Why is it that the people who ask the most absurd questions of a director during a question and answer session spew their inane babble and then walk out?

If you're going to pull all attention away from a director and his audience and focus it on yourself with a question that's about as related to the topic as a Furby is to a starving child, then at least have the courtesy to sit there and listen to everything else the director has to say.

Or is it that Q&A's bring out those of us who crave attention, who need the spotlight, and once it turns its beams elsewhere, then it's time to crawl back into obscurity?

WildClaw Theatre was kind enough to not only offer a free showing of Let's Scare Jessica to Death, but to also bring in the film's director and uncredited co-writer, Mr. John D. Hancock. After the show, the impressively large audience was treated to a question and answer session with Mr. Hancock. He and Mr. Aaron Christensen of WildClaw sat in two plush easy chairs on stage, chatting about the film and taking questions from the audience.

All was going well, but as previously foreshadowed, it happened... that question that makes everyone turn in their seats to see who would ask such a ludicrous thing. The first was from a woman who appeared to be about the same age as the director, but whose memory of the time period must have been far gone.

"Was that a real chicken coop in the scene when Jessica goes to town to get eggs?" asked the woman.

"Well, yes. It was actually in the..." began Mr. Hancock amiably, not realizing he'd just opened his henhouse door to an aged hippie-weasel looking for a platform.

She cut him off abruptly and began "asking" about the deplorable conditions in which the chickens appeared to live. Mr. Hancock managed only a few words between her rantings, but Elderly Activist for the Preservation of 1970s Chickens continued monologuing. She finally finished by affirming that she'd never eat eggs from those chickens.

A long perplexed pause filled the hall. Mr. Hancock didn't seem to know how to respond and finally offered that it was, after all, before people were too concerned about the welfare of livestock and that the treatment of these chickens on a small farm was probably better than any in a large commercial environment at the time.

Whether from anger or triumph, the woman waited till the next question was called for, then stood and left.

It looked as though the remainder of the Q&A would go smoothly with Mr. Hancock providing some great behind-the-scenes information about Let's Scare Jessica to Death until a hand raised in my row.

"Yes," asked a curious woman several seats down. "Was a report ever done on this film, or were there representatives present, then or sometime for the shooting, by the National Alliance on Mental Health for how accurate it shows her mental illness - the one Jessica was supposed to have?"

Again, the two men on the stage sat perplexed. "I'm sorry," Mr. Hancock admitted. "I don't quite understand your question."

Thankfully, Aaron spared Mr. Hancock and the audience further rambling by paraphrasing the question to which Mr. Hancock replied that no, (heavy sigh) unfortunately, the National Alliance on Mental Health had not to his knowledge done a report on the accuracy with which they portrayed Jessica's condition nor had anyone from that agency been present during filming. (However, it would have been truly amazing if they had been present to do a report since that organization wouldn't even be formed for ANOTHER EIGHT YEARS!!)

Regardless, this seemed to satisfy the questioner who clapped her hands and rubbed them together furiously before hopping from her seat and leaving with her companion in tow. I assume she was off to start immediately on that report for the NAMH. I know I'll sleep better with the knowledge that an early 70s horror flick accurately portrayed a make-believe protagonist's mental issues.

Aside from learning how "Pick me! Pick me!" people work in an open-forum setting, a lot of fascinating information came from the Q&A of Let's Scare Jessica to Death. Before I get into that, let me retrace my steps to the actual film itself and offer you the review that brought you here in the first place.

We first see Jessica (Zohra Lampert) springing from the back of a gorgeous 50s Cadillac funeral coach that's pulled into a rural cemetery. With paper in hand, Jessica takes several gravestone rubbings and seems to be enjoying her freedom from the mental institution she's just left. Jessica sees an ethereal girl in white in the cemetery and taking it to be an apparition, does not mention it for fear that her husband Duncan (Barton Heyman) and their mutual shaggy friend Woody (Kevin O'Connor) will recommit her.

From this first scene onward, Jessica's happiness has the gentlest whiff of affectation. It's as if she's afraid to stop laughing or let the sparkle leave her eye because the moment she does, the troubles of her past will once again rush in to consume her.

The three friends leave the cemetery and continue their journey from the bustle of New York to their newly purchased New England farmhouse. Here they hope for a fresh start at life, but not three steps through the door, Jessica sees what she thinks is another apparition at the top of the stairs. She's again terrified of being thought crazy and says nothing, but her husband sees the same thing.

"It's okay, Jessica," he says. "I saw something too."

Jessica turns to Woody and, with the excitement of a child whose imaginary friend has just had tea with her father, says "I really did see something!"

After a lengthy search, the three friends discover Emily (Mariclare Costello), a squatter who's been living in the abandoned farmhouse. It takes an impolite amount of time for the Bohemian trio to finally ask Emily to stay and live with them at the farmhouse, but they eventually do and she accepts.

At first, the three seem to get along quite well with the mysterious Emily. After all, when everyone's on the same hippie wavelength, it's just love and music all around. After a meal of what appears to be raw meat, Emily pulls out a guitar and begins singing while she softly strums. I stifled an internal groan, preparing for a pointlessly gratuitous hippie-music jam-fest. Duncan whipping out his monster double bass in accompaniment did nothing to squelch my fear.

