Back to Top

KillerReviews.com

Interview with Richard Christy from The Howard Stern Show

Richard as a Zombie for a friend's 2007 Halloween party, makeup by Brian and Pete
from G & S Effects

Click here to read the interview.

Back to Top

Back to Top

DVD In My Pants

Back to Top

Blood Moon Rising Spring 2005

Issue #26 Spring 2005

An Interview with FANGORIA Managing Editor, Michael Gingold and Special Make-up Effects Artist, Brian Spears 

By Glen Baisley 

            Having finished shooting my fourth feature length movie (FAIRVIEW FALLS) this past summer, it was time to take a break.  But, it wasn’t the case for two good friends and colleagues of mine who helped me out all summer long.  For them, their work was just beginning.  Fangoria managing editor, Michael Gingold was called upon to rewrite (from the ground up) the screenplay for Media Blasters’ latest horror movie, SHADOW: DEAD RIOT.  And, after having won “2003 Best Make-up Effects” for FLESH FOR THE BEAST, Media Blasters asked Brian Spears and his partner, Pete Gerner (G & S Effects) back to helm the effects along side Canadian FX artist, Allan Cooke. 

            The movie wrapped in mid October.  Recently, I had a chance to sit down and discuss the movie with Mike and Brian and in the course of doing so learned a little bit more about their inspirations, hopes and dreams. 

Michael Gingold Interview: 

GB: What was your first writing job and how did it lead to your involvement with FANGORIA Magazine? 

MG: I’m dating myself here, but my first-ever writing about horror was a review of PHANTASM that I wrote for my junior high-school newspaper.  I wrote movie reviews for my high-school paper as well, but I was still seeking an outlet to communicate with other people interested in horror—this was long before the Internet, and in my small high school there weren’t too many die-hard horror fans.  Then a friend who had placed a free subscriber ad in FANGORIA got sent a copy of a fanzine called CONFESSIONS OF A TRASH FIEND.  At that point, I assumed that fanzines were all the size of regular magazines, if not as polished, and here was a Xeroxed newsletter that was simply one guy sharing his thoughts on the exploitation films of the past month.  I was immediately inspired and started my own photocopied ‘zine, SCAREAPHANALIA, which lasted nearly a decade. 

            I met the various FANGORIA editors at conventions and screenings over the years, and while at college I went in to interview for an internship there [in 1988].  Tony Timpone knew about SCAREPHANALIA and I showed him some samples of my work in a college paper as well.  After I got back to my dorm, it was only a few hours before he called me back—to offer me not the internship, but a job writing an article for the magazine.  It was probably the hardest article I’ve ever written for the mag, by the way—an interview with THE SEVENTH SIGN director Carl Schultz, who spent our whole talk insisting, “It’s not a horror film.”  I barely managed to get a three-page article out of it, but I guess Tony liked it because I started writing for Fango regularly, and quickly moved up to associate editor and then managing editor. 

GB: Having written LEECHES!, RING OF DARKNESS and most recently SHADOW, what’s it like seeing your stories become celluloid? 

MG: After having made a number of short films and shooting a Super-8 feature that never found its way to completion, sitting down to watch LEECHES!, the first thing I’ve written that I didn’t direct, was a little nerve-wracking. I was happy to see that much of my script remained intact, and Dave DeCoteau made it look pretty damn good despite severe budget and time restrictions.  I was most pleased to see that my two favorite scenes (the “eat the leech” bit and the dream sequence with a comic punchline) came out pretty much exactly as I had envisioned them.  I’ve learned well through talking with and getting to know a number of screenwriters that once the script leaves your hands, any number of factors can affect how it plays on screen.  Most significantly, the script can be severely changed, but even if they stay true to your words, the director can emphasize the wrong things, or the wrong actors/actresses can be cast—I’ve seen it happen more than a few times, and learned long ago that what might play on screen like “a bad script” isn’t necessarily the fault of the screenwriter.  Of course, sometimes it IS, too—I’m not trying to absolve us scripters of all the blame!

In the case of SHADOW, I’ve only seen raw footage and a promo reel, and it looks pretty damn good.  When I found out that the movie was going to be directed, photographed and fight-choreographed by Hong Kong filmmakers who have worked with Jet Li and Jackie Chan, I knew the script was going to be in very good hands.  I can’t wait to see how the finished movie turns out. 

