Throughout the month of October, Audiences Everywhere will be publishing a series of interviews with renowned horror directors in which we will discuss current and upcoming films, and also get the artists’ take on the contemporary horror landscape which we’ve dubbed Horrortown. Next up, Adam Robitel, filmmaker behind the critically acclaimed The Taking of Deborah Logan and co-writer of the upcoming Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension.
Let me tell you a secret: Adam Robitel is a magician. He may not carry around a card that says so, and if asked he’d probably humbly admit that he’s more of an apprentice, but he practices magic nonetheless. He deals in the most primal of forces, those elements that have infiltrated our stories for centuries, kept many a man and woman up late at night, wondering about the secret evils that lie beneath their sense of normalcy. Adam Robitel practices horror and he’s damn good at it. But his successes are no trick.
Too often there’s a sense of complacency within the horror genre, an unfortunate willingness to paint by the numbers and deliver the same concepts over and over with different titles and different killers until the terrifying becomes the mundane. There’s nothing mundane about Adam’s directorial debut, The Taking of Deborah Logan. Every scene is built with a careful understanding of the reality that’s being constructed, and every scare, supernatural or otherwise comes from a unique place of honesty, one that was learned.
It’s Adam’s desire to learn that stood out to me the most when I spoke with him. Here’s a guy who doesn’t simply sit on his tremendous knowledge of the genre, but explores the deepest corners of it through documentary, history, and mythology, pushing the boundaries of what we can expect a film to deliver. He may be able to pull off feats of terrifying magic for audiences, but it’s all a result of his dedication and commitment to thinking about horror in new ways, and asking questions to find out what is truly scary. If his upcoming projects are any indication, it sounds like Adam Robitel is going to be finding new ways to scares us for a long time to come:
Richard Newby (Audiences Everywhere): I recently watched The Taking of Deborah Logan again, and it stills creeps me out the second time around. How did the idea of tying Alzheimer’s disease to a horror movie come about?
Adam Robitel: It’s interesting, I was always terrified of the disease. I had an uncle and I used to always hear these stories when I was a kid about how they would find him in people’s backyards, and how he sleepwalked and was just completely out of it. I didn’t quite cognitively understand what the disease was, but I knew that it could essentially hijack someone you love and make them do really strange and dangerous things. For me, horror is at its scariest when it takes something in real life and turns it on its head. Alzheimer’s deals with two really primal fears: one is aging and the second is losing one’s mind. So in getting the idea for the film, it was an iterative process, but those key components were always there.
AE: And was the found-footage style always a part of your vision for tapping into those fears?
AR: Well, when I was endeavoring to write the movie I would eventually direct, I wanted to do something that was scary and that I could do on a budget. And I figured found-footage, as much as people begrudge it, seemed like a really cool way to do a cinéma vérité style movie.
AE: So it wasn’t a tough decision to go the found-footage route instead of traditional filming, even though found-footage horror films tend to get a lot criticism?
AR: I came up through documentaries, and from my experience editing documentaries and as a first time director, I felt a little freer in that form. And frankly, I felt that if it was done right it would be scarier. For the most part, I think these found-footage horror films get a bad rap. But a lot of times I think that people don’t do a good enough job validating why the crew is filming. So with The Taking of Deborah Logan, here was a great way to say well, they’re filming because they have this thesis and [Mia] is really committed to showing the downfall of this woman from Alzheimer’s. And then when weird starts to happen, well, they’ve got to keep rolling, right? So I really wanted to validate the found-footage style.
AE: The effects that you used, were most of those practical?
AR: For the most part. The big money shot at the end, we had tried to do it practically but it was very, very hard to do so we had a great company, Soho VFX, out of Toronto come in. They had worked with [producer] Bryan Singer before, and they really did us a solid and knocked it out of the park. We knew we weren’t going to have any marketing money for the movie, so I wanted to do one shot that would be really, really fucked up [laughs] and could maybe become viral. And sure enough it’s become a gif and posted on Tumblr hundreds and thousands of times. But that scene and neck-tearing were the only digitally enhanced scenes. But for the most part, Vinnie Guastini and VGP Effects were responsible for all the wonderful aging effects, scarification, and neck and back lesions.
AE: That money shot you’re talking about is absolutely terrifying. I was genuinely startled.
