RIP, Marilyn Burns

I've held off posting anything about this, as the veracity of early reports were in doubt.  However, it seems Marilyn Burns, best know to horror fans as Sally in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, has passed away at the age of 65.

I remember sitting in a theater in 1979 for a re-release of TCM in 1979, unaware of the assault to my senses that was about to occur.  And Ms. Burns' performance was part of that bombardment.  In some way, she became the cathartic release I needed to process the film's final act.  Her hysterical screams, especially during the shot of her in the back of the pickup truck, seemed to channel my reaction to the onscreen mayhem I'd witnessed.  She screamed when I couldn't, as I sat in a chair within the air conditioned comfort of a theater, during a mildly warm Portland summer evening.

And I mention my surroundings because, not only was her performance a cathartic release for me, but it also convinced me of the ordeal she went through, both as a fictional character and an actor.  From all accounts, she (and the rest of the cast and crew) endured horrendous conditions filming the dining room scene.  Yet her face, and vocal cords, were the only record of any emotional response to the heat, fatigue and blood that makes the moment so riveting.  Her performance, however it was coax out of her, makes TMC a classic.

My thoughts go out to Ms. Burns, her family and closest friends.  As with horror fans around the world, I mourn her passing.

Kong vs. Godzilla, Evil Dead on television leads to lots of good thoughts. And here's why they might not come true.

Okay, I didn't post anything last week, as my back decided to make up for months of neglect and abuse by crippling me a week ago Sunday.  Seriously, I couldn't sit up straight without supporting myself with my arms for five days.  Typing was not an option.

But now, I ready to go and planning to get back on track.  And the San Diego Comic Con offered up a few tidbits of speculation to get the creative juices flowing again.

First up is Skull Island, the King Kong prequel announced by Legendary Pictures.  Now, I'm all for some more Kong, as I love the giant ape, and I hope it doesn't end up the well-intended, overblown mess that Peter Jackson unleashed on theaters back in 2005.  I did enjoy the film, but someone needed to make Jackson cut about 40 minutes from the film, and question why he couldn't find anyone other than Jack Black to play Carl Denham.

My first choice for lost footage.

It should be harder to find than the original Spider Pit footage.

Now, a few websites have speculated, as Legendary Pictures released this year's Godzilla, a King Kong verse Godzilla smack-down might be in the works.  And to any executive from the studio that might be reading this, I implore you, DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!  IT WILL NOT WORK!!!

Sure, CGI will improve the look of Kong compared to the Toho original mashup, but a few problems will carry over into any attempt to reboot this mistaken idea.  And the least of which is that Kong dies at the end of the picture (though De Laurentis solved that problem in 1986, and we all saw how well that went).
 
The major problem is size.  Kong is not big enough to take on Godzilla, especially in the Big G's current incarnation.  And one can not write a prequel to explain how Kong (or the Son of Kong) grew to match Godzilla's stature.  Never mind that, should you follow Jackson's mythos, the rest of the great apes are dead.

Second, Kong has no answer to Godzilla's atomic halitosis.  For those of you longing for another giant monster mashup, take a look at the Toho original.  In their first encounter, Kong's attack on his "mortal enemy" is foiled when Godzilla lights up the forest around him.  And the only reason Kong manages to beat the Big G is the newly discovered giant-apes-are-lightening-rods power the scriptwriters had to insert for the battle not to be one sided.

Because all giant apes on a primitive island know who to suck power out of an electrical line.

Look, as Legendary teased that Mothra, Rodan and King Ghidorah, we've got enough monsters in the next Godzilla film.  And, given the Toho monster roster, the series has plenty of other giant creatures for the Big G to battle for years.  Should Legendary Pictures try to shoehorn Kong into the series, it won't make any sense, given the history of the big ape.

And they could make him a hard berry cider swilling drunkard once again.  

Please, NO!!!!!!!!

