Pop-Culturalist.com

With Erik Bloomquist at the helm as director and Taylor Turner crafting the script, Intermedium delivers a fresh take on love, loss, and everything in between—all with a supernatural twist. The film combines sharp humor, heartfelt storytelling, and a playful nod to classic cinema, transporting audiences to a high school setting where ghosts and teenage drama collide.

At the center of the story is an obsessive-compulsive teenager who searches for a way to rid her home of the ghost that haunts it, only to discover that their unexpected connection makes it harder to say goodbye than she ever imagined.

Erik’s dynamic approach to directing pairs seamlessly with Taylor’s knack for creating characters who feel real, flawed, and deeply relatable. The result is a story that balances comedy and emotion while exploring the connections that transcend time and place.

Pop Culturalist spoke with director Erik Bloomquist and writer Taylor Turner about bringing Intermedium to life, the unique blend of humor and heart that defines the film, and how their shared vision shaped the story. They opened up about the creative process behind crafting a ghost story that’s as emotionally resonant as it is playful, the challenges of balancing vintage romance with contemporary themes, and the unforgettable performances that brought the characters to life.

PC: Taylor, Intermedium was inspired by a short film you created in 2019 and by what your two leads brought to their respective characters. What was the process like expanding it into a full-length feature? How did their performances influence the direction of the screenplay and the characters’ journeys?
Taylor: We shot the short film in 2018 over the course of two very, very full days. I remember at the end of the shoot, Emily [Keefe] and Beau [Minniear], who play Bridget and Kyle, were filming the final scene where she leaves. It was set in this really tiny bedroom where most of the film took place. They were performing this scene, and it was so much more emotional and deeper than I had envisioned when I wrote it. I remember Erik and I were sitting outside the room, watching it on the monitor because the space was so small, and we both thought, “They’re really bringing it.”

From that point on, it felt like they were those characters. Pretty soon after we wrapped, I started working on the full-length version. We did a couple of readings—one in August and another during the pandemic when everything was shut down for a while. Those sessions were invaluable in expanding the characters’ voices. When you’re writing and imagining an actor in the role, hearing their voices in your head makes it much easier to develop those dynamics and crystalize them on the page.

PC: Erik, from an outsider’s perspective, this project may seem like a departure from your past work, but there are so many clear throughlines—from the coming-of-age storyline to the small-town setting and those filmmaking elements that have become a staple of your projects. Does this feel like as big of a departure for you as it might for audiences? How did the blending of these genres and mediums challenge and push you both creatively?
Erik: I feel like a lot of what I’ve done is genre hybrid, so it’s just varying ratios of what those ingredients are. If you look at some of the horror or thriller projects, there might be a higher degree of cynicism, but there’s still a streak of sentimentality throughout, even if it’s tempered by circumstances. This—in some ways—is the inverse of that, but there’s definitely this Ryan Murphy acidity throughout it that Taylor brought to the dialogue and we incorporated into the approach. To me, it doesn’t feel like a departure; it feels like a different combination of colors from the palette that we get to paint with, which I love.

My background, like Taylor’s, is in theater and musical theater, so that rhythm and poppiness is very much a part of me. It was great to work on this because I’ve directed a fair amount of musical theater on stage, so it was exciting to combine those passions and sensibilities.

Taylor: Erik won Connecticut’s Dancing with the Stars.

Erik: I did. It was a fundraiser in Connecticut. I walked into my first rehearsal and said, “We’re winning.” And then we did.

Taylor: It definitely helped when you were choreographing some of those musical numbers. We had a choreographer for the film—another friend of Erik’s, Courtney Brady—who was phenomenal. As someone who’s not a dancer, though I’d say I’m a strong mover, it was amazing to watch Erik. He has not only a great sense of choreography but also choreography for the camera. It was like figuring out a dance where your partner is the camera, constantly moving with you in a really confined space.

Erik: That’s really well put, Taylor. The camera is one of the participants in this choreography. We worked with Courtney, who is a Dancer with a capital D.

Taylor: She’s currently on the Funny Girl tour.

Erik: Yes! She and I had worked together on a regional theater show. I like to work very closely with choreographers so you don’t see the transition point between direction and choreography. Instead, you get these seamless, character-building moments throughout. Courtney obviously took point on that, but we worked together on the partnering and teaching, which helped with directing around it, too. It was a really nice collaboration.

