Like a solar flare set off in a pitch-black room,
Nathan Baesel’s first starring role (in his debut feature-length
feature no less) as Leslie Vernon--a humanistic serial killer with a
m.o. which is disconcertingly ethically justifiable--is one
of the most chilling portrayals of the homicidal mind since
Christian Bale’s performance as Patrick Bateman, Anthony Hopkin’s
role as Hannibal Lecter, or--by Robert Englund’s assessment--Anthony
Perkins’s definite part as Norman Bates. The Horror Review’s
Egregious Gurnow chats with this very up-and-coming actor about Pink
Floyd, why a horror icon won’t watch horror movies, Shakespeare, and
the reason everyone is obligated to buy, not one, but two
copies of Scott Glosserman’s groundbreaking film,
Behind the Mask.
Egregious Gurnow:
Nathan, welcome.
Nathan Baesel:
Thank you for having me.
Egregious Gurnow:
First things first,
congratulations on the success of your new film, Scott Glosserman’s
award-winning Behind the Mask: The Rise of
Leslie Vernon
Nathan Baesel:
I appreciate that
Egregious Gurnow: Before
we proceed to the interview proper, let’s take a moment to give our
readers a bit more insight into who Nathan Baesel is. From the hip,
what book are you ashamed I haven’t read?
Nathan Baesel:
The book that I’m ashamed you
haven’t read is On The Road. The book I’m ashamed I
haven’t read is The Bluest Eye.
Egregious Gurnow:
Ooo . . . would have never seen it
coming. Is it Kerouac’s text in particular or the whole of the Beat
movement? What’s your two-cents on the other cats of the era:
Gingsberg, Snyder, Kesey, Cassady, and Burroughs?
Nathan Baesel:
I love jazz. I think it’s the form of
music I respond to most and because of its influence, I lost myself
in the Beat movement for a while, particularly in Kerouac. Like the
middle class white kids of the 50’s who turned writing into a jazz
solo, I’ve been trying to keep my acting as honest and impulsive as
a jazz riff.
Egregious Gurnow:
Film I must go home and watch
immediately if not sooner?
Nathan Baesel:
Das Boot.
Egregious Gurnow:
Agh! The whole crab sequence. [EG tries
to shake the heebie-jeebies off of himself.] What draws you to this
film?
Nathan Baesel:
I love stories that plug me into a time
and place that aren’t my own, where I can lose myself in a fully
realized world or mythology. Das Boot so vividly summons the
experience of a U-boat crew in the last days of a lost war that you
can smell the stink and feel the sweat rolling down in beads.
Egregious Gurnow:
Pink Floyd helmed by Syd Barrett or
Roger Waters?
Nathan Baesel:
Roger Waters. I never got in to the Sid
Barrett thing. I mean I appreciate the headiness of Set the
Controls for the Heart of the Sun and that but there’s something
much more coherent about Dark Side of the Moon and Wish
You Were Here. I guess one who pines over one who went over the
edge is more accessible than one who went over the edge.
Egregious Gurnow:
A man after my own heart. And well put
I might add. Of course, you know we’re in the minority here,
right? I have no doubt if we were conducting this interview at a
convention we’d be dodging debris and oral condemnation right about
now.
Nathan Baesel:
Yeah . . . . To each his own.
Egregious Gurnow:
Patrick Bateman or Hannibal Lecter?
Nathan Baesel:
Hannibal Lecter. He’s an icon. Like
Darth Vader. I enjoyed American Psycho and found it
disturbing, but more because it was incoherent and less because of
it’s content. Maybe I’m slow.
Egregious Gurnow:
Hey now, I won’t have anyone telling my
interviewees that they’re slow, not even themselves. American
Psycho is a mind-bender but you gotta hand it to Bret Easton
Ellis and Mary Harron, they did--much like Glosserman--posit one
hell of a social critique.
Nathan Baesel:
I should probably read the book then
watch it again. Christian Bale gave a hell of a performance though.
Egregious Gurnow:
[EG gives a nod of
consent.] Okay, good. Now that we have the preliminaries out of the
way, onto the interview: Given that not only myself but a number of
critics have called Behind the Mask the best thing to appear
in horror in the last twenty-five years, were you aware of what you
were creating at the time or was it a case of merely being content
to have fun making a film?
