Q: Can you please give a description of your film THE AZTEC BOX in three sentences or less.
A: Four college students rent a house in Riverside, Califonia. They stumble across a strange wooden box, which was buried by someone in their backyard. Inside the box find an ancient Aztec human-sacrifice container, inadvertantly letting out an anceint demon entity.
Q: What is the most frightening, disturbing, or memorable moment in the film, in your opinion?
A: Filming the classroom scenes was quite a thrill due to the fact that we did not have a permit to film. I tried to obtain a permit, but the process was incredibly bureacratic. I decided to just go for it. We went to the school and found an empty classroom – thankfully it was summer, so there were not too many people on campus. All of the background actors took their seats and we began filming in a hurry. We filmed in two separate classrooms and literally just as we finished the last scene a custodian opened the door and looked around. She thought this was a real class (it looked like one), said “excuse me” and closed the door. We all burst out laughing after that happened and quickly wrapped everything up.
Q: Can you discuss a vivid memory from the making of the movie (a logistical problem, a humorous anecdote, weird coincidence, etc.)?
A: There was a deleted scene with the professor opening the box. We used dry ice for the special effect and it was quite an adventure.
As originally written, the film was supposed to end with the two FBI agents (the ones you see in the beginning of the film) investigating the house after the “disturbance”. They find professor's number on the fridge, call him and he comes over. He then proceeds to try to open the box despite the FBI agents yelling at him not to touch it. I wanted white smoke to come out of the box to make the scene more dramatic. To create the white smoke, we decided to use dry ice. I've never used dry ice, but Steve, our lead cinematographer, has. We loaded up two cooking pans of dry ice with water inside the box and shut it. Appararently, it reacts very quickly. We waited about 15 seconds and started doing takes. The situation was comical – I myself literally could hardly keep a straight face through it all – for some reason, it was all quite comical. The first few takes, there was way too much smoke. On about 3rd take, the amount was just right and we had a good take. Unfortunately, after all that work, I decided to cut that scene from the film – I just did not like that the box was on the floor and the camera got a look inside of it, taking away from it's mystery.
Q: What do you like about the found footage/fake documentary style of filmmaking?
A: There are mainly two things I like about it:
a) authenticity - why do billions of people watch Youtube everyday? People like to watch things filmed by other people. There is certain truth and excitement in it. A lot of viewers are tired from the polished glitz and glamour of Hollywood films. Found-footage style brings this home-video authenticity to the big screen. With a traditional movie, it's difficult to immerse the viewer into believing what they are seeing on screen is not fiction. It's easier to do with found-footage.
b) affordability – the found footage style let's a filmmaker get away with a low-budget film. Since a lot of footage is hand-filmed, you eliminate the need for dollies, cranes, steady-cams and the like. Since home-videos don't really have a budget, a home-video or found-footage style works very well for low-budget films.
Q: What were the inspirations for your film (film, book, or otherwise)?
A: I had many inspirations. I've always liked history. In my spare time, I often read biographies of important historical persons and recounts of historical events. I love Wikipedia :). I also like historical tv shows, such as Pawn Stars and other stuff they have on the History channel. So, kind of from the beginning, I wanted to involve some actual history in my film. For example, I love Indiana Jones movies. I like how they combine and tie in actual historical events into a fictional adventure story. During 2011 & 2012, a lot of people were talking about the Mayan/Aztec calendar and the end of the world, so I thought to myself – why not base my film around this.
It was important for me for this film to look authentic. I based it in a real place – Riverside, California. I was well familiar with Riverside, taking many trips there while looking to purchase some real estate investments. Riverside is full of abandoned run-down buildings and creepy locations, but because of the limited budget of the film we ended up filming pretty much everything at my parent's house in Fullerton.
I would say that every film I've ever watched that I thought was good inspired me. I often try to look at
successful films and try to determine the factors that made it good – and same with films that are bad – what exactly was it that made the film bad. The films that I consider good – classics such as The Terminator, Aliens, The Fly – these films inspire me.
Q: What would you like to see in the future for found footage/fake documentary films?
A: Just like in any film genre, there are good found-footage films and bad ones. I would love to see more found-footage films with a good story. The story is very important in a film. The genre is great for aspiring filmmakers with a low budget to make films to showcase their talents.
Also, there are some higher budget found-footage films that were quite good – for example: Chronicle and The Bay. Both had good screen plays and were well directed.
I think there is a very bright future for found footage films and home-video entertainment in general. Youtube is growing by leaps and bounds. Although most of the clips on Youtube are short, people are making bigger and better productions daily. The fact that Youtube is a formidable revenue generator – currently making about $1,000 per million views – will help fund these films.
