Once in a while an actor comes along and creates a character that—for better or worse—you can’t get out of your head.  Marc Senter, who gives a towering performance as sociopath Ray Pye in The Lost, is an undeniable addition to these ranks.

A 2006 festival-circuit darling that only recently received a theatrical run, The Lost is now available on DVD from Anchor Bay, which has wisely included audition footage as part of the extras.  Helmed by Chris Sivertson and featuring a solid cast of both vets and newcomers, this adaptation of a Jack Ketchum novel is a must-see for anyone into indie horror—indeed, for anyone who values the power of horror itself to strike deep emotional chords and explore areas of the human condition unlike any other genre.  Extremely ambitious, Sivertson’s film (which he also scripted) has only a very few misfires, and these are mostly due to the selfsame ambition:  secondary storylines and characters are explored which often add an interesting texture to the film but at the same time dilute the narrative juice that powers The Lost to its can’t-watch/can’t-turn-away climax.

Basically, The Lost starts with a bang and ends with a scream.

That’s not unusual for a horror flick or a dark drama, but what happens in between those explosive bookends is extraordinary:  we get a simmering, character-driven story that shows, both implicitly and explicitly, how monsters develop in the same communities in which the rest of us “normal” folk live.

As such, the film largely stands or fall on the strength of Senter’s portrayal of an adolescent-like man whose twisted urges are shocking yet realistic—and whose psychology otherwise is not only recognizable, but also disturbingly familiar.  This is a person who perhaps smiled at us today, whom maybe even we’re buddies with… or date.  With a wide and volatile range of moods that careen from disarming humor, to volcanic rage, to bathetic romantic yearning, Marc Senter channels the character in a way that, simply put, brings the walls crashing down.  It’s a coming-of-age story turned on its head, and the result might be more accurately termed a “coming-of-death” story.  Interestingly, the film also happens to document the artistic breakthrough of a remarkable young screen talent.  We were fortunate enough to talk with Mr. Senter recently and learn some of the secrets of his craft and what being a rapidly rising “horror star” might mean to him.

Firefox News:  I know you’ve done at least a couple of movies since completing THE LOST, but I’m wondering how your experience on that film has impacted your later work.  I’ve heard actors who take on demanding parts like Ray Pye say things like, “I feel like I can do anything after that.  Nothing scares me anymore.”  Did the role have that kind of effect on you?

Marc Senter:  Yeah, that’s actually really funny that you asked that.  That’s a good question—I haven’t been asked that yet.  But I would say yes because although it was kind of my first film, upon receiving [the part], I thought, in a lot of ways I have a big responsibility to carry this movie.  So I felt that after the completion of that film—and more so after reading the reviews and seeing how it was received at festivals—that my confidence definitely went up.  And I just felt like, “Okay, cool, yeah, this is definitely what I’m supposed to be doing.”  So then going into my next films, I was confident that I can do what I need to do to fulfill my job in a film.

It sounds like you’re talking about professional confidence, which I completely get.  I’m also wondering if it gave you artistic confidence.  You definitely carried the film, but purely as an actor I sense that you’re not going to be daunted in the future if you look at some part that has, say, so many powerful scenes you need to pull off.  Will you think, “Oh, I can handle this”?

Yeah, the same thing goes for that, too.  The one thing about this character that I loved is that he was so dimensional and there were so many different colors to [him].  I’d always taken studying and doing the work in my studio so seriously, but when you bring it to a film, then it’s a whole different ball game.  So after I did the film and saw it, I thought to myself, “Wow, okay, so I am creatively capable of doing work to bring characters like this to life.”  So it did up my creative confidence, that’s for sure.  And that was specifically true when I went into WICKED LAKE because the character I play in it, although it’s just a little indie horror movie, he’s very dimensional, too.  Chris [Sivertson, the writer] and I really handcrafted this guy and made him interesting.  So stepping out of [THE LOST] I felt like even though these characters are completely different, I was confident that I could bring something unique and different to him and give my best to execute it.

I want to come back to your preparation and craft in a second.  But talking about WICKED LAKE makes me want to ask about your collaboration with Chris Sivertson, which started in THE LOST.  Obviously you see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, and have a good working relationship.  I’m also wondering whether he understands your approach to acting and preparation.  Or is it not that important for a director to get that about an actor?

I think every director’s different and some guys are great at directing big action sequences and they don’t care so much about the emotional life of the characters.  They write stories that are more plot-driven whereas Chris [and I]—the reason we hit it off so much was because he grew up being inspired by the same movies that I was, like TAXI DRIVER.  He’s a huge De Niro fan and, of course, I’m a huge De Niro fan.  So when we met, [we realized] we were both so heavily influenced by the same types of movies.  Martin Scorsese’s my favorite director and one of his favorite directors.  And in a lot of Scorsese films like MEAN STREETS and TAXI DRIVER and even NEW YORK, NEW YORK, there are these bigger-than-life, multi-dimensional characters that really drive the plot.  And I feel like that’s why Chris and I hit it off so well, because we understand that.  So it was just really refreshing, connecting with him on that.