    GB: What was the experience like on the set of SHADOW? 

MG: It was interesting—I wasn’t there so much as the writer involved, but to play a zombie cameo.  One of the scenes I was involved with was handled by the second-unit team, and I don’t even know that they were aware I was the writer.  It was cool to work with makeup FX artists Brian Spears and Pete Gerner, who had done the honors for me on THE TENEMENT, and also Canadian artist Allen Cooke, who brought some zombie appliances generated from molds used on the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake, which I wore.  I got to “eat” fake guts, charge down a hallway and wrestle with one of the actresses—what more could I ask for?  It was also fun meeting the actors and actresses, who all seemed perfect for their roles.  I got to hear some of my dialogue delivered on set, which is always a thrill. 

            But one of the things that most impressed me was the location.  SHADOW is a zombie/martial arts film set in a women’s prison, and it was shot at a real disused penitentiary that’s hosted other movie shoots in the past.  The place really is a horror film waiting to happen: shadowy hallways, claustrophobic cells, peeling paint everywhere.  Oh yeah, and at one point the still photographer grabbed me, FX artist Gene Mazza and another of the extras (all in ghoul makeup), and took us down one hall to shoot some promo photos.  So there’s a chance that at least one of us is going to show up on the movie’s sales flyers and/or DVD packaging! 

GB: What are some of the creative challenges writing screenplays for others? 

MG: Obviously the biggest is simply the fact that you’re writing for someone else’s vision and don’t have final creative say.  The trick is to get a good sense early on of what the filmmakers want and do your best work within those parameters, and contribute your own personal touches within those guidelines.  Some filmmakers, like Dave, are clear on what they want, and it also helped that I was familiar with his type of movie when I first got the LEECHES! job.  On the other hand, I once worked for a producer who didn’t seem to know what he wanted and only gave me the most general of notes, so I simply had to give him what I thought he wanted and, once again, do the best I could with it. 

            Also, if you’re writing for people in the independent/low-budget world, you have to be prepared to scale down your imagination.  You might come up with an idea that both you and the filmmaker(s) love, but which simply can’t be achieved with the available money.  Similarly, when financing is tight, you often have to write to a certain page length and not go over.  That’s where I’ve found my magazine editing experience has come in handy; over my years at Fango, I’ve developed an ability to pare down an article by trimming lines here and there instead of lopping out whole paragraphs, and the same skill comes in handy when shortening scenes in a script as opposed to taking complete scenes out.

            For the Light & Dark movies that you have appeared in, particularly The Tenement, you have had creative freedom to write some of your own dialogue.  You also had a lead role in The Tenement as the nefarious director Winston Korman.  What was that experience like? 

            Well, it wasn’t much fun getting whacked repeatedly with a “fake” but pretty solid shovel, and then having to go back and do the scene again to capture the sound FX when the audio on the previous takes proved unusable (ever hear of foley, Glen?).  But seriously, the experience was a lot of fun, especially the chance to come up with some of Winston Korman’s rants.  The cool thing about this, and my previous scene in FEAR OF THE DARK, is that Glen didn’t insist on knowing what I was going to say in advance; he just turned on the camera and let me roll.  I didn’t really improv right on set; I knew beforehand what I was going to say, and in fact the “puppies” line in TENEMENT was something I had thought of some time before, and had been looking for a chance to use ever since.  Korman was the first time I’d had a significant role in a movie instead of just a cameo, and playing a complete bastard was freeing, in the sense that based on the script, I knew there was no way I could be too extreme with the character.  I was just hoping I didn’t let Glen down; I’ve never really considered myself an actor and I do these roles just for fun and to work with filmmakers I like, and this time I was playing a fairly crucial role.  But Glen was happy with my work (right?), and most of the reviewers have seemed to enjoy Korman’s over-the-top-ness.  

            In addition, it was fun and interesting going through the head-casting/makeup process for my death scene.  I’ve appeared in a number of indie features, and the ones where I’ve either been a creature or been killed have been the best—they’re the ones where you really feel you’re part of a horror film.  Some people get nervous about going through head-casting, or have problems with wearing prosthetics or getting fake blood splattered on them, but for me that’s one of the best parts. 