And, my final point is that the Kong story need no update, or prequel.  The film stands on it's own (even the Jackson remake) and any excuse to revisit the island sounds like a cheap attempt to jump on the giant monster bandwagon fueled by Pacific Rim and Godzilla.  I don't know about other fans, but I'd be more inclined to watch a movie with an original giant monster, full of surprises and cross over potentials, rather than a rehash of a creature that made it's definitive statement decades ago.

Skull Island is scheduled for a November 6, 2016, release.  A lot can happen between now and the release date, and I hope the studio comes to it's senses.

The other news is Sam Raimi's announcement that he's developing an Evil Dead television series with Bruce Campbell set to star in the series.  As any other fan of the series, my first response is....

GROOVY!!!!

But, as I thought about it, I don't know if this will become a reality.  Let's face it, while fans of the Evil Dead might be pretty intense about the series, such a base won't overcome the poor box office returns.

Yeah, the series has a cult following, but that didn't translate to success on the big screen.  Sure, one could blame the fact that Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn was released without an MPAA rating, but Army of Darkness was a theatrical flop.  As much as I love the film, I saw it during opening weekend in a theater with only five other people.  And one was a date, which quickly ended our courtship.  I'm not saying this ended our relationship, but it was the final nail in the coffin.

Though were I as cool as Bruce Campbell, who knows..

 It's a great film, but audiences didn't get it, and I think that feeling will haunt any studio.  Sure, television censorship has loosened, as evident by The Walking Dead, Hannibal and other shows.  But it remains to be seen if any cable channel will be willing to risk the money for a show that has a cult following and little else.  Given the disappointing returns of "sure hit" genre flicks like Snakes on a Plane, networks might be hesitant to pick up a series with only fringe fan following.

Look, I really want this to come to fruition.  I want to see Bruce Campbell verse the Deadites once again, even if it's on my television screen.  But while Raimi has a track record with his Spider-Man series, it doesn't mean anyone will be interested in a cult phenomenon with a limited audience.

Look, I'm just saying....

Oh, crap.  STOP HITTING ME WITH A STICK!!!

And, saying it's in development is like the same as saying the reboot will meet up with the Ash storyline earlier in the year.  Guess that is off the table now.

It feels like Raimi is shopping the idea around, hoping to find a buyer, and SDCC is the perfect venue.  But, as much as I would LOVE an Evil Dead series, I don't think Raimi will find anyone interested in funding a series that deviates from the more successful remake.  Yes, Campbell has a following, but most executives will see us as a fringe fan base, not one that will boost their ratings.

So, King Kong vs. Godzilla is a hell no, while Evil Dead: The Series is a hesitant yes.  What do you think?  Let comments on the blog, email me at shadowoverportland@live.come, or contact me on Facebook.  

Why horror fans should have plenty to fear from a new Universal Monster shared universe

When Marvel succeeded with a shared universe for heroes (at least the ones not under control from other studios), no one was surprised when DC decided to dive in head first with Superman v. Batman.  The countless characters turning up in this upcoming blockbuster promises to be a rather messy start to a shared universe franchise, but even more surprising for horror fans is that Universal appears to be following suit.

Yeah, here we go again.

According to Deadline. Com, Universal Pictures is planning to build a shared universe for their classic monsters, starting with the 2016 reboot of The Mummy.  While the idea sounds good on paper, a few of the details of the studio’s plan, as well as some speculation on my part, makes this idea seem like a classic failure in line with Van Helsing. 

Let’s start with the obvious problem.  Universal has pegged Alex Kurtzman (Transformers, Star Trek and The Amazing Spider-Man) and Chris Morgan (The Fast and Furious franchise) to head the upcoming series of films.  Oh, yeah, these guys have monster movie cred, as long as your definition of “monster” is “blockbuster tent pole film.”

Looking at their credentials, this pair has generated some powerful franchises (for better or worse; I’m looking at you, Transformers!).  But I’m not sure these two have the understanding of what makes horror films work.

Yeah, everyone knows monsters drive cool cars.