AR: It was really important to me, in a world where we’re really cynical and jaded about the things we see-y’know I can go online and see an ISIS decapitation or a Jordanian pilot being set on fire. We’re in this age where we’re just consumed and subsumed with this horrific imagery all the time, so for me it becomes about context. If I can really get an audience to buy into the world of this documentary, and this really poor woman suffering from what is a very grounded medical disease, then by the end of the movie I can have her turn into a snake-demon-monster. That’s exciting for me, that I could do this crazy, permutation of the genre.
AE: The transformation from Alzheimer’s victim to snake-demon looked great. I could definitely see the inspiration from previous body- horror movies that used that kind of step by step process.
AR: Yeah! We weren’t working with a lot of resources so we tried to do stuff that was still grounded. And in terms of coming up with these scares, we wanted them to further this metaphor that [Deborah] is becoming a snake monster before she literally becomes one. I decided that all of the scares and the haunting stuff should come out of the mythology and the backstory. The killer that [Deborah] had gotten in the way of was doing these weird rituals, and praying to this snake deity, so naturally she had to be spitting venom and trying to swallow little girls heads by the end [laughs].
AE: How long did it take you to cast the part of Deborah?
AR: The casting process was quite extensive for a little movie. We really looked all over the place and it took a long time. Jill [Larson] was the only actress who came in and nailed both the grandmotherly qualities and also the possession. She literally scared people. We were in the casting room filled with people and there was one moment where she leaned in, fully possessed in the scene, and she scared the shit out of all of us! [laughs] We were all physically leaning back. I was very taken by what Scorsese must have seen when he cast her in Shutter Island. If you remember, in that movie she pointed at the camera and brought her finger to her mouth and tells us to “Shhh.”
AE: Right. I definitely remember that.
AR: It’s a very small scene, but I remember it making the trailer and Scorsese just knew how striking she was. She’s very pretty, but can also have a skeletal quality that I called a “bird-like frame.” But she’s the sweetest lady you’ll ever meet in your life, but she just has this quality that can be really unnerving. But we didn’t pull the trigger on Jill until the last minute. The film was originally set in Boston, so she originally auditioned with a very thick Boston accent. It was a little too theatrical, but as soon as I threw out the Boston accent and told her to make it her own and not to worry about the goofy language that we put into the script, she was such a pro and was able to turn it off. These found-footage movies really live or die by the veracity of the actors and their ability to capture the reality of people. And as a young writer, I’m always learning that you really want to write dialogue for the way people actually speak. It’s seductive to want to be prosaic and write Shakespearian dialogue but that’s just not how people talk.
AE: Going off screenwriting, you co-wrote the upcoming Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension.
AR: Yes! We, my co-writing partner Gavin Herffernan and I, were brought in by Paramount to work on the project. We came in later in the day, but we definitely had a lot to do with re-sculpting the movie.
AE: How as the experience working on the franchise that started the whole twenty-first century, found-footage boom in horror?
AR: It was really full circle! Gavin and I were so obviously inspired by Paranormal Activity 1, 2, and 3 and we’d always set out to make a Paranormal movie so we were really humbled by it. A friend of mine, Chris Landon, who I think had written part of 2, 3, and 4 and directed The Marked Ones had brought us in to help with Ghost Dimension after commenting on how good we were in the found-footage space. It was really fun, crazy, hectic, and we were thrown right into the deep end! There was this really interesting work flow where they would shoot a scene and then go back to the editing process. So it was different from your typical indie where you just can’t afford to do that. We had twenty days to make my movie and Paranormal Activity had been shooting for a little bit longer than before we even got there [laughs].
AE: Did you feel much pressure in terms of concluding the series and giving people answers that will satisfy them?
AR: Yes and no. It’s definitely more of a collegial sort of atmosphere. You have a lot of different people with a lot of different opinions. It’s interesting now that I’m sort of getting into the studio system, but there’s a lot of diplomacy and politics, and you have to work within the system. So in some ways it becomes less your movie, and you have to navigate through a lot of different people. But you hope there’s some sort of consensus between the studio, the director, the writers, and so on. So we came in and applied what we had learned on The Taking of Deborah Logan, and views of horror as something very visceral and primal, and tried to distill what wasn’t necessarily working in the original cut that we saw. But yeah, I think they were all happy with the new direction. The film certainly pushes the series over the finish line.
