SAGIndie

UPDATE – 10/24/11: I’m pleased to report that THE HAMMER (a.k.a. HAMILL) has acquired distribution and will be playing in select theaters starting October 27, 2011. For tickets and theater information, visit THIS SITE.

———

Overcoming the necessary obstacles in order to get your story out to the masses is a daunting aspect of independent filmmaking. With the current state of distribution, the obstacles are bigger than ever. If you’re unwilling to compromise your vision, the battle becomes even tougher, especially when your project portrays a unique world that general audiences are unfamiliar with. That being said, with big risks come big rewards and telling a powerful, unconventional story is the first step to making an impact on a large scale.

Filmmakers EBEN KOSTBAR and JOSEPH MCKELHEER understand this, and they are currently entrenched in this kind of battle with their latest film HAMILL, the true story of deaf UFC fighter, MATT HAMILL. Directed by OREN KAPLAN, it’s the inspiring journey of a man who, for most of his life, has found himself awkwardly caught between the worlds of the hearing and the non-hearing. It’s very much a classic underdog sports story that would touch and inspire the hearts and minds of most moviegoers should it garner a wide theatrical release (trailer below).

In order to remain true to Matt Hamill’s story and portray the Deaf and Hard of Hearing communities accurately, Eben and Joseph (co-writers and co-producers) chose to take some risks that they knew could impact their chances with distributors. They decided to cast smaller, unknown actors, such as deaf actor RUSSELL HARVARD (There Will Be Blood) in the title role. They also utilized open captioning and specific sound design to bring us into Hamill’s world, sometimes deliberately depriving our senses on screen.

Having only screened at five film festivals thus far, they’ve already collected a handful of awards (they’re five for five at the fests they’ve played at including the AFI Fest’s prestigious Audience Award). They also have approval from the largest Deaf organizations in the country, not to mention the vocal support they’ve received from the other core audiences portrayed in the film (the Deaf, mixed martial arts, and wrestling communities). Needless to say, Eben and Joseph are very optimistic about Hamill’s chances at a wide release.

In late February I sat down with the duo to discuss the obstacles they’ve had to overcome in order to bring Matt Hamill’s life to the screen, as well as their strategy for building a dedicated fan base that will help prove to distributors that this film belongs in theaters.

HAMILL screens at the 2011 NEWPORT BEACH FILM FESTIVAL in Newport Beach, California on Saturday, April 30th and Thursday, May 5th. Buy tickets HERE.

WILL PRESCOTT: This film has potential to make a huge impact on the Deaf community—either positively or negatively. How did this affect the choices you made during production?

EBEN KOSTBAR: Well, five years ago, when we were developing this, the big challenge was, are we going to go with deaf actors or not? I’m an actor, Joe’s an actor, we developed this with me acting and Joe directing. We quickly realized that this is the wrong way to go because you learn about Deaf culture and you realize deaf actors should be playing these roles. They obviously bring a lot more authenticity to the parts. Unfortunately, there’s no deaf male lead that’s a name actor. And that’s important when you’re putting a project together and asking investors for money, because that’s ultimately going to determine to distributors that you can get that chunk of money back.

JOSEPH MCKELHEER: At the beginning we weren’t thinking about hearing actors versus deaf actors. We didn’t really see anything wrong with it at the beginning. We were like, “What do you mean? This person is an actor. An actor can play deaf.” We learned quickly that’s not going to fly and we learned why. We came to understand the Deaf community’s point of view.

WP: So, despite the potential distribution problems, you went with unknown, deaf actors anyway?

EK: Yeah. We said you know what, with this type of project, if we’re really going to shake things up and make an impact, let’s hire all deaf actors for the roles. Let’s bring in some deaf crew people or deaf producers so they can teach us about their culture and really create this subplot to the story. Yeah, it’s your classic sports underdog story about a guy overcoming all obstacles, but we’ve see that a million times. And what’s interesting is that there’s a group of people out there who haven’t been portrayed like this on the screen yet. Or at least portrayed properly.

WP: But it was still difficult to get made.

EK: A lot of the reason why this film took five plus years was because the early creative decisions were met with challenges. But all of the great things about this film are the challenges we’re facing now. The deaf actors not being name actors was a good thing because we wanted to open up opportunities for them, because it gives more authenticity to the film. We implemented open captioning throughout the film because we wanted it accessible. The big picture plan is that we want deaf people to go to the theater because right now they can only go to selected times or to theaters with special equipment where they can read the subtitles.

JM: Or wait for the film to come out on DVD with closed captioning.

EK: Right. This is our vision. We want deaf and hard of hearing people to be able to go to the theater together and experience it with other hearing people. It creates two things: One, it gives them an opportunity to go to a theater just like any hearing person. And two, it creates this cool dynamic of deaf and hearing people being in an audience at the same time. They laugh together and cry together.

JM: That’s what it’s all about. The film is really about emerging the two cultures together and allowing each culture to have an awareness of the other.

WP: And Matt Hamill’s life is a great vehicle to do this since he’s very much a part of both cultures. How did you even come up with the idea to tell his story in the first place?

EK: I saw Matt on this reality TV show and told Joe we should go see him at this Deaf school where he was speaking at a wrestling tournament. It’s a K-12 school called California School for the Deaf and it’s in Fremont. They have deaf faculty, deaf principles, etc. They call it Deaf Town. That’s their slang term. They tell you to turn off your voice because they want you to get thrown into their world, their language, American Sign Language. So we spent a weekend with Matt, at this school, and we were just blown away by this culture. How cool would it be if we could portray this on the screen and let other people into this world a little bit?

WP: When was this?

JM: This has been a five-year process. Eben first saw him and called me and said check this guy out. I was like, “Cage fighting?” I wasn’t really into it at first. But we went and met him and were like, “He has a really inspiring story.  We have to make it.” It took us a couple of years to write the script.

WP: And he was involved along the way? The whole time?

JM: Yeah. Matt was such a good guy. And we really wanted to do two things. We wanted to handle his life appropriately and handle the Deaf community appropriately. So we had a handshake deal with him that he’d have approval on the script.

EK: And we really did have a handshake deal (laughs). We didn’t even have a contract for the first year. How scary is that? We’ll never do that again.

WP: How difficult was it working with him since this is his story?

JM: It presented some challenges because, imagine if someone was going to make your life story and wanted to change it because it didn’t fit into a movie format or a three-act structure. You’d say, “That’s not the way it went!” So it created some challenges, but at the end of the day there’s not a whole lot of movie magic and it’s really accurate. It’s something that Matt’s happy with.

WP: As storytellers who can hear, did Matt or anyone else have issues with you being able to relate to their struggles?

JM: If you’re deaf and approached by people wanting to make this film, your first response is going to be, “Why are two hearing guys making this film?” We stumbled upon this many times.

EK: But we had open arms. We said, “Tell us who to work with. We want to work with deaf crew and deaf actors. We want to create opportunities for them.” Hopefully Hamill gets out there and people learn more about the community, for example, a lot of people call them “hearing impaired,” but that’s not the proper term. They’re deaf and they don’t see it as a bad thing. Deaf represents their culture. Like American Sign Language is their language, not English. English is their second language. And as cheesy as this might sound to some people, it’s these educational sub tones that are in the film.

WP: Let’s talk about some of those deaf actors. Russell Harvard did excellent as Hamill but, Eben, you were originally supposed to play the lead role, right?

EK: [laughs] A long time ago. And Joe was gonna direct it! We’re actors. We come from acting backgrounds. Joe did a film called GODSPEED, which was the first film under Film Harvest. Everything came from let’s create opportunities for ourselves and also we wanted to make film. So, when I saw Hamill, I was like I wrestled, I can learn sign language, I sort of resemble him. Not really, but kinda.

JM: Hamill is six-three.

EK: I know! [laughs] But yeah, I put so much into it. I got hearing aids. I went and took classes. Like, I know Sign Language now, which eventually helped because it got thrown into the story.

JM: Eventually there was so much controversy over Eben playing the role that it made us second guess ourselves. And now, you know, we’d never go back. Anybody making a film about a deaf person you got to cast a deaf actor. It just has to be that way.

WP: So you fired Eben and hired Russell?

JM: Yeah. And one of the examples we gave to investors for why we were going go with a deaf actor was THERE WILL BE BLOOD. Paul Thomas Anderson recast the role of the older version of Daniel Day-Lewis’ son (played by Russell Harvard) with a deaf actor. Initially, and I’m not sure if I’m totally correct on this, they hired a hearing actor to play that role and during shooting there was some controversy and they recast. They were shooting in Texas and Russell is based in Austin, and they cast him.

WP: Was Russell a wrestler?

EK: No! Talk about a casting challenge. The actor who plays Matt has to be deaf, not hard of hearing, there’s a difference. He has to know sign language, which a lot of deaf people don’t know.

JM: He has to be oral.

EK: Has to be oral, which a lot of deaf people aren’t oral. Matt is very oral and can speak very well. He also has to look like Matt to a certain degree; he has to be in the same age group. Has to play from high school to age 32. You know, he has to be old enough where he can play older, but not too old that he can’t play younger.

WP: Wow.

EK: And if he doesn’t wrestle, he has to still be athletic enough to pull some moves off. I mean, that’s like a casting nightmare.

WP: That’s tough.

JM: There was one guy. Literally only one guy that we found and I think we did a pretty extensive search.

EK: And actually, we took a leap of faith with Russell. Deaf actors, a lot of times, just haven’t gotten the acting experience yet, you know, just like any young actors. But they (deaf and hard of hearing actors) don’t have the opportunities, unfortunately, and even less experience. So when we were looking for Matt, besides all the casting challenges, just in terms of acting, a lot of people we saw just weren’t ready yet. And the fact that Russell played opposite Daniel Day-Lewis, I mean, come on. You have to be pretty good.

JM: He was the bastard in the basket.

EK: Love that scene.

WP: So how did you get at him? How did you get him the script?

JM: We were writing the script when There Will Be Blood came out. So his name came up right away, but we were originally going to cast him as the best friend role (played by Michael Anthony Spady). We never really considered Russell and always thought we’d find someone a little bit younger. But he was right there the whole time.

EK: It’s so weird with the casting and things in general with this project, how they fell into place. The best friend role, Jay, is a great example. Michael Spady stole the show. I bartended on the side for years where I met Michael and just like his character, he had this eccentric personality. He was deaf, but it never really clicked that he’d play Jay because we kept thinking he had to be white because the original best friend is white. But after we couldn’t find Jay, casting-wise, we were like, “What about this guy?”

JM: And he won the job.

EK: And it’s cool. Having a black actor play a white role. I mean, who cares? We asked the real Jay and he was like, “Yeah. Sure. I don’t care.”

WP: So what about Oren Kaplan (the director)? When did he come onboard?

JM: I worked with Oren on a movie called THE HAMILTONS. He was the Second AC (Assistant Camera) and the Executive Producer. Odd combination.

WP: That is odd.

JM: He started doing a lot of web stuff for Disney, tons of content that wasn’t feature length. We had stayed in contact and were looking for a director who was talented and just starting out like us. We had put a lot of work into this project and didn’t want someone to come on the project and just direct it and walk away. We wanted to make sure there was that commitment long term. He’s been on this project for two years now and he’s got another two to go at least. It’s a big commitment for a director, or any indie filmmaker for that matter.

EK: From working for Disney, Oren had the eye and still does, to create a more commercial looking film that, I don’t know how to say this the right way, doesn’t look so…

JM: Indie.

EK: Yeah. Indie. For lack of a better word. It’s a classic sports underdog story and deserved to have kinda like, you know—

JM: More mainstream appeal.

EK: Yeah. More mainstream appeal. So, the fact Oren worked at Disney and had done work like this, we trusted his vision, and I think he hit a home run, especially with the resources he had.

WP: You guys certainly did some great things with the sound design.

EK: Geoff Green (sound designer), who we’ve worked with before, did amazing work. We still think that one of the coolest things about this film is the sound design. You really step into Matt Hamill’s shoes and see what it’s like to be deaf for two hours. Geoff really came up with some cool, interesting things.

JM: It was an interesting process because it was all in the script, but it maybe wasn’t as effective in the script as it was in the final product you saw. Geoff really took what we created in the script and thought it through from a practical position. He was on the phone with an audiologist and really did the research in terms of what, for example, sounds would sound like with hearing aids.

EK: And not only hearing aids but what it would sound like with only one hearing aid because Matt only wears one in one ear. You know, the differences. The frequencies. The little things you probably don’t pick up when you initially watch it, but then when they all come together when you experience it. It was a challenge, especially in the developmental stages, because they were saying you’ve got to be careful because of all those silent moments. You already have a pretty silent film and then big gaps of silence. The majority of your audience will be a hearing audience and they’re going to get bored reading subtitles. So, it’s making it cool but still having it flow consistently throughout the film. It was a challenge to find a happy medium.

WP: One of the coolest things I found about Matt’s character is that you have this guy, and I want to know how realistic it is, but you have this guy who doesn’t fit in either world—he’s raised one way and then he goes to the Deaf school that he doesn’t fit into as well. Is this straight out of his life?

JM: Yeah.

EK: Yeah. From the very, very first meeting we had with him at the school we met him at, he told us how he felt like he’s not in both. He feels like he can fit into both, but he doesn’t associate with “I’m just deaf,” or “I’m just hard of hearing.”