Okay, I know Kurtzman is producer on Sleepy Hollow, one of my favorite shows of the past television series.  And he had his fingers in Fringe (oh, that sounds so bad), another great show.  But neither of these series are true horror franchises.  Yes, Sleepy Hollow has some horrific elements, but it’s NOT SCARY!  Let’s be frank here, the series opener has the Headless Horseman using an automatic weapon against some cops.  Cool image, and a great hook, but not scary.  The series is great, but the chills and creep out moments are few and far between.  Again, I love the series, but the show is not scary, just batshit crazy in the same way Fringe was, and that’s not what I want from the Universal Monsters.

Come on, this image is AWESOME!

Morgan’s resume is more based on The Fast and The Furious, a successful franchise for Universal.  So Kurtzman is the horror guy, Morgan is the franchise builder, so nothing can go wrong.

Except for the lack of understanding how horror works, EVERYTHING!  These two are expected to bring a blockbuster, tent pole series of films to the screen, and that’s not how the Universal Monsters work.

I just watched the original Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man for the first time in decades, and it’s great.  But the climatic monster battle doesn’t occur until the final reel of the film, and it’s short.  The fun is watching Lon Chaney Jr. looking for a way to end his curse and find everlasting peace in death.  Sure, someone traces him based on reported werewolf attacks, but these are never seen on film.  And the Frankenstein’s Monster takes a back seat to the story, which focuses more on characters than monster mayhem. 

Despite the publicity shots, this is how intense their meetings are through most of the film

But that’s not how modern cinematic universes work.  Marvel got the formula right, by following the script established in their comic book universe.  Heroes meet, clash, but come together to fight for the common good.  DC might make it work, though they’ve taken the reverse tract (mash up the heroes, then spin them off into their own movies).  But such an approach DOES NOT work for the Universal Monsters.

Look at what each monster brings to the screen.  Frankenstein’s Monster is a misunderstood being, The Wolf Man is cursed to commit violence he can not control, The Creature from the Black Lagoon is protecting his territory and looking for a mate, The Invisible Man is drunk on power, The Bride of Frankenstein is reacting to a forced marriage, and so on.

None of them are suited for a shared universe, where one battles the other with the fate of humanity hanging in the balance.  Monsters don’t work that way.  Each have their own motivations for their actions and are not suited for a superhero-styled shared universe.  It didn’t work for the misguided Van Helsing, and it won’t work for this attempted franchise.

Oh, dear god, NO!

The second problem is how the Universal Monsters suffered as The House of… series played out.  Each monster got a moment in the spotlight, only to be vanquished to make room for the next.  Too many monsters spoil the stew, as each is given less time to develop than in more simple one-meets-the-other films.  But such a formula isn’t going to drive a tent pole franchise, and I fear such an approach will lead to a quick monster mash up, rather than a delicate building of the franchise (again, the Marvel verses DC metaphor).

It could work out.  After all, The Monster Squad was a great film, though it was hampered with the new PG-13 rating.  And it did require some understanding of the previous films.  But it did hit all the right notes, and I hope Kurtzman and Morgan can pull it off.  But I really see this as more of a messed opportunity than a success, given Universal’s past attempts to take their monsters seriously.  Horror fans should expect more of a Van Helsing approach than one that gives the monsters room to come to life.  

NOOOOOOOO!  Where are Bud and Lou when I need them?

Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986)

Before Ghostface and Leslie Vernon came along, Jason rose from the grave and started poking fun at the slasher genre.  Though Friday the 13^th: Jason Lives might not fit the definition as of meta-horror as we know it today, writer/director Tom McLoughlin injects the film with a sly ability to laugh at how silly the genre is while delivering on the bloody mayhem.

By the way, the next paragraph contains spoilers for the previous two Friday the 13^th films.  You have been warned.

Janson really hates unmarked spoilers.

After dispatching Jason in Part IV, than being terrorized by a Jason wanna-be in Part V, Tommy Jarvis was to put on the hockey mask for this film.  However, after negative fan reactions, and a drop in the domestic box office numbers, the producers decided to bring Jason back from the grave for Part VI. 

