I was fortunate enough to speak with the writer/director of Cult of Chucky late last week (review), just before the seventh Child’s Play movie would premiere on DVD, VOD, Blu-Ray and Netflix. Said debut happened today, so there is a good chance you’ve seen the film already. But this is a pretty spoiler-free conversation, just in case. In it, we discuss the new movie, how the Chucky films embrace their non-rebooted continuity and the overall legacy of one of the grand surviving 1980’s slasher franchises. You might want to save this one for the bathroom, because it’s a deep dive.
Mendelson: We ended up watching the first five. As you know, because you made them all. It all morphed into basically one long story. Was that something that was in your mind from at least the first sequel or two, or was that something that you could do because you kept being invited back to make more?
Mancini: Well, I think probably around the time of Bride of Chucky is where I probably had the sense that this was going to appear periodically. Trying to find a better way to articulate that, but you know what I mean. One sequel is like, okay that's cool. And then a second sequel, lots of series end there. I think it was around the time of Bride that I had the feeling- we all had the feeling that Chucky seems to have been accepted in pop culture and that's great.
So, as a lifelong not even just horror fan, but movie fan of various franchises, I just started seeing an opportunity to give it an unusual degree of cohesiveness, or I sort of felt like why not? That would just be kind of interesting to do.
Certainly, by the time of Seed, I was trying hard to make different kinds of movies, you know with distinctly different vibes and even genres at times. I wanted the narrative to have a kind of cohesion. Because when you're a kid you watch stuff. Going back to watching Bewitched, and they would recast Darren, that would drive me crazy.
There's something extra fun about that kind of consistency. I think it also can also lend the proceedings a little extra little layer of emotional depth, if that makes sense. People feel attached to the characters after a certain amount of time, particularly if it's something that you were introduced to when you were young, and you're nostalgic for it. Having these same characters...
TV show runners, this is what they do. You're constantly having to tell a story. You have a universe of different characters so you spend a lot of your time imagining what would happen if this character and this character intersected? What would that relationship be like? What would they say to each other?
I always found that intriguing, particularly starting with Curse of Chucky and now with Cult of Chucky, sort of combining the sort of straightforward horror approach that Fiona and her character represent with the more overtly comedic, over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek, meta tone that Tiffany and even Chuck inevitably bring. Chuck is a funny character. It's something I am really drawn to.
When we did Curse, the mission was to make the movie scary again. We wanted it to have the vibe of the original couple of movies. One of the ways you accomplish that mission is keeping Chucky on the sidelines and he doesn't talk as much, there's real value in that. But we'd just done it, so I didn't want to do it again. I just wanted to do something different. I thought it would be an interesting goal to mix these different tones and see what would happen.
The scene early on where Jennifer Tilly's character, Tiffany, comes to visit Fiona's character in the asylum and brings this devastating news, she's got performing this kind of emotionally wrenching and sort of naturalistically grounded emotional performance in her response to that, while Jennifer Tilly is giving out her Tiffany vibe, which I felt like I had to modulate slightly. That's, for example, why she was costumed rather differently in this movie than that character had been before, because I just thought... She needed to look more like a- not a normal person, but she needed to be a little less camp in this movie. But not completely sacrificing that, because that would be impossible.
Mendelson: Watching the first five basically within a week of each other, give or take, the one thing that stood out about the first one, frankly, and I don't want to put intentions into your mouth, but it feels like an action picture. The scale and the urban landscape of the big city, and it opens with a fluid foot chase and a big shoot-out. And there's a car chase towards the end of the second act that are just as big and well-staged as any outright action movie of that era.
Mancini: And there are two gigantic explosions. Buildings explode, practically two of them in that movie.
Mendelson: I think that's what set the first film apart, along with distinguished adult actors giving the film a certain gravity, and you had obviously a primal concept. A child's doll that comes to life and hurts you.
Mancini: That aspect of the first movie that you're speaking of, and I totally agree with you, the action movie aspect of it. Honestly, that aspect of it was director Tom Holland who brought that. I think Tom Holland and the fact that they ended up shooting in Chicago, I'm sure helped with that as well. Because you're there you want to use the L and all that.
But my original script, it was more straightforward horror, it didn't have buildings exploding. It did have a building burning down, but no exploding. It didn't have the car chase, that scene where Chucky is trying to strangle the cop in the car, that was all Tom's stuff, and I love all that stuff, too.
