Interviews
[Interview] Jesse Eisenberg Recalls the Troubled Production of Wes Craven’s ‘Cursed’
Wes Craven‘s Cursed will turn 15 years old in just a few months, though if the film had been released when it was originally supposed to be, it would have turned 15 last August.
Cursed had a notoriously troubled production, with several filming delays and reshoots taking place between the start of filming in March 2003 and its eventual release in February 2005. Joe Lipsett and I discussed the film on the Horror Queers podcast last month, where we tried to decipher just what happened with it. Other than deciding that Bob Weinstein is a jerk (big shock there), we couldn’t figure it out. Still, that won’t stop us from continuing our investigation…
That brings us to the reason I’m writing this article.
If you listened to our episode on the film, you’ll recall that Craven shot roughly 90% of Kevin Williamson‘s original script before Weinstein came in and expressed his dissatisfaction over what had been filmed (why he waited that long to tell him is anyone’s guess). He ordered Williamson to re-write the script with a new plot and halted production until he finished. Almost a year later, filming resumed on the new version. Craven himself estimated that 70% of what he originally shot had to be discarded (though the footage supposedly still exists out there somewhere), making the final cut an admittedly choppy and uneven film. Here’s an estimated (but perhaps not 100% correct) timeline of events, based on information that has been made public over the years:
- August 2000 – Kevin Williamson writes the original script for Cursed.
- October 2002 – Bob Weinstein announces that Cursed would “reinvent the werewolf genre,” and Wes Craven would direct, with the movie being released around August 2003.
- March 2003 – Filming begins on Cursed.
- Late Spring/Early Summer 2003 – Bob Weinstein expresses his unhappiness with the 90% of Cursed that had been shot and orders the script to be re-written and the film re-shot with the new script. Production is postponed for almost a year.
- December 2003 – Shooting begins on the new script, with some actors being recast (Mandy Moore‘s character was recast with Mya due to the former’s scheduling conflicts) and some being removed entirely (Skeet Ulrich‘s character Vince, one of the three main protagonists of Williamson’s original script, was no longer a part of the new script).
- Mid-2004 – Two more sets of reshoots are done, one of which being a new ending (well, a newer ending, since it would be the third one written for the film). The film is scheduled to be released in October 2004.
- Fall 2004 – Bob Weinstein demands that the R-rated film be cut down to earn a PG-13 rating. The film is pushed from its October 2004 release date to accommodate these edits.
- February 25, 2005 – Cursed is released in theaters nationwide and opens to overwhelmingly negative reviews and a domestic opening weekend gross of $9.6 million. The film would go on to gross $19.3 million domestically and $10.3 million internationally, for a worldwide total of $29.6 million against a reported budget of $38 million (though some have claimed it ballooned as high as $75 million).
The original plot centered around three strangers brought together by a car accident on Mulholland Drive after they are all attacked and injured by a werewolf. The three characters were named Ellie Hudson (Christina Ricci), Vince Winston (Skeet Ulrich), and Jimmy Myers (Jesse Eisenberg). After Williamson’s re-write, Ellie and Jimmy were turned into siblings reeling from the recent deaths of their parents, and the Vince Winston character was written out entirely. There are plenty of other differences, and if you want to know them you can read the original script, which is available online if you’re good at searching. The re-writes weren’t the only change, however. Rick Baker‘s practical effects were eventually deleted and replaced with KNB EFX Group’s CGI (though Baker has posted some of his work on Twitter over the years).
Craven made his thoughts on his experience with the film clear in an interview with Ain’t It Cool News in 2009, but some of the film’s stars have mentioned Cursed in interviews as well. Judy Greer lamented the re-shoots in an interview with Buzzfeed in 2014 and Christina Ricci criticized the studio system in an interview with The AV Club in 2018. But as far as I know, Jesse Eisenberg has never publicly acknowledged the film outside of the press junkets leading to the film’s release in 2005. Until now, that is.
I had the pleasure of speaking to Eisenberg in advance of Zombieland: Double Tap‘s (our review) release this weekend, but I entered the interview with a secret mission: to ask him about the troubled production of shooting Cursed. As I received the “wrap-it-up” motion from the PR representative, I brought up the fact that Cursed would be turning 15 in February (“FIFTEEN?!”, Eisenberg yelped) and asked him if he could say anything about his experience working on the film. I expected him to be dodgy with his response, which is why I saved the question for the end of the interview (well, that and because it was a question that had nothing to do with Zombieland: Double Tap). So imagine my surprise when Eisenberg expressed not only shock, but excitement at answering the question! Upon being reminded of the rough timeline of the production, he said:
“The first movie was more interesting and provocative. I don’t know why it wasn’t working. Now that we know the behind-the-scenes of the Weinstein company, it makes sense as to why it was so chaotic.”
Seemingly having a blast recalling the complete and total clusterfuck that was his 2003 and 2004 (well, not total clusterfuck, as he was also shooting The Squid and the Whale and M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village during that time), Eisenberg delighted in offering his thoughts on the film, searching his brain for more tidbits of information to give me in the two minutes we had left to speak.
