Tag Archives: uwe boll

From the Vault: Uwe Boll Interview

This is the fourth in a series where I try to do something constructive with the pages and pages of interview material that doesn’t make it into the book or magazine for which it was conducted.

In which the controversial director explains his preference for reality-based horror, and discusses The Bailout, a Falling Down-style movie that does what the West has failed to do — punish the bigwig bankers who destroyed our economy.

I had the opportunity to interview controversial German director Uwe Boll for the current issue of Rue Morgue (RM 122) and, as usual, only used a very small part of that talk for the piece. After reading so many skewerings of his work over the years, I must admit that I was impressed to find the man to be a lot shrewder than he’s ever been given credit for. But of course, you be the judge…

[Note: Though Boll’s English is good enough to be understood when spoken, it can be a bit confusing in print. I cleaned up some of the following for the sake of clarity, but have tried to preserve his voice as best I could.]

Was Darfur (aka Attack on Darfur) a turning point for you in terms of the types of movies you want to make from now on?

Uwe Boll: No. To be honest, the turning point for me was Postal. When I started going back to basically where I came from and started writing my own stuff, this is what I did in earlier years. And with Postal and Seed I started that progress. But I think with Darfur and Rampage, and also Stoic, as a director I think I progressed enormously and delivered something maybe that was surprising for a lot of people, and from my point of view, very strong.

Were Darfur, Auschwitz and Basement (Boll’s segment in the forthcoming anthology film The Profane Exhibit) a sort of loose trilogy — movies meant to move away from fantasy horror toward the more real-world variety?

Yeah, it’s definitely stuff that’s based on reality and I think Stoic, the jail movie I did – it was buried on DVD but I hope it’s on Netflix or something – I think it’s also a very strong movie on a real prison case that happened in Germany 5 years ago. But Auschwitz and Darfur definitely have the same subject matter, genocide. I did Darfur  before Auschwitz, to question how it’s possible that stuff like this can happen again. Did we learn from history or not? In regards of Auschwitz, because there is a documentary part in the beginning and the end where you actually see what the school kids are knowing about it in today’s time. And it’s kind of shocking to see their knowledge is zero and they have no clue what it is. Or they know what it is from like the highest school you can go to. So yeah, it’s to show what is human nature and to find out what humans are capable of doing, and at the same time what can we do to let the beast out basically.

And the Basement movie – I was fascinated by that case in Austria, the Fritzl case, who actually had his daughter in the basement for 20 years and made two kids with her – one kid died and the other kid actually was living also in the basement, and upstairs he had his wife and another kid! And they were all acting like everything is good. I thought [in The Profane Exhibit]where 13 movies are compiled to one longer movie, I think there was a great opportunity to make just one day of that Fritzl guy basically as an example, so we don’t have the time for the whole story, but we have the time to show that one crazy absurdity. We moved it to America, it’s not [set in] Austria. I think we in a way were accurate about how to tell the story but because Clint Howard plays the lead, we said it plays in America. And I don’t need a lawsuit with the Fritzl guy who’s now in jail and his daughter who actually, I think, tries to make some money out of her story right now. So that’s the reason to do it just loosely based on this.

Of course Auschwitz is a day-in-the-life movie as well.

And Darfur also. Darfur plays in one day in a way.

These are movies that strip away the narrative storytelling to just show what’s behind the headlines of the day.

I agree. Auschwitz is definitely the movie, compared to Darfur, which is absolutely not entertaining at all. It’s very harsh but it grips you and it makes you upset and emotional. In Auschwitz I think the opposite almost happens. because it is so cold without any actors, you just follow the people from the train into the oven. In a way its also the shocking part, but I didn’t want it that you get any connection to anybody. Not to the German guards and not to the victims who get killed in the gas chamber. To just see the manufacturing of this kind of craziness, under what circumstances for years this kind of killing, like a meat plant, could happen. I think this is the very interesting thing in the Auschwitz movie, that it’s totally anti-commercial, it doesn’t try to tell a story about a hero who tries to survive or whatever because it’s just true. Of course there were some heroes and everybody tried to survive, but if you actually see what happened, there is no chance. There was just no chance. It’s kind of unfair to all the people that died in Auschwitz to show only those kind of crazy stories about the survivors because it was not on you. Fifty percent of the people who came to Auschwitz were dead the same day. And you see some movies like The Boy in the Striped Pajamas or something and it’s completely idiotic, and this stuff gets nominated for an Oscar, which makes it doubly idiotic. It shows the people who nominate the movies, they don’t know anything about history.

