SMF: I know the easy comparison for Brooklyn 45 is to other séance films or to dramas like 12 Angry Men, but my initial thought while watching was to compare it to Tod Browning's The Thirteenth Chair.

TG: Sure. Totally. We've been very, very heavily inspired by Browning, by these filmmakers from eras where I grew up watching their movies and just eating them up when I was a kid and a teen. I think I have a very different taste in horror than a lot of people do, as evidenced by the films I've directed. But I feel validated in how many people also seem to enjoy them. It's kind of a surprise to have all these people reaching out to me going like, "I watched your movie. It was awesome. Why don't they make more stuff like that?"

I'm always like, well gawd, why don't they? I feel like maybe there are more people that are on that same weirdo page as me.

SMF: All these characters have a past. You do not make it easy on the audience. Was that ever in the back of your mind, where you thought, maybe I should soften things a bit? It felt to me like you decided to just go straight for the jugular and not take it easy on the audience. You wanted to make them think.

PG: I never want to make things easy. I think that's why Mohawk, my second film, was so divisive. It's not an easy film to digest. And We Are Still Here. I'd like to think it is a little more complex than the average ghost story, but still rather accessible.

With Brooklyn 45, war exists in shades of gray. That doesn't mean that there aren't good guys and bad guys. There absolutely are. But I wanted to make a film that acknowledged the fact that everyone has good deeds and everyone has bad deeds.

The film never takes sides on these people. The film never says these people are good or bad. It leaves it up to the audience to make that decision for themselves. I want everyone to walk away from the film with their own opinions on these people, what they've done, and what they're going to do in the future. I want you to love some of them and I want you to hate some of them.

But the film itself never tells you who to love and who to hate. It just kind of lays these characters bare, and I think that's really fun. It's something we don't see that much, and hopefully it inspires a lot of conversation because that's definitely also part of it. This is the type of film that I feel exists best when people are having a dialogue about it afterward.

SMF: You introduce all the characters in a fun, naturalistic way where we understand immediately that there's history here. But you also center things around Hock, Lt. Col. Clive Hockstatter, portrayed by Larry Fessenden.

You've worked with Fessenden before on We Are Still Here, and he's wonderful in that film. But this performance . . . I don't want to give too much away, obviously, but he's extraordinary in Brooklyn 45. What was that like on the set, watching him cook?

TG: I wrote the role of Hock for Larry. Larry's a very close friend of mine. He's my neighbor. He's my drinking buddy. He's my mentor. I've known Larry for nearly 20 years and have been a fan of his work for far longer. It was really exciting for me to work with him on We Are Still Here.

When the opportunity came to potentially work with him again, I wrote this role 100% with him in mind, playing up all the things that I know that Larry is great at. It's very fine-tuned for Larry, this role. But that certainly doesn't mean that he didn't bring his absolute A game to the table. During his big monologue, which kind of kicks off some of the bigger events in the film, everyone was just stunned. The rest of the cast, the crew, all of us. It's a four-minute monologue and he had to do it eight times that day in order for us to get all our coverage!

To be able to go through those peaks and valleys of that emotional journey that Hock goes on in that sequence again and again and again, I can't even imagine how difficult that must have been for him. But he just slayed it. Larry's a consummate professional.

Larry likes to say, "I'm a filmmaker, I'm not an actor." I say he's a lunatic. He's a phenomenal actor. I really hope that his performance in this opens people's eyes to him as a viable, larger actor, because I think Larry is constantly underutilized.

And I know that sounds silly! When you look him up, he's got 16 movies a year that he's in. But most of those movies, it's like he shows up, his head explodes, and then he's gone. Or he shows up, he has one line as the wacky neighbor, and then he's gone.

I'm like, let this guy sink his teeth into roles. He's amazing! And not only is he an amazing actor, he's so much fun to work with. It's such a joy to be able to go to set and know you're not going to get any drama from this person. You're not going to get any attitude. Nothing. All you're going to get is somebody who's like, "I'm so happy to be here." Someone who wants to kick ass and have fun. What a gift.