Nathan Baesel:
I had never booked a film before
Behind the Mask and I wanted desperately to have that
experience. I was just happy to get the job. When I got to the set
and saw how well Scott had planned and was running the show, I felt
confident that if I delivered on my end, he’d have a pretty decent
foundation to build his movie on. As I started working, I got the
sense that there was a chance that we had something special on our
hands because crew members would constantly come up to me and say,
“When I read the script I had a completely different idea about who
Leslie was, but I love where you’re taking this guy!” The
crew’s encouragement always let me know I was on the right track.
Egregious Gurnow:
When you say that you were issuing a
completely different take on the character from what people had
envisioned while reading the script, do you think they were
referring to the amiability which you brought to the character?
Nathan Baesel:
Yeah. I think most people saw him as
this big burley guy who kills people and says funny stuff now and
then. I went a different way. I wanted him to be relatable.
Egregious Gurnow:
Where you surprised at the success of
the feature?
Nathan Baesel:
Yes and no I guess. I had a firmly held
belief that if everything worked out on our end, it would translate
in turning people on. That seems to have been true to a great
extent. There is another plane, however, on which rests the ultimate
fate of the film. The general public’s appreciation of any film is
like a living organism which thrives or fails due to so many
unaccountable factors. The life of the film, once it was out of our
hands, has been really positive and I can’t say what that’s because
of. I’m grateful that it’s found an audience and that the audience
seems to be real people. People I know and mix with every day.
Egregious Gurnow:
You are a classically trained actor. Has
your time at Juilliard served you well in your transition from the
stage to the screen? What’s the biggest pro and con going from one
to the other and which do you ultimately prefer?
Nathan Baesel:
Bunch of questions. I learned to deal
with a number of styles, stories, and personalities at
Juilliard. That prepared me for the world. I don’t prefer stage over
screen or vice versa. They both have merits one over the other. Work
is work. Bills getting paid are paramount. Creative expression and
finding new and unexplored areas of the psyche are the second-most
rewarding facets of what the world of entertainment can offer.
Egregious Gurnow:
Isn’t it a pain how we must first meet
our temporal needs, sometimes . . . who’s kidding who? . . . most
of the time at the sake of the artistic integrity? But, hey, you
definitely killed two birds with one stone with Behind the Mask,
eh?
Nathan Baesel:
I was conscious of my blessings every
day I worked on it.
Egregious Gurnow:
You worked alongside Robert Englund,
another individual who, like yourself, is no stranger to
Shakespeare. Considering that your career as a classically-trained
stage actor to playing a horror icon ironically echoes his at this
juncture, did he lend you any insight into how to play the role by
either observation or in so many words?
Nathan Baesel:
He showed me what a class act is as a
professional actor. But specifically he hovered over Leslie and
finally gave his stamp of approval when he likened Leslie to a young
Anthony Perkins. That was when I knew I was on to something good.
Egregious Gurnow:
When you say he likened Leslie to
Perkins, do you think he was referring more to the girth and weight
of what Vernon represents or the scope of your performance? When he
said that, did you pause, starting to feel the heat being turned up
in that you now have a larger responsibility than just playing a
slasher killer?
Nathan Baesel:
I felt like Leslie just clicked with
me. I got him. I was never confused or unfocused about what I
wanted to do with him and where I wanted to take him. Along the way
I got nods from key people which confirmed I was right to walk the
road I was walking and his was the last, most significant
confirmation that I was creating a guy who just might have a shot at
sparking a phenomenon like Perkins did and like Robert for that
matter. I think that was our unspoken wish for the film: that
Behind the Mask would mirror those iconic films it was drawing
from. The jury’s still out on the “phenomenon” thing but it’s going
well. Who knows?