You say Auschwitz was “noncommercial.” So you put up the money yourself to make it?

Yes, absolutely.

So you can shoot whatever you want.

Yeah I know, but I’m not a super rich guy. This was the whole point to do it after BloodRayne III, [that was set] in the Second World War, so I had the costumes, I had the equipment, I had the crew. And to say look we just do that Auschwitz experiment after the normal shoot was, I think, a good thing to do. Otherwise I would never be financially able to pull off a movie like this.

Did you also use the same uniforms and sets for Blubberella as well?

Yeah, I used the BloodRayne stuff. it’s all from Croatia where we shot all real Second World War stuff. Nothing was made like in the Tom Cruise movie [Valkyrie] where they all made the costumes; we basically used real uniforms from the Second World War. There’s the thing. I shot BloodRayne III and Blubberella parallel, and then when that shoot was done I shot Auschwitz completely separate with completely different actors and completely different extras in everything.

Sounds like you’ve found a way to do “one for them and one for me” at the same time.

Absolutely. I was able to finance the BloodRayne movie so I had the chance here to basically do this. And for me, my whole crew didn’t want to do it. They said they were not looking forward to shooting this movie, especially the gas chamber, and they tried to convince me not to do it and said why do you want to do this? This is ridiculous. I said to be honest I really want to do it.

Was it because of the extra work or because of the subject matter that they objected?

It was the subject matter. They were really concerned that the movie makes no sense to do, but the opposite happened. When we actually shot it and then the whole crew said later we’re so happy you did that movie when they saw the finished movie. The first teaser that came out of course made a lot of negative response, but for me it was to make a point with that teaser – to shock the people and say look, this is what it looks like.

If it hadn’t been you in the teaser, it might’ve gotten a different response.

I know, but I’m by accident in that movie because the people we had were just not able to make sure that everybody got naked into the gas chamber. We had various tries with the other guys we hired to play the SS guards and they let people in the gas chamber with like bras on and underwear. And I was flipping out saying it’s just not working – I will be the guard and make sure everybody’s naked, otherwise I will make them naked. This is the reason why I’m in the movie. Of course I’m also in the trailer which was for a lot of people – later the people who actually saw the movie said no, it’s actually good this movie exists. I gave an interview to a guy from UK two days ago where the movie is already out on DVD.

We haven’t seen anything in the states yet.

No, my normal distributors all don’t want to release it in US. And now I hope I make a deal with Vanguard, the guy I sold some smaller movies to in the past and he said he loves it, he wants to release it, and I say let’s do it. I hope I can close with him soon and we can get it out in the US because I gave so many interviews about it, it should at least be going to DVD and Netflix and iTunes and so on. So I hope this will happen.

Do you think the audience for these movies are the people who just aren’t comfortable with the documentaries that show the real footage?

I agree. What I recognize, the real naturalistic, realistic movies are basically almost not getting made anymore. I miss that cinema from the ’80s, what was rough and brutal and in the face. The main subject matter was life and death and so on. It’s not really existing anymore.

Can you name some of the movies you’re thinking about when you say that?

The Raging Bull, the Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter. The French Connection. You don’t need always a love story. You don’t need always a hopeful ending. All that stuff Hollywood now puts in every single movie, even in the so-called critically acclaimed movies. if you have a movie like King’s Speech for example, or The Artist, Oscar-winning movies – they’re good movies, but they’re not important at all. There’s nothing in it what is important for anybody. It’s more like making the people escape from reality but not facing the real problems on earth.