            Oh, and kissing Suzi Leigh [Suzi Leigh] didn’t suck. 

GB: You are gearing up to write and direct your own movie.  What are you going to try and do to make it different from other movies that already exist in the genre? 

MG: Well, that’s a harder question to answer now than it would have been when I first scripted this project.  I first came up with the idea way back in 1988, tried unsuccessfully to get it set up with producers back then, put it in a drawer until a producer read it and optioned it a few years ago, and then decided to take a crack at it myself earlier in 2004.  Without giving too much away, in the intervening years a couple of major horror films have come out that have certain thematic similarities to my script, but I still believe the specifics of the storyline and the characters make it different enough that it’s still worth pursuing.  In a way, trying too hard to make a film unique can be a trap; you simply have to pursue what’s best for the basic story.  Also, the subject matter of this project calls for very specific direction in terms of the way point-of-view is handled, and that, I think, is different from what other recent horror films have done.  Sorry to be so vague, but I don’t want to reveal any specifics until I’m deeper into production… 

GB: In recent years, what movie in particular do you feel has helped to reenergize the horror genre?   

MG: In business terms, obviously SCREAM had quite an effect, but I think the success of THE SIXTH SENSE and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT a few years later (and at the exact same time) was just as important in launching the new horror wave.  Each of these three approached the genre in a different way, and since then we’ve had horror films of all types being made on a regular basis, not just slashers or just ghost stories or some other subgenre.  BLAIR WITCH also established Sundance as a launching pad for independent horror movies, and just this past year we had OPEN WATER, THE MACHINIST and SAW going on to critical and/or commercial success after playing there.  And BLAIR WITCH gave indie filmmakers renewed encouragement that a grassroots genre production could still score big, though obviously that one’s blockbuster success was a fluke. 

GB: Where do you see the future of independent cinema versus Hollywood Blockbusters in the coming years? 

MG: It’s an interesting question, since today there are two tiers of “independent” cinema: movies that are far cheaper than major Hollywood features but are still made for the single millions and feature name or semi-name stars (like SAW), and the real do-it-yourself, grassroots stuff.  I’d like to think that the simultaneous success of the big-studio, PG-13 THE GRUDGE and the hard-R SAW means that the two types will be able to co-exist in the future, though obviously it will continue to be a struggle for the little guys to make a dent in the marketplace.  Still, every year I keep reading comments that there’s no place for indie chillers on the current movie scene, and every year the good stuff still manages to get out there in some form or another.  They may not play 1,000 theaters, but now there are independent horror film festivals in practically every major city, and DVD companies willing to give special-edition treatment to movies like LUCKY (and to branch into theatrical distribution, like Anchor Bay is doing).  And with the Internet, you don’t need thousands of advertising dollars to get the word out.  I firmly believe that if a movie is good, it’ll find some kind of audience—and I do my best to promote these features in Fango. 

GB: Where do you see the current horror trends headed? 

MG: Well, like I said, the diversity in the current horror scene is a positive trend, since it means no one subgenre will be able to burn out the genre.  And despite the hue and cry over extreme content and censorship these days, the fact that explicit movies like SAW and the TEXAS CHAINSAW and DAWN OF THE DEAD remakes have scored at the box office means that Hollywood, which respects the bottom line above all else, won’t be skittish about tackling extreme horror.  It would also be nice to think that the disappointing returns on VAN HELSING will prevent more films like that from being made… 

GB: What are your thoughts about all of the recent remakes like DAWN OF THE DEAD, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and the forthcoming FOG remake? 

MG: I’m of two minds about this—I object to remakes on general principals, but I have to admit that I liked both the TEXAS CHAINSAW and DAWN remakes, as well as THE RING.  On the one hand, I dearly wish that the studios would be more adventurous and tackle original ideas instead of rehashing old one; on the other, all of the above films took their horror seriously and made lots of money, which can only—I hope—encourage more of that approach.  Plus, I can’t help but think that the success of the DAWN remake helped encourage Universal to get behind Romero’s LAND OF THE DEAD, a positive byproduct if there every was one. 

GB: What are your thoughts on the use of CGI in horror movies today? 

