THE GALLOWS ACT II Interview With Chris Lofing and Travis Cluff

Ted Hentschke |

Oct 23, 2019

Here’s a fun fact: apparently, I’m Dread Central’s resident expert on The Gallows. This mostly stems from the amount of internet brawls I’ve been in over my predominantly positive review of the film. In my long history as an internet person, I’ve never published anything as controversial as a 4 star review for The Gallows. I will admit that at the time my opinion was heavily swayed by the negative critical consensus. My desire to go against the grain and stick it to the snooty older generation fueled my fervor and inspired my words. That being said, I recently rewatched The Gallows in preparation for this interview. And you know what? I stand by what I said. The Gallows is an effective and creative found footage film. It’s a passion project on a shoestring budget that for some reason everyone thinks was a $5 million film. Fight me in the comments.

So when we were given the chance to talk to Writer/Directors Chris Lofing and Travis Cluff, I was clearly the only man for the job. Here alk about The Gallows Act II, I somehow managed to ask more questions about the original. I’ve said for a long time that any real horror fan needs to watch both cuts, so find out why in the latest installment of, “Ted Why Are Your Questions So Long, It Makes Transcribing Impossible”:

Dread Central: Hello! I’m glad I’m getting the chance to talk to you two. It seems like a lifetime ago that I was reviewing the first The Gallows. I want to start by asking about the shift in styles. Why did you go from found footage in the first to a more traditional presentation style in The Gallows Act II?

Chris Lofing: Well, first off, people should know it’s incredibly difficult to make good found footage. There’s a misconception that just because it’s cheap, it’s easy. It’s very hard to actually make it both presentable and authentic. Not to mention how hard it is in the story to justify why the camera is pointed in certain directions, why they’re still filming, things like that.

Travis Cluff: With The Gallows, we had also never really made a film before in that style. We were completely outside of the system. We had never met Jason Blum or any of those folks. We had seen Paranormal Activity, but we didn’t know how he got those shots. So as noobies, we were just trying to blaze our own trail. And I’m happy with the results we got. It was good enough that the people at Blumhouse approached us and let us run with it. Now with the sequel, we wanted to show people what we are capable of, to showcase we can do something more traditional. It’s a fun opportunity to show a more cinematic side of the world we created.

DC: I’m just curious if there was ever a discussion about if you wanted to do it found footage or not. At this point, it’s fair to say that the age of found footage has waned. We don’t really see much new quality found footage coming out. Was there ever a discussion that going with a found footage style is a dead end in the present horror market?

CL: Yeah, that was definitely a discussion we had with Blumhouse. There’s been a lot of great found footage, but there’s also been a lot that turned out not so great. It’s muddied the waters in terms of audience reaction. It’s not as potent a genre, the suspension of disbelief just isn’t there in audiences.

TC: When we had originally shot The Gallows, we had the first version in 2012 when found footage was quite hot. That’s when we talked to Jason Blum and New Line/WB about getting some money for reshoots and to up the production values. It gave us the time to do some stuff we really wanted. We basically had to reshoot the whole movie because of the need to recast one of the characters. So that took a lot of time. And in that time, a lot of films came out that dragged down the genre. So by the time the first released and we were talking Act II, we realized we needed to pivot. It turned out to be a blessing for us since we really enjoyed making it in a more cinematic style. We’re trying to migrate more to that style. We have an axe to grind and a point to prove that we can compete in a more traditional film market, and on a much lower budget.

DC: So the people I talk to in my day-to-day are horror superfans. From the conversations I’ve had, most people’s issue with The Gallows come from some of the conventional/cliché moments. However, most of my more casual friends say they found The Gallows to be, “super scary.” Now with both the original cut and the theatrical cut available on the Blu-ray, you can clearly see that a lot of the overly expository segments aren’t in the original. How do you feel you balanced the need for mass appeal with a more niche horror audience?

CL: Everyone felt like there was a lot of golden stuff in the original. We wanted to go in a new direction without losing what made the original good. Ultimately, it’s like there are two movies in there. It’s fun to watch them back to back and see how two movies that are supposed to be the same movie can be so different. So when we talk about Act II, this is really The Gallows 3.