It’s interesting that you bring up that you two are fans of De Niro and Scorsese because of course there’s a creative team that made lots of films together—the same path that you guys are on.  Elsewhere you’ve talked about other actors whom you admire such as Al Pacino, but one of the names I want to get into here is maybe not so well known, except in acting circles, and that’s Eric Morris, one of your mentors.  My understanding of his work is that it’s all about unlocking a state of being in which an actor doesn’t get in his or her own way, so to speak.  You eliminate all the self-created blocks and then you’re free to manifest the performance that’s already there inside you, in your unconscious.  Now, is that the part of his work that’s been empowering to you?  Or is there something else about his coaching that has had a bigger impact on you?

Well, wow, first of all, well said, and it’s really impressive that you know all that and you phrased it so well.  Without question, Eric Morris and his wife are so important in my life.  I always make jokes that they’re like my parents out here in L.A.—I mean, I live at that studio.  I’m always in there, and even if I’m not working on a film, I’m having a coffee with Eric or I’m in there with his wife and we’re talking.  I will say to each his own—whatever works for someone, if it gets the job done, then I’m all for it.  But for my experience, there’s no one that comes even close to touching what this guy’s doing.  It is the work that I’ve done with him over the years that’s enabled me to access certain things in myself, and know how to execute to fulfill character obligations or what the authors set for me.

Excellent.  So that’s my next question:   how did this “state-of-being” approach influence your work specifically in THE LOST?

Eric’s goal is [for an actor] to be, as he would call it, a professional experiencer.  In fact, I think it’s so interesting how his first book is titled No Acting Please.  And it’s so true because people behave in certain ways in real life and it should be no different in acting.  With Ray Pye, for instance, [he] was loosely based on the real-life serial killer Charles Schmidt.  And so, upon learning this, I spent a lot of time researching this guy and spending time with John Gilmore, who wrote a book on him and who knew him well and had interviewed him.  I really started from there.  It was with that information that I was to sit down with Eric and just start chipping away at this guy.

And after all this conscious research and prep, then it seems that the Morris approach would’ve helped you get in touch with parts of your unconscious.

Yeah, absolutely.  We have this rule at the studio which we call “the eleventh level of consciousness.”  We observe ourselves fully but we have this higher awareness of what we’re doing.  So the ultimate goal is to have what we would call an unconscious experience, which is when your unconscious takes over and it just does the work for you.  We do that through different techniques.  But there’s always an awareness that I made clear when I was on set.  I work a certain way where I don’t hang out with the people in the cast, I don’t.  When I’m there, I’m working, I’m in the character, and it’s very important that I respect that and respect the environment and respect the relationships in the script.  So it’s like having a higher consciousness—I’m not going to walk off the set and punch the guy playing opposite me because I’m doing it in the scene.  But there’s no question about it, that I’m fulfilling all of those things.

Wow, I wish I had become an actor now instead of a writer.  Listening to this, it sounds fascinating.

Yeah, [Eric Morris’s] work is truly amazing.  After being in that studio for a couple years prior to getting this role, it was a total blast because all the things that I learned and [after] spending countless hours in the studio with them preparing for the role—it was just really, really fun to start executing.  You heard all these stories about De Niro and TAXI DRIVER and how the guy playing opposite him, he was just, “God, De Niro is always such a jerk.  He was never nice to me, never talked to me.  And at the end of the day, or the end of the shoot, he shows up at my door with flowers and a bottle of champagne and gives me a big hug and kiss.”  He’s like, “I don’t know why he hated me so much.”  And you’re sitting and you’re going, “Well, dude, he just did the biggest favor for you in the world,” because what does he think his character was experiencing the entire time in this film?  [If I] see what’s important, I can then give so much to the other actors as well.  And then we can hopefully establish an ensemble and it can take off.  That’s equally important.  It’s not just me, it’s [about] what can I bring to the other person, how can I help them?  How can I make this more of a reality for them?  If that means I’ve got to stomp around in my boots and blast Elvis and give them bad looks, I’m going to do it.  And if I scare a few people, well, that’s okay, as long as they know.  Or as long as the director knows that everything’s cool and he’s telling me it’s cool, then I’m going to do it.