MG: Too many filmmakers are using it as a crutch, or buying into it as the new big thing.  To quote any number of FX artists, it’s best used as just one tool in the toolbox.  It can be great for stuff like wire and rod removal on models, and if really done well—as in the JURASSIC PARK movies and THE RELIC—it can create really effective and scary creatures.  But I’ve seen way too many movies with cheap CGI monsters that aren’t as effective as cheap animatronic/mockup monsters would have been—at least you can tell that the latter are actually there, interacting with the cast.  You can look at a rubber monster and still enjoy the scene, since it exists within the reality of the movie; but a bad CGI creature doesn’t look like it’s existing in the frame, and that pulls the viewer right out of the experience.  Then there are the filmmakers who simply overdose on the opportunities CGI offers—Stephen Sommers, I’m talking to you. 

GB: Do you think that Hollywood should accept responsibility for the violence portrayed in movies?

MG: The easy answer is of course not—it’s up to the parents.  The reality is that video and cable TV make violent movies far more accessible to kids than they were two decades ago, which is really the central point of the issue today.  My defense of the horror genre is that it is the only type of film that, by definition, encourages a negative reaction to the violence it portrays; on the other hand, I have seen a certain number of horror films that I’ve found offensive in the way they present violence as the be-all and end-all of the experience of watching them.  But I’m more opposed to certain action films that encourage audiences to cheer the type of bloody mayhem that horror films would have viewers recoil from, or kids’ movies like the ones made by John Hughes [BABY’S DAY OUT, HOME ALONE], whose only message is that hurting people is fun. Obviously I’m opposed to censorship, and I don’t believe that watching violent movies will turn someone into a violent person if they’re not already predisposed to violence.  But if stronger enforcement of ratings in both the theatrical and video realms restricts access to these movies to young children, and thus gets the forces of “decency” off the genre’s back, I’m all for it. 

            And by the way, I’m not one of those people who believes that the MPAA ratings, in and of themselves, comprise censorship.  They’re simply labels advising about a movie’s content.  The ones indulging in censorship are the theater chains and newspapers/TV stations that won’t exhibit or advertise NC-17 films, meaning that the studios won’t take a chance on releasing more of them.  It’ll take a major studio going with an NC-17 on a big movie that all the theater chains want, and that the media will want to take the money to advertise, for those walls to start coming down.  TriStar had this chance in the early days of NC-17 with BASIC INSTINCT, but they wimped out; the only reason SHOWGIRLS went out with an NC-17 was that the movie was such a stinker, it had nothing to lose. 

GB: You get quite a bit of submission requests for movie reviews and coverage that come across your desk.  Many include eye-catching press kits.  What are some of the most inventive that you have seen?  What are the things you look for in covering a movie in FANGORIA? 

MG: A good movie.  Plain and simple.  We get inundated with indie movies seeking coverage at Fango, and while an extensive presskit certainly helps get a film noticed (and helps establish a certain professionalism), it really comes down to whether it’s a quality piece of work.  I try to watch everything that comes across my desk (sometimes it takes a while, but I do try), and if a movie jumps out at me as being especially scary or inventive or just plain well-crafted (even on a tiny budget), I’ll do my best to get some kind of coverage into the magazine—if not a full feature story, then a one-page Monster Invasion or even just a DVD or Dr. Cyclops review—something beyond just a mention in the Video Chopping List (where EVERYTHING I’m aware of that’s commercially available in a given month gets a listing).  Now, if a movie doesn’t get that kind of coverage, it doesn’t necessarily mean I didn’t like it—sometimes there’s just not room to run articles on everything notable in a given month.  But if something comes along that impresses me, that’ll encourage me to give it extra attention more than a flashy promo kit will.  But I will say that it definitely helps to…  

GB: Any tips for budding filmmakers and writers? 

MG: …have good photos available for publicity purposes.  More than once, I’ve wanted to run a longer article on a movie than I’ve been able to because the picture material simply wasn’t there.  In several cases, the only photos available for an indie production have been frame grabs that wouldn’t reproduce well in the magazine.  If you can afford a digital video camera to make a movie, you can afford a digital still camera to take photos (actually, most if not all video cams can take stills too).  Get lots of good pictures (both scene shots and making-of photos), and it’s a big step toward getting more coverage of your movie. 