I would also love to see a system that would enable filmmakers to directly market and make money from their films avoiding distribution companies, in the same way people are making money from videos on Youtube. I think this is where the market going and this will considerably help smaller filmmakers.
Q: What is the most challenging aspect of making a found footage/fake documentary film in your opinion?
A: I would say that, in general, making a found-footage film is much easier than making a traditional film. I don't think there are any special difficulties in making this type of film aside from just the regular things that go along with making any film. Since this was my first film, a lot of things were difficult for me. But this was not because it was found footage, it was because it was my first film.
Scheduling in particular was very difficult – we had about 8-9 people cast and crew, all with different schedules. I would email everyone to arrange filming on a particular day. 8 people would say – yes, it works for me and then one person would say – sorry, I can't that day!. And I would need to start all over scheduling for a different day checking 9 different calendars. To this day, it's amazing to me that we were able to even complete film.
Q: Can you discuss any real documentaries that have affected you greatly?
A: Michael Moore's documentaries left a lasting impression on me, particularly Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911. These documentaries exposed things that were not known to the general public and helped shed light on otherwise murky chains of events.
Documentaries are a very powerful medium – a lot of them are made about very compelling subjects. I recall recently seeing bits of a documentary about abuses in Mexican prisons and the corruption there. The filmmakers went to great lengths to film inside the prisons. The documentary also helped free an innocent inmate.
Q: What is the biggest difference between found footage and traditional narrative filmmaking in your opinion?
A: Films usually tell a story. However, the way this story is told differs. Traditional filmmaking has completely different shot selection and presentation. But it's interesting to note that traditional filmmaking often has elements of found-footage films in it – such as the cameras on the shoulders of soldiers in Aliens II.
The biggest difference is just the way the film is shot. While found-footage usually has one camera and one focal point, traditional films have more camera positions, cuts, lighting setup and so on. They require a more extensive setup.
FF is most suitable for stories where authenticity is important. It's not important in every film. Most films do not set out to prove that they are not a work of fiction, but some are. For example, FF-style worked well for Borat, where the whole idea was that people were being pranked, even though in places it was probably pre-arranged.
Q: What is the most important part of making a found footage/fake documentary film entertaining or compelling?
A: It's difficult to say or define this. It's similar to asking – what makes a film good? You can quantify this somewhat, but if there was a definitive guide on making good films – there wouldn't be any bad films. Unfortunately, there isn't such a guide. Making good films is a bit of an art and takes certain personal talent.
I would say that, in my opinion, there are two very important things. One is the story, and the second one is scene direction. The story has to be interesting, compelling and easy to follow. Once the basic story is written, it has to be divided into scenes and each scene needs to be filmed a certain way – angles, camera location, etc. This is up to the director, for the most part. In good films, scenes are filmed in an interesting, captivating and often tense way.
Q: How do you feel about the digital revolution in filmmaking?
A: The digital revolution has had a tremendously positive effect on films. It has taken the grunt work out of film making. In the past, the sheer work of developing and cutting film was tremendous. Now it's just a few clicks.
Q: Do you have any advice for someone thinking of making a found footage/fake documentary film?
A: Focus on the story. Make sure it's well written, make sure the film will be interesting to watch and has some kind of an interesting central idea. Make sure the story is easy to follow. Create tension and develop characters.
Q: What would you say makes your films stand out from other films using the found footage/fake documentary style?
A: Throughout the process of writing/making the Aztec Box, I was thinking this exact same thing – what makes my movie different/better than the other FF films. What I wanted to do was take the best elements out of films I considered good, and avoid the bad elements out of the films I considered bad. I think the main “stand out” feature of my film is its actual historical background – I cannot specifically think of any other FF film that is based on actual historical events. The Aztec Box is based on the Aztecs, their rituals of human sacrifice and their calendar – all of which did really happen. The film stays authentic by having a professor explain the history of the box and of the Aztecs. Also, the main characters visit a library and read historical literature.
Q:Aside from budgetary advantages, were there other reasons for choosing the fake documentary format for the film in question?
A: Authenticity was important to me. It seemed it was easier to make people believe this film was a true story with a found-footage format.
Q: Do you think it’s easier to connect emotionally with a found footage film (because the style seems more realistic) or more difficult (because of the lack of music, camera control, etc.) than a traditional narrative film?
A: It's difficult to
generalize, because so much of it depends on a particular film. But,
I don't think it's particularly easier for an audience to emotionally
connect with a found-footage film. The main thing FF style adds is
authenticity. But a film doesn't need to be a documentary or be
authentic for the audience to connect with it, the audience connects
quite well with complete works of fiction.
