The experience of watching Criticized is like being trapped in a room with an unpredictable madman.  And actually, that's what the movie is mostly about, too.  Fortunately, chatting with its creator is a very different experience.

Writer/director Richard Gale had been recognized for his work before—a couple of local Emmies and a CableAce are all on his résumé.  But it's doubtful that even such prior acclaim could have prepared him for the reception that's greeted his short horror film Criticized.  To date it has won an amazing dozen festival prizes, including an audience award at Montreal's prestigious Fantasia.

In many ways, Criticized is a straightforward revenge film about a filmmaker and a critic, but it's so unflinchingly single-minded that it's actually refreshing.  And it's also tremendously funny.  So I guess watching Criticized is also like getting hit in the head with a sledgehammer and laughing uproariously at the sensation.  Look for Criticized on DVD in 2008 or, in the meantime, catch the trailer on Gale's Web site (note the link following this article).  In addition, his site should soon be providing information about upcoming festival screenings.  (And the trailer is also available at YouTube:  search on "Criticized Trailer".)




Engaging and generous, Gale himself is nothing like his alter ego, the monstrous filmmaker Arthur Lements, except perhaps in his energy and his commitment to the horror genre.  Before a screening of Criticized you might find Gale handing out promotional paper clips (a key prop in the film) to moviegoers as they file into the theater.  "A clever bit of marketing," I thought when I saw this strategy in action.  Now I realize that this kind of resourcefulness reflects some of Gale's virtues as a filmmaker:  he can take a simple, "low-budget" idea and use it in such a way that it effectively intrigues audiences and works to his creative advantage. 

Firefox News:  When we met, we talked briefly about the horror genre's tendency to be more self-reflexive than other genres.  Any thoughts on why that's so, and do you have any favorite films that fall into that category?

Richard Gale:  It's an interesting question—I think the majority of self-reflexive films lean toward horror-comedies, in large part due to two franchises, the Scream movies (which also work as horror films), which inspired the big Scary Movie franchise as pure comedy.  Criticized is a mix of dark humor and horror in a much more realistic tone, a kind of horror version of The Player (my personal favorite), or as our lead actor Brian Rohan put it, 'It's Ed Wood meets Ed Gein."  It's funny, when you spend years working in the movie industry, you do hear a lot of "horror stories" about people's dreams being crushed, people being taken advantage of... beneath the surface of this industry, there are many horrific stories! 

The Player is an excellent antecedent—I hadn't thought of that movie, but now that you mention it, it seems obvious.  So maybe Criticized is, in a way, "The Player meets Ed Gein."  By the way, my recent favorite of the self-relexive films is Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon.  Basically, it makes it hard for me to watch certain horror subgenres anymore without smiling; the same way it's hard to listen to a bad guy "monologuing" in quite the same way after you've seen The Incredibles.  So let's stick with genre-related questions for a moment.  Now that you've directed a very successful short horror film, do you think that there's anything about the genre that lends itself to the short form?  Or, for that matter, are there any creative risks involved in making a horror short that the feature-length filmmaker doesn't have to worry about as much?

I haven't seen Behind the Mask yet... I heard it's really good.  I think it's healthy when the clichés get busted—it could encourage more originality.  Regardless of genre, short films are short stories, and features are novels—and each form has its own conventions and needs to be fulfilled.  Many of the best short stories (and short films) have twist endings. I think it's the same in any genre—comedy, drama, horror—all are just short stories, and every film is a huge challenge.  The fundamentals all have to be (hopefully) of good quality:  writing, acting, direction, photography, music, etc.   

A short film is a 100-yard dash or a 5K run, while a feature is a marathon.  The creative challenge is much greater with a feature film, because a feature is really just a bunch of connected short films, edited together.  Each scene or sequence in a feature film is essentially a short film.  So making a good feature is like making a string of good interconnected short films.  It requires more endurance, more preparation, and more money!

That's a good analogy and certainly Criticized is a power sprint:  there's no let-up, it's just lean and mean.  I was actually wondering if the fundamental deliverables of a genre could be accomplished in such a brief timeframe.  For example, a romantic short could feature a nice sequence of scenes with the flavor of a romcom, but would be hard pressed to follow the entire boy-meets-girl structure and give audiences the courtship that seems necessary to "warming" their hearts.  The horror genre, on the other hand, can provide something really horrific in just a few seconds.  But creating terror requires a bit more build-up and therefore time.  Criticized, to its credit, manages to deliver both horror and terror.  Many shorts try to inject terror from the beginning through lighting, music, and similar elements without realizing it's situational and they haven't set up a compelling situation yet.