Mendelson: Is that why the film never, ever references that scene (where Sarandon is attacked by Chucky) again?
Mancini: That stuff, that's not me. That is also Tom, and just as quickly as I wanted to give him credit for the good stuff he did, I totally reject responsibility for what you're talking about. That stuff drove me crazy because first you've got Chris Sarandon and Catherine Hicks, the story is constantly ahead of them.
We know the whole mythology. We know it was this killer who got shot, and this whole movie they're doing all this detective work, trying to find out what we knew from the beginning of the movie. So that's one thing.
But secondly, you have two responsible adults- characters, and you're asking two good actors having to play these characters who go around with this knowledge of this insane supernatural reality. The very fabric of their lives has been swept asunder, and yet, and this is what you're getting at, they just go on with their day. It's utterly absurd. Chucky attacks her and she comes marching down to the police station and the very sight of it is absurd.
Mendelson: But the movie worked well, and to be fair, that's partially a consequence of the pacing, because there's not an ounce of fat on that movie. It just roars. I'm sure the eventual remake with be two hours and 20 minutes and it'll drag like a mo-fo… with extra songs.
Mancini: He'll spend an hour before he even becomes a doll. We just see Charles Lee Ray as a killer.
Mendelson: The next two were, I would argue, more conventional slasher pictures. And then what I think is interesting is you have the fourth and fifth that were very self-aware, they're sort of post-Scream. Then what I like about the last two is that they are more like psychological thrillers.
And what I think is interesting the original intent for Child’s Play was to have somewhat more of a psychological thriller where you're not sure if the Andy is a killer or not.
Mancini: Yeah, that was my original script.
Mendelson: And if I'm wrong, so be it, but I feel that, especially in the last two movies, you've been playing around with those ideas again. You've been going back to that well for the last two films.
Especially this one where- I don't think I'm giving anything away to say that Chucky's a killer, but there's chunks of screen time in the first act where it's possible that he's not.
Mancini: That's absolutely correct and I had not had an opportunity to do that in the series yet, and this was a unique opportunity to do it. To do it seven films in, I just thought it would be... I find doing sequels interesting. I mean, I like doing other things, too, and I want to do other things, other original things.
But I do find sequel-making inherently interesting because I think it give you an opportunity if you embrace it correctly to do good storytelling, because good storytelling is about surprise and about subversion, about dedication. And sequels are all about expectation. Because there is a precedent that has been set, you're coming to it with baggage, or preconceptions, so it gives the storyteller a different kind of opportunity to f**k with that.
Having 30 years and six films behind us, to begin a Chucky movie in the way that you're describing, that was our intent, we were like wait a minute. I'm questioning reality, so your way was designed to make the audience feel psychologically what (Fiona Dourif's) Nika's feeling, like I feel like my head is being f****d with, wait, now there are two dolls? Have they gotten swapped? Are both alive, now there's a third? I thought we hadn't done it before and psychological horror is less expensive than action horror.
Mendelson: There is certainly an attempt at, I would argue, a certain macabre feeling to this one. It was very gothic I would say, in comparison to something like Bride of Chucky or even the first two sequels.
One of the things I do like, I've been comparing them a lot to The Fast and the Furious franchise. It's not just that you've had a bunch of people come back this time, it's that you really have been playing around in different genres, and at the end of this film, you really do set the series off in a very new direction.
If there's a next one, it's going to be very different from what we've seen before and I, the viewer, really don't know what the next game is going to be. Speaking of which, do you know what you have in mind for the next one?
Mancini: Yes. I have always many different ideas jockeying for place and that I'm thinking about and thinking about the next step for the characters, what would be an interesting relationship to explore, stuff like that. But I'm also, as you would imagine if you're working on the same universe for 30 years, I spend a lot of time thinking about it.
It's one of the nice things about doing sequels, you come up with ideas and if for whatever reason it's not going to work, we can't afford it on this film, whatever, you take it out, and you just file it away.
Maybe it's a set piece, maybe it's a certain way of killing someone, which is kind of a hilarious, absurd, and the older I get, increasingly disturbing way to spend your time. But it's part of the job, you know, finding diabolical original ways to kill people. So, I have files of ideas and characters and set-ups and locations and situations. But what I lead with is the characters.
