Connect with us

Interviews

‘I Saw the TV Glow’ – Jane Schoenbrun Talks “Buffy,” Dysphoria and Capturing the 1990s [Interview]

Published

on

With We’re All Going to the World’s Fair, Jane Schoenbrun crafted an unsettling yet deeply affecting portrayal of alienation in the internet age.

Backed by A24, their sophomore feature, I Saw the TV Glow, explores similar themes of dysphoria through a wider scope without sacrificing the personal resonance.

I spoke with Schoenbrun about how the movies complement one another, recreating the 1990s on film, their love of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and more.

Bloody Disgusting: In your own words, what’s I Saw the TV Glow about?

It’s a movie about these two kids [played by Justice Smith and Brigette Lundy-Paine] stuck in the suburbs who are obsessed with the kind of TV I was obsessed with when I was a kid stuck in the suburbs, which was a trend specific to maybe the era that the movie takes place in, which is the 1990s. It’s a TV show [titled The Pink Opaque] in the vein of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that I would maybe call the “soap opera teen girls fight monsters and save the world” subgenre.

Growing up, I loved those shows. I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer in particular. I loved it so much that, in hindsight and especially as I’ve sort of come into myself as a queer and trans person, I think I clung to it as a place to put a lot of my identity; a place where I was able to exist and express a form of love or identity that I didn’t feel comfortable expressing in the environment that I was growing up and existing within.

So, in many ways, I think it’s a movie about repression. But it’s a movie that’s also speaking from within the language of those TV shows. The boundaries between the quote-unquote “real world” and this fantasy world of the show begin to bleed as the movie moves along.

BD: Did the leap in scope, budget, and resources from We’re All Going to the World’s Fair to I Saw the TV Glow affect your approach or add any pressure?

I don’t know if it added pressure. I think I was under the most pressure that I’ll ever be under making a movie when I made World’s Fair, just because it was my first time stepping into the role of director, and there was a lot of imposter syndrome to get over. I just hadn’t proven to myself that I could make a movie yet, so I think that will always be the most terrifying filmmaking experience knock on wood! that I ever have. But I was definitely aware of this huge leap in scope and budget, and also the system that I was operating within.

World’s Fair was a movie that I had made somewhat in isolation. We had one, single independent financier who was about as supportive a person as you can imagine. There wasn’t any worry that I wouldn’t be able to do whatever I wanted to do on that movie, and I very much cultivated that. I wanted to make my first movie in an environment that felt completely safe in that way so that I could do something uncompromised. But, on the other hand, it was a movie that I made with no resources, so it was inherently limited by the fact that, like, we couldn’t really afford more than two rooms to shoot in. [laughs]

I think I knew enough about how to make a movie, even from the beginning of that process, that I didn’t try to fight against that. I really tried to make a movie that is textually and emotionally, spiritually aligned with that kind of production reality. It’s a movie about amateur art making in a lot of ways, so making it in this outsider art kind of way made a lot of sense.

Similarly, when I started the process of setting up TV Glow, I knew it was a movie that could only be made from within a commercial landscape. I tried to think about knowing that this is going to be a different process with different benefits and different challenges. Like, what should I lean into?

For instance, this is a movie where it’s not so much about blending of like documentary and narrative forms that World’s Fair is; it’s much more about building almost like these paintings. I had the resources to create worlds and create landscapes and create the kinds of set pieces and images that were utterly out of range with the first film. I really tried to embrace that, while also still making something that even though the form it was speaking in was a different vernacular could still be very personal and very much something that felt like my own attempt at making an A24 movie.

BD: I think you were successful at that. Did you set out to explore a subtext of dysphoria with your films, or did it happen naturally?

With World’s Fair, it was very organic in that I knew I wanted to make work about my youth on the internet. Once I heard about the creepypasta community which was sort of the generation below me’s version of a thing that I very much was engaged in a pre-YouTube, Flash video version of the Internet that I grew up with I knew that I really wanted to make work about what it was about those darker corners of the Internet that I felt so drawn to as a young person.

I also knew I wanted to make work about this feeling of alienation that, at the time, I didn’t really have a word for but now I would call dysphoria. So much of that process of making that movie about a frustrated, young artist searching for identity through fiction was tangled with my own attempt at that; not as a teenager, but as somebody pushing 30.

