Malevolence is the feature length debut of director Stevan Mena and is about to be unleashed in cinemas across the USA in August. The film tells the nerve-wracking tale of three robbers and their two hostages who decide to hide out in what they take for a deserted house, but discover that they may not be as alone as they think they are…

The film is being released by Anchor Bay Entertainment and looks set to be a resounding success. Festival audiences have already responded favourably and it certainly is a film to watch out for in the very near future, and will surely appeal to horror fans everywhere. A DVD release will follow, which will also be distributed by Anchor Bay – so if you can't get to a theatrical screening, be sure to pick up the DVD.

Director Stevan Mena took time out to talk to Digital Retribution about the making of the film and to share some insights into the filmmaking process.

Digital Retribution: MALEVOLENCE is your first full-length feature film - was it harder to make than you expected?

Stevan Mena: It wasn't that it was harder to make than expected, I knew there would be challenges. However it seemed that there was some sort of evil spirit on the set that just made sure everything that could possibly go wrong did, and a myriad of things we never expected. Our initial crew also contained certain people who made the already harsh working conditions much more miserable by constantly complaining about everything, and sabotaging shots to protest (like leaving ladders in the shot, smashing bulbs in our lighting equipment, or even one time stealing the negative and ransoming it back when they learned their checks would be 1 day late.

DR: Bringing the film it at just under $200,000, was there anything you wanted to include in the film but the budget wouldn't allow for?

SM: Hundreds of things. We shot on 35 because we wanted Malevolence to stand out among a sea of dv films. But the cost of 35mm film left no room for error, and many scenes had to be shot in one or two takes. It would have been nice to have a steadycam and crane shots and things of that nature, but overall I think the low budget actually adds a certain element to the film.

DR: Do you think that if you'd had a bigger budget that the film would have turned out much differently, or do you feel you got what you wanted within the means you had at your disposal?

SM: The story remains the same. As long as you can tell the story, that's all that matters. Sometimes directors with unlimited funding spend so much time worrying how to shoot a scene; they often forget what the scene is inherently about. When you have no money, all you're left with is your script, and you try to find the best way possible to convey the story above all else.

DR: Apparently, it's been said that the production was beset with problems and incidents that slowed things down, could you tell us a bit about these and how you overcame them?

SM: We could write a book about the mishaps on this set, from actors quitting halfway through, to car crashes that weren't in the script (7 in all, and we're still in litigation over 1 of them), one actor had a brain aneurism. You name it, it happened. I was arrested twice, hecklers would drive by ruining takes, the lab destroyed a whole days shoot, PA's stole cash from the set, caterers didn't show up, I got attacked by giant rats, I had a minor heart attack on the last day of shooting, our sound guy's equipment broke while out on location, so we had to dub several scenes, it went on and on, we never got a reprieve. But interestingly enough, every time something bad happened, something good followed. And that's how we were able to persevere. That, and the desire to finish what I started.

DR: Whilst scripting MALEVOLENCE, what influences did you draw upon and why?

SM: The films which inspired me, and the desire to make a movie that attempted to capture that feeling of dread those films were so good at doing. A movie where you couldn't relax because you knew that at any time the scares could be lurking. I think a lot of the horror films today let people off the hook too easily, by telegraphing the scares. They don't sucker punch you like they did in the 70's. I layered in several references to the films which inspired me because I realized that by making a slasher film, you are inherently beginning with derivative material. Virtually every idea has been done to death (no pun), so it's very hard to be original. So I pay homage to those which inspired me. Some of the references are obvious; some are very intricately hidden. But horror fans keep surprising me by finding the ones I thought nobody would get. People know their horror films, that's for sure.

DR: During the shooting of MALEVOLENCE there was an amusing run-in with local police over the use of the house - could you tell us about this.

SM: We found a house that was perfect. We asked the owner (he said he was the owner), if we could use it. He not only told us we could, but that we could do whatever we wanted to it, because he was going to tear it down in the spring anyway and rebuild. So we thought we had hit the jackpot, we went in and began tearing down walls, ageing the ceilings, you name it. Two weeks went by, and we were setting up for a shot, and the bank came by with the police. They arrested me and my Art director. Turns out the guy used to own the house, but he was foreclosed on by the bank. So this was his way of getting revenge on them. Luckily the bank was amused by the story and believed us, because they knew what a scumbag this guy was, and they let us off with just the order to rebuild what we had broken. So that set us back several thousand and several weeks. Many left the shoot at that point, fearing the film would never be finished.

DR: You chose, with MALEVOLENCE, to take the route of suggestive horror rather than graphic gore. With many viewers used to in-your-face violence, have audiences responded well to this creative decision?

SM: So far, yes. I find with too much gore you lose the audience. I love gory films, but it's a different type of film. The style I was drawing from included Psycho, Halloween, The Shining, and Texas Chainsaw, all implied gore films, nothing too graphic.

DR: The film was shot over a two-year period? did this prove to be a headache in retaining continuity within the film?

SM: Not too bad, because we shot most of the outdoor scenes at the same time. But occasionally it posed problems. However, during one month, it only rained 1 day, so we really lucked out when it came to weather.

DR: Knowing what you do now, and in retrospect, is there anything you would have done differently?

SM: As producer too, I should have been more involved in hiring the crew, and not left it up to my PM. I'd also have tried to raise more money, not use my own credit cards. That was really stupid, because it ruined me financially.

DR: What projects do you have lined up for the future?

SM: I have several lined up, but my future depends on whether or not Malevolence gets seen and does well. If not, it's going to be an uphill battle to work again, since I have no more credit cards to max.

DR: All that remains is for all of us at Digital Retribution to wish you every success with your film and with any and all future endeavours. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us, it's greatly appreciated.

Special thanks go to Joe Venegas (Creative Talent Communications) for making this interview possible.