So, short answer, yes, I do, and I'm thinking about Nika, really. Nika and Chuck and Tiffany, and maybe Andy. You saw the tag at the end with (SPOILER), yes?
Mendelson: Yes, and one thing I did notice- it was a gorier film than I've seen in this franchise before.
Mancini: It wasn't conscious at first, honestly. When we were in prep, I was looking at a schedule and seeing the roster of actors having to go in to have their heads cast, it was the first time I thought of it as categorically, but...
Something that happens in this film is incredible, violent destruction to the human head and face and doll face and heads, too. So, I kind of thought what is that about? And concluded it must have something to do with fear of aging.
It was in prep that I thought that this is going to be the ickiest, the goriest of the movies. And then once I was conscious of that I really embraced it.
Mendelson: What are your thoughts on… okay, four years ago, when Curse of Chucky comes out, and it's really good, my thought was initially "Gee, this should have been in theaters."
It's a weird thing because four years later, it almost... the fact that Cult of Chucky is going to be on DVD, VOD, Netflix the same day, it's almost an even playing field. Were there any conversations about ever putting this one in theaters?
Mancini: Not really, no. For both films, it may have just been something in my own head and studio executives just saying "Uh-huh, shut up about that." The intent was always these markets, and I think as you say, four years later, it's less and less stigmatized. It's left of the ghetto, honestly.
It's something that you said in your review, which is that I don't mind being a bigger fish in a smaller pond. Even that, I'm being, perhaps, presumptuous. Thinking I'm a bigger fish in that pond, maybe I'm not. But these movies... both Curse and Cult, they both (cost around $5 million). I approach it with let's make the best movie we can, and I'm going to be lucky enough to see it in a theater a couple of times at screenings and festivals, so at least I'll have that experience. That's the way it goes, so that's a little disappointing to me, but I'm happy to be doing this.
I love making movies, I feel fortunate to be doing it in our world in our economy, so again, I want to do other things, it's certainly my intention. It tickles me that something that I created- that people like it and that it's lived this long, I feel fortunate and happy to do it as long as people are enjoying it.
Mendelson: It’s very unique in the slasher genre in that it's never been rebooted, it's never been remade. You haven't ignored the less popular sequels. You've owned the whole continuity, I think frankly at this point, it's to your advantage.
Mancini: I think so, too. I think at this point it's one of the things that makes this legitimately interesting now, it has an unusual sense of cohesion for any genre you're talking about. I think it's valuable.
Mendelson: Has there ever been any talk about remaking or rebooting or somehow making an Ultimate Child’s Play line to go along with the standard continuity?
Mancini: I'll answer yes, but I can't really say more because it starts to get into what our plans might be. That's another thing about the end of this movie and the way that it was designed. I think for the purposes of this article we can talk about it abstractly, which is that it leaves open a world of possibilities. That was very deliberate.
Mendelson: What's your favorite sequel of yours in the series? It's not assuming you dislike the others, I'm just asking for a favorite.
Mancini: Can I say two? It would be Bride of Chucky and Curse of Chucky. Because Bride - we reinvented it as a comedy with that movie, we brought in new character, Jennifer Tilly. It was a movie, I felt in my own head, I felt like I had a new level of confidence as a writer, so I enjoyed that.
A lot of things went right on that movie. Ronny Yu, Peter Pau, Jennifer Tilly. It was a great experience and then I get sentimental about it because we've all worked together so much, we're all legitimately good friends, so I think that's the one where Jennifer and I became friends.
Then Curse of Chucky was Fiona (Dourif). Then we reinvented it again with Curse with this new character with this new actress. So, I think those two because they introduced me to those actresses and those characters.
They were successful reinventions, which was gratifying, because it's tricky to do. It's harder than it looks. Not that you necessarily would think it was hard, but I think a lot of people do.
A lot of fans don't like Bride of Chucky and Seed of Chucky, and they don't like the comedy version of this. They get like "God, you ruined your own franchise." But if you only knew how hard it was to ruin my own franchise, how much effort went into that.
I can't help pointing out that Bride of Chucky, financially, by far the biggest success.
Mendelson: Oh, yeah. That was a mainstream hit ($32 million domestic, behind Child’s Play and $50 million worldwide, the series’ best worldwide).
Mancini: By far. I think it's with Bride of Chucky that it kind of attained a new level in the zeitgeist. The character and the franchise and its presence- Bride kind of propelled it up a little bit.
