A young woman, Marnie Watson, is granted early release from her prison sentence for manslaughter (killing her husband – a violent NYC cop – in self defense) on condition she wear an electronic ankle bracelet and remain within her home, effectively under house arrest, for the remainder of her sentence. Her late husband’s partner keeps tabs on her from a patrol car parked across the street, hoping she’ll violate probation and he can send her back to prison. But the 100-foot radius her ankle bracelet allows isn’t the worst of her problems. Her dead husband --now a malevolent ghost--is still in the house, where he died -- intent on savage revenge.

BD: First of all, welcome back!! It has been a long 12 years and your new film, 100 FEET, is finally making festival rounds! How does it feel?

ER: Terrific.

BD: Can you talk about the process of getting 100 FEET behind the camera after such a long time?

ER: Don’t know why this one moved forward so quickly. I wrote the script on spec a few years ago and it was set up 6 months later. Because other films I’ve done have taken up to 10 years to set up, I never know which one is going to move forwards first and just kind of stick in there with him. This one was written with the simplest production parameters imaginable-—a woman in a house with a ghost-—so I could make it at whatever budget they gave me. In fact, it wound up being budgeted very comfortably.

On “100 FEET” we went old school and back to classic thrillers where the reliance is on suspense, tension and suggestion rather than body count to keep the people on the edge of their seat. That said, there is one scene as bloody and horrific as you’ve seen lately in the film, but the rest of the picture doesn’t prepare you for it. I think the script’s elevated approach made it attractive for the producers because it was different from all the gory films out there, and that’s why it got made so fast.

BD: Did you always intend on directing the film?

ER: Sure. I’m good at films with a handful of characters in a mano a mano confrontation in a contained setting, and experienced in the challenges this type of material presents visually and dramatically.

BD: Where did the idea come from? What inspired it?

ER: The J Film ghost stories and, don’t laugh, Martha Stewart. I admire the convincing gritty reality of the Japanese Ghost films like “JU ON” and “THE RING,” and wanted to try one of those. When a few years back, Ms. Stewart was under house arrest and the whole electronic ankle bracelet thing was in the news, I found my hook.

The big difference between “100 FEET” and the J Film ghost stories is that in the Asian ones the ghosts are unreasoningly malevolent. They will kill you even if you didn’t do anything to them because you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Ghost in “100 FEET” was killed by his wife who is the protagonist, so the haunting is very personal. The spirit has a Legitimate Grudge, if you will. Many people who see the film sympathize with the Ghost on certain levels, as they should. The story offered an opportunity to create a three dimensional flawed female protagonist in the Hitchcock tradition.

BD: The movie is quite frightening, is it harder to write scares or direct them?

ER: The script is everything, in terms of designing the scares. Directing is about the proper technical execution of the scares, so you don’t let the script down. The writer haunts the director like a ghost.

BD: What goes into making a ghost film scary, considering how few are…

ER: You need a scary ghost, of course, and that was the biggest job to properly execute on this show. Ghosts are tough.

Mostly, it comes down to manipulating audience expectations. You want to hit them when they don’t expect it and not hit them when they think you will. In this movie, the audience and the heroine never know when the Ghost will strike, keeping them nervous and off balance. Viewers tell me after seeing the film they never saw the Ghost attacks coming.

A good horror film, ghost or otherwise, has got be convincing and believable so the audience suspends their disbelief. The characters need be authentic and react as real people do. Then you got ‘em.

BD: Did you struggle with the idea of having to use CG vs practical for the ghost? He’s still insanely creepy…

ER: We used both. The core of the ghost effects is actor Michael Pare in practical special effects makeup, and his ferocious performance is the engine of the character. Mike radiates pure states of rage, hatred, fury, violence and pathos. I cast him because he is one of the few actors who can act just physically without a word of dialogue and this Ghost doesn’t speak. Mike viscerally projects these Japanese Kabuki theatre style emotional colors. Originally, I was going to go full “JU ON” with just Pare in makeup. But in post we decided the ghost needed a some visual effects treatment to make him more translucent and ephemeral. We did some VFX enhancement on the ghost, but the main element remains 75 percent Pare in makeup. The effect could not have been created effectively just using CGI.

BD: Famke Janssen is such a wonderful and unique casting choice, how did she come aboard?

ER: The thing you worry about in a film with a woman alone in a house with a ghost is casting an actress the audience will want to watch for two hours and not get bored with. Just casting a beautiful damsel in distress with limited performance range would have gotten old fast, so that ruled out a lot of actresses. There were times casting, it was like, “what was the writer thinking?” Could this guy have made this any more difficult? But Famke is a great combination of beauty and depth, so she was ideal.

