all things. That and respecting the people you work with. Because it's rare I get to pay anyone although I'd like to get to that point. Paying or nonpaying, respecting your crew, cast, and self is really important. Shower them with compliments goes a long way. Mark Twain said, "I could live a week off a compliment". Just my saying thank you 4 times a day will be enough payment. There have been times...my cameraman, Dave Russell who worked for us for free, generally gets like $600-800/day for a project. We had an argument. He'd mentioned I hadn't paid him. I offered him $50 because that's all I had. We had been done arguing; he appreciated the gesture. The argument had ended. He knew it was like $1000 for me, so he cast it aside. Arguments with integral crew...it's about making the best film possible.

Also, don't bow down to the idea of narrative structure, the idea of selling your project. If you have an idea that's filled with fresh concepts and people say "I don't know, that's pretty weird". If you feel really strongly about the ideas, you have to go with them. If you're doing it just to be stubborn, then listen to other people. But, please stick to your ideas, they don't want cookie-cutter film #6,562. Somebody like David Lynch didn't get to make "Elephant Man" because of suck up ideas. John Waters. Darren Aaronofsky.

A.J.: But it is a popular suggestion, though, to sell your film as "Shrek, but better because..." Is it a matter of staying true to yourself despite popular mythology?

R.N.: Yes.

A.J.: Will there be an Acne! II?

R.N.: I don't know if we need one. Maybe some kind of deconstructive analysis of why something like this would have happened. But characters get older, stories become different things, not interested.

A.J.: You don't want to milk something just to milk it, even though it is a genre trope.

R.N.: Right. But I do like the idea of a continuing story, of seeing characters that I like again, another genre thing. Though, unfortunately a number of times those have been bad ideas to continue.