JM: That’s how he felt growing up. That’s how he was raised and wants to maintain to this day.  He always said he was grateful he went to RIT (Rochester Institute of Technology) and that opened up his world to the Deaf community because he hadn’t had that experience before. But, you know, he doesn’t necessarily want to be represented as someone from the Deaf community. He wants to be in the middle. And he wants to live his life in the middle of those two cultures. There is a distinction between the two and he doesn’t necessarily want to be grouped into either.

EK: He’s definitely proud to be Deaf. He doesn’t deny it or anything like that. He’s not an extremist one way or the other. Shoshannah Stern’s character in the film, Kristi, would be an example of what they call “Deaf” with a capital “D”.  Meaning true Deaf culture, American Sign Language, they don’t believe in speaking because that’s not them. They believe you must learn their language, American Sign Language, I’ll learn English, but I’m deaf and this is what I believe in. And so, when constructing the project we were like, “Let’s just tell Matt’s story.” He grew up in a hearing world and would eventually embrace the fact that he is deaf and learn about his culture and who he is. That’s his journey. It’s not every deaf person’s journey. Through telling his story you learn so many different layers about the Deaf and hard of hearing cultures.

WP: Absolutely. It’s really educational in that sense. With Matt being caught between these two worlds, it really helps you as an audience member to empathize with him, while learning so much about the culture through his journey.

JM: That was our original idea. Here’s a deaf kid growing up in a hearing world and he’s a total fish out of water. And then, when he finally gets to the world you think he should be in, he’s a fish out of water still. We didn’t want to be too preachy about the Deaf community either. and we didn’t want to treat being deaf as too negative or anything. It was a fine line we had to walk.

EK: A lot of people will say, and even Matt, that they see being deaf as a gift.  Where initially, when he was brought up, he was fighting against it. But now he says that it’s a gift and he wouldn’t be the person he is without the fact that he’s deaf.

JM: If you ask most deaf people if they had the ability to hear would they take it? Most will say no. And that was the moment in time when the light bulb went on for us. Oh, okay, I get it. I totally get it now.

EK: Our vision on the writing side was to do a 180-degree swap for the audience members. As a deaf audience member you’re thrust into a hearing world, like they normally are for about 90 percent of the day. So, in the beginning of the film, they’re forced to do what they always do by reading the subtitles or reading lips. But then all the sudden it’s flipped when Matt goes to RIT and they have sign language and they’re in their own world and the hearing audience is forced to read the subtitles. Hopefully, as a hearing audience member, when that happens and the sound cuts out, a light will go on and they’ll say, “Wow this is cool. It’s like this visual language, and there’s no sound, and they’re talking and there’s so much going on.”

WP: Yeah. I definitely felt that while watching. Hopefully it carries over to a much wider audience.

JM: That’s the goal.

WP: So, what are the future planes for the film?

JM: Well, right now we are really pushing for a theatrical release. We want to start with a small theatrical release and grow from there.

WP: Do you have a distribution deal?

JM: Right now no one is saying let’s take it wide release. So we have to do it ourselves and hold off on distribution deals that don’t include a theatrical release.

EK: There are a few companies out there who like it and specialize in strong niche-type films, but most of them are based on us bringing in the P&A money (Prints and Advertising), the marketing money, because they don’t want to risk as much.

JM: From the perspective of the distributors, the film has no business being in a wide release. What we’re trying to do is prove that there is an audience for it and the only way we can do it is by doing it ourselves and starting small. We’ll use a specific strategy catered to our core markets and use a guerilla marketing campaign, a viral campaign, that supports this and helps our growth until we get into a stage where we can show people that there is an audience for this film.

EK: And for our type of budget, our indie budget, we’ve made some huge alliances. We have every top Deaf organization, the president of the largest Deaf university, Gallaudet, is sponsoring the film. The president of RIT. UFC and Tapout are sponsoring the film. Most independent films don’t have these alliances. We have the infrastructure; we just need to get that relationship going with a distributor that’s willing to put their neck on the line so we can show them the true potential of this film.

WP: Well, I’m sure it won’t take long. It’s a great film on many different levels. Do you have anything else to add before we wrap up?

EK: Well, Joe’s having a baby this week.

WP: A baby? Really? You know the sex?

JM: It’s a boy.

WP: You got a name?

EK: He can’t say. His wife told me the name, and I spilled it, and she didn’t want anyone to know. So she’s mad at me and now he can’t tell anyone.

JM: But we do have a name, yes.

WP: Is it Hamill?

EK: [laughs] Yes!

JM: [laughs] Yeah, Matt Hamill.

Eben and Joseph are currently in post-production on their third feature, FREE SAMPLES, produced by their production company FILM HARVEST and starring Jess Wexler and Jesse Eisenberg. For more information on HAMILL, check out the official website as well as the Facebook and Twitter pages.

If you’re an independent filmmaker or know of an independent filmmaker we should interview, email blogadmin@sagindie.org for consideration.

For a writer the genesis of a story can come from a number of different places, inspirations or experiences—some real, some manufactured, but most, a hybrid of both.

For writer/director/producer, K. LORREL MANNING, the inspiration for his first feature initially came to him in the form of a book he discovered in 2004.  Nina Berman’s PURPLE HEARTS BACK FROM IRAQ— a remarkable compilation of photographs and essays about servicemen and women wounded in the Iraq war—captivated him with what soldiers were experiencing once they returned from combat. Fueled by a desire to understand the world of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), Manning began researching and interviewing veterans with the hope that his next “project” would emerge.

It didn’t take long before he met an Iraq vet-turned-police officer, who would serve as the catalyst for a short, eleven-page play about two war-torn veterans reuniting in a hospital called HAPPY NEW YEAR. For one of the lead roles, Manning called upon a friend he had freelanced with at a law firm in New York, MICHAEL CUOMO, who was also an actor working hard to cut his teeth in theater. Cuomo would prove to be more than just an actor in the stage production: he worked closely with Manning on the development, adaptation, producing and lead performance on both the short and feature films.

The feature version of HAPPY NEW YEAR follows the story of Sgt. Cole Lewis (Cuomo), a war-torn marine who returns home from combat to find humanity, compassion and friendship in a group of similarly injured veterans in the psychiatric ward at a Veterans Hospital (watch the trailer below).

What began for Manning and Cuomo (or “The Guys” as they refer to themselves) as an exploration into the minds of wounded veterans, would eventually become a four-year quest to present an issue that much too often goes unnoticed by society.  With support from numerous veterans groups and big-name critics like, ELVIS MITCHELL, their goal is to have the film in theaters by November 11, 2011—Veteran’s Day.

It was in Austin, Texas at the 2011 SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST FILM FESTIVAL, only days after their world premiere in the Narrative Competition Category, where I caught up with the Guys. In a small room at the downtown Hilton that served as both their sleeping quarters and festival war-room, we had our first of what will be three conversations chronicling their journey along the festival circuit.

HAPPY NEW YEAR opens the 2011 AMC THEATRES KANSAS CITY FILMFEST (sponsored by AMC Theaters) tonight at 7:15PM in Missouri.

WILL PRESCOTT: So, Michael, what did you think initially when you first read Lorrel’s short play?

MICHAEL CUOMO: I’ve told Lorrel this story a million times. My printer was broken so I was reading it off my laptop. I got through it and I went back to look at something, and my computer was all fuzzy and screwed up. I couldn’t figure it out, and I stepped away, went to the bathroom and realized my face was flushed with tears. But I wasn’t sobbing, it was almost more like an unconscious reaction to something. And that’s when I called him and was like, “We’ve got to do this play.” Because if I’m reacting this way, imagine how other people are going to react.

WP: How did it finally get on stage?

LORREL MANNING: I, Michael and another actor by the name of William Oliver Watkins were getting together to explore these characters and I was filming it and everything. And around this time, I was talking to Lee Brock (co-artistic director of the Barrow Group theatre company) about the play and she said, “We could put this in the big theater. Make it a two night thing.” And I said, “Sure.” But then she called me back later and said that they had the one-act play festival coming up and that she was not very happy with the plays that were coming in. She said, “Why don’t you take it over and make this the one-act play festival? I was like, “Lee, I only have two-months to put that together and she says, “You can do it.” (laughs)

WP: That’s where it premiered?

LM: Yeah. I hired some directors and put out this big call across the country for war-themed plays. We went through this whole process of vetting these plays trying to find which ones were best. And then I took Happy New Year and another play I had written and submitted it to the group and took my name off of it and that play (Happy New Year) got through. And they were like, who wrote this? And I said I did. (laughs) And they didn’t know that. But it got such high marks so it was able to play at the festival. The festival ran for six weeks in NY and was very successful, sold out almost every night. It was a way for us to make people aware of the issues. Each of the plays dealt with the war, not overseas but at home.

All these plays had a different take on the effect of war on the American psyche. They were all great plays but Happy New Year was the central piece because it was very hard hitting and closed out the night. One night a group of military mothers wanted to come and I was quite nervous because this was the first real test of anyone connected to the military would see the piece. I was unclear as to whether or not they’d respond to what we were doing. A few of the mothers stayed after to talk to us and they said, “You have to do something with this. It can’t just stay here in NYC. People have to know about these issues and what’s going on.”

WP: And thus the short film was born.

LM: We got together in Michael’s apartment on the 4th of July in ’07 and wondered how we were going to raise the $20K that we needed to make the film. We  put together a letter writing campaign. Had a benefit show. Reached out to family friends. All kinds of stuff. So over the summer we raised the money and six weeks after the show closed we were shooting the short film adaptation.

WP: So, what were some of the things you did specifically, in terms of development, to transform the story from stage to screen? How were they different? What were some of the lessons you learned to improve the filmed version?

MC: Well, the stage version is essentially two guys in a hospital room, right? It’s dialogue driven. It’s their story and the story of their relationship. It looks at New Year’s Eve as an interesting metaphor for looking at our lives and asking, “What’s next?” What do we want to do different in the New Year? Two guys who were greatly affected by their experiences overseas who are now reuniting.

WP: Right.

MC: And the main thing for us is that we wanted to get it to festivals. We were looking at Sundance, and Cannes and all of the biggies. And Cannes helped determine what a short film should be because they wouldn’t accept anything over fifteen minutes.

WP: How long was it?

MC: The play was about twenty-five minutes. So we immediately said, “Oh shit,” if we want to have a shot at something like Cannes, the film will need to be shorter.  And Lorrel already had ideas on how to adapt it and jokes we could take out of the script that won’t take away from the relationship. It’s just that less is more. So much more can be seen because of the intimacy of film as opposed to theater. So, from an acting perspective, it was the first time in my life I had something—you know, with most films you come on with little rehearsal—but this was incredible because both myself, and William Watkins, who were in the original play, were going to do the short film with the original writer/director.  So, for us, one of the things that was so cool, was that the characters were already so in us. We knew these guys. We knew our lines. If anything, we had to relearn beat changes and things like that because it was now going to be condensed and you were going to have to get to certain places quicker, emotionally.

WP: Where did the short premiere?

LM: The Cleveland Film Festival.

WP: And what were some of the other highlights of the short’s festival run?

LM: Two of my favorites were the Rhode Island and Maryland Film Festivals. Two of my favorites by far.

WP: How did (Executive Producer) Iain Smith get involved?

LM: We were looking for a good makeup artist for the film. In the play Michael looked very sickly, but I wanted him to appear more deteriorated in the film version.

MC: We put an ad out for a makeup artist. The first person to respond was this woman, Ailie Smith, who said she was located in London but worked on Harry Potter and Cold Mountain. Said she was planning a trip to New York and if we were willing to help her find housing, per diem for food, and money for supplies, she’d be willing to fly over for the project. She sent us a sample and Lorrel looked at her resume and was like, “let’s hire her.” So we did. But then a week later, she wrote back and said she’s really sorry, but she can’t afford the expense right now. And we were only two weeks out from shooting. So, our producer, Karl Jacob, said he was going to search for someone else. I emailed her a plea, asking if there was anyway she could reconsider, writing something like ‘we want you on this movie and we think it’d be better with you involved.’ And it worked.

LM: And she came in. The day of shooting. She’s doing a makeup test on Michael and casually tells us that she’d shown her father the script and that he really liked it. I asked if he was in the film business, and she said that he was a producer. And I asked what he’d done. And she said, oh, you know, ‘Children of Men, Cold Mountain, He’s worked with Brad Pitt a lot.’  And Michael and I are like, “What?” Quick, IMDB him!” (laughs)

WP: So her dad is Iain Smith?

LM: Yeah. And maybe two months later we were close to our fine cut of the film and she checked in and said, “You know, my dad’s in New York this weekend. Would you want to show him the film?” And we were like, “sure.” So, he watched the film, and we met him the next day for a lunch that ended up being over three hours long. He was so blown away by the short film.  We talked about spirituality, and art, and the business.  He gave us so much advice and said we really should expand the short into a feature film. I was like, “You know, we thought about doing something like that, but not exactly this story.” He was like, “No. No you need to expand this film.” I was very intrigued by the idea.

WP: So you started writing.

LM: I started working on the treatment and adding more characters. A lot of multi-ethnic characters. Things I’d been wanting to tackle. So I’d do a treatment and send it to Michael for feedback. And then do another one. I eventually said we should share story credit because he was adding some really good ideas.