AE: Well, as a big fan of the series, I can definitely say I’m looking forward to it!
AR: Yeah! It’s a trickier one because it’s in 3D so there’s more attention on the filmmaking. I think what part one was so good at was hiding things and relying on atmosphere and performance. But here, and rightfully so, the studio has upped the ante of the spectacle by making it 3D and getting a look at the paranormal activity behind everything. It’s a tightrope because in order to make it scary you don’t want to be reminded of the filmmaking, but at the same time there’s been four of these movies already, and a spin-off, so you need to give the audience something new to get them in theatres.
AE: Paranormal Activity has been such a barometer for smaller budget horror for such a long time, and once it concludes there will surely be a new big franchise to fill that vacuum. What would you want to see more of from new horror movies?
AR: The Jason Blums of the world have made such a killing of these smaller, contained movies so there’s such a glut right now these under $3 million dollar, one location movies. And they all start to feel similar, so we may ultimately, maybe erroneously, see bigger budget horror films. The problem is, if I’m a producer, it’s like why would I go make a $30 million dollar horror film when I can make more or the same amount of returns on a smaller horror movie? But Gavin and I are leaning into bigger spectacle kind of horror. We’re working on something right now that we’re about to pitch. We have this really cool kind of Michael Bay action-horror thing and we’re really excited about it!
AE: That sounds awesome!
AR: I wish I could tell you more about it, but unfortunately I can’t at this moment. Hopefully it will be announced soon and we can talk about it! But to get back to your bigger question, some of these smaller movies are really interesting, like The Babadook. It Follows, I really liked, though I don’t know if it was a traditional horror film in that sense but I really enjoyed it. But it’s difficult because I think people are just jaded and it’s really, really hard to scare people. That’s why going and doing a traditional haunted house movie like The Conjuring is so impressive, because it has that extra kick of making you afraid of it.
AE: What kind of horror movies scare you?
AR: I don’t know! When I was kid it was much more about ghosts and hauntings, but now it takes a lot to freak me out [laughs]. I think James Wan, who’s a friend of mine, is such a master at creating tension, and then the jump. Those kind of movies are really fun to see with a crowd. But in terms of creating something scary, first it comes down to creating great characters and then finding out what the next boogeyman is. Everyone wants the new boogeyman! What’s the new Freddy Krueger? Nightmare on Elm Street was such a revelation, such a cool, new idea when it came out. But the problem that we’re experiencing now is when you try to create a franchise instead of trying to tell a really good story, you cut yourself off at the knees. You want to tell a really good story first and then hope that the franchise is born out of it.
AE: Did the kind of primal elements of horror you’ve mentioned appeal to you growing up?
AR: I grew up in Boston so I was always surrounded by really old buildings and my grandmother raised me on ghost stories. She had a talking board, sort of a more advanced Ouija board, and my grandmother was a very smart person who wasn’t a dodo, or super religious, or anything like that, but she had this board and was convinced there was something in this board. She kept it at this winter house, up in New Hampshire, and over time people became addicted to wanting to play with this thing. And it had supernatural knowledge. My grandfather, who didn’t believe in it at all, worked in the service during World War II and one time he asked the board “what was my war buddy’s name” and it spelled out P-H-I-S-H, and my grandfather’s face went completely white and he left the house and didn’t come back to the board. So it had this weird supernatural knowledge and I don’t know how to explain it. And then the spirit, or whatever you want to call it, started to get violent and angry. And would command my grandfather to do seven biblical things like smash skulls and all of this crazy shit, stuff my little, old grandmother never would have made up. So I was raised on this stuff.
AE: And beyond film, do those kinds of stories have a personal impact on you now?
AR: It’s really interesting now as an adult, and recognizing that even Christianity is a ghost story, the greatest ghost story, right? I mean we all want to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and that we’re going to experience everlasting life, and I’d love to believe that I’m going to see my grandmother again. The ghost story is the greatest enduring myth. That’s what fascinates me the most, the anecdotal data about ghosts, and psychic phenomena. There’s something out there. Whether or not it’s Casper, I don’t know. But there’s definitely something.
AE: In terms of the power of history, myths, and hidden information, themes that I think come out in The Taking of Deborah Logan, is there a real-life event or folktale you’d like to see made into a movie?