SMF: I do wonder, though, while there may be no drama from this one actor, or even from your entire cast in this case, at the same time, this is a very intimate character study where you have locked your actors in a tiny little room. However long it took you to shoot everything, I would hazard a guess that the emotional rollercoaster you put your talented cast through had to be, at times, quite difficult for them to all experience.

TG: Very much so. I think one of the most exciting things about this film is that it is in one room and in real time. We were able to shoot chronologically. On day one, all our actors were like, it's going to be a long time until those doors open back up. That's a scary concept.

But I always say drama on the screen does not have to equal drama in real life. You can surround yourself with phenomenal performers and a phenomenal crew that are just excited to be there, and when you call "Action!", that's drama. It's so much drama it's terrifying. And sad. People are crying and people are dying and all this craziness is happening. Then you say, "Cut!" and you're back in this wonderful safe space. You're back with these people that you know and love. Of course, these actors, as great as they are, still regularly have to go, "I need a few moments. I need to get into this head space." They can't always just flip a switch.

But God bless the fact that the drama in Brooklyn 45 was all on the screen. Just to be surrounded by actors who were having a blast, and having Larry lead the charge with his constant positivity, this certainly didn't hurt. It's infectious when you have one person who is so kind and so giving. It inspires everyone else to do the same, and that's Larry.

SMF: We have to talk about Jeremy Holm. I found it fascinating to watch Archie evolve throughout the story. I love the way that you inserted this gay character into the motion picture and that he actually felt period-appropriate; that he wasn't just shoehorned in for no reason. But what I liked even more was that this was not a gay character without his own demons and his own complexities. You did not take it easy on him just because he was gay.

TG: God no. Not at all.

I knew that I wanted one of the characters to be gay. For a long time I thought that it was going to be Paul, played by Ezra Buzzington. I thought it was going to be that character. That was is in the script phase. But the more I read the script, I just felt like it has to be Archie. Archie was the gay man. It just fit. This character has so much drama and so much baggage, but none of that drama and none of that baggage are because he is gay.

SMF: Exactly. I loved that.

TG: Me, too. What I like so much about the character is he is a lot of things, but none of it has to do with his sexuality. He is a lot because he is a human, because he has dealt with a ton of shit. On the battlefield. In life. All of it.

I think representation is so important in art. I absolutely stand by it in every way. But I don't believe in tokenism. I don't believe that representation only means that we're allowed to have golden gods. As a bisexual person, I love it when I see a bisexual person in a movie or TV show who is just a mess, who's just an absolute wreck. I'm like, there I am. I'm far from perfect. I'm a mess. There's such a joy in seeing people like me on screen. To see these sort of perfect queer people in art? That's not me. That's not me at all. People are messy.

Honestly, one of the biggest things that really kind of touched my heart over the past few years arts-wise was James Gunn's Peacemaker series, because John Cena's character is bisexual, or at least some version of LGBTQ+. But he is never defined by his sexuality. It's only used to deepen the character. You've got people who hate the fact that he has sex with men and women, but he is perfectly fine with having sex with men and women. At the end of the day, he's just a fucked-up superhero. That's what makes him interesting, not that he is a queer person, but that he's a fucked-up superhero. He's a person. What a joy that is.

While the things that Archie has been accused of doing in this film are extreme and hard, I think what people should be able to take away from it is that queer people can be pushed into doing atrocious things. Queer people can be forced to reckon with their own messy pasts because queer people are people. We're all capable of making these horrible mistakes. If his sexuality kept him from making these mistakes, that wouldn't be truthful. It would be doing a disservice to the representation that having a character like Archie in a film like this is.

I don't think that anyone in this room viewed Archie any differently on the battlefield than any other soldier. These six people grew up together, and Archie is just Archie to them. He is an amazing soldier. He's a brave American. I think those are the things that make Hock and make Paul appreciate him the most. His sexuality is literally not even something that they think of when they're out on the battlefield, and this likely speaks volumes about who they are as people being both open and understanding, but also messy in their own right.