WP: Well, at this point you guys had already become a strong partnership.

LM: Yes. Our friendship had grown immensely. We started to think alike. We challenged each other creatively. So, as we were finishing the short film, I was finishing the feature treatment and then a draft of the script that we got to Sundance.

MC: We submitted it to the Sundance Writer’s Lab. It made it to the final round, but was ultimately not accepted that year for 2008. But Michelle Satter sent us a really nice letter saying of the thousands of scripts we made it to the final round and encouraged us to make the film.

LM: One of Iain’s big points was that if we wanted to make the film that we wanted to make, it was important to keep the budget low. ‘Then you’ll be able to showcase yourselves and also be in control of how you present this issue that you feel so passionately about. This is a challenging issue. These films haven’t done well. But if you feel passionately about it make sure you are in control of it.” So that’s why we kept the budget low and remained true to each other. So, Michael and I made made a pact with each other that said, “I’m not gonna dump you, and you’re not gonna suggest I leave the project so someone bigger can come in.” We made that commitment to each other and knew it would be an extremely hard road to travel, because the first thing that happened once we started going out there we were bombarded with questions – “You’re an unknown writer/director, and you cast an unknown actor in the lead, plus it’s about Iraq? Come on? Why doesn’t Michael take a supporting role. Or why don’t you sell the script to someone else? Or, if you’re gonna do it together, why not take on a different subject matter?”

WP: Who were some of these people saying this?

LM: A lot of them were producers.

MC: Agents.

LM: And we both said, “No.” And they said, “Obviously this film isn’t getting made.“  So, it was a very long road. While the short was on the festival circuit, we were trying to figure out ways to get the feature made. I was turning out drafts, we were interviewing veterans and military personnel. At the same time holding down full time jobs.

WP: Were you guys still working at the law firm?

LM: Yes.

MC: Yeah. At night. 7PM to 2AM.

WP: Wow.

LM: So during the day, we’d get to our film office at 10am and work on the film all day, and go to work at night.

WP: And so you found it helpful to have the short out there. You’d go to the festivals with a backpack of scripts or whatever and be like, hey, here’s a feature version of it?

LM: Yeah. A lot of people suggested that we don’t make a short and go right for the feature.

MC: That’s the thing. People said, why use $15-20K on a short when you can make a low budget feature for $50K? Luckily, we didn’t do that. We stuck to our guns and made the short. It was a very wise choice. Because as a young director and young actor, in terms of a career, it was good to have that short as a calling card, to show people a small portion of what to expect. Of course, if you do that, you better make sure the short is a microcosm of what the film will be.  In that, it kind of needs to be the quality, and ideally if that actor, who is unknown, is gonna be in the feature, he or she should be in the short. So anyone who questioned my ability, or Lorrel’s ability, could look at the short, from an investment perspective. Instead of sending them a 120 page script, or even a 20 page investment document, we could bring a group of people in a room like this, play them the short and discuss the investment structure. That process, of course, took a lot longer than it should because every film about the Iraq war was getting killed at the box office.

WP: Right, but what was your goal with this film? Was it to get it into theaters and get a huge box office or get this story out there? What’s great about you guys, and this whole story is the drive that you had to get this issue out there in the face of all this box office talk.

LM: Talk about sticking to your guns, we both did.  I got approached for other plays and feature films to direct. Had to step away from that. Michael stepped away from a management contract.  They wanted to take him on the road and get him out there doing regional theatre and tv pilots.

MC: It was hard because I was unrepresented at the time. I’m still unrepresented for legit film/tv.  But it was hard, because you always want the ear of these people, and they have a plan for you. But that wasn’t my plan.  And now I have something that I’m truly proud of. It’s one thing to be an actor sitting at Starbucks waiting for your agent to call to tell you if you got that job. It’s another thing to take the power back in a way and produce your own vehicle. It’s great to have an agent, but so many friends of mine were in this spin cycle of “What do I have to do to become that star name that the casting director is seeking and not get boxed out.”

LM: We both said we’re not gonna wait for anybody to give us anything anymore. We’re gonna do what we want to do and just go for it. That lunch with Iain is what really did it. “You gotta take it, boys.” (laughs)

WP: Totally. You look back at the people we all admire that we grew up watching—they all started out like that. They all went out and just did it.

LM: Don’t get me wrong. It’s not like everyday was great. There was a lot of second guessing. Should I take this job? Should I take that job? But we were good at talking it out. Supporting each other.

WP: That’s interesting. I’ve heard people advise against turning a short into a feature because you have a lot of projects in you. You do the short and that’s gone. Now do the next thing. Was it frustrating pushing that stone up the mountain, and not getting sick of working on the same thing over and over again?

LM: What really kept us going were the interviews we were having with the veterans and their families. They were just so moving and we cared so much about the issues that the film presents. Sometime you go so far down a path and you can’t turn back.  We were so into it – physically, spiritually, mentally.  We thought, “Yeah, these (Iraq) films aren’t doing well, but maybe this will be the one that does.” The response we got from veterans who saw that short was enough to keep us going. Even after the interviews they’d say, “No matter what happens, please keep going. Make the feature film.”

MC: My frustration with the project came from the fact that I wasn’t doing a lot of acting. We weren’t really workshopping the script because we were promoting the short, working on the script, trying to raise money. Trying to understand what it meant. I always joke and say I felt like the cat in the hat. Where you’re juggling a bowling pin, and a fish bowl, an encyclopedia, a baby, a dog, a cat, and a bed and you’ve never done it before. How will we get this thing made? But we were both in this spin cycle of “If we took on another project, what would happen to this one?”

WP: With all the energy you were putting in, did you ever think it wasn’t going to happen?

MC: It was a real risk if it didn’t happen. My friends were saying if this doesn’t work, do you feel like you’ve wasted two years of your career? My response was “It’s going to work out.” Because, to be honest with you, I couldn’t let those thoughts into my mind because if I did, I would’ve stopped working. If there’s any advice I can give, it’s that no one is going to believe in your career—whether you’re a writer, director or an actor—more than you.  Ever. I don’t care what agency you’re with. Who you’re dating. There’s this great line in The Departed when Jack Nicholson says, “When you want something in life you can’t ask for it — you just have to take it.” In the case of The Departed, there’s a criminal element to it—

WP: Really? There is? (laughs)

MC: (laughs) There is a criminal element to it, but I think it does apply to this conversation of, when you want something in life you can’t necessarily rely on a studio, or an agent or a casting director, to really validate you. At a certain point, you have to validate yourself. I can say as an actor there’s nothing more rewarding then knowing the script you’re attached to is not only gonna get shot but also get completed and you have a big hand in that. As a lead producer on this movie, I was invited in the editing room. Not everyday. But I got to look at the first cuts. And that’s an incredibly complicated relationship.

WP: And now here you are. At SXSW. You premiered on Saturday. March 12. How did that feel? After all these years? After all these things you’ve given up and sacrificed. How did it finally feel to just play it?

LM: I felt two things. Immense joy. And immense sadness. I felt immense joy in the fact that it was a reward for everything we had done, a gift for all the people who stuck by us and who really came through for us. The actors could see their amazing work, as well as the editor, the cinematographer. Everyone could celebrate. We stood here in our hotel room right before we walked over to the theater and gave each other  a huge bear hug and said “This is fucking amazing, man.”  We’ve been working so hard  that we have a difficult time stepping back and seeing the accomplishments that we’ve made. Family and friends, flew in from NY and all over to support us. However, I felt sadness in the fact that I  quickly realized how enriching and challenging the journey has been and that I’ll probably never have this experience again. I’ll never look at this process with virgin eyes asking, “How do you do this? How do you do that?” There will be more discoveries, and challenges, but I will no longer be this uneducated kid trying to figure out how to make things work. There is great beauty in learning. It was back-breaking work, but there was a beauty in it. Kind of like learning to ride a bike for the first time. Or getting your license. I’ll never have that experience again. So there’s some sadness with that. But would I go through it again? Hell, no! (laughs)

WP: How about you, Michael? How did you feel?

MC: I felt great.  It was incredible when we got the call from Janet Pierson and she was so moved and wanted us in the festival, eventually, a competition selection..  Especially with all the doubts we’ve talked about and the voices of dissent people had shared with us over the years saying, “You making the right decision?” There was a degree to which I trusted in my heart and telling the story no matter what and I wasn’t wrong. If that makes sense.  I haven’t been working in a vacuum for the last three years on something that no one’s ever gonna see.  As an artist that’s all you have. Your work that you’re gonna leave behind. I went through a serious personal relationship during this time that didn’t work out. At one point my mother said to me, “It’s okay. You’ll find someone else.” I said, “Maybe I will and maybe I won’t.” And she said, “Surely you want to have kid and a family.” And I said, “Is it alright if I don’t? I mean maybe I will. But maybe these films are the things I leave behind instead of a child. Maybe that’s my contribution to society.”  Maybe it’s not. I don’t know. But if that is true, if you are making sacrifices for certain things, you at least want to see them born in a way.  Happy New Year was “born” at SXSW.

WP: Absolutely.

MC: You want to birth these things into the world and share them with people and if they are meant to shake things up and affect change, you know socio-politically, you need a place like SXSW to launch you. Or Sundance or Tribeca or Los Angeles, or whatever the usual suspects are, so you can then go take your film out into the world into theaters and reach more people. And then do it on another project.

WP: It’s about leaving a body of work.

MC: At the State Theater I remember looking up at the marquee and it said SXSW 2011 Happy New Year. My aunt and uncle were there. A lot of friends were there. And we’re on a fucking marquee. We made it. But look. There are new challenges. With sales and distribution. And those two guys who were in a 10 by 10 office for two years trying to make a film are now trying to sell a film. You better believe there’s more meetings and getting advice…lots of new challenges.

WP: So clearly you’re going to be with this project for a while. Do you have any plans to jump on something new? When do you ever leave this project?

MC: That’s a great question.

LM: Great question. We don’t know.

WP: I mean, is a mini-series for HBO next? (laughs)

LM: We do want to continue working together. But a lot is dictated by what happens with this. Michael will probably get offers to act in more films, and I will probably get more writing and directing opportunities.  As far as working together again, the plan is to do another film called RED HOUSE, which I’m working on right now. If the script takes off and people want to fund it, we’ll shoot this summer. Or the Fall or whatever. But that’s all up to the gods I guess. Michael would be the lead and I’d be the writer/director. It’s a great working relationship right now. I see it as Scorsese/De Niro or Scorsese/Dicaprio now.

MC: Yeah. Eventually I’ll be aged out. (laughs.)

MC: Right now it’s hard to dictate what’s next. People are like, “You’re done.” Not yet. We’re not done. We want to see this in theaters in nine months. And there’s gonna be a lot that goes into that. I think we do, for lots of reasons, need to work on other things. But how that happens is a little unclear right now. And that’s alright because, as Lorrel says, “It’s gonna be linked to the response to HNY,” which has already been really positive and is growing. And we’re talking with agents and managers on both coasts, so we’ll see how it all comes together.

WP: Great, guys. I think we can end on that.

MC: It’s taken a lot to get to this point. It’s been a lot of work, but it’s been a great time.

For more information on Happy New Year, check out the official website as well as the Facebook Page. If you’re an independent filmmaker or know of an independent filmmaker we should interview, email blogadmin@sagindie.org for consideration.

Filmmakers who have done consistently well in this business will tell you that if you want your project to succeed, you must be its biggest supporter, its biggest champion and its biggest fan from start to finish. There’s no point in dealing with the highs and lows of independent filmmaking if you don’t believe in your work wholeheartedly.

This seems to be the living mantra for Chris Brown and Jill Pixley who together have attended 14 of the 18 festivals that their film, Fanny, Annie & Danny, has been accepted to over the last several months. This may sound extreme, but having been married for ten years, Chris (a writer/director) and Jill (an actor), are certainly no strangers to traveling together, or tag-teaming heated debates about their work at screenings (more on that later).

Fanny, Annie & Danny is a darkly comedic story about three adult siblings who are forced by their mother to reunite for a holiday dinner (check out the trailer below). The film has played everywhere from Daytona Beach to Anchorage, garnering phenomenal reviews and awards in the process (for instance, Chris was awarded the 2010 Emerging Filmmaker Award at the Starz Denver Film Festival and Jill won Best Performance at the San Antonio Film Fest as “Fanny”).

Although the accolades are wonderful (and much deserved), Chris and Jill will be the first to agree that attending these festivals in the flesh is just as beneficial as receiving an award or title. At the end of the day, these festivals are about seeing people experience your work, as well as making lasting personal and professional connections that you wouldn’t otherwise be afforded.

It was at their third fest, the Waterfront Film Festival in Saugatuck, Michigan, where I first connected with this refreshingly down-to-earth power couple. Over the few days that followed, I was fortunate enough to see their fantastic film and get an idea about what it means to fully support your own work.

WILL PRESCOTT: Tell me a little bit about your backgrounds. How did you get started in filmmaking (Chris) and acting (Jill)?