By the time I shot the movie, I knew full well what I was talking about. I had come out to myself and had started coming out to the people around me, and I understood the movie as a text about the trans desire to find oneself through darker-toned fiction before it feels safe or comfortable or even possible to find yourself in your own body.

When I set out to make TV Glow, I really wasn’t starting from scratch. I remember very early on being like, “Great, now I have to totally start it over.” And then I was like, “No, wait. Actually, I just need to keep burrowing deeper into my obsessions and into the language that I am creating for myself as an artist.”

It wasn’t about the same thing. TV Glow is a movie that is very much reflecting on the next stage that comes after finding the language to explain this wrongness. It’s a movie about, once you’ve found that, what you do with it. It’s a movie from just on the other side of repression, reflecting on repression, its consequences, how it’s formed, and what it takes to overcome it in a space that doesn’t want you to do that.

In both cases, the movies and the way the way that I’ve learned to make things that feel personal and expansive and urgent to me as an artist, the movies are sort of interrogating whatever it is in my life that I’m fascinated by interrogating; not explaining an experience that I understand, but trying to understand an experience that I’m going through from the inside.

Over the last couple of years, that’s just been gender transition, so I think the work has very much been about that and will probably continue to be for some time. But hopefully the work is also articulating a world view that isn’t separate from my transness, because I’m trans, but is more than just work about transness.

BD: What was your approach to capturing the 1990s in the film?

I think one of the core ideas was sort of unearthing hidden collective memories. When we think about nostalgia, when we think about the ’90s, when we think about the language of the suburbs for childhood in American film and especially in American genre film, I like to say it’s like somebody is now ripping off J.J. Abrams ripping off Steven Spielberg. These tropes of flashlights and bicycles are so overdone that they’re almost like lazy stand-ins for a feeling that once illuminated something.

In making my own work about that space, aware of that lineage, I feel like I’m really looking for ways to conjure a similar time period but in a way that feels like I’ve tapped into something that that’s a little more unseen or hasn’t been like bled of its power to the point of cliché.

A lot of the process of that on this film was just thinking about my own childhood in the suburbs and all that remained magical about it like the inflatable planetarium that they used to bring into my like my elementary school gymnasium, or how eerie it felt going to the high school as a kid with my mom on election night to vote after hours these little puffs of smoke that conjure a powerful feeling of another time.

The other end of that is just like being hyper-aware of the way the ’90s was being reflected back to me on television back then, and wanting to interrogate a lot of that iconography and imagery with Brandon [Tonner-Connolly], my production designer. We talked a lot about full-genre production design; this comic book-style, heightened, cartoonish landscape — like something you might see, and I love his films, in a Rob Zombie film — versus the more serious, Oscar-baby period piece production design, where everything is like trying to feel like a photograph from Time Magazine from the 1990s or something.

We talked about really trying to land right in the middle of those two extremes, so that everything could have this sort of heightened sense of unreality and candy-colored nostalgia, but could also still feel like dialed into something more restrained.

BD: Tell me a little bit about the soundtrack, which also evokes the ’90s.

I think one of the first places that that impulse came from was just remembering how big of a part of ’90s television music was; like the trope of a new band coming to play each week at the Bronze on Buffy or the Peach Pit on 90210 or Buffalo Tom for some reason playing in the hometown of the kids from My So-Called Life.

I always loved that. It was a big gateway to a lot of the music that I would come to love in my teenage years. Music was such a deep and core part of my teenage experience. Making a teen angst film, it just felt like it needed to be filled with teen angst music.

Early on in the process, I basically pitched A24 the idea of making a soundtrack from an alternate dimension, like a soundtrack that could double as the soundtrack for this TV show that never really existed. The idea was that we would get all of these contemporary bands to write the song that they would have played if they played at the Bronze on Buffy.

This was just fun for me. This was a movie studio giving me a present: getting to commission music and then work with these artists who I loved and try to be the spiritual center of a huge collaborative project where all of these individual artists were writing music that was aligned with the film and that could end up forming what I think of as a very handcrafted mixtape that I can share with folks.

It’s separate from the movie itself. I really tried to treat it as its own piece of art that was going to get made, but of course it’s tied into the movie hopefully in the way that my favorite soundtracks can kind of exist as their own pieces of art but refer back to the movie, and then vice versa; the movie makes you want to listen to the soundtrack. This was the goal. A lot of hard and earnest work went into it with a lot of amazing artists.

