‘Speak No Evil’ Writer-Director James Watkins On Tackling A Reimagining And Making Scenes “As Excruciating As Possible”

SPOILER ALERT: This interview contains plot details for the film Speak No Evil

Blumhouse and Universal’s latest horror-thriller Speak No Evil, written and directed by James Watkins, is a reimagining of a Danish film of the same name by Danish filmmaker Christian Tafdrup. The story follows a married couple, Louise (Mackenzie Davis) and Ben (Scoot McNairy), who accept an invitation to visit the beautiful English countryside and stay at the remote farmhouse of another couple, Paddy (James McAvoy) and Ciara (Aisling Franciosi) after meeting on vacation. Once they arrive, though, it becomes clear that the charming English couple are much more nefarious than they seem. 
Here, the British filmmaker talks to Deadline about tailoring the Danish film for mainstream audiences, weaponizing the song “Eternal Flame,” casting and that ending.

DEADLINE: The original Danish film only came out two years ago. Would you call your version of Speak No Evil a remake? I feel it exists in its own realm. When were you approached to make it? 

JAMES WATKINS: I’ve been in conversation with Blumhouse in different ways for quite a long time since I made a film called Eden Lake. And Couper Samuelson, a producer, we had a working relationship of trying to find stuff so that we could work together. Blumhouse has also sent me stuff over the years, and I’ve sent them stuff, but we’ve never quite clicked. So, they casually called me up and said, “Look, check this out.” And it was Christian Tafdrup’s film Speak No Evil. I hadn’t seen it nor heard of it. And I watched it, and it was a very strong brew. If it was beer, it would be like an 8% beer or something [laughs]. It’s so relentless. Eden Lake also has that kind of really dark ending. But for this film, I loved all the themes and the characters. Whether we want to call it a remake or a re-imagining, I didn’t just want to slavishly remake Christian’s film shot for shot, scene for scene, tone for tone. Because his film already exists, I recommend you go and see it. So, for this, I like to find nourishing work that will speak to me and hopefully speak to other people, and that’s what I saw here with all its themes. 

But one of my first conversations with Blumhouse was whether or not I could bring this to the U.K. That way, I could make it specific to characters, themes, humor, culture and things that I know. Hopefully, in that specificity, it’ll have some sort of universality and speak to other people. But I deliberately wanted to take it in tonally, paint it in a slightly different musical key, and lean into the humor. Because I think the humor, that cringe humor, is the flip side to the horror. So, I wanted to explore that. In the third act, I wanted to take it in a different direction from the beginning. Especially if I’m going to have American characters, this was born out in conversations with both my cast, as soon as I started talking with Scoot [McNairy] and Mackenzie [Davis], and then massively with American audiences when we started testing it and showing it. American culture is very, whether it’s your frontier mentality or your can-do culture, I didn’t believe my characters would be as quiescent [laughs]. I didn’t believe that they would, confronted with mortal danger and their child in mortal danger, at least try to run, hide or do something. Christian’s version is a brilliant satire on Danish compliance, but as soon as I changed it to a different culture, different things apply. 

But then I also wanted them to not be superhuman. In the third act, they’re just normal people trying to respond to this intense situation. And they’re very deliberately a bit rubbish in some ways, or fumbly and scared. For example, when they try to throw the Molotov cocktail, it messes up. Or Ben jumps off the roof and hurts his leg. It was purposeful that they did not suddenly become John Rambo or are super polished and know what to do. 

DEADLINE: Right. There’s that scene where Ben has a mental break and turns to Louise and simply concedes to the attack on them and their daughter because he doesn’t know what to do. 

WATKINS: That scene is really interesting. I’ve sat with some American audiences and heard from some men, not necessarily just men, that’s not fair [laughs]. But there were quite a few of them that alluded to his character being like, he’s a wimp. 

DEADLINE: That’s funny. 

WATKINS: But in a way, Scott’s quite brave in playing that character because he’s not an alpha male; he is quite beta and just being true to the character. And you don’t see things like that very often in the third act of a movie when a lead character just sort of gives up like that. Some people asked, “Well, can’t Scoot’s character be stronger?” It’s like, “No, he’s not [built like that].” Louise is the stronger one. That’s just the way it is.

