Are you a fan of the beloved SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK book series by Alvin Schwartz with those unforgettable illustrations by Stephen Gammell? Were you one of those teens (or adults) who combed libraries and bookstores for the series when the books were banned from some library shelves? Or were you one of those waiting in line at the bookstore on publication days? In spite of, or despite, efforts by many over the years to remove the three-volume SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK book series from our culture (these are some of the most banned books of modern times), the books have not only survived, but thrived, impacting so many aspects of our lives be it in literature, film, art, pop culture, and above all, inspiring kids to read. But what is it that makes SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK such a compelling part of the fabric of our lives?
Enter filmmaker CODY MEIRICK who like so many, was weaned on Schwartz’ horror stories and is to this day a huge fan of the works. Because of his own love of the books, Cody became passionate about not only delving into the story behind the books, but the decades since their release and how they have impacted the culture at large. And that brings us to Cody’s new documentary, SCARY STORIES.
Researched, developed, shot, and edited over an approximate five-year time period, SCARY STORIES boasts more than 40 interviews, including those of Alvin Schwartz’ family members, most notably his widow, his son Peter, his daughter and his grandson Daniel. We also hear from notable YA “horror” authors R.L. Stine of “Goosebumps” fame, as well as Q.L. Pearce. What is quite interesting are multiple discussions on the origin of Schwartz’ scary stories within American and urban folklore as we hear from not only the family but folklorists who talk about the history of these “myths” which have imbued the fabric of mankind since before man could write.
Cody also spends a great deal of time covering Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations, celebrating them with animated segments and transitions, as well as traveling to different art galleries and shops and even tattoo parlors speaking with artisans and fans alike who have been inspired to create their own art based on Gammell’s work. Standout is the work of cinematographer Brenton Oeschsle when lensing the various pieces of art and sculpture, adding even more emotional texture to the pieces.
Where SCARY STORIES really digs into eye-opening discussion, however, is with the objective presentation of the various periods during which attempts were made, and often successfully made, to ban the books. From librarians to PTA members involved at the inception of the brouhaha on the books’ releases, Cody creates a tapestry of interviews, enticing visuals, archival footage, and commentary peppered throughout that is thought-provoking and well balanced. Adding a third eye to the proceedings are thoughts from YA novelist Bruce Coville (“Aliens Ate My Homework”; at one time in his life, a gravedigger) as he talks about the philosophy found within horror.
With quality production values from start to finish, the icing on the cake for the documentary is E.K. Wimmer’s score which plays hauntingly from beginning to end of the film, heralding a constant, yet subtle beat, reminiscent of a heartbeat or footsteps in the dark night.
I spoke with CODY MEIRICK in-depth about the making of SCARY STORIES. Passionate, enthusiastic, and energetic about the documentary, as well as the books themselves, after watching the documentary and speaking with Cody, it’s easy to describe SCARY STORIES as a celebration and seminal thesis on SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK. It’s very easy to understand why these books have moved generations of pre-teens and teens (and adults) alike. They see the beauty of each story intertwined with the mystery and a little bit of fear.
Take a read for yourselves and see what you think. . .
I am enamored with your documentary, Cody. The amount of research and detail that you put into this makes it so insightful, but then also the cinematic value of it with the lensing of the artwork, the sculptures, the tattoos, the insertion of the pen and ink drawings and animation, and then, of course, Wimmer’s incredible music through the whole thing. It’s a wonderful cinematic experience.
Thank you. Thank you. It was a long time in the making, but it’s good to finally get it out there and have people take a look and see what they think and that sort of thing so thank you. Thank you.
How long was this project? Just the amount of the historical research you went into, going back to librarians and the days of the schools removing the books from the libraries and the book
Well, I mean, from start to actual release, it was about five years. A majority of the actual filming took place over a span of about three years, or three summers basically. There’s pros and cons to it. Would I have liked to do it all at once, because a lot of people have been waiting for years because I first announced I was doing this almost five years ago? Yes. It would have been nice to have it done and not be waiting, but the same time, there is some benefit to having it take some time, having it be done independently, pretty low budget, so I couldn’t fly around and do everything I wanted all at once. There’s some benefits [to waiting] because some of the stories that came my way, things like librarians having experiences and that sort of thing, kind of happened over time and so I was able to weave that in.
And of course, the one former PTA person whom we hear from sporadically throughout the documentary and then she actually sits down with Peter Schwartz, Alvin’s son, to discuss her thoughts which remain to this day. I just wanted to slap her upside her head from beginning to end!
Yes, Sandy. Yeah, that was a very interesting experience for sure. It was important to me because I remember early on it was a question of, “Okay, how easy is it going to be to actually talk to someone?. I knew this was going to be fairly celebratory of these books so it’s not an easy thing having someone get in front of the camera and have a different viewpoint, but it worked out and I think it makes for definitely one of the more interesting moments.
You truly have objectivity throughout the film which surprised me. These books have always been, either you love them or you hate them. There is no middle ground with the “Scary Stories” series.