 Did you think about these sorts of things during the conception and production of your film, or is this the kind of stuff that only critics dwell on?

Probably!  I make an effort not to over-intellectualize anything when I'm writing or directing—it's more an act of instinct.  I use my gut.  If something feels good to me, or feels scary, or moves me in some way, I know I'm on the right track.  I think whether you call it "horror" or "terror," the film that feels real is always more powerful.  So my goal is to make the film as real as possible.

As for the question of can you create an effective romantic comedy in as short a time as horror?  Absolutely!  The right character, and the right actor, can immediately elicit sympathy and move an audience.  I'm not saying it's easy, but it certainly is possible.  The best short films have proven this many times over.  One of the best film programs I ever attended was at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences in L.A.... they screened ten short films that had all won the Oscar for best live action short.  Several of them moved the audience to tears—they were incredible.

Fair enough.  Let's shift over to a different genre, though.  I enjoyed another film of yours, Pressure, which is a straight-ahead 39 Steps-style thriller.  Any telling similarities or differences between directing horror movies and thrillers?  Or any words of advice for young filmmakers who may consider switching from one to the other, or perhaps combining them, which is pretty common?
  
Thanks!  I like the comparison to The 39 Steps, because Hitchcock is a huge inspiration. Just about everything I write falls into Hitchcock territory—that is, it's either a thriller or a horror story (some sci-fi and comedy will probably be in my future as well).  I think thrillers and horror films are similar, in that both are designed to create suspense or fear in different degrees.  Directing both types of films requires the same kind of preparation, knowing the script, and working with actors in a similar way.  Horror just uses a lot more stage blood!  One thing I'd tell young filmmakers is to clearly identify what genre they are in with a particular project—a common mistake of first-timers is to make a film that's part one-genre, and part-something else.  It can get diluted.  I want my horror films to be scary as hell.  

Well, you certainly achieved that with Criticized.  While there's virtually no gore in it per se, the images are unbelievably horrific.  I can pretty much watch anything at this point, but Criticized had me mentally repeating that old mantra, "Remember, this is just a movie."  Yet strangely what I found most refreshing about your film, especially in its contrast with other horror shorts, is how dialogue-driven it is.  That's what really draws the audience in—all that great text from the critic's review both at the start and the end of the movie. Could you see yourself writing horror for other filmmakers at some point?  Or, conversely, directing a horror picture that you haven't written?  Talk about how writing factors into your work and career.

I have to mention, the actors in Criticized (Brian Rohan and John Lynd) did such a great job, otherwise that scene would have been deadly—two guys talking for ten minutes, with no movement!  They brought the dialogue to life.

At least for now everything I write is for myself to direct, but I'm open to finding great scripts and stories from other people.  The ability to write is hugely important if you want to be a director, because you can generate your own material, and don't have to spend years looking for it, trying to option it, etc.  I've never been a "gun for hire" type of director—I'm a filmmaker who creates his own projects.  I have a degree in English from UCLA, also took film classes (and have made films since I was a kid), but studying great works of literature, Shakespeare, Chaucer, et al. has certainly influenced how I tell stories.  So many film students learn how to set up lights and dolly tracks and a camera, but learn almost nothing about storytelling, and yet they want to direct.  Any director is a storyteller, so I'd recommend that aspiring filmmakers read lots of great stories!

Considering the many awards Criticized has won, your advice is probably something less-experienced filmmakers would do well to heed.  In fact, let's talk about the response the film has received.  How surprised have you been by all the wins?  And what have you learned about horror fans and the horror film community as a result of taking Criticized on the festival circuit this past year?  

I'm amazed at all the awards this film has received.  I never really thought Criticized would win anything, because when I made it, I thought this film is so twisted and dark, it won't have a very big audience.  I had no idea there were so many great genre festivals that spotlight horror films.  It's been an amazing experience, to have the film embraced by so many festivals all over the world.  And the horror fans are fantastic!  Nothing beats a screening like we had in Montreal (at Fantasia Film Festival, on a Friday at midnight) with about 600 people cheering and screaming—it was beyond my wildest dreams for this short film.  The horror community is a pretty close-knit group of filmmakers, journalists, and festival people who are all huge fans of the genre, they all love it.  It's been a rewarding experience to meet so many creative and fun people who share the same passion.

Does that mean you'll have more horror projects in the works?  Or will you be returning to thrillers... or moving on to a different genre?  What's next?

I've got some big, scary horror projects anxiously waiting to pounce on unsuspecting filmgoers.  The first is a feature-length version of Criticized... the short film is just one episode in the life of filmmaker Arthur Lements.  Keep an eye out for it!  

We certainly will… Thanks, Richard.