‘Speak No Evil’ Filmmaker James Watkins Says His 2008 Debut Was a Reference for the 2022 Danish Film He’s Now Remade
James Watkins’ Speak No Evil will make you reconsider house-guesting in the same way that the English filmmaker’s directorial debut, Eden Lake, did with camping in 2008.
In Eden Lake, Kelly Reilly and Michael Fassbender’s characters are on the verge of their engagement during a weekend camping trip in the English countryside, but their plans for a romantic experience quickly fall apart when a dastardly gang of local teenagers disrupts their jaunt to a point that becomes deadly. Ultimately, Watkins’ film ends in a memorably chilling way that is polar opposite from your stereotypical Hollywood ending.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
14 years later, Watkins, on behalf of Blumhouse, set out to reimagine the Danish psychological horror-thriller Speak No Evil (2022), which also puts a couple through the wringer during a vacation getaway with their young child. And similar to Eden Lake, Christian Tafdrup’s Speak No Evil ends in oppressively haunting fashion. So, when Watkins sat down to discuss his American remake with Tafdrup, the latter mentioned that Eden Lake actually had an influence on his 2022 film.
“I love [2022’s Speak No Evil]. I love the bleakness, which reminded me a bit of Eden Lake. In fact, I spoke to Christian [Tafdrup] before I made the [2024] film, and he was like, ‘Yeah, Eden Lake was one of my references.’ So there was a weird circularity there,” Watkins tells The Hollywood Reporter.
Eden Lake is also one of the major reasons why Watkins decided to change up the ending of his Speak No Evil. He didn’t want to repeat himself with another artistically brutal conclusion, and while some critics might say that he went for a Hollywood ending this time around, he insists that his choices were more rooted in American behavior, something his American actor, Scoot McNairy, also reinforced in their conversations. (McNairy explained to THR that the ending of the 2022 Danish film “didn’t sit well” with him due to his counterpart’s inaction at a time when his wife and child’s lives were at risk.)
“In one of my first conversations with Blumhouse, I said, ‘I’ve made a singularly bleak ending to a movie. I want to take the characters and the third act in a different direction.’ It wasn’t a cynical thing. It wasn’t a, ‘Oh, this is for a mainstream.’ There was no mandate. It was me,” Watkins says. “In the third act, the way Americans behave and how they would respond to overt danger is very different to Christian’s satire of Danish compliance.”
Below, during a conversation with THR, Watkins also discusses his initial reluctance over casting McNairy and Mackenzie Davis as a married couple due to their existing on-screen friendship via Halt and Catch Fire. He then explains why he changed or omitted other notable moments from the Danish film.
As was the case with most Halt and Catch Fire fans, seeing Mackenzie Davis and Scoot McNairy as a married couple in Speak No Evil’s first trailer knocked me sideways. Were you a fan? Were you aware of what their casting would cause?
I’d seen the show. I haven’t watched it deeply, but I admired it. It was interesting because I thought, “Are people going to think I’m being lazy because they’ve both been on the same show?” But I really wanted to cast them both, so I kept thinking, “Oh God, is it problematic that they’ve worked together? Are people going to have those associations?” But then I just thought, “Look, they’re two such brilliant actors. I’m just going to go with this.”
Could you sense any awkwardness between them and their new dynamic in the early days of shooting?
Well, there’s definitely an awkwardness that they’re playing in terms of their characters, and that’s brilliant. They’re so professional, and while Ben and Louise are so not Scoot and Mackenzie, they were leaning into that. There’s a familiarity that they have with each other in terms of the married couple, and then they’re leaning into a whole sense of how this couple are slightly stale and have got problems. They were both brilliant at digging into that.
Yeah, I suppose any real-life awkwardness might have been useful since their characters are at odds with one another.
Yeah, but they bring fantastic acting, too. Mackenzie, Scoot, James McAvoy, Aisling [Franciosi], when the camera turns on, they become different people in the moment. And Scoot, as a guy who has a ranch in Texas and lots of guns, could not be further from Ben.
So how did you end up in a position to reimagine Christian Tafdrup’s Danish film that came out two-plus years ago?
I didn’t know the film, but I knew the good people at Blumhouse. I’d been speaking to them for many, many years since Eden Lake came out, and we’d had some near misses that we thought were interesting. And then they sent me a link to the [Danish] film and said, “Listen, take a look at this and see what you think.” And, firstly, I love the film. I love the bleakness, which reminded me a bit of Eden Lake. In fact, I spoke to Christian before I made the film, and he was like, “Yeah, Eden Lake was one of my references.” So there was a weird circularity there.
Normally, I shy away from these sorts of things, but in this case, the [2022] film is great and I could also see my way to make my own film. I loved the setup, I loved the themes, and I wanted to dig into those themes a bit further and deeper. I also wanted to do it my way and play it in a slightly different musical key. You don’t want to slavishly remake someone’s movie. You want to put your own spin on it, and so that felt a real opportunity here.
Remakes or reimaginings are a daunting enterprise no matter what, but did you feel even more apprehension about the fact that Speak No Evil (2022) was less than a year old when you got underway?
Yeah, of course. You’re making something that exists, but I also try to shut out the noise and look at the story. “Is the story interesting? Can I take it somewhere where I want to take it?” In my first conversation with Blumhouse, I asked, “Can I set this in the U.K.?” If the film had been set in America, then I would’ve had apprehension because I don’t know that world well enough to be honest about it. But by setting it in the U.K., I’ve got this specificity. I know people like Paddy. I know the world. I know the landscape. I also know Americans that have come into this world. And, suddenly, the DNA starts to change the behavior and the point of view.