McLoughlin disregarded the ending in Part V (a trend other films in the series were happy to follow), and opened with Tommy (Thom Mathews) driving to Jason’s grave.  His plan is to burn the killer’s corpse and bring an end to his nightmares of Jason’s return.  Aided by Allen (Welcome Back Kotter actor Ron Pallio), Tommy exhumes Jason, but instead of simply incinerating the corpse, Tommy’s anger takes over and begins stabbing at Jason’s chest with a metal rod.

Bad move, Tommy, as an inconvenient thunderstorm sends a few bolts of lightening down the makeshift lightning rod and into Jason’s chest.  As the reanimated slasher kills Allen, Tommy runs off to the nearest police station, conveniently located at Camp Crystal Lake, to warn the cops of Jason’s return.

Today's lesson is that lightning, a metal rod and a corpse

 always leads to that "Oh CRAP, HE'S ALIVE!" moment.

I guess Tommy’s councilors weren’t too good at reintroducing their clients into normal society.  To no one’s surprise, Tommy is locked up for the night, than driven out of town by the sheriff (David Kagen).  But during this time, Jason’s been trekking back to the former Camp Crystal Lake, while killing anyone he meets on his way.  As the bodies pile up, the cops figure Tommy is behind the mayhem, motivated by his desire to prove Jason is alive.  Ah, movie psychology.

Meanwhile, Tommy finds the only occult bookstore in a three state radius and formulates a plan to put Jason to rest for good.  Aided by the sheriff’s daughter, Megan (Jennifer Cooke), the pair heads back to the former Camp Crystal Lake, dodging Jason and the cops. 

Okay, we all know how this ends.  But while the basic plot remains faithful to the formula established earlier in the series, this entry not only makes fun of the franchise, but also hints that Jason’s motivation for killing might not be as simple as making teens pay for drinking, doing drugs and having sex.

Well, there's at least one drunk, drugged sex fiend in every crowd.

To start, McLoughlin’s Jason is more menacing.  He not only kills innocent victims (like the two female councilors who are doing their job and NOT partying), but also threatens children.  While it shouldn’t be a surprise that all the kids survive, the film contains two scenes where things might have ended badly for a child had circumstances not drawn Jason’s attention away from them.  By suggesting that Jason would kill children makes him a more deadly and menacing figure than previous incarnations.  No longer the punisher of hormonal transgressions (as deemed by puritanical society), Jason is now a harbinger of death to anyone trespassing in his domain.  

I suspect the MPAA's reaction to this scene involved hysterics at some point.

Another surprise is the film’s lack of nudity.  Unlike previous entries (though, to be honest, my memories of Part V are a bit hazy), no actress takes her top off during this film.  Thought the film contains a sex scene, and one unconsummated act, the moments are more chaise than some network television shows.  Whether this was a decision on director McLoughlin’s part, or fear of incurring the wrath of the MPAA, it is a bit of a shock, coming from the franchise that started the blood and boobs trend in slasher films.

But it’s McLoughlin’s injection of humor into the script, often at the expense of the slasher genre, that might have influenced future filmmakers.  Victims comment about how horror films inform them that a masked figure in the road is never a good sign, young campers wonder what they would be IF they grew up, and, most telling, a scene when one character turns to the camera and exclaims, “Some folks have a sick idea of entertainment.”  It’s quite funny, but a surprising jab at the fans of the franchise. 

Yes, the smilie face is in the movie.  I didn't say all the jokes worked.

Perhaps these moments are not as self aware as current meta-horror films, but it’s hard not to admire McLoughlin’s daring script.  Not only did he inject a sense of humor that poked fun at a beloved genre franchise, he also had the guts to question the audience’s taste in wanting Jason brought back to the screen.  And though the box office take was low (no surprise, considering the reaction to Part V), McLoughlin’s attempt to move the series in a new direction garnered a surprising amount of favorable critical response.  Had Part VII found a filmmaker daring enough to follow in his footsteps, the franchise might not be in need of a second reboot.