“What else can I tell you,” he asked. “They filmed 90% of the bigger budget version…the first movie was this very splashy thing. The second version was definitely cutting corners in a lot of different ways. And the plot? I thought it was so stupid. I thought the plot was so cliché. They made us brother and sister? The things that they kept [from the original film] were little snippets. Like a car rolling down a hill. They kept that shot.”
As if re-shooting a new film once wasn’t enough, the cast and crew had to go back two more times for reshoots, but they all got a keepsake during the final set of reshoots. As Eisenberg remembers it:
“The crazy part is that after we filmed the whole second version of the film, we had to go back for a third re-shoot which lasted about 20 days. That’s like the length of an independent movie. And then we had to go back a fourth time for like 10 days and they made shirts that said Cursed 4: Back for More.”
Not lost on Eisenberg is the fact that Cursed had a rather apt title. As mentioned above, the film was panned by critics when the film was released in February 2005, with many reviews bringing up the “cursed” production of the film. Eisenberg is fully aware of the irony, and concluded the interview with one final piece of advice:
“I’m not a big believer in…what is it? Semiotics? The study of meanings behind words and symbols? But anyway, don’t do a movie with that particular title.”
Zombieland: Double Tap will be released in theaters nationwide on Friday October 18.
Of all the places to find a coven of witches, the attic above a Christian youth camp is probably the last place you’d think to look. But that’s just what we find in Camp, a surrealist nightmare of feminist empowerment from Canadian filmmaker Avalon Fast.
Emily (Zola Grimmer) is still reckoning with her involvement in a horrific tragedy when she accidentally contributes to the death of her best friend, Charlie (Giselle Morison). Unable to move on, the traumatized teen takes a job at a rural summer camp, hoping to forget her own sorrows by looking after at-risk kids. She quickly connects with a counselor named Clara (Alice Wordsworth) and finds comfort in her close-knit group of female friends. But a mysterious whisper from deep in the woods warns that they may be leading her down a darker path.
Fast burst onto the scene in 2022 with Honeycomb, a psychological horror film that follows a burgeoning matriarchy. Known for their focus on “Girl Horror” stories, the talented young filmmaker tackles similar themes in Camp as Emily leaves the modern world behind to embrace a dark vision of self-discovery through magic.
Ahead of the film’s U.S. release on June 26, Bloody Disgusting sat down with Fast to chat about the nebulous nature of good vs. evil and the intoxicating power of female-driven horror.
Bloody Disgusting: What inspired this unique story? Did you go to religious summer camps when you were young?
Avalon Fast: I did. I went to lots of different summer camps, but all of them were primarily Bible camps. The memory I have of camp is kind of strange. I was very homesick as a kid, and I didn’t necessarily enjoy all my time there. I definitely remember meeting some interesting girls at camp and having that presence of religion hovering around the whole experience.
BD: I really love the film’s gorgeous natural setting. Camp is the kind of surrealist nightmare that you don’t just watch. You feel it too. How did you approach creating this world?
AF: Well, a huge part of it was working with my cinematographer Eily Sprungman, who’s a very close friend. We spent years prepping, shot listing, storyboarding, and mood boarding. She’d had a similar experience to mine. We grew up around the same place, and so we understood each other’s visions from the get-go. But there are so many other pieces that came together. The costuming, the art, and the animated sequences were done by Sofiya Iurkevych. One of our producers, Taylor Nodrick, was obsessed with shooting on Super 8 film. I’ve always wanted to as well, so all the memory sequences were shot on Super 8. It was just a lot of people with an understanding and a vision for what this project was. I’m really happy with the way it turned out.
To the extent that you’re comfortable sharing, what’s your relationship to witchcraft, and what does Camp have to say about modern witches?
Well, that’s the question of Camp. It’s not that I don’t resonate with any of these things, but I specifically wanted Camp to be a little bit ambiguous around what witchcraft looks like. Is this witchcraft? Are these girls witches? Emily explicitly asks if that’s what’s happening here, and the answer isn’t yes. The film isn’t going to answer that question for you. My relationship to magic and witchcraft? It’s tough. I feel like there’s so much magic, connection, and spirituality that comes from these friendships, the closeness of these women, and what’s happening around them. A lot of what Camp is trying to say or show is just that magic can come out of friendship.
I loved watching these female friendships develop. And you’re right. No one ever says the word “coven,” but you can feel that connection, and you can see a change in Emily as those relationships grow. I’m also really fascinated with the way Camp plays with the idea of good and evil. At one point, Clara says, “Maybe God drew us to the devil,” which stopped me in my tracks. How do you view witchcraft or the magic these girls are experiencing in regard to good and evil?
That was such a huge part of the script’s construction. The story is really trying to keep a balance between those two things. I like asking people if they think these girls are good or bad, because I feel like a lot of people come out of the film thinking one or the other. They’ll say things like “thank God Emily found her people” or “God, I really wish she’d gone home.” I just don’t think there’s ever an answer. I wanted to explore the idea of going down the wrong path, especially coming out of grief. What makes you a bad person, and does healing mean you’re looking to become a better person? I don’t have an answer, but I do feel like that’s a huge part of what Camp is asking. What is good? What is bad? Why did God bring me to the devil?