AR: The next film that I’m trying to finance, it’s called The Bloody Benders, is based on a true story of a family of serial killers that moved into the Kansas territory in the 1870s. It’s a weird, fucked up western. They had these three hammers they used that they would clock their victims over the head with. They killed 25 people before vanishing. I was fascinated by the story. At the turn of the century they were more infamous than Jack the Ripper, so I thought what an interesting backdrop and story. I didn’t want to do the torture porn version of that movie, I just thought that was too easy. So I wrote the script around the daughter who led the family. She was gorgeous and would seduce the guy before the father would come up behind him with a sledgehammer. I wanted to write the script in a way that could make her sympathetic and create an origin story for this amazing violent family. So I wrote this twisted love story. At the top of the movie the daughter meets this emancipated slave and he’s the only guy in town who doesn’t try to force himself on her, and he teaches her how to read, and write, and love Emily Dickinson. So it’s this weird love story with horrific elements. It’s just a great script. I’m patting myself on the back here and I don’t mean to brag, but it’s just the best thing I’ve ever written. Guillermo Del Toro got behind it and was going to direct it after Pacific Rim. He loved the story. It’s a story that I want to tell because it’s not only a fascinating, fucked up story out of American history, but it’s also a western milieu with horror elements but at its core, it’s a love story. That’s my passion right now.
AE: That sounds great!
AR: Yeah, man! It’s really Coen Brothers kind of horror. It’s got a great role for a young ingénue actress who really wants to do something meaty. But it’s a big jump for me and I’ve got a couple companies that are really interested. But Westerns are trickier to market so you have to be bold with your vision on it.
AE: The horror western is a pretty untapped subgenre so pretty exciting that you have something new to get out there.
AR: Yeah. We’ll see, we’ll see. It’s always a battle [laughs].
AE: What film first inspired your interest in making horror films?
AR: I grew up with everything from Clive Barker to Nightmare on Elm Street to The Shining, Rosemary’s Baby, all of the early Polanski stuff, so all of the obvious choices. I’m an equal opportunity lover of the genre. Whenever I’m asked this question my mind kind of blanks out because I really do love them all!
AE: Ok, well let’s say we were going to make a horror director Mt. Rushmore and you could only choose four horror directors to put their faces on it. Who would you choose?
AR: Oh my god, that’s tough [laughs]. Well, Wes Craven, rest in peace. I would probably put Hitchcock up there because Psycho was the birth of modern cinema and modern horror. I really want to just cheat and say Stephen King because he’s probably influenced more of us than anyone else, but I can’t exactly say Maximum Overdrive is going to get him on Mt. Rushmore [laughs]. Ridley Scott for Alien. I feel like that was a masterstroke, but that was just a one-off. He’s not really a horror auteur necessarily but I’d put him up there. And… John Carpenter. Yeah, so there it is!
AE: That is a solid horror Mt. Rushmore! Are there any well-known, popular, or classic horror movies that you’re not really a big fan of or just don’t understand the appeal?
AR: Do you mean in terms of a franchise?
AE: Franchise, one-off, remake. Just something that was popular with a lot of people that you just didn’t connect to for whatever reason.
AR: I can’t really think of one off the top of my head. Look, I’m always having conversations with studios about the brands and the remaking. People complain about it but it makes sense on the studio level. It’s so hard to create new brand awareness. My only complaint when they remake ‘Killer X’ or ‘Killer Z’ is that they always tell the same story versus them adding to the canon. But I’m genuinely trying to think of one that bothers me and makes me go ‘oh, not another one of those.’ I almost get more chagrined for another Spider-Man movie than anything in horror.
AE: That’s understandable. What’s a trope that’s used a lot in horror that you think we could do away with?
AR: In my own process as a writer, I’m constantly fighting against tropes. You always see the half-breed man, or the Spanish lady with the supernatural knowledge, or the non-white stereotypes, or the virgin character in horror films. The thing that I hate the most are characters, particularly in slashers, categorized as ‘the loose teen’ or ‘the slutty girl’ who always get killed. I don’t care about those people. It all becomes very Ten Little Indians. It’s fun, sure, and there’s some wish-fulfillment in those kinds of films, but what’s scarier- that, or watching a family that does the right thing and cares for each other get destroyed?
