|
Alarms & Discursions |
A Chestertonian in Hollywood
An Interview with Scott Derrickson
by Sean P. Dailey
Scott Derrickson is the director of Hellraiser: Inferno (2000) and, more recently, The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005). He is the co-writer of those films and others, and as luck would have it, he also is an avid Chestertonian.
GM First, tell us, how did you get into filmmaking?
SD I grew up in a Denver suburb, in a family that watched an astonishing number of films. I have memories of going to a matinee, then dinner, then to the drive-in for a double feature. How many kids get to see three movies in a day? I probably saw more films by the time I graduated high school than most people see in their lifetime. This was the beginning of my love for cinema and by the time I graduated from high school, I knew I wanted to be a filmmaker.
GM And did you discover G.K. Chesterton before or after you decided to go into filmmaking?
SD My discovery of Chesterton didn't come until college, when I fell into an epistemological crisis. I was reading all kinds of French philosophy about deconstructionism, and then I read Chesterton and he single-handedly wiped my mental slate clean. Chesterton is hands down my favorite writer.
GM What is it about his writing that appeals to you?
SD He is to writing what Akira Kurosawa is to directing—that rare combination of peak artistry and peak meaning blended with peak entertainment value. Nobody digs deeper or presents more profound ideas than Chesterton and, unbelievably, nobody writes with more wit or style.
GM That is certainly true. Tell me, how did you first encounter Chesterton? What was the first book by him you read and what books by him have you read or like best?
SD I first read Orthodoxyin college and it is, quite simply, the most brilliant and impacting book Ive ever read. I've read it cover to cover at least a dozen times. I was given the book by a philosophy professor who thought it might help me amidst my philosophical crisis. Like I said, I was reading lots of deconstructionist literature at the time and was very much trapped within the modern mental madness that Chesterton describes in that book.
Reading it was like running into a rubber wall—it shot me 180 degrees into the opposite direction and I've stayed on that trajectory ever since. I think that book is not only the best defense of Christianity that I've read but is the best articulation for foundational ideas for thought ever put into a single volume. And again, it's also one of the funniest, most whimsical and entertaining books I've ever read. And given the ideas that it's addressing, it's hard to believe that it was written a century ago. Orthodoxy rescued me, and almost two decades later, I still think that book contains the most ingenious and inspired ideas I've ever read.
I also very much like The Everlasting Man, though it is a much more laborious read than Orthodoxy. And his book on Saint Francis (which I read in Assisi!) was not only a joy to read but it fundamentally changed the way I thought about historical writing. And of course The Man Who Was Thursday is just a thrill. Everybody likes that book.
GM What does Chesterton mean to you as a filmmaker? How does he inform your work?
SD He informs my work in that he informs all of my life. He orients my mind so that it is free to think. He advocates a balanced, synergistic relationship between mysticism and reason that I strive to maintain. Out of that balance comes creativity and original ideas.
GM Could you give an example of how you try to maintain that? Say, when writing the screenplay for The Exorcism of Emily Rose for instance?
SD The entire film is about the modern tension between reason and mysticism and rather than trying to unite them as Chesterton does so brilliantly, I made a film about the cultural tension itself. Laura Linney's closing speech, however, has some Chesterton in it, in that she is considering the reasonability of mystical ideas. As I wrote the script, I thought often about Chesterton's idea that people have this misconception about belief in miracles, that they are embraced by people because of a dogmatic religious predisposition when in fact they believe them because of evidence. People believe in possession because they've seen people act possessed and they believe in ghosts because they've seen ghosts. Chesterton goes on to say that those who deny miracles do so because of a dogmatic anti-supernatural predisposition, one that won't accept the eyewitness testimony of someone who claims to have seen something supernatural. There is a lot of that in Emily Rose—much of the courtroom material in Emily Rose is built upon my interest in that Chestertonian idea.
GM What about the true-life story of Anneliese Michel intrigued you enough to want to film it?
SD It was two things. The first was that the true story embodied two great film genres that I had never seen together in one story, courtroom drama and horror. I was very interested in trying to make a hybrid film that would satisfy fans of both types. Secondly, I was very moved by this extraordinary story and wanted the world to know about it. A real girl lost her life in a fascinating and tragic manner and regardless of whether or not she was actually possessed, I felt that getting her story out into the public would give her death more meaning.
GM The film has no specific place or time. What was behind that decision? Did you feel it would help audiences identify more with the story itself?
SD Yes, definitely. The true story took place in Germany in the 1970s and we knew we didn't want to make a period film or a foreign language film, so we reset it here in an American courtroom but wanted to avoid a specific time or place. I borrowed the idea from David Fincher's Seven, in that he created a city that looked and felt like New York but wasn't quite New York and had a desert nearby. Something about that dislocation of time and place tends not only to focus on the story itself but adds to the overall feeling of unease that the film is intended to create in the audience.