BD: With Buffy being so formative for you, what was it like working with Amber Benson?

Such an honor. It was really important to me to put Amber in the movie. We reached out, and once she said she was interested in doing it, I got to chat with her about what it would mean to me, and I think to others, to put her on the screen in this particular movie and in that particular moment where she shows up. It was a deeply emotional experience, and 14-year-old me was very much there that day.

The idea of the movie having this very physical connection to my own youth, watching Tara [her Buffy character] and relating to that character and loving that character and having some unfinished business with what became of that character, getting that kind of opportunity and getting to collaborate with Amber was just deeply gratifying.

BD: The Coolidge Corner Theater in Boston is presenting you with the Breakthrough Artist Award this weekend. How does it feel to receive that kind of recognition for your work?

Super cool. I went to college in Boston and was like a 20 minute walk from the Coolidge, so I have a lot of formative memories watching horror movies there. I think at one point I even went to a Buffy the Vampire Slayer musical sing along there at like age 19. It’s really fun and sweet to return to that space.

Boston, for me, is a city that I’ll always associate with my burgeoning cinephile adolescence. I spent so much time at the Coolidge and the Brattle and the Harvard Film Archive during my years in that city. Getting an award is cool. I don’t know what to say about it. I feel so early in my artistic obsessions and pursuits. I feel in many ways still in the early stages of my hopefully long career making work that I am proud of.

The fact that it’s already resonating with folks and that it’s being recognized in all of the ways that it’s being recognized is just an amazing gift and so validating; but not just because it’s praise, but because it makes me feel optimistic about the chance to continue doing it for a long time. Ultimately, that’s the thing that makes me proudest and happiest: the idea that I can just keep doing what I love and telling stories and creating images that are deeply personal.

BD: To wrap up, why would you recommend someone seek out I Saw the TV Glow?

I think that a lot of movies that get made, and especially a lot of movies that get made these days in a commercial paradigm, it’s become increasingly rare for movies to be the personal vision and emotional articulation of an artist to an audience. To me, that’s so, so important in the work that I make.

It’s a movie that hopefully is really fun and filled with gorgeous, strange, beautiful sights and sounds; but I think it’s also a movie that comes from deep within my heart and personal experience. If you’re the type of person who looks to cinema to commune with others rather than, you know, catch the latest Marvel movie, hopefully there will be something refreshingly personal about it.

I Saw the TV Glow is currently in select theaters and will expand nationwide on May 17.

Interviews

John E.L. Tenney Discusses UAPs, Conspiracy Theories, and Possible Origins of the Phenomena [Interview]

Published

on

Welcome back to DEAD Time. Even if you’ve only dabbled in the paranormal, chances are you’re familiar with John E.L. Tenney. Tenney is one of the most sought-after and well-known experts in the world and has more than 30 years of experience with UFOs, paranormal research, occult phenomena, and conspiracy theories. He has authored over a dozen books and worked as a consultant and appeared on TV shows like Unsolved Mysteries, Sightings, Hellier, and Kindred Spirits.

In a previous installment of DEAD Time, Bloody Disgusting talked with Tenney and his best friend and co-host of the What’s Up Weirdo Podcast, Jessica Knapik, about their favorite haunted locations and Tenney shared the terrifying true story of an exorcism he attended.

This month, Bloody Disgusting was excited to have the opportunity to talk with John E.L. Tenney about conspiracy theories surrounding UFOs and UAPs, hoaxes, possible origins of the phenomena, and a lot more.


Bloody Disgusting: You’ve been actively investigating unexplained paranormal and occult phenomena for over 30 years, so you’ve probably seen it all. I’d like to talk about UFOs and wonder what you think about the term being changed to UAP – Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena?

John E.L. Tenney: I don’t have a big problem with it. We’ve seen the change in the moniker of strange objects before, going from flying discs to flying saucers to UFOs. So, it’s just another kind of cyclical, completely benign name change. I think the only thing that worries me about it is that people think that by changing the name it somehow changes the credibility of the sightings; by giving it this term that the government will use, UAP, it somehow discounts all of the flying saucers, flying discs, experiences, UFO experiences from the 1940s up until now.

BD: Last year David Grusch, a former intelligence officer, became a whistleblower and claimed the government had recovered nonhuman crafts with nonhuman species inside. What do you think about his claims?