AE: So it’s emotional reality that you feel needs to be preserved?
AR: It all gets back to my point about characters and really trying to ground them as real people because you end up caring about them more. Horror happens to all of us. Why does a good little kid suddenly come down with leukemia? For me the banality of evil, the quiet, lurking evil, is what’s scary. It’s so easy to do the mustache-twirling bad guy. I remember reading Aaron Sorkin saying if you can get the bad guy to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons they’re much more interesting. The killers in the Friday movies and the Halloween movies are like the id, pure vengeance and they’re just there to kill and that always works, but it’s very simplistic. Rule #1 in horror is don’t get eaten. If you can keep every page about not getting eaten, and I mean this metaphorically, but if you can maintain the primacy of a character protecting someone that they love in your life then you get that grounded reality.
AE: Since Scream we’ve had a lot of horror that tends to follows rules and references films from the 70s and 80s. What do you think about the meta-horror narrative that’s been cropping up even more so lately?
AR: There’s a place for it. I think The Final Girls, which is coming out, is really entertaining. Meta-horror is entertaining, but they’re not as scary because meta by its very definition is self-aware. There are always waves and now we’re going through the meta-wave. I enjoy them but they’re not the kind of movies I typically gravitate towards making. I’d rather make Cujo, create something that’s just primal and strip away all the pretenses. But I’m still learning, and horror isn’t an exact science. Sometimes you get away with things on a smaller movie that you’ll never get to do in a studio film because studio films are tested and they really have to appeal to certain demographics in a big way for the studio to spend the money for these print and advertising campaigns. The bigger the budget, the narrower the road is in terms of what you can do.
AE: You put Stephen King on your horror Mt. Rushmore and you just mentioned Cujo. Is a Stephen King adaptation something you’re interested in directing?
AR: I’m re-reading It right now because of all the production stuff that’s going on. It’s hard because it’s such a sweeping novel. I think they were trying to do it in two parts, one from the kids’ perspective and one as they’re adults. It’s a very dark book and it deals with abuse and all kinds of dark shit. But it just sounds like the studio, I think it’s New Line, wants to do a cleaner version than what the book actually is. But I don’t know if I was in that position to direct if I would feel like I was selling out. I feel like I would do the best that I could with the source material. But there’s a world where you’re never going to get a true, unadulterated look at that book. But I’d love to do a Stephen King adaptation. Misery…no, I wouldn’t touch Misery actually [laughs]. It was so perfect a movie!
AE: I actually do think you could make a great Cujo remake, especially in terms of exploring the primal, grounded fears. It’s interesting because King’s books play a lot into the deeper, character based evil you mentioned, but most of the film adaptations haven’t gone that route.
AR: Yeah, a lot of films are each kind of watered down in their own way. But if you look at It, it’s very convoluted, rather the entity that is Pennywise is. I was going on Wikipedia and reading there’s like a 100 pages of mythology about what Pennywise is. He only feeds every 27 years and he’s a shapeshifter, and he represents this and that and has ties to natives of Derry and it’s just this crazy mythology that you don’t get to do in a film. In a film you’re very much in a two-dimensional space and the denser it is the more danger you are in of losing your audience. In a novel you can explore all of those different, weird threads. Two hours is a very short period of time for a film. By the time you’re done laying seeds, setting up characters, act breaks, and scares it becomes a very tricky form for adapting a novel. That’s why TV has become far more nuanced and gratifying because you’re getting to see really well developed characters over a period of time. There’s no room for nuance in film.
AE: Are you pleased with the direction that horror is going in general?
AR: Oh yeah. I’m very gratified by it. Horror is always considered the bastard step-child though. I worked with Robert Englund and he said that studios always view horror this way. Guillermo Del Toro recently said that horror is part of the film canon, it’s not separate, it’s not a bastard and it is a genre that has value. Horror is a low-hanging fruit and it is a way for some people to break into the industry. I do want to make a multitude of movies but horror, by very definition of the word, horrere means ‘to bristle’ in Latin. It’s talking about the hairs on the very back of your neck. So horror is physiologically manipulative, it makes you recoil, makes you scream, makes a whole theatre of hundreds of people freak the fuck out. It has a visceral response. For example, when James Wan pulls off a scare, he’s manipulating so many different elements. He’s like a maestro at a concert, only he’s using the sounds of silence, he’s cutting slowly back and forth all before the sting of the music crashing and the demon appearing. With horror, you have all the aspects of filmmaking working in concert to create the scare. I like a drama, I’m not decrying dramas, but it’s coverage, it’s performance and it’s not the manipulation of so many techniques like horror does to get to the scare. You’re pulling out this entire bag of tricks. And when you get into visual effects and practical effects, there’s just so many stages to it. It’s like a magician working within cinema where every stage is an illusion. Horror is like the last great magic trick.