Egregious Gurnow:
You have mentioned you have an
admiration for the Bard’s works, along with American playwright
Eugene O’Neill. Now, for our horror fans who might not be in the
know, Shakespeare penned his fair share of horrific little
ditties: King Lear tearing his eyes out; Macbeth, the Scottish
slayer; Hamlet’s father taking it in the ear; the multi-corpse
pileup at the finale of “Romeo and Juliet”; and the Brit’s most
popular play during his lifetime, “Titus Andronicus,” its success
due, in part no doubt, for much the same reason that horror is one
of the reigning cinematic mediums today--the overabundant amount of
bloodletting witnessed during the play. Have you had an opportunity
to act in any of these works?
Nathan Baesel:
I’ve had the honor of taking on
Shakespeare in several of his plays. An actor takes words which are
not his own and personalizes them so that an audience is led into
believing that they are his own thoughts and feelings. The
trick is finding a way to personalize language that is archaic but
nonetheless relevant. In some cases, Shakespeare adopted dramatic
themes from ancient Greek plays to bring out the most profound human
emotions from the audience. An actor who’s worth his salt should be
able to draw from the depths of human folly and the heights of human
accomplishment to portray characters larger than life in a way that
makes the most stand-offish spectator reflect and repent.
Egregious Gurnow:
Good answer. Which Shakespearian role in
particular did you like the most and why?
Nathan Baesel:
Hamlet. The play as a whole, and the
character in particular, are so complex and unknowable. There are
just as many reads on his intentions and motivations as there are on
Jesus Christ’s
Egregious Gurnow:
And not to sound trite, but you are
chatting with a film critic: You mentioned part of the challenge to
such material is taking such words and making them your own in a
plausible, convincing manner. That said, what was your take on
Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet?
Nathan Baesel:
I didn’t care for it. I think he’s a
brilliant actor but I didn’t agree with his take. I think of Hamlet
as a man tormented. He is compelled by the fucking ghost of
his father to kill his uncle but his incredible powers of
reason make him impotent to action. I think when Branagh threw his
sword fifty yards across the court to stab Claudius in the throat I
wanted to puke in my lap.
Egregious Gurnow:
Do you see Shakespeare’s violence
carried down throughout the centuries as readily as we have the
other facets of his writing?
Nathan Baesel:
Violence is one of the qualities of his
stories which make his work continually relevant. As long as man is
willing to wage war on his fellow man over irrelevant and misguided
notions of security and piety there will always be a relevance to
Shakespeare’s plays.
Egregious Gurnow:
Nice jibe there. I like the reading of
the Bard’s continuing political relevance . .
Nathan Baesel:
Yeah, well . . . .
Egregious Gurnow:
The character of Leslie Vernon is
multifaceted to say the least. How did you prepare for a role in
which you would play a very amiable, astute serial killer?
Nathan Baesel:
simply felt that the audience would have
more of a jolt if they related to Leslie instead of reviled him. If
he’s clearly a bad guy there’s only so much mileage you can get from
that. But if he’s a nice guy, a good guy, a guy you know . . . a guy
you’d want to hang out with, then you’re taken in a much more
personal direction when the shit hits the fan.
Egregious Gurnow:
Indeed, we not only sympathize with
Leslie, we empathize with him. What’s more, after he issues his
philosophical justification for what he does, we even come to--God
forbid--respect him. Risqué indeed. We can’t fault Glosserman for
not challenging his audience, can we?
Nathan Baesel:
There’s something compelling--disturbing
though he may be--about a man who believes he’s doing noble work by
leading people through the horrors of fear to the comfort of
ultimate peace.
Egregious Gurnow:
Having said that, you accomplish the
Herculean task of making Leslie Vernon a sympathetic killer, so much
so that the viewer is unsure if what’s occurring onscreen will
ultimately wind up being a gag and then, wham, the shit hits the fan
as you said. You alluded to this earlier in the interview but how
much was already provided in the script as opposed to what you
brought to the role?
Nathan Baesel:
I had to talk Scott into casting me. My
take was different from what everyone else was doing. The script
seemed to call for Evil incarnate. I remember at the audition that
there were guys who were screaming during their
audition. Angry. Evil. I believed evil was more powerful when it
wasn’t apologized for and exercised with venom. Evil is most
powerful when it is employed with great understanding, calm,
dignity, and calculation. In short, I thought Leslie could draw an
audience in by being relatable, then turn them on their heads by
revealing his darker impulses. All the while the humorous tone could
be supplied by the absurd situation that these “normal” people are
found in. Scott bought my argument. The rest is history.