But then brilliance! The scene wasn't just a throw-away excuse to groove on some granola tunes; it had purpose! As Jessica sits at the kitchen table, trying so desperately to enjoy the moment and the music, the tune grows strikingly discordant. Reality becomes very slippery, even for the viewer. Mr. Hancock gave the sound mixer, Richard Vorisek, a great deal of credit for strengthening this truly creepy scene through his disturbing audio engineering.

As the days go by, Woody takes to working in the orchard while Jessica and Duncan collect antiques from the farmhouse to sell in town. Jessica and Duncan find the reception in town quite chilly however. The small village seems to be populated entirely with elderly men who only glare at the couple and wear bandages all over their bodies.

Desperate to sell the antiques they've packed into the hearse, Jessica and Duncan meet an antiques dealer a short way outside of the village proper. When he discovers that the young couple has bought the local farmhouse, he's eager to tell them the history of the house, how it belonged to a family whose daughter drowned herself on her wedding day. Fearing that this story will upset the fragile Jessica, Duncan boorishly rushes them home.

Back at the house, things begin to deteriorate between the four friends. Emily refuses Woody's gentle advances and instead makes her own towards Duncan. Jessica is completely aware of the growing attraction between her husband and the beguiling Emily, but looks away as her husband grows distant.

In a short amount of time, Jessica finds herself grappling with increasingly alarming visions, surreal occurrences, and the thought of losing her husband to another woman. The situation becomes too nightmarish for Jessica and she tries to escape the farmhouse, but instead finds herself only sucked deeper into a town-wide conspiracy.

At one point, Jessica is surrounded by undeniable evidence that her husband has abandoned her and that she is literally surrounded by mortal danger. Despite knowing that the situation is not acceptable, Jessica once again looks away and accepts the peril of her situation as her own doing, as the craziness in her head.

She's tried to flee and she's tried to find help, but everyone else has either abandoned her or encourages the situation as status quo, so she nearly resigns herself over to the evil of the house completely. In the end, she's driven to commit a gruesome crime in order to survive, but she questions even that right to survive.

This struck me as surprisingly similar to how domestic abuse occurs. In fact, the whole film was nearly allegorical in retrospect. Physical and mental abuses generally begin slowly and build, with the abused feeling that they somehow deserve the mistreatment or simply finding inconceivable ways to accept it as normal.

Abuse is recognized as a crime in which authorities may now intervene, but there was a time not so long ago when it was no one's business outside a relationship. Though I didn't ask directly, I didn't get the impression from listening to Mr. Hancock that there was anything to the story other than what was presented. But watch Let's Scare Jessica to Death. Tell me if you don't also come to the same comparison.

This film really is worth watching. Even if you don't get the same scare from it as you might a faster-paced film, it has a beauty and sincerity that contemporary films lack. Be prepared for a slow ride, much more psychological than horrific. That's because it's superbly demonstrative of a film-making era long passed and one we're not likely to see again.

There are chilling moments throughout the film connected to each other by strong stretches of Lampert completely owning the role of a girl battling a mental condition. So perfectly does Lampert play the role of Jessica, a psychiatrist might well assign valid disorders to this character's mental state (my layman's guess being schizophrenia with a healthy helping of generalized anxiety). We'll leave that up to the NAMH in their report.

You may also hear "vampires" in relation to Let's Scare Jessica to Death, but don't get too excited. There aren't any bloodsuckers the likes of which we're conditioned to these days. Expect vampires that are called vampires (and not directly) only for lack of a better term. "Ghost-worshipping cult members" could be just as accurate.

I enjoyed Let's Scare Jessica to Death immensely, but one thing that threw me for a good portion of the film was the choice for the characters to drive a hearse. I assume hearse owners to be a bit macabre, or at least involved in a heavy metal band. It was nice to have contemporary stereotypes slapped in my face to remind me that a) apparently I'm prone to stereotyping, and b) times change.

In the 60s and 70s, the association of a hearse with the gothic sub-culture wasn't as strong. Was there even a gothic sub-culture? A hearse might be driven by hippies or a groovy band, and while they did visit a cemetery, these hearse owners also shied away from a séance, were complete wimps when a gang of elderly toughs scratched up their beautiful black ride, and were a few years on the wrong side of "dangerous". So I take from this a personal lesson not to stereotype, and not to judge drivers by their vehicles.

In closing, here are the promised tidbits of background information as given by Mr. John D. Hancock:

* The film was shot on location in Connecticut in 25 days for a budget of $250 thousand.
* The film grossed $20 million.
* Mr. Hancock put the séance scene in at the insistence of the producers, but did not care for the idea at the time. He now feels it adds a great deal to the film.
* Mr. Hancock dated Zohra Lampert briefly prior to the film and knew her acting ability. This is how she was recommended for the role of Jessica.
* Most of the elderly villagers are family of the cast and crew.
* The film was shot in November, a chilly month to ask any actors to do several swimming scenes, and yet, they make it look almost warm.

* And yes, those were real chickens in a real chicken coop.