JT: Well, it’s really interesting with his testimony to Congress because he used very specific language. Very specific questions were asked, and he answered them in very specific ways. So, even to your point, if I’m remembering the way the testimony went, he was asked about extraterrestrials, and he said that they had found non-human biologics. Now that term, non-human biologics, can be applied to anything that has life that’s just not human. So, that could be viruses, that could be molds, that could be spores. So, because the question was asked about extraterrestrials, and he answered affirmatively that there was non-human life, the media ran with the idea that he said that there were extraterrestrials. The majority of life on this planet is non-human biologics.

BD: What are your thoughts on the Interdimensional hypothesis and ultraterrestrials as explanations for UAPs?

JT: I think that where our research spans, we really have to kind of broaden our field. So, whether something exists in this kind of plane of reality with us or in an alternate dimension or an alternate universe or an alternate reality is something that we can give thought to and that we can craft ideas about. It’s just that the further away we get from something that is experiential and experienced by tons of people, and the harder it is to prove scientifically, doesn’t necessarily give us better ideas, right? I think that there’s really nothing wrong with the way that people have been thinking about aliens for 100 years, which are life forms that have developed technology and intelligence and come from somewhere else within our reality. It’s just as people start to research and sometimes that doesn’t seem fulfilling, or sometimes the experiencer says something which doesn’t match reality.

It’s just as people start to research and sometimes that doesn’t seem fulfilling, or sometimes the experiencer says something which doesn’t match reality, people start to jump to conclusions that perhaps it’s multi-dimensional. Perhaps it’s an ultraterrestrial when I don’t know if you need to make that leap so fast. And by doing that you take focus off of that which can be researched. We have hundreds of thousands of cases which don’t seem to be ultraterrestrials or interdimensional, and they’ve never been really well researched. And as we start to get new cases and new fascinating ways to think about them,we do kind of leave all of those hundreds of thousands of cases behind because, well, maybe it was just a hubcap someone threw in the air. The more mysterious it gets, the more those earlier cases which now seem mundane to us, which are probably very important to the formation of how we think about things, get lost in the shuffle.

BD: One of the most famous UFO stories is the Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter in 1955, which involved a group of people who arrived at the police station and claimed their farmhouse was being attacked by small alien creatures who came from a spaceship. Do you think there is any truth to this story, or do you think it was a case of mass hysteria?

JT: Kelly-Hopkinsville, much like even the Flatwoods monster in Braxton County, West Virginia, are incidents where people have what seem to be super normal experiences. They don’t make any money off of it, they actually become ridiculed in the community. There’s no beneficial point for them making up the experience. In Braxton County with the Flatwoods Monste, you have, 10 or 12 people seeing a giant 11-foot-tall creature with a burning head come down out of a UFO. And all these cases are researched, and they seem to have some physical evidence, some physical traces, whether it’s tracks in the ground or even in the Kelly-Hopkinsville case, you can actually see the shotgun blast where they shot at the creatures through the door. So, there’s something there to research. I don’t think that it’s written off as mass psychosis in the sense that how many people would willingly subject themselves to ridicule by making up a story with no monetary or power dynamic beneficial to them.

BD: That would make sense. They’re not getting anything by going public with their story.

JT: Except scorn and ridicule. In Michigan in 1960, the largest UFO sighting in American history, it went over the course of about a week and a half. Thousands of people saw flying saucers in the air. The government was called out. It’s now called The Swamp Gas incident because the government said it was just swamp gas that everyone saw. This was a really big turning point because even the people who were involved in it, once the government had said it was swamp gas, everybody, most of the people involved said that if they ever saw anything again, they’d never talk about it because paint was thrown on their houses. They were called frauds everywhere that they went. So, it’s actually like really detrimental to a person to report these sightings. And that 1966 case two was the first time that Congress actually took up the idea of investigating flying saucers. Because the Michigan congressman at the time was Gerald Ford, and he went on the floor of the House and called for investigations into flying saucers.

BD: I know you also deal with conspiracy theories sometimes. Obviously, there’s going to be conspiracy theories thrown around if the government is looking into either the whistleblower or some of these other incidents.