            Beyond that, I would say don’t try to shoot a story that’s beyond your means.  Look at the resources available to you and tailor your projects to them, instead of trying to make a movie about giant alien lizards invading Earth on $500.  Making a movie like that can certainly be fun, but to take that next step out into the world marketplace, a film should have its low budget show as little as possible.  And shoot it as professionally as you can—I’m not talking about using expensive equipment, but putting care into your shots and editing.  A movie can look rough and grainy, but if the compositions and pacing work, that goes a long way toward eliminating concerns about technical quality.  And for God’s sake, if you don’t know what it means to cross the director’s line, find out about it before setting out to shoot your film. 
 

Brian Spears Interview: 

GB: When did you first discover that you had a desire to become a makeup artist and how did you pursue it? 

BS: Growing up I was really into art, always creating anything my imagination came up with.  Classic art didn’t do it for me, painting or figure drawing kind of bored me.  I was more into THE MUPPETS, MAD MAGAZINE, and blowing up STAR WARS figures in my sandbox.  I was also fascinated with movies; I watched any and everything I could, even stuff I wasn’t allowed to watch.  At first, I was scared of horror flicks, but I grew to love them.  An ample supply of naked chicks sure helped too.  I was always interested in the monsters even if they kept me up at night.  Realizing this, I wanted to scare others like I had been.  So, in my teens I dabbled in very crude gory make-ups, worked in haunted house attractions, and took every art class I could.  The idea that I wanted to be a monster maker became cemented in my head from reading FANGORIA and GOREZONE during the mid 80’s to the 90’s FX boom.  After high school, I attended the Art Institute of Pittsburgh to further my ambitions.  I was very naive; I was a total gorehound, with a lot to learn.  I had two really good teachers, Doug Henderson and Jerry Gergely.  I learned so much watching them.  After college I  found work at haunted houses, z-grade flicks, and student shorts  Each project helped build my portfolio and led to bigger jobs. 

GB: What movie and/or makeup artist has been your biggest influence?  How has it affected your own techniques? 

BS: Picking favorites is tough for me, since so many movies and FX artists have had an impact on me.  So many movies influenced me from the TOXIC AVENGER to THE THING, from Scorcese’s taxi driving Travis Bickle to Romero’s lumbering zombies.  Every time I watch a movie I’m inspired.  I could fill up 10 pages plus on make-up artists who inspire me.  I’m a fan of all working artists.  I often reference or research a certain effect or character before starting new projects.  I can look at pictures  from THE THING or EVIL DEAD 2 for days.  The character make-up in MONSTER blows my mind.  I’m not inventing anything new in the FX field.  I’m just adding my own little twist. 

GB: If you could be working with any studio which one would it be and why?   

BS: Where I’m at in my career it would be an honor to work for any company.  There’s so much I still don’t know.  There’s materials I’ve only read about and never used.  I must admit I am happy with my current situation, running G & S FX with Pete Gerner.  We are not busy all year round and we don’t make tons of money but we are doing the things we dreamed of.  Sure, we make mistakes, never have enough time or help, or have ample funds to work with but with every project we learn and get better.  We also get to handle every aspect of an effect or make-up from concept to completion.  The guys I admired started out in their garages/basements, which is what I’m doing.  After paying dues its all up from here. 

GB: Having worked on various budget movies, what are the creative differences that affect your work?   

BS: The films I’m working on fall into the low budget category, ranging from very decent workable budgets to the no budget pocket lint variety.  The difference creatively, on the larger budgets there’s a lot more materials used; on the no budget flicks whatever you have you make work.  When there is money, you also have stress.  You must deliver on time, within that budget, and usually you have to give the moneymen what they want.  On the cheaper budgets, your imagination and ingenuity come in handy; it also helps if save some things from other projects.  Don’t be afraid to say no to an effect if they can’t afford it, but figure a way it could happen within their means.  Whatever the budget, approach each effect/design the same and don’t let money affect  your creativity.  It’s your art on screen so make it the best you can. 

GB: For THE TENEMENT, SINS OF THE FATHER and FAIRVIEW FALLS, you were given a basic idea for make-ups and characters and allowed complete creative freedom within the confines of the budget.  You also had more direct involvement with the creative process aside from make-up in the later movies.  Do you feel that this has helped you as an artist in any way? 