He's practicing on the RV.  Up next, space stations!

A PG-13 version of At the Mountains of Madness IS NOT a bad thing

As expected, the Internet is full of opinions concerning the recent announcement that Guillermo Del Toro is willing to film his long awaited version of H. P. Lovecraft's novella, At the Mountains of Madness, in a PG-13 rated version.  As I write a horror blog with a title that’s more than a bit of a wink to one of Lovecraft's more famous stories, I figure I'll weigh in on this topic as well.

Now, I can just state that I think that a PG-13 version will be just fine, but I won't make such a blanket statement without providing evidence to support that claim.  So, here are six reasons why a PG-13 version of the tale will work as well, if not better, than an R-rated film.

1) PG-13 Horror Films Can Be Scary

This might be heresy to some, but nothing says a horror films must receive an R-rating.  It just depends on the subject matter and how it is presented.  And just because a horror film is rated R does mean the film is gory.  The Blair Witch Project was rated R due to language only. 

Had the language been toned down to a PG-13 level, the film would not have lost its impact.  The filmmakers relied more on atmosphere and the threat of the unseen (themes found in Lovecraft's writing) to scare the audience and, whether you like the film or not, it’s a great example of getting more by using less.

But let’s focus on a horror film with a PG-13 rating.  Gore Verbinski’s American remake of The Ring is one of the most atmospheric and creepy horror films in recent years.  The film contained a few graphic moments, but relies more on mood to ratchet up the sense of unease, making the more horrific moments more intense than simply dumping a bunch of gore on the floor.

If you're still not convinced, just remember that Poltergeist was rated PG, with a stuffed clown that induced nightmares in kids and a few parents.  

I'm BAAAACK!

2) An R-rating doesn't equal a scary (or even good) horror film

You might think I'm repeating myself with this one, but it's important to remember that an R-rating, and buckets of blood, does not make a horror film scary.  Or even any good.

The best way to explain this is to talk about the remake of 2008’s Prom Night, the PG-13 slasher remake.  Once the rating for this film was announced, fans of the 1980 original proclaimed the film would be a disaster without R-rated levels of gore (forgetting that the original Prom Night is not very gory and might earn a PG-13 rating today).

But, if you've seen the remake, it’s easy to realize the filmmakers could have painted the screen red with spurting blood and flung entrails, and it wouldn't have made the film any better.  Sure, a few gross out moments might make you feel a bit better about spending your time and money on an abysmally bad film, but it would still be a rotten movie.

Yep, nothing could have helped this turkey.

A horror film with graphic depictions of gore won’t make up for a bad script and poor filmmaking.  You can have both gore and scares, but once the FX crew comes in, it seems directors and studios are willing to spend more time grossing the audience out, than engrossing them with a spooky, engaging story.

3) PG-13 movies can be graphic

It might seem unlikely that a horror film could ever get a PG-13 rating, the default rating for the average studio blockbusters.  And, in a sense, the rating is more a marketing tool now, designed to give a film an adult edge, only without any real mature content.  It makes young boys and adult audience members more comfortable, assured that the film is not for kids (as a PG rating now indicates the film would be rated G were it not for the fart jokes).

In a few seconds, you'll hear the only fart-like sound in this PG rated move. 

Without going into a "When is was young,,," rant, I remember when PG movies contained blood squibs, harsh language, adult content and even brief nudity.  As movies like Jaws, Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom pushed the level of acceptable violence for the PG rating, the MPAA created the PG-13 rating in 1984.  It worked pretty well, until studios started using it as a marketing tool for their summer blockbusters.

Based on the past, a PG-13 film can go into territory darker than giant robot fights, but that might depend on how the MPAA feels that day.  And we will get to that later, but first, let's talk gore.