In the third act, the way Americans behave and how they would respond to overt danger is very different to Christian’s satire of Danish compliance. America is a much more frontier and can-do country. I spoke about this with Scoot a lot, and he was like, “Yeah, man, there’s just no way you wouldn’t at least try.” So there’s things there that became culturally specific, and now you’ve got a Dutch-Danish film and an English-American film that can have an interesting conversation with each other.
As you alluded to, the original film’s ending is so singularly bleak that it was probably best to leave it alone, and so I’m glad you went your own way. Did everyone agree from the start that there’s no sense in replicating that ending?
I didn’t want to, so it wasn’t a cynical decision. In one of my first conversations with Blumhouse, I said, “Listen, this film is great, but I’ve done that with Eden Lake. I’ve made a singularly bleak ending to a movie. I want to take the characters and the third act in a different direction.” Again, it wasn’t a cynical thing. It wasn’t a, “Oh, this is for a mainstream.” There was no mandate. It was me. The theme of compliance plays when everything is subtextual and under the surface, and everybody is maintaining a facade of politeness. But once you reach a point where somebody is pointing a gun at you, the rules of polite society shift into the rules of the caveman or the Wild West or something different. You’re dealing with a different dynamic. So it’s no longer about whether they can polite their way out of there. It’s clear that they can’t. But I still thought the characters should have agency in that world, and I thought American characters and American audiences would want that.
I remember watching the original and yelling at my screen for the characters to do something, anything, so I’m glad you made that point about agency.
Thank you.
What was your argument against recreating a version of the shower scene? Would that have been one-too-many red flags for Louise? (In the original, Louise’s shower is interrupted by Patrick/Paddy, who proceeds to brush his teeth without saying anything first.)
Yes, basically. We shot it, but it was exactly that. There’s quite a few scenes, little moments, [that we cut] if I felt it was reiterative. I’ll give you another example. When both couples drive to the seaside and go to Mike’s coastal cottage, they have a very awkward dinner, and the sexuality of Paddy and Ciara is very much in Ben and Louise’s face. “Black Velvet” then starts to play, and we shot two-and-a-half minutes of Paddy and Ciara dancing before Ben and Louise joined them. Paddy and Ciara then folded Ben into an embrace that was almost like a threesome. (Laughs.) I loved it, and it was some of my favorite stuff in the movie, but it was reiterative. It was basically echoing the same beat that we’d had before.
There’s another moment after Ben and Paddy, in their bromance, screamed on the hillside. I shot this stuff that I loved with Ben and Paddy doing donuts in the car on a field. They were driving around, Dukes of Hazzard style, and jumping out of the car and taking turns driving. [Editor] Jon Harris had a brilliant montage to Spandau Ballet, but it was reiterative. So I am very aware of the audience, and even though a scene might be fun, you unconsciously feel that you’re not going forward.
With Louise already looking for any reason to leave, is that why you also turned Paddy’s “I’m not a doctor” moment into a joke? (In the Danish film, he admits he lied in order to make a strong first impression.)
Yes, I think so. It’s very hard to come back from that. Likewise, when Ben and Louise come back to get Agnes’ bunny, there’s this whole thing about how Paddy and Ciara lost a daughter. It then changes the energy and makes [the Daltons] feel bad for leaving. At that point, you’re questioning what you would do, and there needed to be just enough [reasonable doubt] so that it’s credible. Suddenly, Ben and Louise were thinking, “Oh shit, are we the assholes here?”
There’s a very disturbing implication to Paddy and Ciara’s marriage, specifically the “17 years” line and a couple other moments. Is their relationship Stockholm Syndrome on steroids?
Yeah, it’s complicated, isn’t it? There’s clearly a dark, abusive, coercive, problematic thing within their relationship, but there’s a love, as well. I think the two things can coexist, and James and Aisling wanted to play that and ground it. There’s an irony in that you’ve got the bad couple — and they are bad — but they love their relationship. They’re having a great time, and they have great sex and whatever. And then the good couple is looking to them, because they are calcified and struggling. So, yeah, nothing is black and white, and without shying away from the horror, it’s also saying that two things can actually be true at once.
To me, this movie is about the virtues of therapy. The role of the stuffed animal and the primal scream scene are both therapeutic, and while Louise’s confession scene next to the car has a dual purpose, it’s therapeutic, as well.
Yeah, absolutely. Honesty is a theme there. Are people being honest with each other? And therapy is a big part of that. It’s about trying to look at yourself and say, “Is my image or what I’m projecting out into the world the same as how I feel?” And Paddy plays with that in many ways.
How will this experience inform whatever it is you do next? What will you take with you?
Well, I don’t know what I’m doing next, but what I’ve loved about Speak No Evil is the conversation that you can have with an audience in terms of giving them a real roller coaster ride. I’ve loved scratching away in this sandpit of everyday life’s horrors and how we live in an age of anxiety and how we can explore those anxieties. Beyond the serial killer of it all, there’s enough tension and anxiety just in how we live now and how we interact with each other, so that’s an area that I’m really interested in and want to keep trying to scratch away at.
Lastly, did you draw on any of your own horror stories as a host or houseguest during the making of Speak No Evil?
I’ve been in situations, not as a houseguest, but I’ve definitely been in situations where I’ve been with a Paddy-type person. They’re great for five minutes, but you don’t want to sit with them all night. We’ve all been with the life and soul of the party, but after a while, everyone’s like, “Oh God, can I get away from Nathan?” I don’t know anyone called Nathan who’s like that, but yeah, I definitely [channeled] that vibe.
***
Speak No Evil is now playing in movie theaters.
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
Sign up for THR's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Solve the daily Crossword