CHRIS BROWN: There’s this ridiculous photo of me taken when I was a little kid.  I’m maybe two years old, tops. I can barely walk, and yet I’m carrying this big goofy camera around my neck and straining to look at my shoes through the viewfinder. That pretty much sums it up. I was one of those annoying kids with a camera. When I was 10, I finally commandeered my family’s old Super 8 camera so that I could make my first movie (The Werewolf – thankfully unavailable in any form). After that I more or less never stopped making movies. All through junior high, high school, I just kept making these little films. It’s the only thing I’ve ever I wanted to do.  After that, I went to film school and here I am today still making my little films. And the funny thing is, that feeling of magic, that thrill, has never dissipated. Being on the set, working with actors, watching dailies, making a cut, constructing a scene, it’s all still totally thrilling to me. This is probably a sad commentary on my basic lack of development!

JILL PIXLEY: I played a froggie in my 2^nd grade play and after that, I was pretty much hooked. I graduated to being the bookworm in 4^th grade, did musicals in high school, majored in drama at Stanford, then went off to the Neighborhood Playhouse in NYC to study acting. I got headshots taken, continued studying, pounded the pavement, waited lots of tables and did lots of theatre, industrials, and indie films.

WP: How did you two first meet? What’s your current work/life relationship like?

CB: Jill and I met when she auditioned for my first feature (Daughters) a little over 10 years ago.

JP: Such a cliché, huh?

CB: I’d seen countless actors for this part, and a few of them were really good, talented, intelligent, everything. But when Jill came in, she just blew everyone out of the water. I still have my audition notes. In the “comments” section I wrote, “I love her!! She’s in!”  During the shoot, I developed a terrible crush on her, and after the shoot we started dating. We got married a few years later. It makes sense that I would marry an actor since I love actors so much. I mean, as a tribe, I just totally love them, revere them.

Anyway, ever since Daughters, I’ve been dying to work with Jill again.  In the intervening years, I directed a second feature (Scared New World) and a bunch of shorts, but the right project just never presented itself.

JP: I produced a short film of Chris’ a few years ago (Battleship Contempkin), but Fanny, Annie & Danny is the first feature we’ve worked on as husband & wife, which was tricky, trickier than I thought it would be.

CB: I wrote Fanny, Annie & Danny for Jill. I wrote it for Jill, Colette (Keen who plays Edie) and George (Killingsworth, who plays Ronnie). These three people are some of my favorite actors and I wanted an excuse to work with them again. I wanted to give them some fun parts to play – I wanted to get the band back together!  The funny thing is, when I gave Jill the script, she didn’t want to do it!

WP: Seriously?

JP: I read it and [gulps] was terrified. I didn’t think I could pull it off, even tried to convince Chris to look elsewhere for somebody who could do it better.

CB: Yeah, that’s totally true. I was kind of shocked. All this I can see clearly now in hindsight. This isn’t an easy role, not easy at all.  There are so many potential pitfalls when playing a character like Fanny [the character is a developmentally disabled 39-year-old]. Make the wrong few choices and you look like an idiot – and then you take the whole film down with you. Meanwhile, there’s the whole issue of working with your spouse.

JP: It’s one thing to take direction from your ‘director-boss.’ But it’s another thing to take direction from your ‘director-boss-husband.’  The intense nature of the script combined with the husband/wife dynamic presented a few challenges we hadn’t really anticipated.

WP: I bet.

CB: It’s hard to leave your husband/wife hat at the door. We had to figure that out along the way, but thank God Jill agreed to be in the movie, and of course she’s just insanely brilliant in the part, just miraculous. I had so little to do with it, really.

JP: Nice props there, but the truth is Chris had an enormous amount to do with it. This is his film, through and through. His baby.  We joke that he’s the mom and I’m the dad. He’s nurtured it through its inception, writing, casting, production, editing, and now during the festival/promotion circuit. He’s indefatigable when it comes to film, and this is such a critical trait in a director on set. As an actor, I want someone on the outside keeping an eye on my performance, somebody I trust so that when I go overboard and get something wrong, he’ll be honest and tell me. That happened during the shoot.  There were misfires, acting choices I made that, simply put, were horrible.  But I knew I could go there, make those strong choices, because Chris had my back. He lets actors play, make discoveries, make mistakes, try again.

WP: Where did the idea for Fanny, Annie & Danny come from?

CB: That’s always such a good question and so hard to answer. There are certainly some very minor personal bits in Fanny, Annie & Danny, a few overheard lines from friends and family, some borrowed character traits, etc.  But the world of this film is a totally invented one.

Every film idea begins with the question, “what’s it like?” What’s it like to be this person? I make the film in order to find out.

The characters in Fanny, Annie & Danny just started nagging at me, tormenting me, making me curious, making me laugh. The funny thing is that at first I didn’t realize that these characters were related to each other.  When I discovered that, everything instantly fell into place. I was actually preparing a completely different film from another script I’d written when Fanny and the others sort of grabbed me by the throat and demanded I make their movie.  So I obeyed.

WP: How long did it take to finish the script?

CB: It took about 6 months to write the script.  For me this is terribly fast.  I’m usually much slower. This thing kind of flew out of the laptop. The final shooting script was 118 pages long, which really scared me at first. I thought that was way too long. The finished film is only 82 minutes, and almost nothing was cut.

WP: Besides Jill, what was the rest of the casting process like?

CB: I really love the casting process and take my sweet time when I cast a film.  For some reason I can’t fathom, filmmakers too often skimp on this crucial stage of production and put themselves in a corner where they are forced, because of the time constraint, to compromise on the quality (and suitability) of the performers. “Oh god, we only have two weeks before we shoot. Let’s just hire X, even though X is completely inappropriate/weak/whatever.” It’s total insanity.

I must quickly mention that Fanny, Annie & Danny wouldn’t be half the film it is without the contribution of my friend, Jessica Heidt, who introduced me to so many amazing Bay Area actors.  An excellent director herself, Jessica is the artistic director at the Climate Theater here in San Francisco. Before that, she was the artistic director at the Magic Theater, so she knows the cream of West Coast acting talent.

WP: Were your actors SAG, or–?

CB: Half and half.

WP: So did you work under a SAG low budget contract?

CB: Yep, the Ultra Low Budget contract. And I have to say, it was so much easier than it used to be a few years ago. The new agreement is so simple.  Fatna Sallak-Williams, our local SAG rep, couldn’t have been nicer or more helpful. Everyone was paid the same rate, cast and crew, whether they were SAG or not.  There were no tiers.

WP: We love to hear that. But didn’t that affect your budget?

CB: Yeah, it affected it pretty severely, but it’s the only fair way to handle it.  You can’t have a dual class system on a set.  My time isn’t worth any more than your time.  Look, no one got rich working for me.  Not by a long shot!  People worked on Fanny, Annie & Danny because they loved the project and I was very thankful for their participation.

WP: Did you cast any one actor and then build the rest of the cast based on that? Or was it more, “whoever we can get” kind of thing?

CB: I wrote the film for three of the main actors; I auditioned almost everyone else.  And I didn’t stop auditioning until I found the perfect actor for every role. In one case, I rewrote the part to better suit an actor. The role of Mrs. Keller was originally written for a much older woman, but when Jessica introduced me to Anne Darragh, I instantly re-wrote the part for her.  And the brilliant Nancy Carlin (who plays the band mom in the film) is also a good friend; I’ve wanted to work with Nancy for years.

WP: Any rehearsal? If so, how much and how long before shooting?

CB: I’m embarrassed to say that there was almost no rehearsal. I don’t recommend this method of working to everyone, but personally I enjoy it.  I do, however, shoot lots and lots of takes, which really amounts to an on-camera rehearsal period. This is of course one of the advantages to shooting digitally. If you’ve designed your schedule properly, you can shoot every scene until it’s great, until the magic starts to happen.  Back in the days of expensive film, we often had to settle for “good” and move on.

JP: Lots and lots and lots of takes.  Some actors love this, some find it challenging. For me, it was both. I always appreciate the opportunity to give it another try and make it ‘better.’  But sometimes, all those takes simply wear you down. And I think that was Chris’ idea.  He wanted us to break away from any pre-conceived notions we had of a scene, break away from the way we’d heard ourselves say it over and over.  Basically, get out of our own way, quit trying to make it ‘better’ and just deal truthfully with the moment of the scene. Chris also had a very specific shooting aesthetic.  He shot many of the scenes as whole units, without any cutaways.

WP: Why is that?

CB: Well, for me, a cut breaks the tension.  And I didn’t want that tension to break even for a moment.  I didn’t want to give the audience that release.

JP: Kinda scary for the actors, since we had to get through these beefy scenes, beginning to end, without any goofs. And for Chris, because he had to make sure he got it before we moved on, since he’d have absolutely nothing to cut to in post.  He was seeing the movie evolve in front of him, right there on the set, instead of covering it from every angle and hoping to make sense of it in post.

WP: Was there any improv on set or did everyone stick to the dialogue?

CB: Amazingly there was very little improv, except for one or two scenes.  I’m not a big stickler for script accuracy, though. If an actor comes up with a better way of saying something, I’ll go with it.

WP: Talk a little bit about Colette Keen. Where did you find her and how did she inform the role of Edie?

CB: Colette was in my first feature (Daughters), so we’ve been good friends for a long time now. It’s so funny, audiences are just terrified of Edie.  And of course Colette is one of the sweetest people on earth, nothing at all like her. The woman has amazing courage. She committed FULLY to the role, without winks or special pleading. Edie is a force of nature. You either love her or hate her. We’ve had some pretty interesting debates after screenings about this!

WP: After Fanny, in what order were the next siblings (Annie and Danny) cast? Can you talk a little bit about working with Carlye and Jonathan?

CB: I could talk about Carlye and Jonathan for days, because I’m just crazy about both of them. I cast Carlye and Jonathan at about the same time, coincidentally, so both of them were new to my filmmaking family. I have Jessica again to thank for introducing me to Jonathan. Carlye, on the other hand, responded to a call I posted on the good ole interwebs, thank God.  As did Nick Frangione (Todd), who’s so damn good it’s scary.  Yeah, these three actors are so deeply committed to their work, so talented and so much fun on the set. I can’t wait to work with them again.

WP: Jill- what preparation did you do for the roll of Fanny? Any research? Studying? Does she come from anyone in real life?

JP: Fanny evolved as a curious amalgam of people I studied, people I know, and some stuff I just made up. Since she’s developmentally disabled, I did lots of research on various types of disabilities. But I didn’t want it to be only about her disability. I didn’t want to trivialize or simplify or make her one-dimensional. I never wanted her to fit neatly into a box with a pretty label that people could attach and then simply explain her away. People aren’t that neat. They’re messy and complicated and I’ve never known one who fits neatly into a box.  Fanny is no exception.

WP: You can definitely feel the history while watching these characters. Was there anything in particular you all did in prep to create that family dynamic on set?

JP: That’s so good to hear because that clash of family is really at the root of the film.  Most of the actors didn’t know each other beforehand (only Colette and I had worked together). Some of us paired off before shooting, went out for coffee, hung out, ran lines, that kind of thing.  But I tell you, that family dynamic came together on the set.

WP: I understand you’re also a gifted singer and songwriter. Did you also contribute music to the film?

CB: Yeah, I’m a singer-songwriter by night. I released my first CD a few years ago (Now That You’re Fed). Music and film just go naturally together, the two art forms are such close cousins, really.

Regarding the music in the film, Jill wrote the Fanny song, and I wrote the Christmas songs. It was a defensive act, really; I just didn’t want to have to pay for music/recording rights! So rather than using standard Christmas songs, I just wrote my own. Most of the cast and crew thought that these were traditional Christmas songs.

WP: Can you talk a little bit about Morgan Schmidt-Feng? How did he become attached? What was the working relationship like?

CB: Morgan and I have been friends for years. Rick’s book Feature Filmmaking at Used Car Prices was my bible as a student.  Morgan has produced many of my films and our working relationship is great.  We’re friends and business partners, in that order. Morgan has a very deep understanding of film and he’s one of the very few people I trust to read a script or view a cut.  His notes are always extremely helpful. On the production level, it’s Morgan who puts the package together, who assembles much of the crew, who helps make it all happen. I couldn’t do it without him.

WP: Can you speak on the budget and funding process?

CB: It’s so nice of you to refer to it as a “budget.”  By any standard, our budget was very modest. One of the age-old rules of Hollywood filmmaking is that you should never, ever put your own money into a project. Of course I put all of my money into all of my projects.  My feeling is that if you’re not willing to risk your own neck, how can you ask other people to risk theirs?  We had a group of investors that pitched in sizeable amounts of money and/or in-kind contributions, but most of the money invested was my own. Happily free from children and mortgage, I am able (and apparently willing) to sink every dime I make into my work. This isn’t always an ideal funding model, but if I’m frugal and persistent, it means that I get to make my movie.

If you’re not careful, you can sort of lose yourself in the fund-raising process. I’ve seen so many people raise money for years, make a trailer, shoot for a few days to get some sample scenes on film, do another round of fundraising, rewrite the script for the 100^th time, and on and on.  Meanwhile they lose all interest in the actual film, they forget what made them excited about the project; all that initial passion and urgency just drains away.  At some point, you just have to go make the damn movie!

WP: What was the shooting format?

CB: We shot in DVCPRO HD, a great, robust HD format that, unlike many other flavors of HD, stands up nicely to all sorts of intricate post work.

WP: And where was it shot primarily?

CB: We shot the entire film in and around the San Francisco Bay Area – San Francisco, Berkeley, Hayward, Tracy, San Rafael, Oakland.