Yes, because this is all happening at “God camp” in Emily’s words. So how can both of those things exist at the same time? Along those lines, I’m also fascinated by the voice Emily hears in the woods. Without spoiling too much, what is this voice asking, and what is required in return?
Emily comes to camp with a shout into the void, asking can anyone hear me? Does anyone want to? And it’s answered so clearly by these girls, specifically responding only with love, care, support, and trust. It’s like her prayers were answered. It doesn’t mean that everything is going to be alright, but Emily is looking for peace. She’s looking for a moment where she feels pure good. And I think, even at its surface level, she does get that experience.
Personally, I don’t really think people are good or bad. I think we all exist somewhere in the middle. Camp centers traditionally villainized characters, but that’s where Emily seems to find her peace, however you choose to define it.
I also wanted to show the experience of having decided that you are a bad person, you’ve made mistakes, and you feel cursed. Then when you meet other people who have done things that you would consider worse, you can actually feel good in their presence. You feel like less of a bad person. I think that’s a huge part of the story as well. Emily’s finding her version of other fucked up people, and she feels less fucked up around them. I’ve found that in my own life. It’s a cool thing. I don’t think it’s bad.
I don’t think it’s bad either. It’s finding your home, your people. We meet Emily in the aftermath of unthinkable trauma. Is this a story about mental health and healing?
Witnessing it myself. witnessing other people experience tragedy and then move through grief, you hear a lot of talk about healing or coming out the other side. There’s so much conversation around what that looks like, with self-care and showing up for yourself. I always felt really averse to it. It annoyed me. I think the beginning of the film speaks to that. The therapeutic version of what getting help looks like is obviously very different from what Camp is showing. And again, I don’t have an answer for what you’re supposed to do. But I think that’s another question I was asking: how do you heal? Do you heal at all? Is that the end goal, or are we just trying to get better? It’s something I experienced in my own grief. And the answer, for me, at least now, is just that I’m not looking to get better. So I felt like I hadn’t. I found it hard to find people to have those conversations with. And I think that’s what I ultimately wanted to make a film about.
I love that unanswered question. In my own experience, I’ve had to reframe what healing actually looks like. There’s not really an endpoint. It’s just finding a way to keep going. There’s also an element of sacrifice in this story, particularly regarding another counselor named Jo (Sophie Bawks-Smith). What role does she play in Emily’s journey?
For me, Jo is this human embodiment of Charlie, Emily’s friend. As Jo, she had a life at this camp before meeting Emily, and then was kind of taken over by Charlie’s spirit. I think a lot of people view Emily’s final choice as horrendous and tragic. In a way it is, but for me, if Jo becomes her angel, it’s almost like a self-sacrifice. Jo knows that by sacrificing herself, she’ll be giving Emily power to move forward. In the original script, the girls were supposed to bring out another counselor, JB (Aidan Laudersmith), and burn his body. But I just thought, there’s no way sacrificing this guy could give the girls enough power. There’s just no way, right? Logically, that just didn’t line up for me.
I’m glad you mentioned JB, because he has his own tragic arc. How do men factor into the world of Camp?
The way men factor into my world is so bizarre. I have such little respect for them in my films, which is something I’ve been called on. I think I have to challenge myself in the future to make a movie about a boy because, these boys … It’s not that the men in my films aren’t redeemable, but there’s no depth to these characters. They’re just treated with such disrespect. I don’t know why I do that, actually. That’s something for me to look into. It was the same with Honeycomb. They’re just such peripheral characters. I’ve had people ask about Kayne (Henri Gillespi), the scary guy at the fire, what happens to him? I just think, I don’t know. I don’t care. That’s not the point of the story.
Well, I can say after a lifetime of watching women on the periphery of the story, the course correction feels nice. In a similar vein, I’m in love with your homepage, avalonfast.com. There’s an image of girls on a film set and then a still from Honeycomb in which a blood-covered girl is screaming at the sky. And in the middle, it just says Girl Horror. It’s a really powerful statement that gives me chills. How do you define Girl Horror, and what draws you to these types of stories?
I was obsessed with the term when I started making my movies. It was something I’d come up with to kind of brand myself and describe what I was doing. Then I went through a period where I felt like it was a bit gender exclusive and didn’t interest me as much. But now I’ve come full circle on the term. I think it’s a bit of a commentary on youth and the horror of growing up female. But I think everybody can relate to that experience. I don’t want it to feel like this exclusive thing, that I make movies exclusively for girls, because I don’t think I do. I’m interested in exploring what Girl Horror means. Originally, it was just a title, something I came up with, and now it’s become something that resonates with people. You said it gave you chills. That’s cool for me to hear because there’s obviously some depth there.
Are you working on anything new?
Yes. I am actually making a movie about a boy. That’s the next thing.
That’s exciting! The more I think about feminism, the more I end up coming back to men and boys, because they have a place in the world of Girl Horror too.
Absolutely. It’s all just part of being human.
You must be logged in to post a comment.