Warped Perspective has long been promoting short films, and thanks to the ALTER channel on YouTube, it finally seems that there’s a decent outlet for them which extends beyond the enthusiastic, but limited remit of the festival scene. And so, we recently reviewed a body horror/cautionary tale called Nosepicker: if you haven’t already, then you should head over and watch the film, and then perhaps take a look at the review.
Then, you might like to take a look at this interview with the film’s director, Ian Mantgani. Ian has very obligingly answered some of my questions on Nosepicker: subject matter, snot, influences and everything in-between. Many thanks to him!
Responses below:
WP: My first question is probably the most obvious one, but let’s go for it: why did you choose nose-picking as your subject matter? And did any particular films, or anything else, influence your ideas?
IM: I’d actually intended to do another body-horror film entirely: An adaptation of the Roald Dahl story Skin, which had already been done as a terrific episode of Tales of the Unexpected starring Derek Jacobi in 1980, but which I thought would be a good vehicle for a filmmaker today to take another crack at. I was for whatever reason just desperate to do something in a horror short story form. The very week I intended to write to the Dahl estate seeking an option on the material, the deal was announced where Netflix bought the rights to Dahl’s whole catalogue.
Having Dahl in mind, I started thinking about doing something in that vein, and fairly quickly fixed on doing something morbid involving kids. What do kids like? Things that are gross, like snot, blood and guts. From there, pun intended, the rest just poured out of me.
WP: Practical effects are clearly really important to this film – no one would buy CGI snot, I don’t think – but what no-doubt interesting discussions, storyboards and perhaps even prototypes got the film where you wanted it to be?
IM: It was a surprisingly arduous journey. With friends, I’d made several backyard practical effects films before, so had some experience with creating life casts, wounds, decapitated heads, and things of this nature. And I naively figured there was nothing in this film that hadn’t been done in, say, The Blob in the late 1950s, so it must be easy to communicate some agreed upon orthodoxy on how to achieve everything. We also had detailed briefing books on everything from the various grades of bogey and snot we required to colour charts, animal comparisons and movie references for how the eventual monster should look.
So we went in armed to execute the effects efficiently, but it was a nightmare. Without dropping anyone in it, we tried to go the semi-professional route to both save money and give a young designer an opportunity to step up, but several people let us down and left us without our main effects ready in time for the main shoot. We then hired a more experienced special effects technician and arranged a split SFX unit, but his expertise didn’t really lie in creature effects, and the monster this designer created really wasn’t convincing or consistent.
As they say, buy cheap, buy twice, or in our case, buy cheap, buy three or four times, because at this point, we had to go the route we thought we couldn’t afford in the first place, which was hiring a majorly established creature effects designer. And we were also running out of time to make autumn festival deadlines, so didn’t even know if we could get one who wasn’t too busy with a more pressing project. So thank God that Dan Martin of 13 Finger FX agreed to step in; he and his team did a terrific job of building bladders that felt alive on set when they operated them. Dan and the team really saved our bacon; I love the effects in the final film.
WP: As much as it’s a body horror, there’s also a lot in the film regarding childhood and perhaps how adults relate (or don’t relate) to children. Can you tell us about that?
IM: There’s a characteristically thoughtful and perceptive review by the great critic Anton Bitel that situates Nosepicker as “the horror of abjection.” I don’t like talking too much about subtext, not wanting to ruin any viewers’ interpretations of anything, but to me the film is largely about being twisted, perverted and made violently crazy by a society that’s obtuse, or cruel, or patronising.
The ethnicity of the character wasn’t specified in the script, but I did prefer to cast a lead who was non-white, so Leo Adoteye, who is mixed-race Ghanaian-Italian, fit the bill and I think gave another unspoken dimension to the story, being non-white in a film of entirely white antagonists. The story is about the perversion of the underdog, in a society where the dominant races, the upper classes and the normative attitudes can all just make a minority misfit want to crack.
WP: Did you ever plan for Georgie to speak? Or did you always envision the character being silent?
IM: It just never occurred to me that he would speak. He doesn’t need to. He is alone on his weird little island, immovable as people talk at him and around him. I hope his silence doesn’t seem like a stunt. I hope it does make the viewer lean in. Additionally, I tend to come from the school of thought that every movie should work as a silent movie on some level, whatever sound and dialogue ends up adding to the overall melee. By the way, it’s funny that I should end up writing and directing a movie about a completely mute child, because I myself was always a motormouth smartass class clown when I was a schoolchild!
WP: I’ve enjoyed reading the responses to the film over on ALTER: lots of takers, lots of quite appalled people too! What have been some of your favourite responses to the film – either from critics, fans, or anyone else?
IM: People do seem to think the film is disgusting! Which is gratifying in a way, because a greater concern during the making of the film was that the bodily fluids would end up looking fake. Interestingly enough, child viewers more or less take the film in their stride and see the gruesomeness all in good fun. Adult viewers are more sensitive to it. Which coheres with my own experience as a film viewer – I think broadly as a very young person you respond to things completely instinctively, then as you get into adolescence you develop a sort of harder skin and then as you gain maturity you become sensitive again in a different way.
WP: How do you think your work on Nosepicker will influence you moving forwards as a filmmaker? Any important lessons learned? And while we’re on the topic, do you have any new projects or ideas for projects lined up?
IM: Hopefully Hollywood will come calling! Netflix, let me at your Roald Dahl stable! Let’s talk Tales of the Unexpected and The Twits! There’s also a film about lucid dreaming that I’ve been noodling away at for a few years and will hopefully achieve a breakthrough with before long. Right now, especially after all the uncertainty we had in completing our SFX, and after a long run of festival screenings, I’m so glad that Nosepicker is out in the world at the click of a button, and I hope people enjoy it.