I shoot next Bailout, another movie about a very realistic thing as we all know. But I do it more like Taxi Driver and Falling Down. I wanna show the guys who actually lost it all. In my movie, the main guy is losing everything, the whole family is dead basically. The house is gone. He goes against the investment bankers and shoots them. It’s a very radical approach. I was always a very politically interested person. After all the video-game-based movies, I felt like I have to get back to where I’m originally coming from, that I write my own stuff, and I do stuff what is more radical. Even my first movie, German Fried Movie, was a comedy, was very political, was very incorrect and more in the line of Postal. And then my second movie, Barschel: A Murder in Geneva, was a real political case where a German prime minister was found dead in a hotel room and I made a movie out of it while the case was still going. Like everybody thought was it suicide, was it a murder case? This is what I came back to after the eight years of Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead, and so on. And I feel better with the other movies but they are harder to finance.

Which are harder to finance?

Of course more like Darfur and stuff like this, because it’s a genre movie like In the Name of the King II. Like in the US 20th Century Fox distributes it, so Darfur gets distributed by Phase IV. And that’s the thing. It’s like you’re not getting the really good distribution deals with political ambitious stuff. Maybe Auschwitz comes out with a very small distributor shows that they’re going for the most harmless entertaining stuff.

But as you get older and more sophisticated in your filmmaking, there are things you want to try. You’re not the same filmmaker as when you started.

Absolutely. This is more connected to the Bailout movie, but I think we live on debt. We all live a life that we cannot afford to have basically. On the cost of the future generations. We all feel an entitlement and we got raped and ripped off by a whole generation of greed where people who were really rich screwing over the people. And then the government helped the thieves to survive and they’re still getting their bonus payment and they still keep going. This is the shocking situation we are in. If it’s a state like Greece or if it’s a bank.

Do you think the Eurozone crisis is going to have an impact on you?

Yes but I have to say, for example, Bailout I got all the money out of Canada, so I’m not so dependent anymore on German money because the tax breaks disappeared in 2005. I raise some more money in 2006 with some private investors but then it almost dried out. And now the money comes from more like Canadian investors, but also typical stuff – pre-sales, labor tax, investments like the CGI dragon in In the Name of the King II was all a French company that invested that CGI in the movie. This is the thing. It’s harder to finance the movies, we have to be more clever, we cannot overpay anybody, and at the same time you have to be more creative. So The Bailout is placed in New York and we shoot four weeks in Vancouver and we go one week to New York to shoot all what matters to make it New York.

Guerrilla shooting?

Yes. In New York we just bring the two main actors and we go to Wall Street and everywhere to establish New York, driving them to the subway, going to work. But the actual stuff when he starts killing everybody and so on, this we all do here. But it’s kind of an easy cheat because we have inside of Vancouver those skyscrapers. If you look out of  a window on the 20th floor you see another skyscraper so it doesn’t really matter where you are.

Are you based in Vancouver now?

I have a place here. Since 2005 I live here part time.

Which is when the tax credits dried up in Germany.

Yes, then it was time to move. [Laughs.] It makes more sense for me to live in both countries.

How did you get involved with the whole Profane Exhibit movie?

David Bond, the main producer, he asked me in regards of world sales what can we expect for a movie like this, can I sell this for him. And he showed me the first trailer and I was very impressed and I said this is a very interesting project and, if you want, I make also one of the short movies. So I did it. I think now in the end a lot of illustrative directors from around the world are in it. I think it will be nice to see different styles, different directors, under one title. Let’s see how it turns out. So far I have seen only two others. The rest are in the making. Hopefully it turns out very good. I think the others are very gory and I went more for the psychological horror, and of course the rape, but it’s not bloody. I wanted to do something different and not like doing another gore shocker.

Are you handling the distribution?

Yes. Germany is already sold. We have a lot of interest but a lot of people just want to see the finished movie before they decide anything.

Can you tell me more about The Bailout?