BS: This is sort of a loaded question, since your interviewer, Glen “THE BAISE” Baisley, is none other than the creator of the lightanddark.net universe and a friend.  Working with “THE BAISE”  is a lot of fun, as well as creatively satisfying.  What at first was a working relationship has grown into a friendship.  He’s one of the few who I will always help out.  He’s got a big heart and all it wants to do is make films.  I can’t totally make this a kiss ass answer though.  There’s no mystery that “THE BAISE”’s budgets are super low but whatever the compromise he gets the job done.  He’s a much better producer.  He’s got a knack for getting everyone to help him realize his vision.  He’s always allowed me whatever I wanted.  He gives a general idea and it’s up to me and whatever I got laying around to realize it.  Both of us wish we could do more but with out the funds we must do it the best we can.  I’m happy with quite a bit of the make-ups in the films, and there are a few I can’t even look at.  Sure, at times those compromises are hard and even piss you off but one effect does not make a film. Overall, helping “THE BAISE” on other areas of his films has opened my eyes to much more.  I rather enjoy our talks about the script, shooting certain scenes and editing.  Maybe there’s another career somewhere in there. 

GB: Your professional accomplishments include having won an award for special makeup effects for Media Blasters’ FLESH FOR THE BEAST and having your work for Light & Dark Productions and other movies featured in FANGORIA magazine.  What are you the most proud of and why? 

BS: I am a fierce critic of my work and believe I can always do better.  I am proud of what I have done and accomplished but I can’t pick one thing that’s better than the rest.  Each project I learn something and try something new and try to make each effect better than the last.  The first time I was in Fango blew my mind. I had a smile all day.  The first time I could rent a movie I worked on was a real trip.  The proudest moment is that I’m realizing a dream that I had as a kid and I’m getting to do it every time I walk on a set. 

GB: What are your feelings about the usage of CGI in today’s movies versus practical effects?  For example, CGI was used in THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake for Leatherface’s decayed nose and it was used on some of the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake’s zombies?  What about CGI characters like those in the new STAR WARS movies instead of using people in costumes? 

BS: I love that rubber!  I’m a practical, on-set, smelly foam loving freak.  I can’t stand the look of all CGI characters and effects.  To me it still looks fake, even the actors acting with these CGI beasts look lost.  I’m all for a combination of the two.  Peter Jackson’s LORD of THE RINGS showed when you pay attention to detail anything can be realized.  Unfortunately, the once great and a one time idol of mine, Mr. Lucas has been using too much of his computer.  Nothing was more amazing than the original trilogy but look at what the new episodes look like.  They lack those physical characters and characteristics.  They don’t breathe.  Where are the original creatures who inhabited the cantina?  Now they look like they belong in some video game.  I‘m a guy who grew up with out a computer, I never was much into video games either.  I’m a fan of the early FX boom where latex ruled the shop and morphing was that cool thing that turned Michael Jackson into a bunch of different people so I guess I’m a little biased. 

GB: Recently you worked on Media Blasters’ new zombie/women prison movie called SHADOW.  What was that experience like? 

BS: Working on SHADOW was a blast.  It kicked my ass but it was a zombie flick with hot chicks and kung-fu.  G & S FX handled all the background zombie masks, zombie application, a zombie puppet, various gore gags, and quite a bit of blood gags.   We had a couple weeks of prep. We did several castings, sculpted appliances, worked out several paint schemes for various masks and worked on a puppet.  Pete even came up with several of the gags used throughout the film. It was a group effort so I can’t take all the credit.  Gene Mazza helped us out in the shop with our fiberglass molds and zombie masks.  Jill Trombolio helped out once we were on set with applications and background prep.  Allan Cooke, an extremely talented Canadian FX artist, worked with Tony Todd and on the zombie baby as well as several other gags.  Allan was really cool to work with and he showed us some cool tricks.  We used the same process on our key zombies that was used in the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake.  The hours were long; there was a few days I didn’t sleep at all.  The crew kicked ass, our stunt guys rocked.  We put the stunt guys through hell.  Our zombies were great too.  Everyone gave 110 percent even with the long hours and the conditions of the prison location. 