WP: Was the post process long? Any pick-ups or re-shoots?

CB: It took me almost a year to edit the film, partly because I’m fussy, and partly because my day job eats up a lot of time.

Regarding pick-ups, I have to confess, there was one scene that I had to shoot three times.  I won’t identify it, because I don’t want to bias the jury.

WP: How about the rest of the crew? Any MVPs or standouts worth noting?

CB: We had many standouts, many MVPs.  Dan Diaz and his lovely wife Marcy came through like heroes in many ways. Dan and his company Atlas Production Services, provided much of our lighting and grip equipment. Dan did much of our sound recording, and helped out in a number of crucial ways.

Russell Ramos, our location manager, was totally invaluable and lots of fun to work with.  I must also acknowledge our gaffer, David Feiten. David is an extremely gifted writer and animator (he’s worked for Disney, among others) who kindly volunteered to be our gaffer.

One of the major MVPs in the whole production was my good friend and film school buddy, André Fenley, who was our sound editor.  André has worked at Skywalker Sound since the 1990s and he knows so much about sound. He’s taught me a lot. I mean, the guy has worked on the soundtracks to some of the most sonically brilliant films of the past 15 years — Iron Man, Minority Report, Munich, AI, Fight Club. A lot of viewers have commented on the film’s sound design.  All credit goes to André.

WP: And Skywalker Sound did the mix?

CB: Yep.

WP: Wow. How’d you score that?

CB: Again, all credit goes to André.  He showed the film to his colleagues at Skywalker and to my amazement everyone loved it and wanted to support it.  Everyone there was just so nice, so generous.  We even ran into George at lunch one day.  That was a trip.  I had to fight the urge to get him to autograph my C3PO action figure.

I’d been up to the ranch before, but I’d never had the pleasure of being there with my own project.  It was a total, crazy thrill.  We mixed in the Stanley Kubrick mixing room!

WP: You’ve played at a ton of festivals in a short amount of time. What’s been the audience’s response?

CB:  Amazing, just amazing.  And so personal.  That’s the thing that’s surprised us the most.  After every screening, people come up to talk to us about their own families, their own brother/sister/mother/father. And in so many cases, it’s obvious that these people don’t have anyone to talk to about this.  For us, this is a real privilege. The film has opened the subject up, has given them an opportunity to tell their own stories. It seems to be touching this nerve everywhere we go.

WP: I understand that there have been some heated debates at screenings.

CB: Yeah, it’s gotten dicey at times.  An argument broke out at a screening last month about whether the film was a comedy or tragedy. Neither side would budge. I thought it was going to turn bloody! There have been other controversies, but I don’t want to give anything away.

WP: What do you think the film is? Comedy or tragedy?

CB: I’ll never tell!

WP: Can we expect see it on DVD or On Demand anytime soon?

CB: It’s still sort of early in the game, but, yes, we’ll definitely have a DVD release in a few months.  And I love the On Demand model too.  We’ve been in discussion with a few producers’ reps, too.

WP: What’s your general attitude towards production?

CB: No matter what happens, KEEP SHOOTING! Something weird happens every day.  The trick is to keep shooting.  No matter what happens, keep shooting, get creative, turn that potential disaster into an opportunity. And whatever happens, you must NEVER cancel a shoot!  Planning a single day of shooting is a lot like planning a wedding. There are hundreds of logistical puzzle pieces that need to be considered, weighed, arranged and composed weeks in advance and they all need to fit together in a very specific way. By extension, planning a 25 day shoot is like planning 25 weddings. If you cancel even one day, you can throw your entire shoot into chaos and put the film seriously at risk. I’m almost superstitious about this. I’ve never cancelled a shoot day ever. Fanny, Annie & Danny, was scheduled to be a (for me relatively luxurious) 25 day shoot. We finished it in 23 days.

WP: What’s up next for you two? Next film, next acting gig? You guys ready to retire or just getting started?

CB: Oh geez, we’re just getting started!  You know, it’s funny, for as many films as I’ve made, it feels like my first time out every time. I have my next film ready to go, actually. It’s definitely another obsession, something completely different for me and hopefully for the audience. It’s kind of a risky subject. I can’t talk about it, unfortunately. But I’m totally excited about it.  We already have one investor who’s come aboard based on Fanny, Annie & Danny, so that’s pretty cool, but we’ll need a few others. It’ll require a slightly larger budget, but I still want to keep the production lean and mean.

WP: Lastly, I noticed you were both wearing some AMAZING sunglasses. Seriously. Where the hell can I buy a pair?

JP: Allynscura.com.  A husband-and-wife team who design and collect frames and have the coolest selection around. We’ve been fans for years!

WP: How about that. Another husband-and-wife team. Very fitting!

For more information on Fanny, Annie & Danny, check out the official website as well as the Facebook Page. If you’re an independent filmmaker or know of an independent filmmaker we should interview, email blogadmin@sagindie.org for consideration.



Most filmmakers understand that writing from personal experience can be beneficial when trying to create an honest and believable world. When that personal experience is combined with a passionate cause, the result can be a pretty powerful movie.

At least that’s what Kathy Kolla was aiming for when she started developing her upcoming feature film, World’s Littlest Brat, a comedy about a vegan outcast who stays true to himself despite his negative surroundings. Kolla based this story on her life experiences as a vegan and her strong commitment to environmental sustainability. She’s also taking her passionate cause beyond the script by instituting a green set during production.

Although this marks Kolla’s feature debut, she’s no stranger to the business. With a background in acting (she’s been a SAG member since 1997), her first film, Another Day Another Dime, had an impressive festival run, including an Audience Choice award at the Flint Film Festival.

World’s Littlest Brat is set to begin production in early 2010 with plans to be festival ready by the end of the year. In November of 2009 I had the opportunity to talk with Kathy Kolla, in detail, about her exciting new project. Per her suggestion, we agreed to limit our carbon footprint by conducting the interview over the phone.

WILL PRESCOTT: So, World’s Littlest Brat. Where did the idea originate?

KATHY KOLLA: Well, being a vegan myself for over ten years and caring about the environment, I wanted to make an informative, highly humorous and entertaining film regarding these issues. We came up with a character idea about an outsider who manages to stay true to his beliefs and keep his intentions really positive despite all the criticisms and negativity in the world. I wanted to make something that was informative about certain issues that I care about, but do it in a very humorous, intelligent and comedic way.

WP: Can you expand a little bit on some of the negative things that surround him? Maybe discuss some of the challenges he faces?

KK: Basically, just people who don’t understand him. Not understanding the types of foods he eats and being uninformed about nutrition in general. Also, a lot of people believe that one person cannot make a difference to the environment. They’ll throw away their plastic water bottles, thinking they can’t make a difference. So, we have a lot of interesting facts in this film that really show that every little thing we do does make a difference. If we all can take those little steps, we can make a much better future.

WP: That’s interesting. So he’s going to be dealing with co-workers and parents who don’t understand him?

KK: Yeah, co-workers, parents – just everyone in his life. Trying to make new friends, trying to find love. People who don’t want to change their lifestyle or who refuse to accept someone who’s a little different.

WP: So I assume this script is somewhat autobiographical?

KK: It is a little bit. But you know, as with any movie or script, it doesn’t put out a true picture of life. It gives you the idea of some experiences I’ve been through or experiences my friends have been through.

WP: Do you have a specific premiere date or festival you’re trying to hit, or is this one of those “we’ll put it out when it’s ready” kind of situations?

KK: We want to get on it right away. We want to start post production immediately (after shooting) and we’re hoping to get it done by September and screening at festivals by the end of 2010.

WP: From what I understand, you’ll be using a SAG Ultra Low budget contract. Is that right?

KK: Yes. We’re going to keep the budget under $200,000. We have a lot of companies that are donating products to us, which we’re really excited about. That’s going to offset a lot of the cost of shooting. We have Amy’s Organic Kitchen. They’re offering a lot of vegan, vegetarian and organic food to feed our crew and cast members. Also, Glacia Icebox is offering us bio-degradable cardboard water boxes as an alternative to plastic. People (crew and cast) are going to bring their own water bottles and refill them, but when we go on location or something when we need to have portable or disposable water we’re going to use Glacia Icebox.

Also, whenever we’re not rewashing metal tableware, we’re going to use Eco-Products compostable tableware that is made out of PLA, a corn derived polymer so instead of throwing it away, we’re going to collect all of it and return it to a commercial composting facility, where within 80 days it will biodegrade.

WP: Wow. This isn’t just a film about a person who is environmentally friendly, you’re actually going with a green set.

KK: Right. And we’re not just going to have a green set, but we’re also going to highlight these products in the film.

WP: That’s great. Some environmentally friendly product placement. I like it.

KK: We have another one. GT’s Kombucha. It’s a tea with a lot of health benefits. They’ve already donated quite a few boxes for our crew members.

WP: I’m curious as to what, specifically, made you do a green set? Because you wanted to save some money or it was true to the story? How did you ultimately decide to pull the trigger on doing this?

KK: Well, I have to tell you that I originally just wrote in some of these products that I’m passionate about and that I like myself. I wrote them into the script just to get the word across. Then we contacted these companies and they were more than willing to be part of the project and donate. I originally thought I would purchase these products for props or whatever. Then when they wanted to offer all of this for our set, it actually made it a lot easier and less expensive for us, by offsetting so much of the cost.

WP: That’s great.

KK: We’re doing other things too, just to make it a green set, which also saves money. We’re shutting off idling vehicles. We’re using double-sided photocopying.  We’re being selective on the distribution of copies. You know, just doing whatever we can to make the film more earth friendly. Bringing the consciousness to the set as well as to the audience.

WP: I imagine you’ll have some crew and even cast on set who haven’t experienced this kind of stuff. They’re probably more familiar with more traditional and, sadly, more wasteful movie sets.

KK: That’s the main thing we’re going to tell people when we hire them. These are the rules and you really have to follow them, but feel good about it in the process. We don’t want it to feel like a chore. We want them to feel like they’re dong something good.

WP: Are you doing vegan meals too?

KK: Yes. Because of Amy’s Organic Kitchen, we’re going to offer a lot of vegan and vegetarian meals. We’ll have an abundance of that as an option. We’re not going to say that you have to eat that kind of food. We’re just going to offer healthy alternatives.

WP: Good to know it’s not an ultimatum if someone is a die hard carnivore.

KK: (laughs) Of course not. We don’t want anyone getting light headed because they didn’t get their cheese or meat or something.

WP: As I’m sure you’re aware, indie filmmakers have traditionally had a difficult time getting their projects off the ground. With this recent economic climate, it’s been tougher. During your process thus far, do you have any good advice or inspirational words of wisdom that you’d like to impart to other filmmakers?

KK: Find something or a subject that you believe in and that you’re passionate about — something positive. Focus on it, put all of your energy into it and people are going to see how passionate you are about it and they will want to help out and get involved.

WP: Any other words of wisdom in terms of taking care of our planet?

KK: It’s important to think about the effects that our everyday choices have on the earth. And that environmental sustainability does really begin at an individual level, which is so important for everyone to know. We need to preserve the planet for future generations and remember to do simple little things like recycle, riding your bike instead of driving to reduce your carbon footprint, and eat and purchase organic foods. By doing this, we’re sending a message that we care about the world and we want to continue our existence on it.

WP: And even better when you can involve that mindset in your career and in your passion as you’re doing with your film. Well, I’m really looking forward to seeing World’s Littlest Brat and wish you the best of luck with shooting.

KK: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

For more information on World’s Littlest Brat or Kathy Kolla, visit Cola Kat Productions. If you’re an independent filmmaker or know of an independent filmmaker we should interview, email blogadmin@sagindie.org for consideration.

Any indie filmmaker will tell you that getting your first feature made is one of the most painstaking, emotional challenges that you face in an early career. Shopping scripts around to countless agencies, producers, and friends of friends more often than not leads to exhausting dead ends. This can be an extremely tiring process that leaves most with no confidence in their project or themselves.

This was not the case for brothers Jared and Brandon Drake who, upon graduating film school, were determined to make a feature film no matter what. From a pile of ideas they decided on a story called Visioneers, a dark comedy set in a fantastical society where citizens are known to spontaneously combust from stress. After only two drafts, the brothers set a shooting date for the fall of ’06 and used that as a tool to convince others, such as producer Jory Weitz (Napoleon Dynamite), to join their cause.

Set in and around the gorgeous landscape (and the Drakes’ home town) of Seattle, Washington, Jared and Brandon utilized every local asset they could muster from crew to locations to even a pole vaulting pit in the backyard at their parents’ home. Had they not put together such an excellent team and cast (including Zach Galifianakis, Judy Greer, Missy Pyle, D.W. Moffett and James LeGros), the brothers still would have gone through with production – even if it meant shooting on mini-dv and with a budget of $20,000.

In early December of 2008, on the tail end of an amazing festival run, I sat down with the director of the Visioneers, Jared Drake, at the 18th Street Coffee House in Santa Monica to discuss everything from UCLA pole vaulting to rehearsing with Zach Galifianakis in North Carolina.

The film has recently acquired distribution through B-Side Entertainment and is out on DVD now.

WILL PRESCOTT: Okay, let’s start easy. Tell me a little bit about your background.