JT: I think that first and foremost, it’s interesting that when we look at the way it’s portrayed in the media now with congressional hearings and people of rank and people with government positions talking about UFOs, because of the way that we remember history and tell history, we forget that there have been congressional hearings on UFOs in the past. There have been high-ranking people in the past that have talked about seeing flying saucers, whether it’s Air Force pilots or admirals in the Royal Air Navy in England, this has happened before. The only difference now is the way that it’s covered in the media and our media cycle makes it seem much more prevalent than it ever was in the 1970s.

If your UFO story got told in the five major newspapers of the world, that’s a huge story. But now this one story is being retold in 700 online newspapers. It seems like there’s much more being told, but it’s really not as much as it’s ever been. And the government is bad, pretty notoriously, at keeping secrets. Big ones too. There are so many people involved. There are so many people that would have to be involved, even with things that might sound really kind of off the rails. But like when people talk about someplace like Area 51 that has, you know, hundreds of UFOs supposedly stored in it, and there’s thousands of people that work there, one of the things you have to take into account is simple things like waste management. Who takes care of the plumbing? Who takes the garbage out? The secrets would eventually slip. There are so many people involved in something like that, right? And we’re also now dealing with congressmen, businessmen, elected representatives who are of an age where they grew up as fans of science fiction.

We’ve never experienced that before. When all of the former elected officials and Air Force pilots and military officials, all those earlier people grew up, science fiction was a kid’s thing. These people now that are elected representatives and officials, grew up with Star Trek and Star Wars and watching In Search of and Unsolved Mysteries. So, when they get into positions of power, their natural curiosity is to talk about the things they have always been curious about just like us. And so, it doesn’t mean that they have any more information; it’s just that they have more interest and more personal identity attached to high strangeness than previous elected officials.

BD: That’s such a great point. That had not even occurred to me.

JT: I think it was Representative Adam Schiff, a few years ago, went on the floor of the House and talked about Star Trek and Spock, like he’s a fan of Star Trek. So, when you see people now interested in having UFO hearings, you have to remember that those people are also fans of modern-day science fiction.

BD: Do you have a personal theory that might explain what UAPs really are and where they come from?

JT: There’s a part of me, of course, that is very interested in the fact that the rise of UAP and sightings of things flying in the sky has proportionally increased with the ability for every day, normal human beings to buy objects that can fly around and flash in the sky. Drones are a good example. But I think that it’s important to look back at the older cases that aren’t so much involved with easily accessible technology that we have. I think that the UFO phenomenon, the UAP phenomenon, the flying saucer phenomenon, is much larger than just one answer. I think that you may have a multitude of extraterrestrial creatures, interdimensional creatures, ultraterrestrials, the kind of belief systems that form around mythology with different religions—I think all of those things can be happening at one time. And when you look at it through your personal lens, you might not see it as separate, individual cases, and lump them all together. So, I really think it’s important for people to look at each UFO case individually without saying, “Oh, objects must be a tic tac shape. Oh, objects must be a disc shape. Oh, objects must conform to what I think a flying saucer, UFO, or UAP case is.” The best research that people can do is to look at each case individually and uniquely because each case is unique and individual.

Obviously, not everyone is a researcher, but there are a lot of people who think that if I see a UFO, in Michigan for example, on Monday and then people see a UFO on Wednesday, in Michigan, that these must be the same UFO, when it’s two completely separate events happening. When you talk to people and drill down, yes, there may be commonalities between the sightings, but the differences are really where the interesting theories and ideas come from. Saying that everything is just a tic tac really does disservice to strangeness in and of itself. What I tell people is that when you look back on the history of UFOs, and you look at some of the UFO photographs taken in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, the ones that have remained, the ones we can’t prove are hoaxes—you have to remember that if those people did hoax the remaining photographs we have that show weird things in the sky, those people never considered that we would have easily accessible computers to debunk their photographs. So, the fact that a photograph from the 1940s or 1950s cannot be disproven with all of the technology that we have now makes those cases even more fascinating because the tic tac video might be great but I’m pretty sure that thousands of people in the country could make a video that looks just like it right now within a few minutes.

It really fascinates me that people really miss the fact that the average age for a congressperson right now is about 57. They all grew up watching Lost in Space, Close Encounters, and Star Trek and sitting around the television and reading comic books and loving it. They are the first generation who have access to power and who have had a real fandom to it.


For more information on John E.L. Tenney’s work, as well as upcoming events, please visit his website.

Continue Reading