Because all of these characters carry their own ghosts and their own prejudices.

SMF: Well, I mean, you very clearly state that everybody in the film has something hiding in their closet. There's nothing subtle about that. And, to make it even less subtle, you actually have something hiding in a literal closet.

TG: Literally in the closet. [laughs] That's right.

But speaking of hiding in the closet, and I'm going to try to phrase this properly because I think this is kind of an interesting talking point but also does kind of give away Archie's secret, but at a certain point in the film, Archie does have to come clean to Marla. He's known this woman his whole life. He's never had to come out to her as a gay man. But in this moment, he has to come out to her. After he does, she sees him differently. She's disgusted. She doesn't want to look at him.

And it destroys him. It absolutely breaks him.

To me, that's such a pained moment. I think it's the moment that hurts me the most every time I watch it. Someone that Archie loves more than anyone in the whole wide world now looks at him differently. He's not the man that she knew moments before. It's so powerful. So sad.

We talk about how many things in this film are representative of other things. A lot of this film, we're talking about a lot of different things, while also still being a séance thriller. I think this is a very special moment that won't resonate with everyone. But that painful coming out moment speaks volumes to me and was very important in how it was performed and how it was received on set. It needed to be in the film.

SMF: It's crazy, though. We're having this conversation and you're making me tear up remembering this sublime moment that happened in the film that just breaks my heart. But at the same time, you do have to still make sure that this is a sometimes goofy, and yes, gory and over-the-top séance movie.

TG: Of course. You're signing up for a horror movie. I want you to have a good time.

SMF: But how do you balance all that as a filmmaker?

TG: It starts with a script that I love and a concept that I love. Even in the script phase, it was very important for me to make sure that there was balance between the heavier moments and the lighter ones. Constantly making sure that we walked that line. Because I did not want people to leave the cinema feeling miserable. That was never the point. Brooklyn 45 absolutely has a message and it absolutely is heavy, but it's also escapism. Escapism that's also dealing with some very important topics.

Truthfully, I think a big part of it is, when you're dealing with very heavy topics, make sure that you don't lose sight of the fact that it's still entertainment. When you're dealing with very light moments, never forget the fact that you're dealing with a very serious topic. Everything is connected. I feel like if you walk that line, ensuring that the heavy moments are a little light and the light moments are a little heavy, you don't feel like you're either at a "one" or a "ten" at all times. It's balanced out. It evens the playing field and allows for more opportunities to make a lasting impression.

SMF: Where do you go from here? Do we keep having to wait five or six years between films?

TG: I certainly hope not. [laughs]

Right now, I am in my mid-forties and I never thought that I would be a father. But here I am with a little nine-month-old, and my next job for the foreseeable future is going to be a stay-at-home dad who takes care of his wonderful little human.

But I'm absolutely chomping at the bit to make another film. I would also really love to write a bit more. I was a screenwriter for 22 years, and I'd love to get back into the gig of writing for other filmmakers and just sit back and see what other artists do with my ideas. But I have some ideas that I would like to direct. I hope it's not going to be as long of a break between films, but I suppose when I'm in the cold ground one day, maybe quality over quantity is how I want to leave this world.

SMF: Finally, whether they're watching it on Shudder or catching it on the festival circuit, what do you want audiences to take away from the film?

TG: I want there to be a conversation when the film is over. It is not an easy movie, and I'm very proud of that, but I feel as though modern cinema has really trained its audiences to simply consume and move on. I have no desire for people to just consume this project and then move on. I want it to sit with them. I want it to haunt them. I want it to inspire dialogue about what makes a good person, what makes a bad person, and what are our ghosts? Are we ever able to get rid of them?

As the film says repeatedly, "They say the war's over." Says who? Is war ever over? I hope that these conversations inspire some real-world change, and maybe we can find ways to move forward.