A movie made for 4 million ISK not possible for everyone, looks like it cost at least 150 million

"A horror thriller about the aftermath of a violent conflict between several individuals, which takes place at three different points in time over three decades. Each event is connected to the others through long-lasting consequences, ultimately leading the characters to original acts of revenge."

"Aftergames" has received a lot of praise and the number 150 million comes from the fact that critics mentioned that it "looked like a million bucks" and the filmmaker John Farrelly thought he was watching a European subsidy film when it was shown at PIFF. The main reason why the cost was not higher is that Ólafur himself took care of most of the processing on it. The film is Ólaf's long-term project, and many former students of The Film School are involved in the work. It must be considered quite a feat that he managed to make this film for only 4 million, but we talked to him about it.

"Of course, 4 million is too little for a film like this, and it should have cost around 20-30 million, which is what I want the next film to cost, but even that is too low in the mind of the system, and KMÍ would never accept it in the current system where 300 million is considered low budget. But I would say that writing a book was once a huge task, in the Middle Ages, one manuscript cost a great support from the king and many monks from different monasteries had to work hard for many years to put together one book. And when printing came and more technology and better readability made it easier for people, people who now wanted to write books in a different and cheaper way had to fight for it as well and it always has to be done. It has been possible for several years now to make films for so little money that they could really stand on their own two feet in this country if they get a good attendance - and so that everyone gets paid! Films like "The Last Fishing Trip" have shown that. But for that the filmmaker needs to be good enough at everything, less specialization and more universal just filmmaking. If the filmmaker himself knows how to combine sound and image at a high standard, we don't need a long credit list."

Where did the idea for the story come from?

As novels often grow out of other stories, I read a case, a real murder case that I thought was funny, actually, because the intent behind it was so fishy, ​​and expanded it to see how far the ramifications of such a case could go, down the generations, into revenge, and what happens when traditional revenge isn't enough? For me it's a comedy, because it's all so absurd, but people can also take it as a serious horror film because the line between tragedy and comedy is much thinner than people might realize, and I'm dancing on this line. You could also say that these are two sides of the same coin; whether something is a tragedy or a comedy depends only on the presentation, or rather on how the viewer decides to accept the example.

How did the post-production go?

I did reveal at the preview that I have been sober since January 1st after years of daily drinking and had a serious addiction problem in that regard. Had a 2 hour cut of some sort of drama last year, but it all happened very quickly this year, re-edited it down to an 80-minute thriller, re-edited the sound, etc., and just finally did everything that needed to be done to release this movie. It's no coincidence, and I want to be open about it, because quitting drinking is a factor that played a huge part in getting this to the end.

Do you have any advice for aspiring filmmakers?

Never be a bore, do us that favor, but not by sacrificing meaning; never be meaningless either. But be careful not to try to fake a meaning out of thin air, it's a pretense. Let it emerge on its own, somehow, and never mind being funny or engaging, don't try, it just has to happen. It's like falling asleep, you won't get there until you stop trying. Yes, being an artist is complicated...