4) Gore is becoming more acceptable

Graphic gore is becoming commonplace on television, and the best example of this is NBC's Hannibal.  During the show's two year run, viewers have seen murder victims skinned, used as brain dead mushroom fertilizer, turned into a cello, and vertically bisected several times like a gruesome science project.  This is not a cable show, but shown on a national broadcast network and as always been given a TV-14 rating. 

TV has changed.

One can argue such moments the (rather noticeable at times) lack of blood is what allows these effects to get on the air.  Still, shows like Hannibal and The Walking Dead prove that gore is becoming acceptable to mainstream audiences, the same people that might pay to see a PG-13 horror film with similar effects. 

5) Lovecraft's story isn't gory

Early in the novella, the story’s narrator and other explorers come across the dissected remains of other party members.  While quite gruesome, it is the story's only moment of gore.  The rest of Lovecraft's tale has to do with exploring a mysterious city filled with albino penguins, Shoggoths and the origins of humanity. 

As the story relies more on atmosphere than gore, it makes no sense to push the gore in one early scene to an R-rating level.  Chances are such a moment would seem gratuitous and unwarranted, but also feel out of place with the rest of the tale (unless the script deviates from the source material). 

Handled with a bit more restrain, perhaps only showing brief glimpses of the bodies during a dimly lit search of the tent, the sequence could as intense and disturbing as the flashbulb illumination of the desecrated grave and it's contents during the opening moments of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  And it would be more suited to the atmosphere Lovecraft generates in the rest of his story.

6) The MPAA might not be a problem

Most horror fans don't have a high opinion of the MPAA, with good reason.  The organization dislikes horror films with the same intensity they reserve for nudity.  So, the chance of AtMoM getting a PG-13 rating might seem a long shot, unless you remember how the MPAA works.

As pointed out in the documentary, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, the MPAA is supported by the major Hollywood studios and tends to act favorably towards their benefactors.  So, not only will the MPAA assure studio properties are rated with the studio’s target audience in mind, the organization limits the competition by making it difficult for more adult-oriented fare to get an appropriate rating (hello, NC-17).  That’s how The Expendables 3 got a PG-13 rating (despite assumptions that the violence will be the same as an R-rated version, but without CGI blood added), yet movies like The Kings of Summer (an indie film released last year) was rated R strictly for language.

All del Toro has to do is find a way to include a scene like this in the film.

The MPAA will freak out and allow anything else to stay in, as long as Eva Green's breast is out of the picture. 

Now, back to the point.  A $120 million dollar version of AtMoM will not be an independent feature, but a studio backed film.  And, as the MPAA loathes biting the hand stuffing its wallet, del Toro should be able to get a pretty graphic scene into a PG-13 rated film.  Sure, he might have to trim a couple of frames in a few spots, but those concessions will all the MPAA to maintain the illusion of doing its job.  And it’s doubtful such excised footage will change the impact of the film, or any individual scene, in any noticeable way.

I think a PG-13 version of At the Mountains of Madness will work.  And though I’m hopeful he pulls this one off, we can’t forget that del Toro has only started discussion the project with a studio.  Between now and whatever release date gets announced, a multitude of other factors will determine whether fans get to see a big screen Lovecraft adaptation or not.  All we can do is hope the stars will align.  

  

Jillian Clare of Alien Abduction talks to The Shadow Over Portland!

Alien Abduction, a sci fi/horror found footage film, screens this Friday, May 2 at 10 pm, at The Clinton Street Theater, part of the IFC Midnight series of films screening over the next few months.  I was lucky enough to get Jillian Clare, who appears in the film and will be at the screening, to answer a few questions via email.

The Shadow Over Portland: Can you tell me about Alien Abduction, and your character in the movie?

Jillian Clare: Alien Abduction is a film about a family who is on vacation in the Brown Mountains and get caught in a fight for survival against aliens.  I play Jillian Morris.  The character is actually pretty close to me.  Because it is a found footage film, the director and producers really went for people who were the characters.  They even changed our character names to our real names!!!   I'd say the only difference between me and the character is that I don't have brothers in real life.  So that was a fun element for me to add in.  I've never really experienced that type of sibling bickering/love.  