Part of why I found your performance so powerful is that it seems that the more that dark side is explored authentically and honestly, you’re actually dredging up a shadow side that a lot of men can identify with.  In other words, it’s not just Marc Senter’s shadow side, because when you drill down deep enough, you’re tapping into universal fantasies of anger, revenge, control, or all of the nasty things that Ray is about.  You’re tapping into a truth that’s uncomfortable to admit.  Any thoughts on that?

Well, that’s a good point, because whenever I get material, first and foremost I never judge any of the people in the script, I never judge the characters.  [Regardless of] how good they are or how bad they are, those people exist on the page, and maybe were taken from real life—there are people like that, period.  So it’s my job to read that and not judge them and, more importantly, go a step further and empathize with them and try to understand them.  So it’s a good point ‘cause when I was doing a lot of the work and getting into this guy, I knew there are people like this and [I knew audiences] can relate to this.  And it’s just the people who unfortunately end up taking a bad step further that you’ve got to watch out for.

Right.  But that’s what makes it such a great horror film, or certainly what your makes your performance a great “horror performance,” if I can call it that.  If that’s not something in this day and age that people look down upon.  I certainly don’t.

That was a funny thing, too:  a lot of people had a reaction to the film which I’ve been very pleased with—I have yet to meet someone who was either bored by the film or it just didn’t impact them.  From my experience, people have either been really into it and just kind of blown away or they’ve been very offended by it and very put off by it, and that is a wonderful reaction to have because it really isn’t for everyone.  It’s going to play different notes in everyone’s soul and it’s going to rub everyone a different way.  But ultimately you can’t deny that this guy exists, [that] there are people like that and I’m not here to tell you that this is right or wrong.  I’m just here to show you that this is how this guy lived—or lives.

Exactly.  That’s what art is, right?

Absolutely.  Absolutely.

That’s what makes it both a horror film and an artistic one.  In other words, the things Ray does are clearly monstrous but that’s a little different than just labeling him a monster.  I felt that we saw how someone like him can be created out of everyday ingredients.  That’s what’s great about Jack Ketchum’s work, the work that was done on the script, by Chris as a director, and what really came to fruition through your performance.  That’s what makes the horror more pronounced.  As a result of your part in this film, do you now look at real-life monsters--killers, kidnappers and so forth—differently?  It’s kind of a weird question, I know.

No, no, no.  I guess I would say that my interest has become more profound.  I’m very fascinated with why people do what they do and what drives them to do what they do.  I was talking to my dad the other day about the Ice Man and how this guy—do you know who the Ice Man is?  The famous killer who was working for the Mob and killed between 33 and 200 people.  I’m really fascinated with people, period, and why they do what they do.  When I have conversations with representatives or business people, and they go, “Well, your next movie with Chris is called ‘HIPPY’ and don’t you play another sociopathic character?,” my response to that is, “You know what?  I almost feel like the bad guys are more interesting because they have so many colors and so many things that made them who they are.”  What is it about them that brought them to this point?  It’s like when you watch interviews on someone like the Ice Man—my dad and I started laughing because I’m going, “This guy’s interesting!  He looks like a nice guy, he looks like an interesting guy.”  And we just laughed, ‘cause we’re thinking, “How could this guy do that?”  It just opens the rabbit hole and for an actor or just [for] any artist, it’s very interesting.

That’s the same way I felt about watching you as Ray Pye.  Because what was great about the whole middle stretch of the movie is, you could almost forget the opening and just start to sympathize with him.  I didn’t necessarily think that Ray was so interesting, as you’re saying the Ice Man is, but I felt like, “Man, he could really use a friend.”  There are people out there and a friend could just show them how to, I don’t know, relate better to women, or whatever it is.  That’s what made it so gut wrenching.  But your interest in real-life figures like the Ice Man brings to mind something obvious—which is that as an author Jack Ketchum is also clearly interested with these real-life crimes and criminals.  I’ve heard him say that at some point during the production he met with all the principals, even if it was just briefly, and discussed their roles with them.  What did both of you talk about when you spoke?

Well, I can’t recall ever having a one-on-one quite [like that] with Jack.  I think the first time that I met him was when he was on set one day and I was in the work and obviously the only thing on my mind was getting off this shot.  So you know I kind of acknowledged him and waved to him and hoped that he was happy to see me and hoped that he was happy with the work he was seeing.  But I never actually had the one-on-one talk like all [those] times with Chris.  But I will say, I spent countless hours with [Ketchum’s] book, reading and researching, which then opened me up to how he related the character to Charles Schmidt.  And I feel it was through his writing and through his book—I didn’t need to meet the guy face-to-face.  Although maybe I wanted to, it’s almost like I didn’t have to.  [The character] was on the page, Chris adapted it well, and I felt like I had everything I needed to move forward as best I could.

I guess that was a conversation, too.  The conversation was your reading Ketchum’s work and then your reply to it was the performance that you produced.  You could look at it that way.