It is fairly celebratory, but at the same time, I do think there is room for a discussion and a civilized discussion around, “Okay, on the other side, these people, they won’t call it banning. They’ll call it age appropriateness.” I get that, and to be honest, you can put it that way and there is a discussion to be had. I’ve often said I have an eight-year-old, and he’s terrified of all kinds of things that he doesn’t watch. He’s not interested in scary books or scary movies, or anything. He has no interest in it. And I get that so, am I insisting that he read these books? No. But at the same time, am I going to his elementary school and saying no one, none of the other kids should have access to it, even the kids that are in sixth grade, so on and so forth? I won’t do that. When we live in a society and we’re all going to the same public schools, or most of us are, we have to have a discussion here about what is appropriate at what ages, and how it’s okay for parents to limit what their kids do, but that doesn’t mean you have to make the decision for other parents.
The American Library Association have for decades been kind of advocating this more or less. It’s more a matter of having the issue put in front of people’s faces because what they’ll say is a vast majority of the time this is quietly done and there is no discussion. Books are taken off bookshelves and there’s no one having a debate about it. It just happens. A vast majority of the time it’s not reported and so on and so forth. So with this documentary the goal was to say, “Okay, here’s a very popular title, I know it’s very popular, I know I can get a lot of people talking about it and nostalgic about it,” and that’s great and that’s what a certain percentage of the documentary is about. But also the goal was to kind of pivot and say, “Okay, here’s something… They were also taken off bookshelves and that’s a discussion to be had and to raise awareness about how it happens, and so on and so forth.”
I’m glad that you did that because when people think about the banning of books and pulling things off of bookshelves, they think of things like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, but this is very much prevalent in the 21st century with books from the 1980’s, a series from the 80s that’s so beloved.
People talk about burning books. Well, no, most of the time no one’s actually burning books. They’re quietly taken off bookshelves and there’s no discussion. No one knows about it. It just happens, right? It’s like in the animated segments of the film with the librarian and she has been insistent that these books stay on the bookshelves, even if her job was at stake and so on. It’s a single book, and so I can’t blame [librarians] too much for trying to protect their own job by removing a book, rather than trying to fight it. That said, who knows how many times that’s happened and we just don’t know about it.
How did you go about developing your throughline of the documentary because you did shoot it over a period of several years, and you’re also the editor? Were you editing as you went, or did you wait until you accumulated everything to put together this throughline, and then decide where you’re going to put in this incredible animation that stays right in tune with Gammell’s illustrations? I’m curious about that directorial process for you.
I always wanted to do animation, I knew I couldn’t adapt the story to the animation, which was a question a long time ago. Of course, now [Guillermo del Toro] is adapting these books into a much larger film than this documentary is. So I can’t adapt in any way, shape or form, but again, I wanted to have some kind of animated segment, so what is that? I got that interview somewhere in the middle of it with the librarian who had a story and I had her tell her story because she had it in a blog post. So, I was like, this is perfect. I want this on camera. This is just a wonderful story that illustrates so many things. So, I got that along the way in amongst many other interviews. And then at a certain point I said, “That’s a perfect story that I can just animate the whole thing”, and that’s not an adaptation, but again, it’s adding what I feel like a lot of people wanted to see which is these illustrations, the style of these illustrations animated. So that was a really interesting way to do that. And just in the way she told it, I could see how I could segment it out. It added some drama; that’s the thing with documentaries, you’re trying interesting ways of capturing the audience and keeping them there and creating some drama. And in this case, you could argue from another different perspective that I added the drama myself, but at the same time, you could imagine what she was feeling back then when she could very well have been fired, could have had issues with her employment, all because of these books. I thought it was an interesting throughway, and then also, of course, you had that twist at the end, right? I thought that was just a kind of interesting way to end that particular story. As far as editing, it’s a little bit all over the map, which is to say some things like visiting the woman who had tattoos and stuff that was done all in one place, and that was just a nice little segment, so, of course, that was something that was helpful, especially when talking about the illustrations and how impactful they have been for people and stuff so. That was a learning process for me as far as I’ve edited a lot of short-form stuff and told a story in three minutes. It’s another thing telling a story over an hour and 25 minutes.
That’s absolutely right. I have to ask you about the music because you have music through this entire documentary. That’s not something we see all the time. It’s very rare. But what you also do with the music you have, Wimmer created that synth sound that always adds an element of creepiness, but there is also within the structure of the music, there is a constant beat, like footsteps, or a heartbeat. I found that so fascinating and intriguing. Was this a conversation you had with him in coming up with the music? I’m curious how this sonic element came to be.
It was great from the get-go talking with him because when I suggested I wanted something very synthy 80’s, John Carpenter, he described it as John Carpenter! I threw out a couple of other examples, but when he said John Carpenter, I was, “Oh yeah! That too!” Absolutely, very 80’s synth stuff. He loved it because he’s done music for other films and documentaries and stuff and he always wants to do that. So when I suggested it, he was like, “Oh yes! Absolutely!” I definitely do think this is where we actually adapted this basically three songs in the “books”, we would call them books, and I said that I wanted him to adapt those into a score at least for a segment or two, that sort of thing. And it’s there! The little jingle you hear? That’s essentially an old woman’s skin and bones. That’s the same thing with the cemetery song and then there’s even another one. But that was something that was very intentional with different ways of doing that. A lot of it though was him just having fun, going wild, definitely experimenting with different paces and that sort of thing, which was really helpful from a storytelling perspective. He says this was one of the easiest ones he’s done, partially because, like I said, we were very much on the same wavelength at an early point.
by debbie elias, exclusive interview 04/25/2019
