Editorials
19 Things We Learned from the ‘April Fool’s Day’ Commentary
Another year, another April Fool’s Day come and gone without a single funny prank online. The day has lost its luster since the advent of the internet, but happily, we’ll always have 1986’s pseudo-slasher classic, April Fool’s Day, to remember how fun it used to be.
Director Fred Walton is best known for his feature debut, 1979’s When a Stranger Calls, and he made a career built on low-key suspense tales for theatrical release and television. His best film, though, is undoubtedly April Fool’s Day. Part slasher, part mystery, all fun – the film is a delight, even on repeat viewings, as it’s an attractive, entertaining, and smartly crafted ride for fans of good times.
Now keep reading to see what I heard on the commentary for…
April Fool’s Day (1986)
Commentators: Film historians Howard S. Berger, Steve Mitchell, and Nathaniel Thompson
1. One of them recalls seeing the film in the theater and encountering “a certain anger in the audience” at the ending, as some people see it as a cheat. The consensus is that it was older viewers who were upset, while the youths actually liked the playful reveal.
2. There are conflicting reports as to the film’s origin. Some reports say writer Danilo Bach was shopping it around as a spec script, while others suggest that producer Frank Mancuso Jr. concocted the idea and then tasked Bach with writing it. Unrelated, but Bach also wrote the terrifically entertaining but severely underseen “90s erotic thriller” Escape Clause. Seek it out!
3. Mitchell says the slasher formula in the 1980s was to gather some attractive young people and then “watch them perish,” and he adds that he was part of it all as the co-writer of 1986’s Chopping Mall.
4. “It doesn’t rely on cutting, it relies on staging,” says Mitchell as a compliment towards Walton, who made this film because he was pretty much broke at the time.
5. It was filmed around Victoria, British Columbia, after earlier suggestions, including Martha’s Vineyard and Seattle, fell through.
6. The bit around the 18:45 mark sees characters taking a sex quiz from a magazine, and it was added on the day after Walton saw the cast members doing just that before filming began.
7. They compliment the film’s use of natural light, particularly with scenes overlooking the water towards dusk, and compare favorably to Mario Bava’s A Bay of Blood.
8. This is an ensemble film, but they all agree that Deborah Foreman is the de facto star here, seeing as she was still riding high off Valley Girl. She auditioned for the film and was dismissed early on, but she kept track of casting and re-auditioned for the same role. This time, though, she leaned into the subtleties of the character’s evil twin conceit and won everyone over.
9. They talk about Walton’s “mathematical use of long takes” when building to and forming scares, and they even suggest it was an influence on films like William Peter Blatty’s The Exorcist III.
10. They give a shout out to Cinephile Video in Los Angeles, which has a director’s wall dedicated to all the big names you’d expect – and Walton, too. Asked why, the store owners said they just wanted to shake things up with a great director you just don’t expect to see represented as such.
11. The film is devoid of nudity, and while that seems odd for a slasher – and may have contributed to genre audiences being unhappy with it – it’s also fitting as the end of the ’80s marked a more chaste period for horror movies.
12. The well scene was filmed on a set in Los Angeles, and the water was apparently so “fetid” that Deborah Goodrich developed an ear infection from her time in it.
13. Walton uses his camera to ratchet up tension and claustrophobia, and they point out some examples around the 1:01:08 mark. Hal (Jay Baker) sits on the stairs, shot so that their shadows resemble prison bars, and the next shot is made through the metal bars of a bedframe.
14. “This is a movie void of primary colors except for reds,” they say, adding that the reds are used as subconscious nods towards doomed characters. Arch is wearing red before he’s caught in the trap, Hal is sitting on a red carpet, Nikki is wearing a red robe, etc.
15. The film originally had an extended ending that featured Buffy (Foreman) actually being murdered, but it didn’t make the final cut – it’s another fake out, instead. It did, however, make it into the film’s novelization by Jeff Rovin, as that was based on the script. The book currently runs about $100 on eBay, which is unfortunate for me and my bank account.
16. They praise the film’s deep blacks – shout out to both cinematographer Charles Minsky and the recent 4K release from KL Studio Classics – as being atypical. Thompson breaks down the difference between legitimate dark and “movie dark,” which is dark-ish but lit so viewers can see what’s happening.
17. The great Amy Steel wears primarily baggy clothing throughout, and a producer allegedly approached her during filming to ask if maybe she was gaining too much weight on the film. “Well,” she reportedly replied, “you hired this amazing caterer, so whose fault is that?” I would have added a hearty “fuck you” to the producer, too.
18. While some people may be put off by the entire fake out, as it basically means the film’s events are all reset to zero, the commentators see it as a positive. For one, it’s a nice change of pace from the genre norm of dead teens, and another points out that the actual finale allows for Nan (Leah Pinsent), a character who has zero fun throughout, to finally have a laugh and a smile. “Even though it’s not a horror movie in the conventional sense, we got the thrills, and it was fun to experience a fright.”
19. They draw an interesting contrast between the ’80s and now, suggesting that today’s horror movies “are just so serious” while they used to be fun, entertaining times designed to be enjoyed as part of an audience. It’s a generalization, obviously, but fans of ’80s horror know it to be true as the genre definitely had a looser, more entertaining vibe back then.
Quotes Without Context
“In the ’80s, that was the decade of the dead teenager movie.”
“The one thing that’s actually real in the film is the sexuality, and the violence is all gags. That’s the fake.”
“There’s such a salad of bodies there.”
“If this movie had been made by Roger Corman’s company, there would have already been three to four nude scenes.”
“If I was to see this at a famous 42nd Street grindhouse, I don’t think I could see the actors for the grain.”
Keep up with more horror commentary breakdowns here.
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.
Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.
Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.
A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.