Egregious Gurnow:
Well, we’re glad he did. I think if he
would have went the route of “Evil for Evil’s sake,” the character
of Vernon might have lapsed into the rote serial killer we’ve seen a
hundred times over and the film wouldn’t have as much impact, to say
nothing of meaning. You truly flesh out the character and,
undoubtedly--to many polar moralist’s chagrin--give the figure a
human face.
Nathan Baesel:
Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader did the
same thing
Egregious Gurnow:
Let’s get into this idea a little
more. Vernon is portrayed, despite being a serial killer, as
something of an iconoclastic ethicist because, on a philosophic
level, he is volunteering to be the counter to Good in order for the
word to house any meaning and, in so doing, is willing to die for
the idea. William Faulkner once intoned that, at base, every
creative act is executed due to the artist’s ego needing to be
recognized, in short, in an attempt to validate a sense of
importance. Do you see Vernon as an egoist given that his situation
permits martyrdom to follow or purely someone attempting to, however
ironic, make the world a better place?
Nathan Baesel:
I guess it’s a little bit of
both. Leslie is very much an egoist in that he has very little
regard for the lives of people beyond how they can serve him and his
purposes (with the exception of his Survivor Girls) and grow his
legend. On the other hand, his lack of regard is based on a
thoroughly considered philosophy in which he is performing a service
to humanity and the universe as a whole by wielding fear and
death. This philosophical clarity strengthens his purpose and makes
him more intriguing, I think, than your average crazy, bloodthirsty
slasher.
Egregious Gurnow:
Well put. And I think this is the
dilemma the audience is forced to contend with as well. In this
respect, Vernon has a real-life counterpart: The Unabomber, Theodore
Kaczynski, proved to be much harder to catch for much the same
reason in that authorities had never had to capture a killer whose
modus operandi was anything other than personal. Ted had a
philosophical agenda he was attempt to meet in much the same manner
as Vernon.
Nathan Baesel:
I crossed a troubling personal threshold
when I came to that understanding with Leslie.
Egregious Gurnow:
In what respect? How did you
ultimately reconcile it?
Nathan Baesel:
It’s important to me that I never
comment on my characters from the outside but step into the skin
fully to the degree that I can. I approached the shoot feeling that
I had a lot in common with Leslie but there were a few areas I
steered clear of because why even try? I’m not a homicidal person.
I don’t intend to be one. I’ll just “act” that stuff. At some
point during the shoot, I understood that there was so much more
power in a deeper acceptance of Leslie’s philosophy. I don’t feel
comfortable saying much more because I don’t condone anything Leslie
does in the film, but when I had a meeting of the minds with Leslie
philosophically that was the last domino to drop and I was “in.”
Egregious Gurnow:
Going back to your reading of Vernon’s
motive: His philosophy is very Marxist for--like Raskolnikov in
Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Gary Cooper’s character of
Alvin in Sergeant York, or even John Doe in Se7en--he
is killing for the greater good. How do you think Leslie reconciles
the contradiction of murdering a few, which is the cession of life,
in order to improve the quality of life for all?
Nathan Baesel:
In the scene where Leslie says goodbye
to Taylor, Todd, and Doug and then goes off to do his work I had a
little moment with each of them. Knowing how everything was going
to play out, my farewell to Doug was tossed off--he’s going to live
after all--but Todd’s was much more personal and I was trying to
tell him without telling him, “You’re going on a journey. Trust
that you’ll emerge from your fear in a much better place.” I doubt
any of that comes across on a casual viewing but I tried to keep a
constant sense of integrity about Leslie so that an invested viewer
could glean those little nuggets.
Egregious Gurnow:
Clever indeed. You’ve have went on
record as stating and, on behalf of Horror Review’s readers--for
shame--that you haven’t watched many of the films that harbor the
clichés which your character of Vernon is simultaneously emulating
while turning on their head. In so doing, Glosserman deconstructs
the whole of the genre while positing a very wry, albeit
fascinating, revisionist theory that the mundane slasher flick is to
be reviewed as narratives which perhaps disclose very cognizant
killers and that the routine, uninteresting preparatory planning
stages which precede the killings have merely been excised from the
final product. Of course, this is part of the black humor of
Behind the Mask before the whole culminates into a devastating
finale but, having said that, Nathan, how come you don’t like horror
films?