DEADLINE: Can you talk about building this cast?

WATKINS: It all started with McAvoy. When I was writing the script, Jon Harris, who edited it and worked with me on a lot of stuff, cut a lot of movies with James in them. We were both like, [the lead role] has to be McAvoy, right? And so, he was my first port of call. It’s very unusual as a director when you get your first port of call; often, you go through two or three people before you get the person you want. I went over to James’ house and had a cup of tea with him; he read the script and responded, so he signed up. And then once we had James, he’s like actor bait because he’s such a good actor, so you’ve got to go, “OK, you’ve got a world-class actor here. This is going to be fun.” And so, I think I got Scoot [McNairy] next. I’m just a big admirer of Scoot. I love how he underplays everything. I thought there’d be something really interesting in Paddy’s performative character next to Scoot’s underplaying; it created an interesting tension [in their dynamic]. They were so good at creating that tension for the audience. 

I’ve always admired Mackenzie Davis; weirdly, I had seen Halt and Catch Fire, but I’d completely forgotten that they were both in it. So that was great because they’ve got familiarity. But Mackenzie has great intelligence in terms of playing someone who’s always self-censoring and ultimately isn’t. Mackenzie was so brilliant in the physical comedy of it all. She would always be like, “I’ve got this.” She’s very tall, so she was always jokingly saying, “I’ve got this long body.” So, the way she would play some of the scenes, for example, when she’s just hit Mike (Kris Hichen) with a hammer and very deliberately grabbed the yellow rubber gloves, she’s a character who constantly undercuts or complicates any notions of heroism. She’s not suddenly a ninja or a Navy Seal; she’s a terrified human being who [has to fight to save her family]. The way Mackenzie is able to use her body and play the clumsiness of it, it was very powerful. 

DEADLINE: Going back to humor, why did you decide to weaponize “Eternal Flame?” How did that come about? And how did you get James McAvoy on board to sing it? 

WATKINS: James was such a good sport about it. I had the song in mind very early. I was thinking, trying to find the song, and I thought, “Oh, it’s got to be this.” So, when we shot it, I don’t think we’d even cleared the rights. Then Jason Blum figured it out because Susanna Hoffs from The Bangles is married to Jay Roach, the film director. So, I think there was a bit of a Hollywood conversation that went on where they figured out a deal. I hope that something interesting happens. I wonder if it will change people [laughs]. It might have a moment like when Stranger Things revived Kate Bush’s “Running Up That Hill.” That song gives Ben and Paddy this weird energy while going against the moment on screen. There’s a kind of friction between the song and the moment that creates this humor. It just felt right to use the song. 

DEADLINE: Another piece of pop culture in the film is Philip Larkin’s “This Be the Verse.” Why was that the perfect piece for Paddy’s character? 

WATKINS: It felt like such an express. I’m a huge Philip Larkin fan of his poetry. It’s the notion of man hands on misery to man and deepens like a coastal shelf. It’s the theme of Paddy and Ant (Dan Hough). At the end, Paddy has this thing with Ant where he says, “That’s my boy.” Paddy also refers to his parents pretty unsparingly. And it’s this notion of cycles of violence and trauma. Also, in the end, Ant has an act of violence at the end, and it’s cathartic, but it’s also self-destructive, a survival thing. But at the end of the film, it’s not a glib thing. He’s carrying [what he did] with him. 

DEADLINE: Let’s talk about the women. Because I feel Louise, her daughter, and Ciara have a lot of agency in this film. It pops out the most in the third act, where everybody runs through the farmhouse trying to kill each other. Can you talk more about building these women since it is so different from the Danish film in this regard? 

WATKINS: I’m really pleased that you said that because it was very important to me. It was one of those things that I latched onto regarding what could be additive to the film. I thought it was a real opportunity here to explore these women at a deeper level and see things from their point of view. You’ve got Mackenzie’s character, Louise, who’s at one level, she’s a slightly anxious helicopter parent. But she’s constantly, because of her frustrations with her life and her marriage, and her guilt perhaps for what’s going on, she’s self-censoring. She’s going along with everything and really trying to overcompensate and over-accommodate. Ultimately, she becomes the one who is in tune with her instincts and comes to find that her instincts are true. Then, she’s the one with the most agency in the third act. Because for all of Ben’s notions of what Paddy is trying to tell him about what his masculinity should be, they all turn out to be completely false and full of nonsense. The alpha is actually Louise and Paddy. So, I really wanted to lean into that [dynamic]. 

