Stowe and Rickman are the only cast of the film and they are both credited. Bharadwaj later revealed in a September 2005 production note that Rickman was not her original choice for the Interrogator. "If I were to pick my top choices for role of the interrogator in Closet Land," she wrote, I would still unhesitatingly go with my first choices then: Sir Anthony Hopkins, Sir Ian Holm and Peter O'Toole. All three can capture not only the interrogator's violence and villainy—which is the easy part—but, more critically, his humanity. Evil does not come wearing horns and a tail, nor does it announce itself with flamboyant bombast and grandiose posturing. All too often, evil comes in a deceptively human package—it is quiet and inscrutable, complete with a tenderness and warmth that seem real. The seeming genuineness is our trap—this is why we repeatedly are snared by evil, why its pull is so strong. The three actors I just mentioned have the ability to capture true villainy, in all its all-too frail and human wrappings. Once the film had two thespian actors attached, the film was green-lit and with a budget of two and a half million dollars, it was shot for eighteen days in Culver City, western Los Angeles. It is left up to the viewer as to whether Stowe's character has in fact run afoul of the Government — or, alternatively, that the Interrogator is acting alone. The film exhibits the use of brutal and inhumane torture to coerce confessions from innocent victims. Due to the film's universal message, the human rights organization Amnesty International served as consultants for the film. Bharadwaj later said of their support: I was, and remain opposed, to the Amnesty International quotes and commercials that tag my film in both its theatrical and video release. This is despite the fact that I personally support human rights organizations. But the Amnesty International quotes and commercials made it easy for those who did not understand my film to dismiss it as mere human rights propaganda. And those who did understand my film were irritated and disappointed by the quotes, wondering why a film that ultimately has such far-reaching scope needed to limit itself to an organization and its message. When plastered on a film, these quotes and commercials ended up subjugating the voice of the artist to the voice of a cause. Ironically, isn't that what