Nathan Baesel:
Umm . . . they scare me.
Egregious Gurnow:
Succinct. I doubt anyone will fault you
here. Having said that, I just rewatched another mindbender in the
Behind the Mask vein: Wes Craven’s New Nightmare. In
the film, Heather Langenkamp, playing herself--that is, a mother and
veteran horror actress from the Nightmare films--goes on a
talk show and baulks at the question of whether she deems horror
suitable, for she is placed between a rock and a hard place by the
host after stating she won’t let her son watch any of her
films. What’s your take on this, will you allow your sons to watch
Behind the Mask before the age of 17?
Nathan Baesel:
Sure, if they’re up for it. My four
year-old is familiar with the mask from all the promotion of the
film. I think he thinks it’s cool. He’s very much into Batman,
another man who assumes an identity to wreak fear and purge his
troubled psyche. He might be ready for Leslie sooner than I think.
Egregious Gurnow:
Aside from Leslie Vernon [EG wryly
smiles], what has been your favorite role thus far, on either stage
or screen?
Nathan Baesel:
I did a production of Noah Heidle’s
play “Princess Marjorie” a few months after I wrapped Behind the
Mask and the character I played was completely insane. I enjoyed
that ride so much. I just went nuts and the audience went along for
the ride with me. I’d do that play again in a heartbeat. I also very
much enjoyed playing Lewis Sirk on Invasion. It was a well
done show and the story just got better and better. Had we got a
second season out of it, I’m sure it would’ve been the most
interesting recurring role of my career.
Egregious Gurnow:
What’s the biggest pain in the
ass in regards to acting?
Nathan Baesel:
[Without missing a beat.] Waiting! I
fucking hate waiting. And that seems to be all you do as a
film/tv actor. Fortunately with Behind the Mask, I was
involved in most of the scenes and when I wasn’t in the scene, I
usually involved myself behind the scenes with learning as much as I
could about the camera and setting up shots and the business of
directing. Scott was so open to input that he asked me to co-direct
a scene near the end of the shoot. Although Behind the Mask
was my first film I couldn’t have had a more thorough crash course
in filmmaking.
Egregious Gurnow:
Ope. Sounds like we might have a
burgeoning director on our hands sometime in the near future . . .
. Was it Glosserman’s influence that got you interested in the craft
or has the thought always been looming around in your mind as a
career possibility?
Nathan Baesel:
I’ve relied on others to provide the
stories I tell for much too long. I’m getting to a point where I
have no excuses now for not telling my own stories.
Egregious Gurnow:
Ten-dollar question. As you yourself
have expressed in previous interviews, many performers want to
create as opposed to merely act, to add something of their own to
the role, the prime example being Brando’s portrayal of Stanley in
A Streetcar Named Desire. Now, how does a performer handle a
situation with a Hitchcock or a Kubrick in which actors are cattle
to be pushed in one direction or another, a mere means to an end as
it where, and never permitted any creative input into the
proceedings?
Nathan Baesel:
I don’t thrive in that kind of
environment and I don’t know any actor who does. I think if the
vision is inspired, an actor will endure that kind of direction
because they believe the end result will pay off. I love to
collaborate and I love to have someone’s ideas alter and enrich my
interpretation of a character, but I wither creatively when there’s
no room for me to do my thing. In that situation, I tend to suck it
up and do what I’m told and get it done quick so I can move on and
leave the whole thing behind me.
Egregious Gurnow:
That said, if time and death weren’t a
metaphysical obstacle, would you do a Kubrick or Hitchcock film if
given the opportunity?