Likewise with Ciara. What’s weird is Paddy and Ciara’s relationship is not [perfect], it’s deeply toxic. James and Aisling [Franciosi] were really great at building and leaning into this relationship style. There is real love there, but it’s twisted. So, what’s weird is you’ve got the hero couple, Louise and Ben, looking at this other couple, Paddy and Ciara, who actually seem to be having the better relationship upfront. It’s free and fun, and they’re probably having amazing sex and all kinds of things. But it’s a complication. And I think two things can be true when it comes to Ciara’s character. When she says at the end, “I’m a victim too,” I think she is, but she’s also manipulating and complicit as well. So, all of that just makes their relationship more complicated and nuanced. 

DEADLINE:  Yeah, when Ben flippantly says, “Fuck her,” when Ciara tries to ask for help, I felt that. I felt bad for her a little bit because she probably was taken advantage of in that relationship at first, but she was absolutely trying to kill this family of her own volition too. 

WATKINS: Yeah, it’s a play. Whatever happened to her in the past, the current situation is still a play. 

DEADLINE: We probably should talk about the absolute cringe humor scene with Ciara pretending to be sexual with him while on the date in front of Louise and Ben. When I watched it at my press screening, everyone put their hands over their eyes because it was so nerve-wracking! 

WATKINS: Yes. It’s that slightly nervous feeling of, “Oh my God, what would I do in that situation?” What’s so brilliant about the performances is that Mackenzie does this little laugh and tries to navigate her awkwardness and their awkwardness as this plays out in front of their eyes. And we deliberately played that in the edit as long as we could, we purposefully stretched that beat to make it as excruciating as possible [laughs]. 

DEADLINE: What was the challenge of creating a film like this? Anything in particular that maybe you didn’t think would translate well while you were making it, but then seeing it on screen surprised you?  

WATKINS: It was holding our nerve in terms of the slow burn for an American audience. Jon and I played slightly different music when we first showed the rough cut to Blumhouse. And what was actually brilliant was that Couper had seen it and was like, “James, why have you put that music on?” And I was like, “Well, it was for you guys.” And he was mock offended, going, “Come on, please, give me more credit.”  It was great because it was a real relationship moment, realizing we’re in this together [Brits and Americans], and we’ve got the same point of view on the style of the film. But in terms of the slow burn calibration, it was very ruthless in terms of what we threw away because you’re playing it slow, but it is always escalating. 

There were some scenes we chucked away that I love, but they were just sort of there. For example, after that scene, you and I just talked about at Mike’s restaurant, they all get up and dance. Ben, Paddy and Ciara pull Ben into a threesome-y sort of dance, and Louise is left on the sidelines. It’s a powerful moment, but we didn’t need that moment. That’s what’s great about having an editor with whom I’ve had such a good relationship over time. We can be very honest, and we’ve gotten really good at going, “Yes, we love that. But you know what, let’s just throw that away.”

DEADLINE: That ending shot of the film is interesting to me. Can you talk about why you ended the movie on a close-up of Ant? Why not the family in the car as they drive away or even something as innocuous as the car driving away from the farm? 

WATKINS: In a symmetrical sense, it slightly bookends the film with the opening, but it’s about much more than that. It was performance-led. It’s about what Ant did and where he went, and it shows for me the catharsis of the family and the emotional release of what’s happened in terms of killing the bad guys. I didn’t want it to be glib where they all go back, and they’re all at home having Christmas turkey and everything’s well with the world. What Ant has just done is survive. The family survived, but there’s a tragedy to it because of the human cost, so I wanted to lean into that. I wanted it to be true to the sadness of that final image. Here’s a boy who has lost his parents and gone through a horrific situation. He’s been physically and mentally abused and has had to commit an act of violence. So, there’s an emotional release in there that I find quite moving. But I also didn’t want people to have any doubt. They have survived and will continue down this road, but it will not be easy. 

[This interview has been edited for length and clarity]