It is to 19 year old first time film director David Miller’s credit that using J-Pop ambient star Salyu’s “Kaifuku Soro Kizo” as the soundtrack to his debut short motion picture “Lavinia’s Revenge”, doesn’t distract from the visuals, it does what David wants it to: enhances a mood through juxtaposition. The music haunts the moment but the colors haunt the song and the sense of trepidation that makes Salyu so unique even in the chill wave of ethereal sound effects experimental fields she plays in, is secondary to red splashes of paint, sweat and other bodily fluids in this very disturbing five minutes of relentless dread.
The short starts with a rape and ends with a suicide and in an office Wednesday afternoon, David seems as cool a customer as one whose passions run to blood letting might ever be, to the point where David named his lead character after a personage in Shakespeare was violent and probably worse play “Titus Andronicus”.
Miller shot the short over the summer and is shopping it to Film Festivals. There are genre and subgenres, he explained to me, “Lavinia’s Revenge” the story of a rape and its aftermath, might make it into the “psychological thrillers” but possibly not the slashers.
As I often find with music nowadays, some of what Miller was doing wasn’t what I found interesting. What I enjoyed was the color. The red and gold, the handwriting, the way the story congeals. But the story as story doesn’t have enough there unless David explains it. When he does, an idea, revenge versus getting even, sounds like a form of Old Testament rebuke. It sounds more interesting than it plays.
For a music blog. the story is the sound but for an 19 year old the sound and vision kinda merge. Heavy duty for a five minute short.
I followed am in person conversation with David with a list of questions. What follows is his reply.
- 1. When did you become interested in directing?
I think I’ve always been interested in directing. (Then again I’ve also always been interested in fox trotting, and you don’t see me trying to be a ballroom dancer). So I don’t know. I think I really became interested in actually BEING a director after I wrote this particular film, “Lavinia’s Revenge”. And that’s because—well, I obviously needed someone to direct the film after I wrote it—and really I just felt like David Miller was the most trustworthy person to do that. So that’s when I think I developed an interest in actually BEING a director; but I’ve always been interested in directing as a general art form.
- 2. Do you consider yourself a writer or a director first?
I used to always consider myself a writer first (partly just cause I like the way that sounds in my head—like, “I’m a writer”—you know?). But more recently, especially after having done “Lavinia’s Revenge” and developing a greater appreciation for all of the aspects that go into making a film, I’m starting to consider myself not just a writer or a director, but rather a full-fledged filmmaker (and that sounds pretty good in my head as well). However, for this particular isolated project, I definitely consider myself a director first. When sending out emails concerning this project, I’d sign “David Miller, Director”.
- 3. Do you see a connection between film and magic?
Oh absolutely. I mean, I could write a whole essay on this, but for the sake of this interview, I’ll just zone in on one particular aspect of how the two are connected.
If you watch Christopher Nolan’s “The Prestige” (co-written by Jonathan Nolan, based on the novel by Christopher Priest (gotta give my writers credit)), the first thing they do in that film is outline the three parts of a magic trick—the pledge, the turn, and the prestige. Now I won’t go into what those three parts are (you can watch the film for yourself—in fact, you should, it’s fantastic (I consider it to be Nolan’s best (actually maybe not, maybe “Memento”)))—but anyway, what ends up happening, whether you realize it or not, is the film really adheres to those three parts. And so, the way I see it, the film itself is a magic trick of sorts—it’s an illusion. And you can really view all films this way (especially fictional narrative films, in which case, it being an illusion is just inextricable).
And furthermore, I ask, what’s behind every illusion? Well, simply put, behind every illusion is an illusionist. An illusionist attempting to create something that will enable you, as an audience, to suspend your disbelief and accept the reality they’ve created—if only for a second. And behind every film is a cast and crew attempting to do the exact same thing. So yeah… I see a very fundamental, deep connection between magic as an art form and cinema.
- 4. How important was the music to “Lavinia’s Revenge”
The music was tremendously important. In fact, I wrote/directed/edited the film TO the music. And there’s no dialogue. So one could say that “Lavinia’s Revenge” is actually a music video (although, in a music video, the video is meant to enhance the music, and in “Lavinia’s Revenge” I think it’s the other way around).
- 5. Did you synch the music to the action?
Other way around. I synched (sanked? sunk? sunk the action?)—I sunk the action to the music. I told my actors during rehearsals to think of themselves, not only as actors acting in a film, but as dancers dancing to music. And I told them that it’s not only import to know how to move, but also when to move. So other way around—action sunk to music.
- 6. How many tracks did you record?
Well we recorded an ambient noise track—panting, shrieking, etcetera, etcetera (well actually, just panting and shrieking really). So it’s that ambient noise track, and the music.
- 7. What type of direction were you giving the actors?