Nathan Baesel:
Absolutely! There are a few directors
that I’d crawl across broken glass for and those are two of
them. Just being a fly on the wall would have been enriching. Maybe
that would have been more enjoyable than being an actor for
them. Yes, metaphysical obstacles aside, I’d like to sit beside the
director’s chair on one of their productions
Egregious Gurnow:
Like writing, you don’t graduate with a
degree and start rolling in dough. As you have stated on your blog,
to an almost heart-wrenching degree I might add, you have to slowly,
gradually, and--in lieu of the threat of starvation--patiently work
your way up the ladder. The common phrase writers have is that the
tyrannical need to create winds up feeding the soul but not the
stomach. Do you concur? What keeps you from throwing in the towel
knowing that life would be that much easier if you were to take a
rote 9-to-5?
Nathan Baesel:
I have thought a lot about finding a
more stable job because my wife and boys deserve to be cared for and
my instincts as a father, husband, and a man compel me to keep busy
and work hard and get compensated well, which is difficult to do as
an actor. It’s hard to say why I’ve kept at it. I’m stubborn, that
has a lot to do with it I’m sure. I think I’m a unique talent as
well and my characters are different than what you generally see out
there. I believe I have a lot to offer as an actor and as long as
acting continues to be relevant, I’ll continue to strive to tell
interesting stories.
Egregious Gurnow:
God, if I had an award for good
answers, hands down, you’d win the sucker. Very well
phrased. You mentioned in another interview that at Juilliard that
you learned the value of the voice onstage. However, you apparently
also have a great appreciation for elocution. You are aware
you aren’t supposed to be upstaging the wordsmith, right?
Nathan Baesel:
Um, sorry.
Egregious Gurnow:
S’kay. Can you tell us a little about
your upcoming roles in Jim Torres’s Like Moles, Like Rats and
Brooke Anderson’s Off the Ledge?
Nathan Baesel:
In Like Moles, Like Rats, I play
a sociopathic assassin in a Children Of Men-type future
world. It was pretty wild. I think it’s working it’s way around the
festival circuit now, trying to get screenings and ultimately
distribution. I haven’t seen it, so I don’t know what kind of shape
it’s in, but there were some real good people on the production and
some good work done, so we’ll see. In Off the Ledge, I play a
suit-type party boy with questionable morals. I enjoyed the work and
the people but, again, I haven’t seen anything from the film, so I
don’t know how it all turned out.
Egregious Gurnow:
Sounds like you’re drawn towards
the more, shall we say, “fun” characters. Is this intentional or is
this merely how the chips fell? Any fear in being typecast as the
“crazy” guy?
Nathan Baesel:
I like impulsive, emotionally unstable
characters. Sue me. I also like to play good guys who have their
heads on straight but I don’t get the opportunity to play them as
often. I think I have a natural intensity that doesn’t suit those
guys most of the time.
Egregious Gurnow:
Where would you like to wind up
ten years from now?
Nathan Baesel:
I’d like to be able to feed my family,
pay my bills, and have several creative avenues. I’d like to be
producing my own material and collaborating with my friends and
family on the work.
Egregious Gurnow:
Where do you think you’ll
be ten years from now?
Nathan Baesel:
[With way too much verve and
enthusiasm.] I think I’ll be a superstar!
Egregious Gurnow:
A-hem. [EG still chuckling, attempting
to collect himself.] Now, however trite this might sound, as you can
well imagine, if I didn’t ask, I’d be placed on Horrordom’s
sacrificial alter: What are the chances that Leslie Vernon will rise
again?
Nathan Baesel:
If the DVD sells well, there’s a
certain chance. I know that ideas have already been circulating
around Scott and David’s heads and I’d love to take Leslie on
again. However, I don’t think we’d undertake a sequel unless the
script is as good or better than Behind the Mask. The first
was so good it would be pissing on Leslie’s legacy to set out with
anything less than inspired . . . and Leslie would never have that.
Egregious Gurnow:
Indeed. I often feel apprehensive
when a great work leaves an open door for a sequel for fear the
follow-up might lessen the impact of its precursor. However, I have
no doubt that you, Scott, and David would have no problem keeping
the momentum going and, with that said, everyone . . . go out and
buy another copy of Behind the Mask so Leslie Vernon
can rise again!
Nathan Baesel: Think
of my hungry children and have pity people!
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie
Vernon Official Website:
Click Here
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie
Vernon Official Myspace Page:
Click Here
Nathan Baesel: Click
Here
|