JARED DRAKE: I graduated from high school in 1999 in Snoqualmie, Washington and came down to UCLA to run track. I actually got recruited by the track team. That’s where the whole pole vaulting thing comes from in the film (laughs).

WP: Yeah, the pole vaulting was an interesting touch and was going to be one of my questions. So you didn’t go to college with filmmaking in mind? 

JD: My ticket out of Snoqualmie was pretty much, you know, track. My freshman year I had really gotten into photography. My track coach was actually a big surfer and he had been filming and editing surf videos for a long time. He saw some of my photography and he suggested that maybe I get into this Final Cut thing and start editing videos for him. After doing work for him for about a year, I got my own camera and started shooting and editing my own stuff. Then applied to the film program at UCLA and got in. I graduated in ’04 with an undergrad in film.

WP: And your brother?

JD: During that time Brandon was writing a lot of short stories, traveling, doing stuff on his own. I told him that he should start thinking about scripts. I never expected to actually turn film into a career, you know? I really kind of fell into it. As soon as I got to UCLA I was like, “oh, this is something legitimate that I can actually do it as a profession.” Brandon started writing screenplays and he applied to the professional program at UCLA and got in.

WP: Is he older or younger?

JD: Older.

WP: Did you guys collaborate on anything else before this?

JD: Not together. This was the first thing we fully collaborated on – Brandon and I. But he had screenplays he was writing and getting done – like, I think Visioneers was his ninth script.

WP: So, he had written a few drafts of the script before you got involved or was he pitching you ideas?

JD: We came together with all of our ideas – I think maybe I had four or five. He had come up with like 20 or 30 ideas of films we could shoot in Seattle. Once we narrowed it down to Visioneers Brandon went back and wrote the first draft. I think we really only did two drafts of it before we went out and locked it.

WP: How many pages was that?

JD: It was about 112. We never changed it until we got into production and we had to start shifting scenes for practical reasons. That’s another crazy lesson in all of this – by setting our own terms and saying we’re shooting here, we’re shooting regardless of what happens, even if we have to do it on digital camera, we had COMPLETE creative control over the material. So anyone that got involved, they could give comments, but we never had to change anything unless we wanted to. So the script that Brandon finished is actually what we shot.

WP: And then you decided to just do it?

JD: We developed the script around locations that we could use in Snoqualmie with the intent of – come hell or high water – shooting the film in the fall of ’06. We had about $20K initially and we were going to shoot it with my camera and actors we had access to. By going out and saying that we’re a production company with a film that we’re shooting in September, people, you know, saw us as a credible entity. And, of course, everyone responded to the material. Which, bottom line, is what backed everything up. It’s what enabled us to get it to Zach (Galifianakis) and Jory (Weitz). As soon as Jory got involved it went to the next level because he had been on Napolean Dynamite and some other films.

WP: How did you get it to Jory?

JD: It was just a friend of a friend. I have a buddy that’s a big golfer and I go out golfing with him every now and then. He knew a guy who read the script and passed it onto Jory. It really just started off with people we knew. I think that was the most difficult thing getting started — really opening your eyes, and seeing the resources you actually do have. You know, a lot of filmmakers that want to get going are like, “well I don’t know anyone, I don’t know anyone.” Just open your eyes, look to the people right around you. Ask for help. Chances are, someone will be able to help you out.

WP: What kind of budget did you end up with?

JD: It was under a million. That’s all I can say.

WP: That’s fine. What was your shooting schedule?

JD: We had 18 days of principle photography and 4 days of second unit for all of the stuff that appears on TV. So, we had 22 days. The script was 112 pages, but a lot of that was TV stuff. The difficulty with the TV is that, in a way, you have to shoot it twice, or count those pages twice. Because you have to shoot the person watching the TV and you also have to shoot the TV material.

WP: Where did the crew come from?

JD: Our key department heads, like our cinematographer, production designer, make-up, even the sound guy all came from down here (Los Angeles). We flew them up and housed them in Seattle. The rest of the crew came from Seattle.

WP: How did your cinematographer, Dino Parks, get involved? Did you pick him? Had you worked with him before?

JD: I hadn’t worked with him before. Jory came on board and all of the sudden agencies were sending us DP (director of photography) reels. I watched probably 100 reels and met with about twenty to thirty of them. And Dino, he’s so experienced. How his career hasn’t broken out yet really boggles me. I mean, he’s been on everything. Shot so much stuff. He’s so knowledgeable. He came into our first meeting and we just talked about the story.

WP: Wow. That’s great.

JD: For two hours! We didn’t even talk about the visual look of it. I walked away so stoked. He saved our ass so many times. Just having been through it and his experience.

WP: So, how did you guys start talking about visual style? What kind of influences did you pull from? Did you look at a bunch of different films?

JD: The biggest question throughout every phase of it was how do we balance this absurd world with trying to set it in our world today. The last thing we wanted to do was make this a crazy Brazil, Schizopolis, or totally out of left field absurd movie. We wanted to try and keep it in our world as much as we could, while still staying true to these certain absurd elements that were in the story. A film we studied a lot was Being John Malkovich. Which is a totally different story, different tone, but it’s the same kind of thing. There’s this absurd element that’s introduced within the film, how does he incorporate that into our world today? Where do you need to tip your hat to the audience? How do you balance that?

WP: That makes sense.

JD: So, what if we have one world that’s much more organic, like the “undeveloped area“ and another world that much more oppressive and declining, like the Jeffers Corporation? And what if these two worlds are fighting throughout? It’s almost good vs. evil. One’s very warm, organic, hand held, and longer lenses. The other one is very structured, rigid, locked off camera, sharp angles, and very cold. While the main character is spiraling to his ultimate low, the “evil” world begins to take over the “good” world. So that’s basically where our visual approach came from.

WP: There are many absurd elements to the story and you guys did a really good job keeping it grounded in a real world. That said, will you discuss where in the hell this idea came from?

JD: (laughs) What excited us about it was it’s this story about a guy who’s trying to chase his dream in a world that doesn’t support that. You know, kind of like what we were trying to do at the time (as aspiring filmmakers). We’re trying to figure out a way to make films in a world where you need to make a living and make things happen. How can you pursue your dream? It gets really tough. The initial idea for Visioneers is just that. That’s what we were excited about. That’s what we talked about. That’s what we wanted to project on screen. Brandon talks about his experiences working at insurance companies and other terrible jobs he’s had. It was a way for him to exaggerate all of that.

WP: This might be more of a question for Brandon, but were there any influences outside of film that inspired this story?

JD: I really don’t know. I’m sure there are. We’re not consciously aware of them. We never said, “let’s try to pull elements from this.” One of the hardest questions we get, and I still have a tough time trying to answer it is, what would you compare this film to? I really have no clue how to answer that.

WP: Well, Being John Malkovich is a pretty good one, I would say.

JD: Yeah. Being John Malkovich. Charlie Kaufman is a major influence on us. The Coen brothers are a major influence on us, although I don’t think there’s much of that in there. Kurt Vonnegut, Paddy Chayefsky, those are some of Brandon’s favorite writers and I think there’s some of that in the story. The kind of filmmakers I admire aren’t those who are like, “this is the type of movie I do and that’s it”, but they’re the guys who say this is the type of movie I want to do now. Or this is what I want to work on now. Like (Steven) Soderbergh, I love that he goes and does Ocean’s Eleven and then does something tiny like Bubble. That’s really the career that my brother and I want to have. People are like, “what’s your next film going to be like? Is it going to be like the Visioneers?” Well actually it’s going to be a lot different.

WP: What is it?

JD: (laughs) I can’t tell you. Brandon would kill me.

WP: Okay, fine. But you are working on something?

JD: Yeah, yeah. That question though, it’s such a tough question like, “who are you going to fall in love with next?” We don’t know where we’re going to be next year. There’s probably always going to be a comic thread in our work, but we don’t know what types of movies we’re going to make. As we evolve, our movies will evolve into something new and different.

WP: Did you ever find difficulty, as a first time director, convincing people that you could handle it or were up for the challenge?

JD: I think everyone is always a little skeptical of a first time director. People say that as a director you need to show up to set on the first day and fire someone so they know you’re in charge. (laughs) But, I showed up and I was like, “guys this is my first one. I think I know what I’m doing, but I really don’t. You guys have more experience than I do. So, let’s just have fun and get through it. Try and make something great.” And I think the crew quickly warmed up with that, which was nice. I think if you’re just open and supportive and create a fun and comfortable work environment it goes a really long way for people. That was probably the best thing I did. More so than me going in and trying to prove that I know what I’m doing.

WP: Let’s talk about some of those people who were subjected to the environment you created. The cast. Zach Galifianakis. I love the guy. I’m actually a really big fan of his. But how did he get attached? Why him? I would say about 70% of the country has yet to really know who he is [side note: it should be mentioned that this interview was conducted long before the success of The Hangover].

JD: Jory (Weitz) is a casting director as well as a producer and we had maybe 30 people we were going out to at the start. People that we thought were sensible and also right for the part. Zach was always near the top of that list. We didn’t really know what he could do as an actor, which made everyone nervous, but he has this quality about him where you look at him and there’s so much going on behind the eyes. We were always keeping our fingers crossed that Zach would pull through. We sent the script to him and he never got back. It was like two months and he never got back to us.

WP: Oh no.

JD: So we were maybe a month away from shooting. Maybe less, and we didn’t have the main character yet. Jory finally called Zach’s agent and was like, “you need to have your client read this script and meet us if he’s into it.” So Zach read it that night and the following day we met. He loved the material. He was like, “Is this movie really getting made?” (laughs) That was his first question. And, “you guys really want ME to play George? Can I play George?” (laughs) I was like, “that’s the question I wanted to ask you!” We just had a really good conversation about the material. I ended up not even reading him or auditioning him at all.

WP: To me he seems like he’s either the kind of actor that’s really approachable, the guy you can go get a beer with, or he’s really introverted and standoffish. What was he like to work with?

JD: Zach is totally approachable. He is as down to earth and as normal of a dude you’ll ever find. The crazy guy he plays on stage with his comedy really is an act. There’s a piece of him that is that, obviously, but he’s so smart, so bright. Extremely articulate, down to earth and humble.

WP: Did you guys rehearse at all?

JD: We rehearsed. We had two meetings before we officially pulled the trigger on Zach. Then I rehearsed with him and Judy (Greer) independently and then one day with them together. Then the week before production I went out to Zach’s ranch in North Carolina and we rehearsed for two or three days. Just went through it all. So, I had some good time with Zach, but not much time with everyone else. I realized that I wasn’t going to have much time with my actors before we started shooting so I started to see if there was anything I could do to alleviate that strain. My cinematographer (Dino Parks) and I hashed everything out well before shooting, with the hope that when we got to set he’ll know exactly where to go, exactly what to do and I can spend that time with the actors.

WP: Judy Greer, Missy Pile, D.W. Moffett– you got a lot of smaller names, but still very accomplished actors. When did they all get involved?

JD: It was a major issue as we were casting (not having a lead) because everything trickles off of the main character. I think Judy, Mia, James LeGross, D.W. Moffit, they all came in pretty much at the same time. And that was right about the time we were saying Zach has to be our guy, even though we hadn’t met Zach yet. Missy came in one of the last, I think.

WP: This will make more sense to the people back in the Northwest, but I spotted some Almost Live cast in there. Pat Cashman, John Kesiter, etc. Was that just a local casting strategy or did you specifically want to work with those actors?

JD: (laughs) I grew up watching Almost Live, but we didn’t have them in mind as we were developing the material. Jory actually opened our eyes to that. He was like, “is there anyone in the Northwest that are local celebrities that you think we could fill in for some of these roles?” We were like, “Almost Live guys!” So we went out to them as we were going into production. Those guys were great. That was a dream come true. I was more star struck by any of them then anyone else in our film. I mean John Keister, man? The High-fiving White Guys?

WP: Wow. Were there a lot of moments during shooting where it hit you that you were actually doing it? Making a legit feature film?

JD: To be honest, the most surreal moment was the last day of shooting when I was driving to set. I literally broke down in the car and was like “oh, man, we did it!” And until that moment, I didn’t really think we were going to ever make the film.

WP: Do you ever pinch yourself on how everything has transpired for you?

JD: Yeah, yeah. A little bit. It’s actually kind of an emotional roller coaster right now, because with Visioneers, we had a tough time getting it out there. We ended up submitting to Sundance the following year (2007) and got shot down. Then we said “let’s take it back to Seattle and premier in our home town.” We’ve had a lot of good success with the festival circuit, a lot of great reviews. I went to Austin were we had a screening that was probably about 1,000 people. A huge screening. The following day I spoke on a panel in front of 60 filmmakers asking me questions about how you make a movie. And all of the sudden I’m feeling really good. I’m like “I made it!” And then I come home to LA and I’ve got $60 to live off of the rest of the month. I mean, I was cool four hours ago in Austin! The tough thing is financially getting by. It’s so great to actually have a movie and be able to show it to people and get them to respond. I don’t want to take anything away from that. But just the realistic mindset about where your career is at. My brother and I realized that even though we made a film and people liked it, we’re still in the exact same spot we were when we started this process four years ago. Which is, we have a script we want to make, we don’t know where the money is going to come from, we don’t know how we’re going to do it, but we are going to do it. So, we haven’t really pinched ourselves just yet. Maybe when I get paid I’ll pinch myself. But until then…

WP: You could always go back to pole vaulting.