The type of direction, as well as the extent of it, really depended on the scene. I mean, I blocked every scene—every shot—for my actors, and it was all timed out (I’d have someone counting seconds out loud every time we rolled). But how I directed my actors beyond that point was variegated based on the scene. So sometimes I’d talk to my actors as we’re rolling—act as their conscious sort of, recite what should be going on in their head. And other times, I’d simply refresh them on what the scene is, start rolling, and then just shut up until I call cut.
But, a good example of the type of directing I might do (and what I perceive to be my finest moment as a director for this film), is how I directed the rape scene. Now I just want to say, filming a rape scene is truly an unenjoyable experience. Even though it’s just acting, and you know it’s just acting—it’s incredibly intense and uncomfortable and I never want to do it again. But anyway, what I did for the rape scenes was I took Heidi and Rahul, our actors, out of the room one at a time. First was Heidi. I said, “come here, I need to talk to you alone for a second.” We stepped out, and when we were alone I looked at her and I said, “Heidi. When you step back into that room, Rahul is going to try and rape you. You thought you could trust him, but you can’t. He is going to try and rape you. Understand? And he will succeed if you let him. You have to fight back. You’re a strong woman. Fight back. Do not let him rape you. You’re strong. No matter what, do not let him rape you.” And I could tell it really hit her, and she nodded, and she even said thank you. And then I told her to go back in the room and do as many jumping jacks as she could, and as she started doing that, I pulled Rahul aside and spoke to him in much the same way I did to her. I said, “Rahul. You’re a man. And a man takes what he wants. That girl in there, you want her. But she doesn’t want to give herself to you. So what are you going to do? You’re just going to let her reject you? You’re going to take no for answer? No. You’re going to take what you want. And it’s not going to be easy. She’s going to fight back. But you’re going to take her nonetheless, cause you’re a man. Understand?” And Rahul nodded and we went back in the room and Heidi finished doing her jumping jacks, so she was kind of worn out, and I told them to both get on the bed and they got themselves into position, we got the camera into position, camera rolling, and… action!
- 8. What took you by surprise about the process.
There weren’t too many surprises. Most things seemed relatively straightforward. There was a bit of a debacle that I had with the initial actress I cast (and I won’t go into that), but I ended up having to fire her and recast to Heidi. So that initially sucked, and that was definitely the biggest surprise about and throughout the process—but while it was certainly unexpected, it was not unforeseeable.
- 9. What was the most important aspect of the movie?
I think the most important aspect of the movie is the story. And I know that’s such a cliche thing to say, and it’s really such a general aspect that it doesn’t mean much when I say it. So to delve a little further, I think an aspect of the story that’s incredibly important to the film is how the story itself is told and portrayed. It’s such a disturbing, horrible plot. Yet, at the same time, there’s this beautiful music timed with these beautiful moving shots of this beautiful woman, and it all comes together very beautifully. So there’s this aestheticization of content that is otherwise entirely horrible to watch. And that’s one of the most important aspects of the story and thus the film—it’s the simultaneous juxtaposition of near-entrancing beauty with this completely disturbing horror.
- 10. As a director, was it form over substance. Did you see it as an exercise in technique?
I don’t like to put one over the other. I can tell you that for David as a writer, it was more about the substance. But for David as a director (which was your question), in this case, it was probably more about form (although that’s not entirely true (David as a director did put huge emphasis on the psychology of the characters and the reasons and meaning behind their actions (not sure that that really show up on camera, but it’s there if you “watch between the frames”, so to speak))). So I have to give a gray answer (as I often do). But regardless, I think that form and substance are certainly not mutually exclusive. I think that form should be enabled by substance and substance should be enhanced by form. So there’s a symbiotic relationship, and I don’t want to discount one for the other. And while—yes—it was an exercise in technique, I for sure didn’t always see it that way (sometimes, but not always).
- 11. Influences as a writer and a director?
As a writer, my influences extend to Shakespeare, Charlie Kaufman, Aaron Sorkin, Woody Allen, Quentin Tarantino, Peter Shaffer, Hemmingway, Chuck Palahniuk, Kafka, and many others. But those influences don’t really shine through in this piece because there’s no dialogue.
So as a director, my influences are Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, Julie Taymore, Martin Scorsese, the Wachoski’s, Nicolas Refn, Hitchcock, Christopher Nolan, Darren Aronofsky, even Baz Luhrman a bit, and many others. You can definitely see Tarantino with the aestheticization of violence, Taymore and Refn with the color schemes somewhat, Hitchcock with the psychological horror aspect, Aronofsky with the frequent use of symmetry. I often very consciously emulate other artists that I respect and enjoy (other times, it’s very unconscious).
- 12. What next?
Next (for the film) is the festival circuit. I’ve entered it into 17 festivals so far. I hope it’ll get into at least a few. But I have no idea what to expect really. After that, I hope to upload it so that anyone can watch.
Next (for me) is a bit dependent on the success of this film. But regardless, I’ve been writing a few other projects (which I won’t talk about) and, personally, I’m really excited to see what David will do in the future.
Lavinia’s Revenge (clip) from David Miller on Vimeo.