If you're a fan of Tooth & Nail, one of the better selections After Dark Films has picked up for their past Horrorfest slates, take notice: director Mark Young has a new film on the horizon that you should keep an eye out for. The Killing Jar, starring Michael Madsen, Harold Perrineau, Amber Benson, Kevin Cage, Jake Busey, and Danny Trejo will be making its way to theaters in New York and LA this Friday, March 19th, with 7 other markets to follow later.

Horror Squad recently got a chance to volley some questions off of Young regarding The Killing Jar, which is about a handful of diner patrons held hostage by a psycho, only the psycho might not be as dangerous as the secret one of the patrons may or may not be hiding. Don't worry, this is all spoiler free.

Horror Squad: I'm curious where your starting point for The Killing Jar was in regards to the setting. Did you know you wanted to make a film set in one location and then wrote around that? Did you know that you wanted to tell this story and then decided it would work best set in one location?

Mark Young: I had this story in the back of my head; a handful of ordinary people trapped in a roadside diner by a mysterious man with a shotgun - sort of an Edward Hopper painting gone berserk. I had limited access to funds and a paltry budget, and knew intuitively that shooting in a single location would translate into an economical production. So I wrote to that. Midway through the writing process, I really started to embrace the novelty that the audience's point-of-view never leaves the diner. It adds to the claustrophobia.

HS: Is it harder to write a story set in one building or harder to shoot in one?

Young: While it's a line producer's dream to shoot in one location and never leave, it is incredibly difficult to write an entertaining film without a change of scenery. In a sense, what you have a very character-driven stage play. I found a need to punctuate the long scenes of conversation necessary to tell the story with sporadic action to keep it entertaining. It's a delicate balance. It's exceptionally difficult for the actors, who all had long monologues.

On the flip side, production was a piece of cake. We shot the film in ten days, averaging about ten pages a day, which is pretty crazy. Since the diner was fully dressed and functional, we didn't need props or lighting, and much to my cinematographer's chagrin, was able to do away with a grip and lighting department. I manned one camera, my cinematographer the other, and we shot roughly fifty set-ups a day, which is kicking ass.

HS: What was the casting process like?

Young: I love the casting process. It's really where a film is made or broken. If I do my job right, and the actors are on autopilot, I'm just moving cameras on set. My philosophy is to hire good actors, and then get out of the way. I wanted to assemble a rich texture for the cast, and I think we were very successful. I was very fortunate in that most everybody we approached responded positively to the script, and was excited to come onboard.

HS: Did you write with any actors in mind or did they all fall into place at the beginning of production?

Young: The role of Doe was pretty much always written for Michael, who really nailed the performance. The biggest casting coup for me was the role of Dixon, played by Harold Perrineau. I've always been a big fan of Harold's work, and sent an offer into his management, fully expecting to be rejected. To my surprise, he decided to play with us.

One thing all the cast really liked was the decision to shoot the film in sequence. This allowed them to really work on their characters.

HS: I'm particularly curious as to how the role of Noreen was cast, as I think Amber Benson is definitely an underused talent these days.

Young: I'd love to take credit for this, but it was my producer Patrick Durham who suggested her. She was an absolutely a joy to work with, and I'm sure we'll work together again. Amber is also a talented director and writer... and even provides vocals on the theme song at the end of the film!

HS: Do you find that indie filmmakers, especially those in the horror genre, are under pressure to cast a few more bankable names when they may have otherwise gone with an unknown?

Young: I think horror is still the only genre where you're not expected to have stars. However, everywhere else, the expectation is to have Brad Pitt in a half million dollar project. Obtaining financing is almost entirely dependent on the name attachments. It's pretty tough out there for independent film these days.

HS: Considering I think you nailed the balance, what's your personal philosophy when it comes to striking the balance between outstanding, word-of-mouth-worthy moments of gore and gags that might be a little too indulgent?

Young: I love nothing more than a well-written monologue... except perhaps the visceral beauty of a bullet passing through a head in slow motion. At the end of the day, I think you make the kind of films you want to see yourself. I love all film in general and consider myself genre agnostic, meaning I enjoy a good horror as much as a good drama. I like to think my own films are "art house meets slaughterhouse".

I'm very process-oriented, and love being involved in the design of the gags, so that's always in the back of my mind. As a result, I have a tendency to go a bit overboard on the blood. Incidentally, the "Holy Grail" of all in-camera gags is showing an entry and exit gunshot in the head without a cut-away, and I think we nailed it. Is it self-indulgent? Maybe, but I love the audience reaction when they see it.

HS: What's up next for you?

Young: I'm in pre-production on a crime thriller entitled Sexy Criminals.