Director David Slade is poised to become one of the most talked-about horror filmmakers in recent years, with his adaptation of the 30 Days of Night graphic novel opening this weekend. FEARnet sat down with Slade last weekend in New York City for a one-on-one chat about his new film, and what awaits him in the dawn following his endless Night?

It seems like your intent with 30 Days of Night differed somewhat from Steve Niles intent with his graphic novel?in that Steve wished to take vampires back to their roots by presenting them as feral creatures and you wished to do something different and new, unfettered by recent tradition. But those two intents apparently had a happy meeting during the course of the project.

It was a happy meeting. Steve was saying to me the other day that he read 30 Days for the first time in several years, and he was actually shocked by how much talking there was, and the things we didn?t do in the film; and how pleased he was. That?s obviously a big relief to me, for Steve to be pleased with the way we went with the vampires. It?s one of the things we?re talking about at the moment??God, what if they asked us to do the sequel.? Because we?ve strayed in some respects from the original text of the graphic novel. But at the same time we?ve stayed incredibly faithful to the vision that Steve had. I?m really pleased that he and Ben Templesmith have responded so incredibly positively to the film. Ben sees the film as his pictures come to life, and Steve is just like, ?This is like the comic book, only real.?

The issue to me was always to pay a few respects but not to be hemmed in by the paradigm of genre films in general, particularly vampire films. I mean, there is a boat at the beginning, which is a nod to Bram Stoker?s Dracula, Nosferatu. There is a Renfield character, kind of, and the vampires [burn] upon contact with UV light. But other than that there?s nothing else. And of course the film sets itself up? The graphic novel had Vicente, the character Vicente, saying ?We?ve hidden behind the myth.? So that opens up the paradigm to me, to do whatever I kind of want; and try to be respectful at the same time to Steve?s original vision.

Regarding that ?hiding behind the myth? concept?that?s an idea that seems, like a lot of things in the film, to be downplayed. You don?t, for example, add to that by showing a little kid eating Count Chocula cereal while his other tells him there are no such things as vampires. A lot of things in the film?the dialogue, the symbolism?is sparse.

I think there was a very, very clear desire to be as realistic as possible. We treated it as a drama, with a lot of rehearsal?more rehearsal than you would normally do for a horror film. But the performances were important to the film. I hope it comes across that way. The actors are good actors, and so they?re believable. That?s another thing that?s believable. Everything has to be believable, otherwise, when the cracks in the façade begin to appear, there?s less room for fear, because there?s a comfort factor. Although, watching it, this is a fantasy, whenever you kind of stray into fantasy you, again, move away from the fear center of the brain, into a kind of comfort part.

There was a very conscious decision not to be too expositional, particularly with regard to vampires?for there to be too much talk that wasn?t just day to day, because let?s get fucking on with this. There wasn?t ?Well, now we?ve got to get to this place and then do that and then we must do this. And then we must do that. And, of course, the rules of this?? There was no real desire to set up the rules about the world, because they were self-apparent. It was funny, a lot of the clarification of that came in the test screening, and I hate test screenings. (Because they screwed up my last film! [Laughs]. They didn?t screw it up, the film didn?t get touched?but they proved to the studio that people didn?t want to see it [laughs], even though they really did, and it went on to make twenty-million dollars worldwide on DVD.) So I dreaded the test screening. But what happened was the audience told us that they didn?t want to be force-fed certain things, and that they actually liked that direction that we were going in. It was just more realistic. That was great for me and my editor, who went back and reinforced that. Unconventional for a genre movie I suppose, but, again, we were just making a film. We weren?t going, ?We?ll make you a genre film. Let?s do the genre thing here.?

At the script stage, there were conscious decisions to do certain things. Things like punish heroism, because this environment is so harsh that you could die coming back from the shops if you got lost. So these were smart, pragmatic people we were dealing with. They weren?t movie stars, the way movie stars are usually cast. They had to be fairly rugged looking for the most part to live in a pretty rugged terrain. So they weren?t going to do stupid things, and if they did they were punished, although sometimes if there was a blaze of glory that would be followed by something very unpleasant, almost as a kind of metaphorical punishment for that. Josh?s character is not so heroic. He makes certain bad decisions. There are cracks in the façade. Melissa?s character?s holding it together, but he is slowly evolving into what he has to be to get through this.

