Pictured Gregg Araki ( left ) and a scene from his new film, Mysterious Skin.
Based on the novel by Scott Heim, Gregg Araki's Mysterious Skin tells the story of two coming-of-age boys and their relationship with a little league baseball coach—a strapping, friendly guy who charms his way into the hearts and bodies of these neglected, gawky lost boys. The film, starring Joseph Gordon Levitt ( Third Rock from the Sun ) has generated some of the most visceral reviews of the year, most notably from The New York Times, which proclaimed Araki ( Doom Generation, Nowhere, Splendor ) the 'American Almodovar' who has 'discovered the beauty and dignity of classic melodrama.'
Araki first read Heim's novel in 1995 and he says that while the book had an immediate and 'huge emotional impact' on him, it took him several years to figure how to bring the story alive on the screen.
'It was imperative to me that the child actors playing the eight-year-old 'Brian' and 'Neil,' be protected from the adult content and subject matter,' says Araki. 'But at the same time, those scenes with then young boys are crucial to the cumulative emotional power of the story. After experimenting with subjective camera and point of view in other projects, I was able to devise a strategy using point-of-view camera, careful editing, storyboards etc. that could get me the shots I needed without the young actors having to know what the story was about.'
That story centers around child abuse; but like most of Araki's work, this film is layered with meaning and themes—some more obvious than others.
In the following Q&A, Araki answers questions about the development and filming of Mysterious Skin.
WCT: What was it like working from someone else's story for the first time?
GA: I loved Scott Heim's novel so much. It's such a dark, unsettling story but so beautifully and poetically told. Mysterious Skin's a bit of a departure for me in that it's my first serious, character-driven drama—most of my other films have had more of a satirical, postmodern ironic quality to them. Whereas with this film, it was of paramount importance [ to me ] that its tone remain faithful to the evocative and dreamy mood of the book.
WCT: You are a very visual person in your films. Light, color, texture all play to larger themes. Was there one image in particular in Heim's novel that stuck with you all through the development stage?
GA: I have to say Scott's description of the cereal falling made a big impression on me. That's how the opening of the film came into being—in my mind I saw this scene with the slow-motion, multicolored particles drifting down and that solemn, gorgeous, almost church-like 'Slow Dive' song playing [ behind it ] . I knew from the start that that is how the film should begin and it's very literally described as such in the script. The film was shot in 24 days and on a very tight schedule and budget, but we were really going for a sumptuous, elegant style. I didn't want the movie to have that ugly, gritty, low-budget look at all.
WCT: What was Scott's reaction to your desire to put is novel on the screen?
GA: Scott loves the film and has been so supportive of it—he's an angel. He's been to almost all of the festivals the film has played—Toronto, Sundance, London, Tribeca and he was just out here for the Los Angeles premiere. He's really proud of the movie, which was a huge relief since we all felt a huge responsibility in doing the novel justice.
WCT: Talk about working with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. What kind of directing did you give him for pulling off the role of a teenage hustler?
GA: Joe is a phenomenally talented, brilliant actor who is so serious about what he does. There is no limit to what he is capable of. On top of all that, he's an incredibly nice, well-adjusted, sensitive guy, just a great all-around human being. He was absolutely fearless about this part and loved the character so much. He really brought that performance to the set. He—as well as Scott Heim, of course—created 'Neil McCormick.' My direction to him on the set was minimal and very minor—it was really all him. The most directing I ever did was tell him 'You have the part.'
WCT: Considering the shocking, disturbing subject matter of this film, describe what the vibe was like on set.
GA: The set was a very tight, safe and creative environment and shooting was incredibly exciting because everyone in the cast and crew cared so much about the movie. We all really believed that what we were doing was substantial and important. The focus was always all about the work. Since the child actors were kept protected from what the film was about subject wise, they just did their parts the same way they did every day. They were not on the set when we shot the 'other halves' of their scenes involving the coach and other 'adult' subject matter. As director, I had it all pre-planned and storyboarded, so there was never any confusion or anxiety on the set. It was all kept very under control, which I think made everyone able to just focus on doing their part.
WCT: A film critic from Movieguide said the film could very well violate child pornography laws. What is your reaction to the polarized views of the film?
GA: I've actually been surprised by the lack of controversy around the film. Since I started this project, I've always known this was a courageous and taboo-breaking story which might push some people's buttons. But with the exception of a couple of rightwing wackos and hysterical reactionaries who completely misread the film ( or worse yet, judge it without even bothering to see it ) , the response has been overwhelmingly positive. The New York Times, LA Times, even mainstream outlets like People magazine have been incredibly supportive of the film and have commended its brave approach to the subject matter. It's truly amazing and I am so grateful since it will hopefully be able to each more people at the end of the day.
WCT: When the lights go on and people start filing out of the theater, what do you hope is going through their minds as they disentangle themselves from reel life and head back into reality?
GA: I just really want the film to matter and to have an emotional impact on people. With so many films today, you forget about them the minute the lights go up—they're just a waste of time and celluloid. The most flattering reaction I've heard is people who are so moved and devastated by the film that they can't even speak when it's over—they just need some time to be alone and digest what they've experienced. And the film stays in their head for weeks and months afterwards. That's how the book affected me. It just broke my heart.
WCT: Are you aware of your huge, cult-like fan base?
GA: I am so grateful for my hardcore fan base—these college age kids who come up to me with their CDs and tapes and DVDs for me to sign at screenings and festivals, telling me how much my films have meant to their lives. As a filmmaker, I pretty much work in a bubble, just toiling away, cranking out these movies, hoping that they matter in some way to someone out there as much as they matter to me. But with Mysterious Skin, I've been totally amazed at the broad audience the film has attracted. I've had my usual Doom Generation/Nowhwere kids come up at screenings, but also grandmothers in their 60s, straight Mormon dudes—it's really kind of all across the board. I think the film really touches a universal chord in people and despite some tough scenes and challenging subject matter, people really relate to the emotional journey the film takes you on.