TC: It’s cool that with the original cut, it’s like you get an alternate movie. Anyone that’s trying to learn about it or see the process, the original is a great film to look at. We’re just two dudes in our home town trying to go big.

CL: It’s kind of crazy when you think about it. What filmmaker really gets the chance to remake their passion project? But it was a huge challenge to go back and reshoot almost every scene. And how do we make it better and more accessible?

DC: I’ve always felt like the biggest issue with The Gallows is one of marketing. It’s fallen into the footnotes of horror history as just another major studio found footage film. Despite being this Blumhouse picture that made $43 million, it’s really an indie project created by two film newbies just doing their best with what they have. It’s a passion project at its core. So with all that being said, where are you two now in your creative careers? Where are your heads at?

CL: You as much money as The Gallows made and how many doors it opened, we’re still very much the same filmmakers. We do things very indie, outside the system, keep things cheap and independent. It keeps us creative. We like to work with what we have and see what we can make out of it. Our ideas going forward are all within that framework. Tight ideas on a tight production. What we’ve gained are some great partners and friends that help us realize that vision.

TC: Adding onto that, we’re very self reliant. We want to get as many big things done on our own. We talk to people in the system that tell us, “don’t wait for anyone, just go make it.” So we go make the movie, and when it’s done they help us get it out to audiences. We talk to so many people in the industry that are locked into this wheel of development. We don’t want to get stuck in that. Over the next couple of years we have a slate of about half a dozen movies we are gonna pop out that are going to be fun to make.

DC: As I previously mentioned, the time of found footage has come to an end. But it was a glorious, beautiful time. So many shitty movies came out, but each of those shitty movies was someone trying to make their dream come true. There was an honesty to some kid with a camera just making a spooky movie with his friends in the woods behind his house. Most importantly, it was a low-cost entry point into the industry for outsiders looking to make their break. Basically anyone could do it. Now that the time of found footage has passed, that budgetary wall has once again been raised. So how does someone with no money or connections make their movie now? How does the indie new guy break-in?

CL: I think technology is at a point now where you can make all kinds of content without much budget. Just look at David F. Sandburg. He made the Lights Out short with his wife in his apartment, and now he’s directing Shazam!. It’s at the point where a creative mind can make all kinds of content, and you can cut through the noise if it’s good enough.

TC: We have a lot of short films we’ve done that are proof of concept. Now we’re holding onto these ideas to make them into our own features, but we have a lot of producers tell us they need to be made into full movies or shown in a festival. The point is, if we can make something with our friends for $800 bucks and some subway sandwiches, that’s not a huge entry point. A lot of horror is based off the idea and how you shoot it, so I’d say don’t wait. Just get out there and make your idea happen, even if it’s small at first. Whatever the quality, a great idea can go a long way.

DC: So with this in mind, I have a question about The Gallows Act II. The most effective scare in that film for me was the scene in the treehouse. For those looking to make their own horror, how did you shoot that scene?

CL: We actually shot it all within the treehouse. It was actually a super hard shoot, since we did it at night and the crane lift got stuck in the mud. In hindsight, we should have just built a set. So originally, it was supposed to be a shot of him hanging from the treehouse. But since we couldn’t get the crane up there, we had to build a replica for the drop in our backyard. And so we just did that one shot of him dropping through a trapdoor, and it ended up being a blessing in disguise since that shot turned out great.

DC: So throughout the film, we have these webcam shots. Was that from an original idea to shoot it as found footage for the YouTube era? Or was it just a callback?

TC: It’s a bit of both. We always wanted to keep some found footage elements to tie it back to the original. At the same time, the idea of a traditional “kids with camera” found footage movie doesn’t translate to the digital age. People are getting content from all over the place, be it YouTube or Reddit or Twitter. And not all the content they are getting is helpful. So we wanted to add in this idea that getting what you want in the digital age isn’t always healthy. That this overexposure to social media clout can cloud your reality. So it’s not only a harkening back, but a more realistic depiction of what “broadcasting” yourself is in a modern age.

And with that, I was out of time. I want to thank both Chris Lofing and Travis Cluff for taking the time to chat with me. If you want to check out the film and live in Los Angeles, you can attend a screening at Hollywood’s Arena Cinelounge tomorrow. Just follow the link below to RSVP!

Categorized:News