            Near the end of shooting you had more creative freedom with some of the gags and special effects.  Were there new techniques and effects that you had been waiting for the opportunity to do and were able to realize for the first time with a budget at your disposal? 

            I wouldn’t say we had more freedom, most of the effects just happened to be shot towards the end.  Many of the scenes we had come up with were shot at the end, like a really cool tongue rip.  Like on so many other films, some effects were simplified due to time.  We did a lot of blood gags, so much that I’m still cleaning blood from under my fingernails.  On set, the gags were known as blood “geysers”.  Let’s just say the crew didn’t like seeing us when we walked on set with our compressor.  I was fortunate to do make up on Bill ( NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD ) Hinzeman and Captain ( ZOMBI ) Hagerty.  I had to recreate their make-ups resembling there famous zombie mugs for a cameo.  As far as any new techniques and opportunities, we did create a really cool puppet.  Pete and I both make cameos too.  We’re guards who get killed. I actually get a baton shoved through my throat.  It was really cool to do the zombie make-ups.  That made the whole project worth it. 

GB: This was the first time that you and partner, Pete Gerner built a puppet for a movie.  How did that work out? 

BS: The puppet was really cool.  It is a full scale upper torso rotted zombie.  The basic idea is he’s feeding on a victim and the digested matter flows out his severed mid section.  This was one effect that was simplified due to time.  Pete designed the mechanics, Gene worked on the mold and understructure, and Pete and I sculpted it.  After fine-tuning the mechanics, it was brought to the location.  I painted it on our off hours.  That was one of the days of no sleep.  Overall, it came out cool and I can’t wait to see the finished filmed version. 

GB: You did a headcast for Tony Todd.  What was it like working with him? 

BS: Allan was in charge of Tony’s look.  Pete and I helped with the lifecast.  Tony was real cool, a down to earth kind of guy.  I assisted with his application removal one night and we talked movies.  He was really into his part, and very encouraging.  Again, I must stress that Allan handled Tony’s application, and a fine job he did. 

GB: Where do you see yourself ten years from now?   

BS: In 10 years, I hope to still be scaring the shit out of horror fans everywhere.  I hope to work on some bigger projects; mostly I just want to keep doing what I’m doing.  I got a great job, sure it can be stressful, but watching the finished movie more than makes up for any headache. 

GB: Any tips for anyone looking to become a makeup artist? 

BS: For those of you who want to be an FX artist all I can say is “do it”.  Look up everything you can about FX and watch as many movies as you can.  Get dirty, start sculpting, painting, spilling latex all over your floor.  Just have fun.  Follow your dreams.

Back to Top

(New York City) Media Blasters, Inc. and Fever Dream Productions is proud to announce the completion of principal photography for their first in-house feature film production, FLESH FOR THE BEAST, shot entirely on location in the New York City area.

After six years of successfully distributing Japanese anime and live action Asian and European cult genre films to the home video market and North American cinemas, Media Blasters, Inc. has set up a new film production department to produce several quality genre features a year for Media Blasters' Shriek Show DVD label.

FLESH FOR THE BEAST, based on an original screenplay by writer/director Terry M. West, is the story of a turn-of-the-century occultist named Alfred Fischer who acquires a mystical medallion and conjures up a slew of ravishing, ravenous demons from the depths of hell. Taking the form of beautiful women, the beasts demand a steady diet of fresh human prey that only a mortal human servant can provide. Almost a century after Fischer meets his mysterious demise, a crack team of parapsychologists investigate the manor and former brothel only to face an obstacle course of seductive sexy spirits, a madman with a satanic secret and a horde of zombies bent on a rampage of carnal slaughter! FLESH FOR THE BEAST promises to be a feast for the fans around the world that seek a no-holds-barred, excessive style of fright filmmaking brimming with equal doses of gore and eroticism that few major or independent studios dare attempt.

FLESH FOR THE BEAST features a talented ensemble cast of New York City's finest, up and coming actors with special cameo appearances by genre veterans Caroline Munro (GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD, DRACULA A.D. 1972, SPY WHO LOVED ME) and Aldo Sanbrell (THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY, GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD, KILLER BARBYS). Tech credits include Director of Photography Richard Siegel, Production Designer Stew Noack, Special Make Up Effects by G&S Effects and Line Producer Csaba Bereczky.