JD: (laughs) That’s right. Maybe I could. There’s a ton of money in pole vaulting!

For more information on Visioneers, check out the official website as well as the Facebook Fan Page. If you’re an independent filmmaker or know of an independent filmmaker we should interview, email blogadmin@sagindie.org for consideration. 

From his artistic home at THE STELLA ADLER THEATRE, Stan Harrington has been a prolific producer of theatre since 1996. Specializing in guerilla theatre, he has produced, directed, written and acted in many critically acclaimed and award winning plays.In 2003 he created ADLER AFTER DARK, a platform which offers writers an opportunity to present their shows rent free.

In 2005, Stan’s first guerilla feature film, BRED IN THE BONE, shot for a mere $5,000, was named the GRAND PRIZE WINNER, at the ACTION ON FILM, INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL held at the Long Beach Convention Centre in California. As well as BEST IN SHOW, Bred In The Bone also won BEST SCREENPLAY, Stan Harrington, and BEST ACTRESS, Blythe Metz.

In October he also garnered the Best Feature award at FAIF international Film Fest, and in April 2006 was an invited speaker at the NAB Conference in Las Vegas , the largest electronics show in the world.

His latest film “The Craving Heart”, which he shot for $8,000, is currently on the festival circuit and his book “A Guerilla In The Midst” which is an insight into the art making of a no budget movie, is due for release by Christmas 2006.

We recently spoke with him about no-budget filmmaking, his new networking website, and the pros of going SAG on a low budget film.

How did you become interested in filmmaking?

I was born in Melbourne Australia and my parents were Greek Immigrants who had me late in life. They enjoyed old movies and as a young boy, I never really had the typical 8pm curfew that most others did. I consequently grew up watching the classics and was pretty much a movie buff by the time I was in High school.

What was your first filmmaking experience?

I tried to make my first film 4 or 5 years ago when I happened across some free 35mm footage. I made a teaser for a feature that I wrote but never tried to get it out as I felt it didn’t represent my work as a director. The restrictions of money and equipment were too much as we were shooting with an MOS camera (no sound) and couldn’t afford the mechanisms that would allow us to pull or follow focus. All the actors therefore had to be the same difference from the camera at all times so as not to go out of focus…no way to direct …I still have it…I may show it to someone…one day…

What drew you to the guerilla filmmaking ethos?

NECESSITY. Pure and simple. I came here and didn’t want to wait for things to happen so the only way to make a movie with no money is to do it guerrilla style.

What is important about guerilla filmmaking?

The most important thing is not to get frustrated…it is usually a venture that will require a filmmaker to do most things on their own. There is a chapter in my Book that is entitled What Can Go wrong Will go Wrong, and although it is a cliché, it is also a fact. It is key that you go in knowing that so that when the proverbial hits the fan, you handle it…In some cases it is actually a blessing, even if it looks like it may be the end of the world at that time. Bred in The Bone is a classic example. The fascination that it garnered came from the fact that I edited the whole thing myself when my editor quit. He left his old Dell at my place so I called Sony (it had Vegas Editing Software on it) and asked for tech help. I was, as some have described, “Email challenged”, so when they suggested that I try to use the SONY forum, I nearly flipped. Nevertheless, I did so and managed to do the whole thing well enough to win a succession of awards. When SONY and The SUNDANCE MEDIA GROUP heard about it everything changed…press, offers of equipment, software, suddenly the world opened up to me. So, to summarize, the most important thing is to FINISH…regardless of what you have to endure…

How hard is it to make a feature for under $100,000?

Anyone can make a feature for under $100,000…the key is to make something worthy. The hardest thing is not so much the budget as it is the story and the execution in bringing it to life…

What made you decide to develop the IGFdb website?

I did nearly everything alone on my first feature, Bred In The Bone, and it taught me so much…nevertheless, I could have saved myself so much time and effort had I know a couple of simple things…for this reason I wrote the book…to pass on the information. I was fortunate to be asked to speak at the 2006 National Association Of Broadcasters (NAB ) Show in Vegas about Guerrilla Filmmaking. After my lecture I was approached by others to travel to other states to do the same but I explained that I was about making films…not teaching. A friend then suggested writing the book on it which I did and it was done with the view of passing on everything that I learned and discovered… resources, information, equipment.. To back it up, I also started a website called The International Guerrilla Film Data Base which is a hub for guerrilla and indie filmmakers. I have put everything I could on there, set up a forum, I promote filmmakers and film festivals and basically encourage all to log on and take whatever they want…and leave a little behind if they know of any cool resources. One man’s trash is another’s treasure so I hope that all aspiring filmmaker’s will take advantage of this great resource…it is free and it is a hub for all things from pre to post production. IGFdb seemed like a nice compliment to the Adler After Dark program that I started to encourage and help writers to get their work out.

What kind of response has the site gotten?

So far the response is great considering it is operating purely through word of mouth…over 50 members and almost half have added their links to their sites…festivals are also signing on and now with the support of SAGINDIE and The Sundance Media Group, I believe that it will be a huge resource once it is officially announced. Also, the site is not just for post stuff or festivals or cameras like most sites…the other sites specialize which is great, but with almost 50% of members actually being filmmakers, I believe that this site should cover everything, even if it is just a way of directing people to other specific sites…It should be like a home or hub where all things can stem from.

A lot of low budget filmmakers forgo working through SAG. Why did you decide that going union was an important thing?

I want SAG involved because it adds credibility to the project. In the past, going SAG was considered prohibitive for most indie and guerrilla filmmakers, but that has changed. Too many people do not educate themselves about all aspects of the process and this, as far as SAG has gone, leads to a lot of misconceptions. The advances that have been achieved by SAGINDIE make it not only possible to shoot under a union contract, but they have also made it desirable and even imperative. No decent actor will work without a SAG agreement and if they do you risk too much for them. Going SAG now is financially viable, preferable and I consider it very much a badge of honor…it says LEGITIMATE!

Tell us a little about your filmmaking process. You wear so many hats on set – how does that work for you?

Again, the key is to educate yourself in everything…even if it is not what you are directly handling…If you are the filmmaker it is your responsibility to know everything…KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, so although it is preferable not to do everything yourself, you should be prepared for everything and anything…

As producer, do you find your films to be an easy sell? Or do you just finance them yourself?

I financed everything myself…no one wants to give money to an unknown. So in taking my career into my own hands, taking charge and completing a film, I have managed to get people to pay attention… now money is being discussed. The most important thing is to complete the project…So few people ever do. They all have opinions and advice but most have never completed anything. Finishing a script or movie or show is an achievement in itself.

Is it easy to get people like John Saxon or Adrian Zmed to work on a film like Craving Heart?

Getting recognized actors to want to work for you is not as difficult as it may appear…The script is what attracted John Saxon to The Craving Heart and he won a Best Supporting Actor award for his role. Good actors want good material so the basis of everything that I do is the script…It all starts and ends there the emphasis has somehow shifted to the technical these days instead of the content…Be a great writer. Learn how to write a great story…not necessarily from a screenplay book. Go to a theater school. I went to Stella Adler and learned from the material of great playwrights, Albee, Miller, Williams, Shanley, Inge, etc… They were household names, some still are, but you would be pushed to think of as writer of movies or plays these days that are household names…

Getting John and Adrian to actually read it though, was largely due to the fact that they were informed about my earlier success so it goes back to finishing…actors are always asked to read things but you need to have the credibility of being someone who completes things…who does what he says he is going to do. In other words, the simple act of finishing something was what started it all. Being a good writer was what nailed the deal.

What kind of commercial expectations do you have for Craving Heart? Do you expect to go to video, or are you looking for theatrical distribution?

The Craving Heart was made more as a calling card…I wanted people to say, “Wow. If he can do that with only 8,000, what will he do for 800,000? Fortunately, it is working out. So my expectations have never been much beyond a couple of fests and a DVD release. The goal is to get money for the next thing so I can get other artists involved in the filmmaking process and not have to do it all alone.

What has the response been to Craving Heart?

The reviews so far have been awesome…and there are more coming…

What’s next for you?

I am being approached by a producer to write a project that I am not at liberty to discuss but it has a substantial budget with a big name attached…as for my personal film, I am writing a Western…but a Western with an edge!!! It is budgeted and 200,000 so I an hoping that this time we will get some financial support…I have also agreed to tour on a limited scale…my next speaking engagement is in CHICAGO in March…

Open mic time – what would you like to say to our readers?

I want filmmakers to be great storytellers…to go back to the roots…after all a film is a story told in pictures. For Guerrilla filmmakers…this is our time. Where we could not afford to make films in the past and then when video cameras came along to enable us to do so, we couldn’t get them distributed. Now the world has turned upside down and anyone can be seen or heard…there is no longer merely a hand full of networks or studios…there are hundreds of channels through cable and satellite, internet, iPods, self distribution deals…Many new and forward thinking festivals, like the Foundation For The Advancement Of Independent Film, even hold their festival at The world famous Mann’s Chinese Theater…never has there been this opportunity to screen and distribute product. The effects and fears are evident in the rush to buy up avenues such as MySpace and YouTube…the music industry has felt the effects, and now, whoever doesn’t see the writing on the wall in those huge production houses and studios, is going be in for a nasty surprise…The world of movie making is open to all now so no one with a dream in filmmaking should fear not being seen or heard…you just need the determination to finish, the dedication to educate yourself (especially in how to write a story), and a passion…because people will feed from it…

For more on “Craving Hearts”, visit: www.xristosproductions.com

The IGFdb is at www.igfdb.com.

Diversity Spotlight:

“Red Doors” Are Open

This month, SAGIndie puts the focus on “Red Doors”, a diversity film that’s tearing up the festival circuit, raking in good reviews, and has nailed down a distribution deal with Warner Bros. Home Video.

We recently talked with actor/producer Mia Riverton about wearing two hats on set, chasing down the money for the film, and the importance of diversity film in today’s market.

And speaking of diversity film: if you haven’t already, visit indieBlog to find out how to submit your film for consideration for our brand new Diversity Screening Series!

Who is Mia Riverton, and how did you become interested in filmmaking?

I have been a performer since I was very young – singing, dancing, playing piano, and acting professionally on stage and screen. After attending college at Harvard, where I performed with the American Repertory Theater, I started acting full-time in Los Angeles . I became friends with a lot of behind-the-scenes folks – writers, producers, directors, etc. – and realized that in addition to performing in other people’s projects, I really longed to be a part of the creative genesis of my own material as well. In addition, I’ve always been a big film fan – I especially love old movies with strong female characters (GONE WITH THE WIND, BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S, ALL ABOUT EVE, etc). Those were the movies that inspired me to pursue a career in show business.

Can you talk about how the project was conceived?

I attended Harvard College with Georgia Lee, the writer-director of RED DOORS, and the two of us discovered that we shared common backgrounds (we are both the children of Chinese immigrants) and a mutual love of film. After Georgia graduated, she went to work at a consulting firm called McKinsey in New York . She took her summers off to make short films through the NYU intensive film program, and her first short was seen by Martin Scorsese – he was so impressed that he later invited her to apprentice with him on the set of GANGS OF NEW YORK and mentored her subsequent short films. Even though I moved to LA after graduating, I worked on some of her short films, and we always talked about making a feature film together – I wanted to work with her as a director, and she wanted to work with me as an actress and producer.

In the fall of 2003, Georgia enrolled at Harvard Business School at the insistence of her parents. I convinced her to take a leave of absence after one semester and come make a feature film with me. In January of 2004, she moved to my house in LA, where she wrote RED DOORS at my kitchen table. We persuaded our third partner, Jane Chen, to quit her job and come produce the movie with us– Jane was another friend from Harvard who was passionate about film. We raised the $200,000 budget and were in production four months later.

The story of RED DOORS is quite autobiographical – the characters are inspired by Georgia ’s real friends and family, several of whom play versions of themselves in the film. For example, Georgia ’s real-life youngest sister, Kathy Shao-Lin Lee, plays the youngest sister in the movie (“Katie Wong”). The character I play (“Mia Scarlett”) was written specifically for me.

Our goal in making this movie was to tell a coming-of-age” story about a family that has grown apart and become disconnected, and the journey they take as they stumble along and attempt to reconnect with one another. The fact that the family is Chinese-American is secondary, though it lends the film a lot of rich detail and a sense of cultural specificity.

What was it like producing and acting in this film?

The dual role I played on RED DOORS (actor-producer) was both the most challenging and most rewarding experience of my professional life. The challenges primarily arose on set, especially on days when I was working as an actor – the demands of production don’t go away just because you have to be “in character” on a particular day. For example, on one day I found myself having to recast a part at the last minute because an actor dropped out. I was working as an actor that day, so in between takes I was on my cell phone trying to solve our casting problem. It was fairly stressful – I definitely had to learn to compartmentalize and be very disciplined, focused, and flexible as both an actor and a producer.

The rewards of acting in and producing the same project are many. I felt more committed as an actor because I had helped develop the script and my character as a producer – and I also had a deeper relationship with the director and the entire creative team, so the emotional investment was higher. By the same token, as a producer I felt much more committed to seeing the project through as best I could because I knew that the quality of the film would reflect positively on my performance an actor.

How did you secure financing for the film? Was it a tough sell?