GM Other exorcism movies accept demonic possession as a fact and very possible, with the only real issue being to convince the movie's characters of it. You took the opposite tack in your movie, forcing the priest to make a case, not only to other characters, but to the audience. Do you think such a tactic might have had more impact?
SD I wanted the subject to be taken seriously by believers and non-believers alike. I wanted non-believers to consider the reality of the demonic not as a movie convention but as a real cosmological question. I also wanted believers to consider how religious hysteria can do real damage, that science and medicine must be considered when examining issues of faith. I don't think there is a simple answer to the case at all so I wasn't trying to persuade the audience to accept my view of the world through that story. I was, however, interested in getting the audience to think about the subject more seriously than usual and I think the film succeeded in doing that.
GM Ah, so we're back to the false disconnect between mysticism and reason. John Paul II tackled this dilemma in his encyclical Fides et Ratio and Chesterton of course wrote about it all the time. It sounds like this issue occupies your mind quite a bit.
SD It does occupy my mind quite a bit. I loathe the anti-intellectualism of so many American Christians and I equally loathe the smug arrogance of many American liberal secularists. The profoundly destructive culture war in this country is in many ways the result of these two groups failing to realize that faith and reason can, and should, co-exist.
GM That is true and Chesterton would say that there is, or should be, no tension; mysticism is reasonable and that reason by its nature encompasses mystery. Is that what you're getting at when you talk about the creative process?
SD Yes. Chesterton alone made me fully appreciate the reciprocal relationship between reason and mysticism and he understood that in the modern world many mystics are illogical and many logicians exclude all mysticism from their thinking. I don't think the tension between faith and facts, or between science and metaphysics, should exist—but it certainly does. My film sets up this ideological chasm but then tries to bridge it at times. The greater intention of the film, however, is to simply get people to think beyond their borders. I wasn't trying to present a final case for good thinking but I did want to spawn good thinking within the minds of the audience.
GM Probably nothing else illustrates that disconnect than the ongoing debate over Harry Potter. The liberal secularists love the books and the Christians—Catholic and Protestant—hate them, because they think Harry Potter is contrary to Christianity. But I believe the Harry Potter books to be some of the most profoundly Christian literature being produced today. What is your take on this? Do you think the antipathy toward Harry Potter is a result of this disconnect?
SD Most definitely. Those books, and to a lesser degree those films, are so beloved because they make people feel that the world is a magical place and yet also a place where good and evil are clearly defined. Christians have become fixated on the so-called “occultism” of Harry Potter that they have missed the larger Christian cosmology they represent. In like fashion, the New York Times called my film “propaganda” because it dared to take demon possession and supernatural belief seriously and the reviewer therefore saw it as Bush-era anti-scientific evangelicalism. Ha! Nothing could be farther from the truth! The point is that reading the New York Times review of my film reminded me of reading a Focus on the Family (James Dobson's ministry) review of Harry Potter—in both cases, the hang-ups and hobby horses of the reviewers prevented them from really seeing the film. Should they take a deeper look what they may find is something that actually supports, not contradicts, their view of the world.
GM Do you think that same disconnect applies to the ongoing debate over evolution?
SD Yes, I think it applies. The problem is twofold: with evolution, secularists have taken the scientific ideas of evolution and applied them to philosophy, sociology, and even theology in some very unreasonable ways. They have done this, I think, because they are uneasy with more traditional views of truth, society and God, and they would like to overthrow them. Likewise, many Christians are now advocating that “Intelligent Design” be taught in public school science classes. I do, of course, believe in an intelligent designer—but what these Christians are advocating is the imposition of philosophy and theology upon science where it doesn't belong. The secularists are trying to contaminate metaphysics and the Christians are trying to spiritualize science. If both groups had more respect for the other, and a willingness to look at truth from more than one perspective, they would see that scientific evolution and Christianity can and should co-exist without the least bit of tension.
GM Without giving away too much, Exorcism of Emily Rose certainly has a lot of Catholic undertones, particularly the Marian connection near the end. What are your own religious convictions? If you're not Catholic has reading Chesterton done anything to draw you closer to the Catholic Church?
SD I am not Catholic, but obviously Chesterton has made me consider Catholicism quite seriously. There are certain Catholic doctrines that I don't subscribe to and that has kept me out of the church, I suppose. Surprisingly, given the content of my film, the church's teaching on Mary is one of them. I wasn't interested in exploring Marian teachings or Catholic doctrine through the film but I did want to remain true to the Catholic characters and their beliefs. And I was very interested in exploring the Catholic view of suffering in the film. It is fundamentally different from the Protestant view of suffering and I felt that there was much for me to learn there. I do still consider Catholicism an option for me—I certainly have not given up on the idea.
GM Is the movie's Marian theme something that was part of the original story or is it something you came up with?
SD The Marian theme was part of the original story, otherwise I doubt that I would have included it.
GM Chesterton's novels seem perfect fodder for movie adaptations. Why do you think none of them has ever been made into a movie? The Detective, a film based on Father Brown, doesn't count, as it bears almost no resemblance to the two Father Brown stories it was adapted from.