It?s funny, there was much discussion between Brian and myself about how he has to be the weapon which destroys the thing, otherwise it just makes no sense. So that means that he has to be as nihilistic in the end? You can slowly see him toughening and? He?s still human?you can see there?s that really huge threat we all see which ends, horrifically?without giving away too much?with that really horrific shot, which is not meant to promote cheers. It?s meant to kind of kill the cheer that came a little bit earlier. We can see that he?s just fucked up by that point. Yet he has to do more than that, he has to go further than that to succeed. Again, none of this is conventional. It?s the kind of thing that would happen in a drama in less dramatic terms. I guess the kinds of films we?re talking about really died out; and Scream laid it out for us all, the rules of horror films. But Scream was talking about the b-movies.

The slasher pics?

The slasher pics? And, you know, there?s a huge resurgence of horror now. I remember, six months ago, some article in the paper about the ?death of horror.? But, you know, this notion that all horror is the same? Ridley Scott?s Alien is a fantastic haunted-house horror movie that doesn?t obey any of the conventions of horror movies. But it?s a great horror movie. It scared the crap out of me when I was a kid. It gave me nightmares for years.

I don?t think there should be conventions for horror films. You look at Asian horror now, which has been westernized a lot lately, with the Grudge movies and a number of different films. The Grudge ones were successful but others weren?t. And I think it?s because those films don?t follow conventions in horror movies. Look at Dark Water, the original Dark Water. Those films scared the pants off me, at a time when I thought I was immune to being scared in the cinema. I hadn?t jumped in a cinema for years, because you kind of get used to the mechanics of things.

In terms of the conventions, I think the biggest mistake that Hollywood has made is sticking to them and believing that audiences need to be corn-fed. It?s fantastic, because I despise the notion of a test screening. But it showed us that audiences were smart and that they did want something different, that wasn?t within the conventions.

Do you have an idea of what your next project might be?

I took various meetings on various films, some of which were made public. They were all different in nature. Right now, I have two projects?they?re both fantastic scripts?and neither of them are like either of the films I?ve made. In the next two weeks I?m gonna learn more about them. But I can?t really say [more].

Have you spoken with Steve Niles about working together on other projects?

Definitely something with Steve. We?re talking about something maybe for television right now, which would be straight-up horror. We?re just talking about it right now. If there?s an opportunity, it would be great fun for both of us to do.
And Ben [Templesmith] too. I wrote a two-page comic strip that he drew; and we?re going to try to amass enough material to publish something.

Would you entertain the notion of doing the sequel to 30 Days of Night?Dark Days?

The thing is, Steve and I had coffee over the weekend before we came out here. We were just talking about this. We?re both really pleased with the way these vampires have turned out, and they?re very different to the graphic novel?s vampires. We want to keep these vampires. So the question really is, if we were to do a sequel would these vampires still work in those stories? Because there?s a lot of talking, a lot of exposition and talking. ?We don?t know? is the answer to the question. We agreed?Brian Nelson, Steve and I?to sit down and have coffee and discuss it.

You were also talking with Weta about doing something.

Oh yeah. Can?t really talk about that. All I can say is, I really enjoyed working with Weta, and it seemed to be a mutual thing. Richard Taylor and I talked about a lot of stuff. But we just really enjoyed working together. We had similar sensibilities, and there is a project that we would love to do together at some point in the future. There is mutual interest in working together, because we both really enjoyed it. It was a good process for both of us I think; and Richard Taylor?s a great bloke. He?s a lovely fellow. We had Weta Digital and Weta Workshop on the film, and they were both brilliant to work with. It was great, in post-production, being able to chat with Richard and throw ideas around.

In real life, what?s your biggest fear?

My biggest fear? Oh God? I don?t know. I guess losing my mind would be my biggest fear. Or my vision, really. My grandmother had Alzheimer?s, and it was a horrific thing to witness. It terrifies me. You?re a human being, but you?re not conscious, really, anymore. And losing my sight, because everything in my life is visual. I don?t know. That?s kind of a wank answer. [Laughs.]

Coming off of 30 Days of Night, you may find you have a newfound clout as a horror filmmaker. Are you concerned how film studios might perceive you, should you wish to work in other genres?

I don?t worry about those things. I try not to. It?s a bit scary. It really, really is. I take things on a case-by-case basis. A lot of those kinds of assumptions are based on the idea that you have a long-term plan [laughs], which I don?t, to be honest. I really don?t. I know some people don?t, some people do??I?m gonna do this particular thing?? I don?t. There are a lot of things I?m receptive to. I don?t belief in fate too much.

You make your own?

I make my own. [Laughs.]