PC: Taylor, what’s so compelling about this screenplay is how you’ve taken something so familiar and presented it in a new way. How did you approach exploring this classic love story in the golden age of cinema and bringing those elements to a modern audience? How did the supporting characters, themes, and aesthetics shape that exploration?
Taylor: Once I had an early draft of the script written, we created a pitch deck to sell the idea to people interested in the film. One of the key ideas I included was updating vintage romance for the modern era. Vintage romance is about capturing the heartbeat of those stories. Golden age movies are seminal because they defined an era of the industry, but they had a lot of problems—particularly with a lack of representation. Many stories weren’t told thoughtfully or sensitively, or they weren’t given screen time at all.

I wanted to center Bridget and Kyle as a couple who encapsulate that old-school aesthetic and style with their look, but also bring in a modern twist with their behavior and quippy back-and-forth—kind of like Bogie and Bacall. I placed them in a contemporary high school setting where the characters reflect what high school theater kids would look like in 2023 or 2024. This includes visibly queer characters and a broader sense of inclusivity. That queer sensibility was important to me. While the central couple is heterosexual, the movie has a distinctly queer energy—not just because there are queer supporting characters, but because the tone and style feel inherently queer.

Erik: That was something we could really expand on in the feature, which wasn’t possible in the short. The short takes place entirely within a house because they’re trapped there. The only time we see someone leave is when she leaves for college at the very end. In the feature, we couldn’t sustain that confined setting, nor did we want to. We wanted to open up the world and create a contrast between school and home. We shot those spaces differently, using different filters and cinematographic approaches to emphasize that contrast.

Some people who watch the film assume that Kyle, the central ghost character, died in the 1950s, but he didn’t. We specifically avoided making it a “What if James Dean were in 2024?” fish-out-of-water story. Instead, it’s about what happens when you have this timeless heartbeat in the modern world.

Taylor: Exactly. He’s this fantasy ideal for Bridget, but it’s something she can’t have because he’s dead. In a way, she has this private and perfect thing to go home to, but when she’s out in the real world, all her habits, neuroses, and less savory qualities clash with the people around her. Other students are like, “Who does this girl think she is?” That tension creates a lot of humor and keeps the film engaging and fun.

This ties into what we wanted to do with the musical numbers as well. We drew inspiration from golden-age musicals but played with them in new ways. Our composers, Ben Chavez and Yianni Papadimos, wrote the music and lyrics for all the songs and were phenomenal in incorporating our notes and inspirations.

For example, we wanted to include a classic “dad number.” In old musicals, there’s often a song in the middle of Act II where the esteemed male actor comes on and sings a number that’s usually kind of boring. We wanted to flip that and create something active, engaging, and fun—almost like a Busby Berkeley-style number.

We also wanted a Judy Garland moment for Bridget at the start. We took inspiration from golden-age musicals and wove those elements into the cinematography, script, and music, creating something fresh while honoring those classic roots.

PC: I’ve got a question about the humor for you a bit later. I also love the little jab at Sean [Krill] and Jagged Little Pill.
Erik: [laughs]

Taylor: [laughs] That was a rewrite by Erik.

Erik: You put in Jagged Little Pill. I suggested we add, “Twice.” [laughs]

Taylor: I didn’t realize it closed twice.

Erik: I was very specific. I said, “Let’s make it, ‘That closed twice.'”

Taylor: Sean was a great sport about it.

Erik: We’ve seen it with a few Broadway crowds. I’m not sure if they always catch the “twice” part because they’re already laughing by then.

PC: I definitely laughed out loud when I heard that line. Erik, when you’re working on an independent feature, you don’t have the luxury of time or multiple takes. In one of our past discussions, you mentioned collaborating with your ensemble and those key moments where you feel strongly about something while also allowing space for them to breathe and bring their interpretations. How did you strike that balance, especially towards the end of this film where things get a bit heavier?
Erik: It’s about knowing where you want to spend your time. A significant portion of this movie—probably 25% or a third—takes place in the bedroom where it’s just Kyle and Bridget talking. We shot those scenes in rapid succession. There were days when it was just the two of them, and we cruised through the dialogue. They came in ready to go, and we moved quickly through the scenes we could do on instinct—not in a rushed way, but by trusting our impulses. That gave us more room to slow down and shape things later, especially in the heavier parts of the final third of the movie.

A lot of that balance also comes from being as thoughtful as possible with the cinematography. When you’re in the same room for an extended portion of the film, you have to find ways to shoot it so it doesn’t feel repetitive. That’s a big testament to Mike [Magilnick], who filmed the movie. He worked with me to ensure the combination of lighting and camera angles was never exactly the same, keeping the visuals engaging.

Sometimes that meant doing an interesting oner. Other times, it meant blocking on one side of the room for a particular scene and then revisiting that blocking in a later scene that emotionally echoes it but using a different lighting setup to reflect a different time of day. There was a lot of that going on—setting up dominoes and letting them fall naturally.