Yeah, absolutely. We start shooting April 10 [2012], we’re in pre-production. I can’t tell you who’s now all in it, but we will do that officially in two weeks, what actors we have lined up. I was writing this and trying to get a lead actor for a year and trying to finance it and now I’m really happy we’re at the point now we can make the movie. It was an interesting development process because Hollywood stars, a lot of people read the script and they all were scared, that it was too hard for them – ah, you can’t really shoot the bankers. And I said why not, we make a movie,  right? And the point is also excuse me, if there’s no justice system, if you get 10 years in prison when you rob 100 bucks at the gas station but these fuckers go away with $500 million in their pockets and 10 trillion dollars, how is that possible? It’s ridiculous, and I think it’s a huge scandal.

I’m sure the first thing common people say when they hear about your movie is “That’s great.”

Exactly. That’s the whole point. When I just talk to friends or people I meet they all say yes, this is a movie I want to see. And I’m happy I do it now because then the movie is done for the elections so I hope we can get a few screens during the US elections in November. It could be the talk of the day. People on CNN and Fox News and everybody discusses that point maybe when the movie comes out. I think it’s very necessary to show the subject matter and to bring the pressure back to the politics to not let it go like this.

When you saw the guy from Goldman Sachs step back two days ago in that huge article in The New York Times and everywhere. How can that be that these fuckers are still nothing else but greedy assholes who create products that make them money but not the clients and they don’t give a shit about the clients everywhere? And that they just talk like we have to make the profit and who gives a shit about the clients, the “muppets.” If these people survived as the main decision makers in one of the biggest banks in the world, this is a bad sign. Nobody learned anything from the bailout. Nothing.

Is there a style you’re going for with this movie?

It will be a little like Rampage. Rampage on Wall Street. We shoot it all handheld and it will be more like a documentary style and harsh. It’s not like let’s say the PG-13 movie. It will be very hard but it will also be sophisticated. I put a lot of work into the script and had various investment bankers looking over it making sure it’s accurate. Nothing that is in the script is made up, the deals they do and stuff like this is actually happening. I also want to mention we don’t make fictional names. Of  course our guy is fictional but we will have CNN and Fox running on TVs. We say Richard from Lehman Brothers. The people that will get gunned down are fictional, this is clear. But when people talk about the criminals they will say Lehman Brothers – it will be realistic. And for me this is very important to have the people know we do something that is based on reality. We want that the real investment bankers feel scared. They see this movie and they say, “Shit, maybe some client now will do this to us what that guy’s doing in the movie.” This is what I actually want. Because if they’re not scared that the police arrest them, they should be scared that somebody shoots them. And sometimes this kind of stuff changes behavior.

Are you worried about getting sued?

This is a risk I have to go as a filmmaker. I remember the guy in Norway they said he played video games and he watched movies like Rampage, so I was mentioned in a newspaper article about the guy. But we all know before somebody runs amok, he needs good reasons. I think it doesn’t bring a guy to go on a rampage based on he plays video games or watches a movie. The people that run amok, they have a psychological problem and they have enormous amounts of misery they go through for whatever reason, like medication. The guys in Littleton, they were on the medication. So I think it’s a very medicated structure. This is the reason I don’t feel responsible for this because I do House of the Dead or Rampage. I don’t feel responsible for them.

What’s the budget for Bailout?

Bailout has a $7 million budget. I think it’s big enough to make a theatrical movie, but it’s also low enough that if it isn’t a theatrical success, I have a chance to get the money back.

You’re financing most of it yourself.

Yeah, we did pre-sales and we shoot Canadian content so you can count 38 percent labor tax.

Do they have any influence on what you shoot?

No. There’s a good thing that in Canada they don’t care. If you fulfill the points – if you have X amount of Canadians working on the show – you get 38 percent labor tax. And this is perfect. Because in Germany you get only subsidies. If they read the script and stuff like this, if you have any kind of radical movie, you never get any kind of subsidies in Germany. Total disaster.

Advertisements

Why are We Bothered By Boll?

There is no shortage of controversy in our beloved genre. The absurd numbers of remakes that spill out of Hollywood, the validity (or lack thereof) of torture in horror films, the copious amounts of utter dreck that the average fan must sift through before finding that rarest of the rare: a great horror flick.