Never a good sign

TSOP: This appears to be one of your first ventures into the sci fi and horror genre.  Was acting in a genre film different from your previous film roles?

For me, it wasn't much different.  Every role I do is just me in different circumstances.  I didn't really go into it thinking of it being a certain type of genre film.  It was just me being truthful and reacting to the given circumstances….which in this case, just happened to be aliens.

I assume things don't end well in this film

TSOP: Your IMDb page includes a horror/comedy TV series called Acting Dead, about zombies working as actors in zombie movies.   I found the Indiegogo page for the show and it appears funding wasn’t reached, however, IMDb claims the season was completed.  I have to admit, the basic storyline sounds fun and, from what I’ve been able to gather, you got to play a zombie.  What was it like playing a zombie struggling to make it in Hollywood?  And where, or when, can zombie fans see the show?

JC: I'm actually not a zombie!!!  My co-star Brian Beacock is a zombie!  My character Alex went to have the "zombification procedure" performed and as they say in the show, she was "over-cooked" and therefore, died.  So, I'm actually a ghost!!  Which is surprising for most people to find out!!!  The show just started airing!  We currently have 2 episodes out!!  You can go to the site actingdead.com for more information.  It's currently airing on jts.tv !

TSOP: Any plans to return to genre films?

JC: I shot another horror film not too long ago called "Cora".  I'm not quite sure when that one will be released.  That was my first time working with vampires, which was pretty cool!!  My favorite part about that film is that we went back to the old ways of vampires ala Interview With A Vampire.  They're so fun to film, so I'm definitely open to more in the future!

TSOP: I understand you were born in Portland and lived in the area until you were 8 years old.  Any plans when you come back to the Northwest for the screening of Alien Abduction?

JC: Visit family and my old friends!!!  I'm also shooting a new film called "Free For All" in Portland later this year, so I believe I'll be meeting up with my director and writer as well to workshop the script a little!

TSOP: I also read you were named for a character in Star Trek: The Voyage Home.  Are you a fan of the series?

JC: I don't think I've seen the film since I was a child.  I always said I wanted to work with marine life though, which is funny because that's what the character I was named after does in the film!!

Nice bit of set design

TSOP: As this is a horror-centric blog, I have to ask what are your favorite scary movies?

JC: I'm a huuuuuge horror fan!!!  I actually like to fall asleep to horror films because they comfort me.  Weird, I know.  "Scream" will always be in my top 10 movies.  I was terrified of "Nightmare on Elm Street "when I was a kid!!  And "It"!  That movie scarred me for life!  My all time favorite though has to be "The Strangers".  It was so well done.

TSOP: I see you have a holiday film, By God’s Grace, in post-production.  When is that coming out, and do you have any other projects on the horizon?  

JC: I'm not quite sure when "By God's Grace" will be out.  I know they are still editing it.  As I mentioned earlier, I'm filming a new movie called "Free For All" later this year.  I'm really excited about that one!!!  It's my first real adult role.  It's also the first time I'm the center of a feature film.  Here's the synopsis:  Lindsey, an unemployed college drop-out on the verge of divorce, finds herself couch surfing at her childhood home while her family grieves the death of her father.

TSOP: Last question.  Do you have a fan page where people can follow your projects?

JC: My Facebook is: https://www.facebook.com/officialjillianclare

Instagram: http://instagram.com/jillianclare

Twitter: http://twitter.com/jillianclare

I'm also the editor of a fashion and beauty blog called Teenage Wonderland that you can checkout here: teenagewonderland.com 



My thanks to Jillian Clare for taking the time to answer a few questions for The Shadow Over Portland.  If you have a question for her, be sure to catch the screening of Alien Abduction at The Clinton Street Theater at 10 pm on Friday, May 2.  Jillian Clare will be present for a Q & A after the screening!

For more information, follow the link here.