AE: Besides James Wan and Guillermo Del Toro, are there any other modern horror directors or young horror filmmakers that you’re a big fan of?
AR: I enjoy Ti West’s work a lot. He’s always doing something interesting and different. Eli Roth is fun for shock value.
AE: What’s the last movie that genuinely scared you?
AR: Insidious got me. I saw it with Lin Shayne, who’s also a friend, and James, and I remember it had so many great jumps. But I get more frightened by real things like documentaries. I was watching a documentary recently on HBO about The Iceman, the hitman who killed hundreds of people. I was telling my co-writer, Gavin, that he seemed like a nice guy who just wanted to be at home with his family, but every now and then he had to go out and do this job. Throughout the interviews with him he was going through these horrific ways he killed people, and there was one moment where he begins to give an anecdotal story and then he says ‘ah, I shouldn’t tell you,’ but you see his eyes water and you can tell this total sociopath is about to breakdown. Then he goes on telling this story about how he had this guy tied up and said to him ‘You pray to your god right now. You got 30 minutes. You pray to your god and if he can change your circumstances I won’t kill you.’ Obviously the guy was ultimately killed but I just found that so chilling. What makes somebody capable of this? I think the human animal is far scarier than anything Stephen King or any of us could dream up.
AE: I agree. A lot of people have been talking about The Jinx and how Robert Durst is basically the horror villain of the year
AR: Oh definitely. Oh yeah. What an arrogance to the way he kept wanting to be filmed, and wanting a little bit of limelight. What an idiot. Oh, I’ve got another couple of films to add post-haste. One of my favorite horror films, it’s more of a supernatural thriller, is The Mothman Prophecies. And Session 9 really fucked with me. It takes place at the Danvers State Mental Hospital. It’s sort of like The Shining meets Agatha Christie. It’s really effective and it has stuck with me all these years, probably because I listen to the soundtrack all the time.
AE: Do you listen to horror soundtracks when you write?
AR: I do, yeah! I have a ton of soundtracks. The Session 9 soundtrack by these guys, Climax Golden Twins is just the most fucked up, atmospheric sound design. But it’s very neutral so it doesn’t send you off into these swells of emotion, so it’s just background noise. But it always puts in me a state of mind, like I’m getting an icepick to the brain.
AE: I can’t stop listening to the It Follows soundtrack. What did you think of that one?
AR: I loved it! I loved the whole vibe that movie had. I grew up in the 80s, I thought it was very ingenious, but again, I didn’t think of it as a quintessential horror film as much as an exercise in style and form.
AE: Horror gets a lot of criticism, it’s that low-hanging fruit as you were saying. What’s your response to folks who say that there aren’t any good horror movies these days?
AR: They’re not looking hard enough. There’s so much to see now, stuff coming out from all these different countries. Ten years ago you couldn’t even go and watch Let the Right One In in a theatre and now we’re able to do that. But I don’t really care that people say that about horror. I don’t lose sleep over it.
AE: What other projects do you have coming down the line along with Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension, The Bloody Benders, and that action-horror film?
AR: I’m working on a TV pilot –a big sort-of world creating TV idea that involves…well, let’s just say it involves insects. And there’s a couple of other things in development.
AE: How close is The Bloody Benders to production?
AR: We’re close. We have a company that’s interested in it and I also have a financer who’s very close to pulling the trigger. So, God willing. There’s another project that I’m looking at, but you never know until you’re hired. I’ve got a few things that are just on the cusp, but unfortunately I can’t talk about them until they’re official.
AE: Well, I’ll be keeping my eye out!
AR: Cool, dude!
Featured Images: Eagle Films/Millennium Entertainment and Paramount Pictures