PC: That’s such a great point about the cinematography and how that bedroom feels so much larger in scale for audiences. Taylor, going back to the humor, what sets this film apart is its self-awareness. There are moments where you’re able to poke fun at the cast. How much of what we see in the final cut was scripted versus improvised? I imagine that as the writer, you have a strong sense of who these characters are, but when you cast your actors, you want them to make the roles their own. How did you create space for them to say what felt most authentic to their characters?
Taylor: My background is in acting, so I think I approach writing similarly to how Erik directs—as an actor’s writer. I always think, “What’s something fun and meaty, but not overwritten, that I would want to perform?”

When it came to casting, as I mentioned before, having actors in mind—at least for Kyle and Bridget—made it much easier to find those voices. Once we cast the roles, I was really impressed by how thoughtful the actors were in approaching their characters.

I remember sitting down with Jesse [Posey], who plays Evan, in the lobby of our hotel on the first night—right before he was set to shoot. He said, “I want to talk about this guy. What kind of guy is he?” He had all these ideas, thoughts, and backstory details. It was so rewarding because, while you try to have a sense of those things when writing, it can feel nebulous—especially with a larger ensemble cast like this. The actors really elevated the material.

I also remember Sadie Scott, who plays Darcy, coming in. They were performing scenes that weren’t written to be funny, but I was cracking up. I said, “This is hilarious,” and they replied, “Really? I’m just saying it how I thought it would be.” That’s when you know you’ve cast the right people. A big shout-out to our casting director, Nick Peciaro, for finding such stellar talent.

We also had Amy Hargreaves, who’s the consummate pro. She’s a one-take wonder. She’d nail a scene and say, “I think we got it. I don’t need another.” And we’d be like, “Yes, queen. You’re right. Let’s move on.”

I gave the cast room to play and make changes as they wanted, especially because I wasn’t always on set—I was running around handling other production-related tasks. I told them, “If you want to change something, go for it.” I also trusted Erik with that. He’s a great writer and good at making adjustments. So there was definitely a fair amount of improv.

Erik: There was one moment where it’s scripted that Darcy says “Macbeth” on stage during a ghost light scene. We were in the middle of shooting when Taylor came running in and said, “We can’t say ‘Macbeth’ in the theater!”

Taylor: I was like, “We can’t say ‘Macbeth.’ We have to say ‘Lady M.’”

Erik: And I said, “We already shot it.”

Taylor: That’s how you know we’re theater kids. I was like, “We can’t do it. We’re shooting in a theater.” A lot of the improv came naturally, especially from Sadie and Jesse. I think it stemmed from the dynamic of everyone living together in the same hotel. That camaraderie and energy carried over onto the screen, making the interactions feel authentic and alive.

PC: There’s something special about this group of collaborators—you really bring out the best in each other. Erik, you’re also a co-editor on this project. How does wearing both hats influence your creative process? Did editing while directing help shape the story in new ways, or did you approach them separately?
Erik: They’re intertwined, and it’s very helpful. We shoot for the edit in the sense that we don’t overshoot. We’ll definitely go in for another take if someone—whether it’s me or an actor—feels like they need one. But it ties back to what I mentioned earlier about filming a room. I know a oner will work here because I already know how another scene will be cut. That means we don’t have to get footage we won’t need. Instead, we can focus on making each shot as good and precise as it can be while also giving it some breathing room.

For this movie, though, the original cut was longer.

Taylor: We cut like nine minutes out of it.

Erik: Yeah, we did. There’s so much dialogue. With this genre, it’s about finding the funniest version of a scene—or, even if it’s hilarious, deciding what actually functions within the story. You have to think from an editing perspective to ensure you’re getting enough options during the shoot. That way, when it’s time to piece it together, you can structure it in the way it needs to be.

Taylor: We cut a lot of jokes during editing. There was one scene where we removed chunks from the middle. I went out to Erik’s place in Connecticut, and he, Carson [Bloomquist], and I edited it together. Well, Erik and Carson did their thing while I watched, and I’d say, “This doesn’t need to be here. Who wrote this?” [laughs] Erik would respond, “That was you. You wrote that, and we shot it.” I’d just think, “Dammit, why does it need to be there?”

We ended up cutting multiple scenes. Erik would say, “We don’t need it,” and he was right. But in the moment—when you’re writing or shooting—it’s hard to realize that until you see it all come together in the edit.

Make sure to follow Erik (X/Instagram) and Taylor (Instagram). Watch Intermedium on Tubi (for free) or Amazon Prime.