SD They are turn-of-the-century and British, making them peculiar and usually very time/place specific, but they are also very complicated structurally. Chesterton knew a good plot twist when he wrote one, so he usually wrote a lot of them into each story. This makes adaptation very difficult, because a good movie has only a few well chosen twists, and to cut those down while still holding his stories together is quite a challenge.
GM How has Chesterton influenced you personally?
SD I'm not very influenced by him politically, though I am often inspired by his willingness to think with political originality. I'm very influenced, as I said before, by his thoughts on reason and mysticism and by his conviction that Christianity is the only real ideological arena for robust living in the modern era. I've really embraced that and I try hard to carry it with me in a deep way. Chesterton loved life and really saw Christianity as a life-giving thing. The manner in which he recognized that was a revelation to me when I read his work.
It's fair for me to say that my entire religious philosophy depends upon his thought and I have frequently argued that no philosopher or modern thinker has presented a more cogent or insightful argument for how human beings ought to think. He somehow cut right to the core of everything that is wrong with the modern mind; he not only diagnosed it but he presented a cure. That's quite a thing for a writer to do, but he did it and it's why he is, in my opinion, the greatest mind of the 20th century.
GM According to IMDb.com, your films include a short, Love in the Ruins, and three feature-length pictures, Hellraiser: Inferno, Ghosting, and The Exorcism of Emily Rose, as well as co-writing credits for Urban legends: Final Cut. Why horror? How does that particular genre let you express yourself better than some other?
SD Again, Chesterton was an influence on this choice. He spoke frequently about why he and other Catholics were capable of writing despicable characters that do despicable things—the idea, of course, is that Christians believe in evil and in original sin. As a young filmmaker, I was looking for a place where my faith could meet the marketplace and I found that meeting in the horror genre. It's certainly the most faith-friendly genre in that it often demands a spiritual or supernatural point of view. It's also hip-deep in Christian iconography (crosses, holy water, blood, etc.) and Christian anthropology. It's the one genre that accepts as a premise that people are either basically evil or at least capable of great evil.
I knew that I wanted to include my love for religious philosophy in the writing process and this was the genre that afforded me the best opportunity to do that.
GM With that in mind, have you ever read any of Chesterton's detective fiction? His Father Brown stories are great examinations of evil that men are capable of.
SD Oh yes! And I love that Chesterton defended his writing of such stories and something that is distinctively appropriate for a Christian to write because we are the ones who so ardently believe in original sin.
GM I see you're on the faculty at Act One (www.actoneprogram.com), an outfit that trains Christian screenwriters. Without disparaging any of your colleagues, the secularism of Hollywood seems pretty well established. What is it like, as a Christian, working in such an environment?
SD Right now is an exciting time for Christians in Hollywood. With the success of The Passion of the Christ, my film, and the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Hollywood has gotten the message loud and clear that Christians are a big marketplace demographic. They don't want to support politically-conservative Bible-thumping films, but neither do I, so it's a good time for someone like me.
Hollywood is a truly liberal community and one of the great things about that is their open-mindedness toward people of different beliefs. In my experience there is no real secular prejudice in Hollywood—what they care about is making money and if your work is good and your ideas can make them money they'll work with you in a New York minute.
GM Could you tell us a little more about Act One?
SD Act One is basically a training ground for Christians who are interested in screenwriting. I teach there on occasion, because the program understands that what Christians need most is a lesson in aesthetic and craft quality.
GM What are some of your favorite films?
SD I love everything by Akira Kurosawa—he's my favorite. I love Taxi Driver by Martin Scorsese and a lot of classic European cinema. Recently, I saw The New World, which really knocked me out. The best film of the year, I think.
GM What are your plans? Are you working on any movies at present?
SD I'm working on a number of things. I'd really like to do a science fiction film, as I think it holds great untapped potential like the horror genre. I'm involved with the development of a number of sci-fi projects.
GM Yes! Joss Whedon's Serenity is a perfect example of that. It explores original sin and the perils of trying to artificially improve that nature. What sort of themes would you bring to a science fiction movie?
SD Most science fiction work has been about technology, and our hidden fears of it. But we are in an information age now, and technology is not so threatening. The genre needs an overhaul and when it comes I think it will be about ecology, biology, and theology. There hasn't been enough imagination about what other worlds would really look like—their plant and animal life—and theologically science has now come to accept what Christians have always believed, that there are more dimensions to reality than we can perceive with the physical senses. The potential for sci-fi innovation is limitless.
GM I think what you say about Hollywood and Christians is very interesting; it is an exciting time. I think the arts are part of the Christian patrimony, including film. What suggestions do you have for young Christians interested in breaking into the film industry (other than reading Chesterton, of course)?
SD Work on
your writing skills. Screenplays are the currency of Hollywood and it
doesn't cost money to write a script. It's the best way to break into
the business, unless you want to work in physical production (such as
sound, cinematography, editing, etc.) and then I would advise film school,
preferably in Los Angeles where you can make industry connections.