Anyway, we sent the script to Famke and she read it and was right away determined to play the role, like it was hers and nobody was going to take it from her. She and I met and she impressed me with her intelligence and fearlessness, in terms of embracing the flaws of the character and wanting to play a real woman. The interview was for her too, of course. The natural concern of any star working with a writer/director that he or she will respect their instincts and be open to their ideas and not shove their writer preconceptions of the character down the their throat. And right they are. The actor has to be able to play the role in a way that is organic for them in order for it to be real on screen.

Let me say it was an acting triathlon for Janssen. She is in every scene and almost every shot and she has tremendous technique, preparation and stamina. Famke was a creative partner in every way on “100 FEET.” She played the hell out of the role and I love her performance in the film.

BD: What exactly took so long for you to return to filmmaking, and to the genre (we missed you!!)?

ER: It can take a long time to get films made, and then it can happen very quickly. During the last period I should mention I wrote and developed many of the scripts that are in my pipeline now, so it wasn’t exactly non-productive.

BD: According to the IMDB, you’re back with a vengeance and have another two films in the works, NIGHTLIFE and STOPPING POWER. Can you talk a bit about those?

ER: “NIGHTLIFE” is a contemporary vampire story that is a front burner project of mine that looks like it may go soon.

“STOPPING POWER” was an original script of mine in production last year in Berlin with Jan De Bont directing and John Cusack starring, budgeted at 60 million. Intermedia’s financing fell through the second day of photography and they pulled the plug. I may get the script back and direct it myself, see if Cusack is still interested. It’s a big hi-octane car chase thriller but DeBont had it way overbudgeted. I can film it for 20 million, which is how it was written. A car chase action thriller would be a fun change of pace from horror.

BD: Do you have any casting ideas for NIGHTLIFE?

ER: Well, this changes from week to week, but since you asked, today…

I’d love to cast John Rhys Meyers from “THE TUDORS” as Ethan. He is one of the few young actors with the real sexual edge, charisma and menacing authority to make a great vampire. Rose McGowen is the perfect Stephanie. Don’t know about Vickie. I really like Laura Ramsey, or may go with an unknown. We’ll see.

BD: Vampire films are notoriously bad (sans NEAR DARK), what are your plans for NIGHTLIFE? Will it be fun, violent, scary? What type of mythos will be used?

ER: “NIGHTLIFE” is the “BASIC INSTINCT” of vampire movies. This one is highly erotic and sexually charged, which is one of the reasons it’s set in modern day San Francisco. The film is very graphic in terms of nudity and gore and deals a lot with the erotic aspects of the vampire mythology in a bracing way. It will be scary, violent, sexy, romantic, and startling and provocative. It treats vampires as if they really existed and avoids the clichés, such as wooden stakes, crosses and garlic, etc. And it will be a lot of fun, as it is, after all, a vampire flick.

BD: Do you have anything else in the pipeline?

ER: I plan to direct a film of Jack Ketchum’s “OFF SEASON” with a script by producer Nick Koff. It’s about a group of people in the woods of remote Maine who face off against a pack of cannibals. The book pretty much set the bar for extreme violence back in the 80’s in its convincing portrayal of cannibalism and terror. But it is a very classical setup and the movie is going to be a 100 percent convincing and horrifically gruesome. Ketchum I have known each other for 30 years and we have been talking about making this film the entire time.

It’s great for me to direct somebody else’s script, an adaptation of such a good book, and just direct the picture. I never planned to write and direct every film I do, and I love directing good scripts when they send them to me.

BD: Not sure if this is something you want to talk about, but THE HITCHER remake was pretty much the exact script from your original… you weren’t involved at all, correct? Were you pissed?

ER: It was pretty much the same script as the original, minus character and logic, which is why the WGA gave me lead writing credit, even though I had nothing whatsoever to do with the remake.

A remake of a film is like a film of book in that it doesn’t change the source material one way or the other, so who cares? The original “HITCHER” is a classic that has stood the test of time and nothing changes that. If anything, the remake brought the original fresh attention.

The problem with remakes, as many will agree, is films should only be remade if the filmmakers are remaking a bad film or can give the original a new, unique spin. The problem with “THE HITCHER” remake was it stayed so close to the source material, what was the bloody point of remaking it?

BD: Now Platinum Dunes is working on a remake of NEAR DARK, how are your feelings about that? What’s next, BAD MOON – BODY PARTS even?

ER: My sense is “NEAR DARK” has been ripped off so many times by other movies with its Southwest vampire/western elements that a remake of the original now will have an inescapable feeling of “been there done that.”

But I honestly don’t care about remakes. Originals are more fun and ultimately more successful. No risk, no reward

BD: Thanks for your time!

ER: My pleasure.