One of the oddest controversies revolves around the man fans love to hate: Uwe Boll.

True, the director's cinematic output is less-than-stellar: BloodRayne, Alone in the Dark (yes, yes, the one where Tara Reid played a scientist, sigh...), House of the Dead, you all know the roll call of shame. What puzzles me is the utter vehemence with which fans have attacked the man.

We're all friends here, and surely we can all admit that a good 95% of the movies this genre churns out is utter bilge, to put it mildly.

Let's try a little thought experiment, shall we? Picture in your mind an empty 6x8-foot DVD rack in your local video shop. See it? Good. Now start filling that rack with each horror film that you've actually enjoyed, one DVD box at a time -- sure, even those guilty pleasures you would never admit to watching. Chances are pretty good that you would never fill that rack. That means all of the dozens of horror films that DIDN'T make the imaginary rack are crap, and much of it probably crap no better than Boll's works.

So why then do we not curse the name of these other directors, too? Yes, Boll's a repeat offender, but his horror output is surprisingly small - I count seven movies - considering the amount of animosity that's shoveled into his schnitzel.

The Scotsman published an interesting piece on this phenomenon recently, pointing out the difference between how people view Boll and the affection showered on the previous holder of the "world's worst director" crown: Ed Wood. Though no explanation is given in the piece, one is clearly implied. Whereas Wood was something of a sweet stooge, Boll often comes across as an angry, bellicose sort. If nothing else, he may go down in history as the first director to meet his critics in the boxing ring. (Something he tried to repeat earlier this year [see clip above] with director Michael Bay.)

While this kind of behavior is far removed from the gentle, starry-eyed dreamer depicted in the 1994 biopic Ed Wood, there may be another reason why Boll is so universally reviled. Between his lashing out at the critics and his grumbling about being unappreciated, he occasionally turns the mirror back on the movie-going public. Take this open letter he posted on the Web site of his latest film, Postal:

To all of you writing now about me and the fact that POSTAL is not getting screens.

its okay ..its fun kicking a guy nonstop who is on the ground

you are all not getting it that i'm the guy who made it against the big hollywood system and you are all only busy to destroy me and finish me up
and then you YOU WON WHAT ? the attention of the studios, michael bay .. ?????
if you damage me you feel closer to Hollywood ? what is your game plan?

you want only movies like JUMPER , SPEED RACER , WHAT HAPPENDS IN VEGAS ...? then keep going and your dreams will be fullfilled. POSTAL makes some very important points ..but you dont wanna see that .... : that Bush used the SEPTEMBER 11 to start a war against a country what had nothing to do with Bin Laden etc.... but this all doesnt matter because you are all busy to THINK that INDIANA JONES or NARNIA are important movies ... but in real they are empty shells of an industry what wants to make money and what wants to keep you looking "escape movies" with nothing in it. in between they are putting some CONTROVERSIAL movies to show that they can do also IMPORTANT movies ...but also this movies are not really critical....they only supporting the system and not showing the big picture. and POSTAL shows the BIG PICTURE ...it nails the absurd situation with all the stupid religions, races and nations we are living in. POSTAL is not accepting bullshit politics. POSTAL has not the opinion that Bush made mistakes - POSTAL has the opinion that it is a scandal that BUSH is not in jail. What happened in America in the last 7 years is the biggest joke since Columbus stepped on that land.

but instead of seeing the courage i had in doing that movie against everybody who tried to stop me - you are sitting on your desks and you are working on stories about me ....and my image as the worst director on earth...and you fullfill what your editor wants from you in regards of uwe boll ...or you fullfill what you think makes you a cooler guy in the internet ...and you are not getting it that you are only interested in movies like IRON MAN or HULK or KUNG FU PANDA or the MUMMY 3 because the studios spending 60 mio. $ in advertising to make you interested in NON INTERESTING movies. how many times you wanna keep going in movies only because the TRAILER was so cool and the CGI was so great ?

thanks for reading this

Uwe Boll

Many crimes are unforgivable, but none so much as letting fly with a bit of truth.