We kept the budget small enough that we were able to raise all of the money through private equity – friends and family, and friends of friends and family. It was a tough sell mainly because the three of us had never produced a feature film before, and it was an ensemble dramedy about an Asian-American family – not a horror/action film or a project with big movie star roles. Everyone who invested in the film did so because they believed in our team, our script, and our passion – and they felt that this particular story needed to be told. Many of the investors are part of the Asian-American and/or LGBT communities, both of which are sorely underrepresented in mainstream cinema.

What has the festival circuit been like? Have you enjoyed the experience?

The festival circuit has been a wonderful, once in a lifetime experience. Screening RED DOORS to diverse audiences all over the world has opened our eyes to the broader appeal of the film. People from different cities, cultures, ethnic backgrounds, and all walks of life have enjoyed the film and told us they relate to its themes and characters. We never realized that it was such a universal movie until we heard so many different types of festival audiences, juries, and critics praise the film during its festival journey. And, of course, I love to travel to new places – so that was great!

Were your festival wins instrumental in getting distribution for your film?

Our festival wins were key in getting distribution for RED DOORS – our first big win was Best Narrative Feature at the Tribeca Film Festival, and we went on to win a prize for Best Ensemble Acting at CineVegas and both the Audience Award and the Grand Jury Prize for Screenwriting at Outfest. Any buzz sets you apart from the multitude of independent films that are made every year, and we were lucky enough to win multiple awards at several different festivals – so I think it made distributors sit up and pay attention to the movie, which is otherwise not an easy sell (again, because it is a story about an Asian-American family and has no movie stars, nudity or explosions).

You guys have garnered much positive critical attention. How important is that to you?

Much like the festival awards we’ve won, our positive reviews have helped us at every stage of the game – they certainly helped generate interest from distributors when we were selling the film, and now that RED DOORS has been theatrically released, our reviews help bring in audiences as well. As much as my producing partners and I try not to care personally about reviews, good or bad, we all acknowledge that they are powerful in terms of driving interest in the movie. Roger Ebert saw our film at the Hawaii International Film Festival and gave us a positive plug – that is invaluable to films that might otherwise go unnoticed by the general public.

Do you feel like this is a niche film, or does it have wider appeal?

RED DOORS may appear on the surface to be a niche film – an Asian-American film and a queer / LGBT film (because it includes a lesbian storyline). However, as our festival run has shown us, the film actually transcends all lines of race, gender, sexuality, nationality, age, etc. Everyone can relate to the story, because everyone is part of a family, and they recognize and understand those relationships and issues. All of the characters are struggling with challenges that are part of everyone’s human experience – romantic angst, professional dissatisfaction, adolescent rebellion.

As we have screened RED DOORS for diverse audiences all over the world, what we’ve discovered is that everyone finds an entry point into the film – whether it’s the character of the father, the teenage daughter, the lesbian sister, etc. – and they get caught up in the family’s story and often forget that they are watching an “Asian-American” film. We’ve had so many people from different backgrounds (a Jewish retiree from Long Island, a young woman from Kazahstan, an Italian matron, etc.) tell us after seeing the film that they felt we were portraying their families on screen!

What kind of expectations do you have for the film’s box office prospects? Will you make your money back?

We were happily surprised that we were even able to land a theatrical distribution deal, so we didn’t really have any expectations for how well we could do at the box office. We certainly hope to have a successful run in theaters, or at least we hope not to lose money on the theatrical release (which most movies do – both independent and studio films)! If we can last a few weeks in theaters in the major markets and open in a few other cities around the county, we will be very happy. Between our theatrical release, DVD, TV and foreign sales, we are in good shape to make our money back and turn a profit.

Do you think producing is something you will pursue, or is this a one-off deal?

There are many stories I would like to tell, so I definitely plan to produce more film and television projects, though I will need to balance that carefully with my career as an actor (and, more recently, a writer and singer-songwriter). It takes an unbelievable amount of work to produce a feature film, so I will only commit to projects about which I am truly passionate.

This film features a very diverse cast. How important is to you that there are films that tell many different stories, the kind of stories that Hollywood may overlook?

My raison d’etre , as far as my professional life is concerned, is to be involved in projects and help give a voice to the stories that Hollywood usually overlooks – unique, inspiring, perhaps socially conscious stories with diverse casts and interesting perspectives. The kind of storytelling that interests me tends to come from the margins, especially from the independent film world, and I plan to continue being involved with these types of projects by acting in them, writing them, producing them, or just supporting them.

What’s next for you guys?

Georgia, Jane and I will likely produce our second feature together next year through our production company, Blanc de Chine Entertainment. Meanwhile, I am producing another feature called BROKEN HEART, written by and to be directed by two other SAG members – I love working with other multi-hyphenates! In addition, I have written a screenplay and am working on a second, and I continue to seek out roles that interest me as an actor (I will be working on another indie film in early 2007). I’m also a singer-songwriter, and I plan to record an album over the next few months.

Open mic time: Is there something you would like to say to our readers?

Go see RED DOORS in theaters! It is a film about finding and following your passion, something to which we can all relate – it is funny, touching, and thoroughly entertaining. You can find all of the information on our website: www.reddoorsthemovie.com

It’s been eleven years since Ed Burns burst onto the scene with his breakout indie hit The Brothers McMullen. His career since has had its share of ups and downs, but Burns keeps churning out films in his inimitable, amiable style. We recently sat down with the veteran indie filmmaker to talk about his new film The Groomsmen , life after McMullen , and the state of the independent film business.

Can you talk a little bit about assembling the cast for The Groomsmen ? What was that process like?

Donal Logue I knew before. It’s interesting, because I wrote two versions of the script, one a few years ago that was more of a broad comedy, and then when I got married my wife said that I should write the honest version of the script, about the reality of it. I don’t know if I thought of Donal before, until the middle of writing, when I started to change to writing it for Donal. I wrote my role with another actor in mind, kind of a bigger name. I was going to play Des, who I loosely based on my dad, since I thought it would be cool to play him. But when the two guys I had in mind for Pauly were unavailable, and since we were getting short on time, I jumped in to play Pauly. When Matthew Lillard read the script he loved it, but he thought we would want him for Cousin Mike. I thought it would better to go the other way with it, to have him do something he hadn’t done before, which was kind of what everybody did on this. John Leguizamo playing T.C., and Jay Mohr playing still a funny character, but not an acerbic, aggressive guy like Bob Sugar, and then Matty playing the sage. My process is, I have a great casting director, and we do recon work, to find out who’s an asshole and who isn’t when you look for actors. When you make a movie for 3 million dollars and shoot in 25 days, you have to have people who are willing to not have a trailer. There are no first class accommodations, you might have to be in and out of the makeup trailer in 10 minutes, we might ask you to wear your own clothes, we might change the script at the last minute, you may be asked to shoot 8 pages in a day. There are some guys, that’s not going to fly with. If you’re shooting 25 days, and you lose an hour because someone’s refusing to come out of his trailer, you’re dead. Everything I heard about these guys turned out to be true. All super enthusiastic guys who hung out on set, and that’s how we got some of the scenes. The stuff with Jay and his Dad, I think two scenes were scripted, but like the scene with the heavy bag, that was just the two of them improvising and I just said “Roll the fucking camera, this is great.” Some actors are just not cool with that.

How about the dialogue? How much is from your own experience?

I pull some of it from things that friends have said. I’m always sort of jotting down a classic line I hear. That’s kind of how ideas are born – that kind of thing might actually trigger the screenplay itself. The other advantage to having a cast like this is- After Private Ryan I changed the way I worked with actors. Spielberg is a guy who gives you no direction, and I asked him why. He said “I’ll give you guys four or five takes to figure it out on your own. If by then you haven’t, I’ll step in and kind of guide you to where you need to be.” That’s kind of the policy that I’ve adapted, and it works great with ensemble acting. You want everyone to feel comfortable, and sometimes you won’t get it on your first or second take. But when you do that, there’s such a comfort level, and I allow a bit of improv-ing to go on, and once guys start to feel comfortable going off the page, then you start to get some real magic. I give a lot of credit to Jay, because a lot of that stuff coming out his mouth is Jay’s funny lines. And you have to be comfortable enough as a screenwriter and director to allow that to happen, to say to an actor “You win, your line is better.” We shoot in moving masters, so you don’t have to worry about matching stuff up later. It’s like the scene with the kids playing guitar. They knew they had to play the song, but a lot of the dialogue was just Matty being their dad.

Do you think that this kind of a small town America is disappearing?

It’s funny. Donal had an interesting look at it. I always thought of it as my reaction to my suburban experience, a reaction to Todd Solondz’ take on it, or American Beauty . I never saw the suburbs as that destructive. Donal sees it a love letter to the swan song of the small American town. Those kind of relationships between people who live across from each other, who might leave their doors unlocked, who have those friendships. I didn’t see it that way at first, but Donal noticed that. I don’t know, I live in Manhattan now, so this is a nostalgic look at the life I left behind. If not for Brothers McMullen , I’d probably be a dad in the suburbs, probably a cop or something.

You’ve been doing independent film for a while now. How has it changed in the last ten or eleven years?

It’s interesting how it’s changed. It’s harder to get movies made than it’s ever been. I can’t believe that after eleven years, I say “Hey, I was in Private Ryan , you can’t give me 3 million dollars to make this movie?” But it’s brutal. It’s never been so hard. If I didn’t get Brittany Murphy to be in this movie, I don’t know if I would’ve gotten my financing. We’re being released on 3 screens. You will not see a television commercial for this movie. There will be a small ad in the New York Times. This is one of those films that needs all the My Big Fat Greek Wedding love you can generate, just in order to ensure that it gets to the arthouse theater in Boston , forget about if you live in St. Louis , who knows if it will ever make it there. The fact that that is the reality of specialized film today, that if this was Saw 3 , or a goofy teen comedy, or any of the other genres that the specialized film companies are making now, you’d get out there. That’s part of the problem, that the Searchlights and the Focus Features aren’t doing these films anymore. Or if they are, they’re doing one, where they used to put out ten. When I came up I benefited from Clerks , Metropolitan , Slacker , El Mariachi . Those were films from complete unknowns, tiny little 16mm films that came out and people went to see them. What’s the last 16mm, tiny, no name cast film that came out? The fact we can’t think of any – what, Raising Victor Vargas and that’s four years old already? That part of independent film has died as far as theatrical release. Maybe one will sneak through periodically, like Primer , which was a pretty cool movie. Maybe the internet will save no-budget indie cinema, but I don’t really know.

Do you think you would have had a different experience if you had stuck with the broad comedy take you initially had on this film?

That’s the decision I make everytime I sit down to write a script. I could easily have done a very different version of the script, and then gone to the studios and tried to get one of the names who get movies made, I could’ve have filled the movie with those guys and got $25 million dollars. But then the studio would say John Leguizamo’s character should not be gay, Donal’s got too weird of a problem, let’s just make it that he’s upset about something, and can we make it funny. And you’d have a nice broad comedic piece, like Wedding Crashers . Look, I loved Wedding Crashers , that movie’s great. Meet the Parents is one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen. I mean those guys are making those movies, but I fell in love with Woody Allen and Truffaut. I did not fall in love with Mel Brooks. And so I’m trying to do a different thing, and if that means it has to be tougher, that that’s what it has to be. To answer your question, it’s gotten tougher over the last ten years. Given that all these guys who started their careers then, I mean would we have Tarantino today? Would Reservoir Dogs gotten released today? I wonder.

What has your career as an actor for hire outside of your movies done for your ability to find financing?

You know, the only reason I did it was to help, and certainly post- Ryan and 15 Minutes it was easier, but I’ve made a couple of clunkers, so that certainly hasn’t helped. And, once I had my kid, I was sorta like I don’t love going off to Vancouver to act, or God forbid, Prague for four months, so I’m gonna walk away from that for awhile. That’s why I made these little experimental films, to counteract how difficult it was to make these other films. I made a film, Looking for Kitty, for $200,000, and then just did a film called Purple Violets , as a way to stay in New York , and shun my acting career. But now I’m gonna go do a horror movie for Warner Brothers in the fall. You have to do certain films to help the other side of your career. The Cassavetes model is the model I’ve always spoken of, and it can be done.

You made The Brothers McMullen for $20,000. If you knew then you’d be making movies for $3 million, would you feel good about that, or would you hope to be at a higher budget level?

No, to both questions. If I knew I was making a movie for $3 million by choice, I wouldn’t be surprised. Sidewalks of New York I made for a million, by choice. At that time, during the 90’s indie thing, I knew if I shot it for a million, I’d get to own more of it. Six years later, the landscape has changed, and yes, I’m very disappointed that’s all I can get. But I’m also a realist, and I know I’ve chosen to make a certain kind of movie, and not to collaborate with the studios, and that’s the downside of that. The three screens thing is devastating. You used to be able to get screens at the multi-plexes. I remember the big story with McMullen was that we bumped Waterworld out of Sony Lincoln Plaza . That would not go on today. No way.

Are you hoping for bigger things for the DVD?

The DVD will be a whole other thing. I mean, the cover art is Brittany Murphy in a wedding dress. Some mom at a Wal-Mart in Minnesota is going to buy that. But I didn’t start to make movies for home video, the dream is showing something in a theater.

The Groomsmen in now playing in limited release in New York and Los Angeles.