IFH 603: How Indie Film Super Troopers Made Millions with Jay Chandrasekhar

Today on the show we have director, writer, comedian, and actor Jay Chandrasekhar has contributed to and appeared in a wide variety of critically acclaimed television programs and films throughout his career.

Chandrasekhar assembled the sketch comedy troupe Broken Lizard, which includes Kevin Heffernan, Steve Lemme, Paul Soter, and Erik Stolhanske. Together they performed comedy across the nation until they set their sights on producing television and feature films.

Under his Broken Lizard banner, Jay directed and co-wrote Fox Searchlight Picture’s comedy cult classics Super Troopers, Super Troopers 2, Club Dread, and Warner Bros’ Beerfest. He also directed the Broken Lizard comedy special, Broken Lizard Stands Up.

Super Troopers hit theaters in February 2002 and went on to gross $23 million with glowing audience reviews (and $80 million on home video.)

Jay continued on to direct The Dukes of Hazard, direct and star in Millennium Entertainment’s The Babymakers, and appear in DreamWorks’ comedy hit, I Love You, Man. Recently, Chandrasekhar published his book, Mustache Shenanigans: Making Super Troopers and Other Adventures in Comedy that gives a behind the scenes look at the making of Super Troopers.

In addition to his feature film work, Chandrasekhar has directed various TV shows, including several episodes of the Emmy Award winning series Arrested Development, Community, Chuck, The Grinder, Up All Night, Happy Endings, New Girl, and Psych. More recently, Jay has also directed episodes of Fresh Off the Boat, The Goldbergs, Speechless, and Schooled.

His new film is Easter Sunday.

Stand-up comedy sensation Jo Koy (Jo Koy: In His Elements, Jo Koy: Comin’ in Hot) stars as a man returning home for an Easter celebration with his riotous, bickering, eating, drinking, laughing, loving family, in this love letter to his Filipino-American community. Easter Sunday features an all-star comedic cast that includes Jimmy O. Yang (Silicon Valley series), Tia Carrere (True Lies, Wayne’s World films), Brandon Wardell (Curb Your Enthusiasm series), Tony nominee Eva Noblezada (Broadway’s Hadestown), Lydia Gaston (Broadway’s The King and I), Asif Ali (WandaVision), Rodney To (Parks and Recreation series), Eugene Cordero (The Good Place series), Jay Chandrasekhar (I Love You, Man), Tiffany Haddish (Girls Trip) and Lou Diamond Phillips (Courage Under Fire).  

Easter Sunday, from DreamWorks Pictures, is directed by Jay Chandrasekhar (Super Troopers, The Dukes of Hazzard), from a script by Ken Cheng (series Wilfred, Betas). The film is produced by Rideback’s Dan Lin (The Lego Movie franchise, It franchise) and Jonathan Eirich (Aladdin, The Two Popes), and is executive produced by Jo Koy, Jessica Gao, Jimmy O. Yang, Ken Cheng, Joe Meloche, Nick Reynolds and Seth William Meier. The film will be distributed by Universal Pictures domestically. Amblin Partners and Universal will share international distribution rights.

Jay also just launched a new app designed to give the power of reviews back to the people. It’s call Vouch Vault.

“When my film, Super Troopers, showed at Sundance, it played to big laughing crowds. But when it was released to the public, the reviews were only so-so. On Rotten Tomatoes, Super Troopers, got a 38%-fresh aggregate score from less than a hundred reviewers. With the public, though, the film garnered a 90% fresh rating from more than 250,000 non-reviewers. This 38% reviewer-number stuck in my craw. I remember thinking, “Who are these reviewers, these strangers with outsized power, and why are we listening to them? Seriously. When’s the last time you walked up to a stranger and said, “Hey, what movie should I see?”

Our goal with Vouch Vault is to take recommendation power from anonymous strangers and give it to the people whose tastes you know and trust.”

You can download the new app here: Vouch Vault.

Right-click here to download the MP3

Jay Chandrasekhar 0:00
As the human mind works at a much faster rate than you think it does, and so you can pull things out and tighten it tighten and tighten. And the tighter you get. Often the closer to the rhythm you even imagined was and you're trying to lock into a rhythm with the audience.

Alex Ferrari 0:15
This episode is brought to you by the best selling book Rise of the Filmtrepreneur how to turn your independent film into a money making business. Learn more at filmbizbook.com. I'd like to welcome to the show Jay Chandrasekhar. How're you doing Jay?

Jay Chandrasekhar 0:31
I'm doing great. How are you?

Alex Ferrari 0:33
I'm doing great, man. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Man. I've been a fan of yours, brother since since I can't even tell you when spac obviously some Super Troopers came out. I pissed myself and continue to piss myself every single time I watch it. So I appreciate you guys making that.

Jay Chandrasekhar 0:49
Maximum reaction we are always hoping for.

Alex Ferrari 0:54
So I wanted you on the show, man because, you know, Super Troopers and the sequel and many of the other films you've made. I mean, specifically Super Troopers was kind of like this. In the you know, it's kind of like the beginning. Again, if you remember the 90s it was like every week there was a new El Mariachi or brothers mall in or clerks, brothers broken losers was that for the early 2000s is one of those films that kind of just came out of nowhere from you know, group of filmmakers who really nobody knew and exploded on the scene. So before we get into that, how did you get started? Why did you want to get started in this insanity? That is the film industry?

Jay Chandrasekhar 1:29
Well, I was an actor and in high school and college. Almost not an actor I've my sister was, I was kinda like, little lost in high school my freshman year. And my sister was like, why don't you just get in the play? It's super fun. You make a lot of friends. And I'm like a play. I don't know, like, what am I going to do? Like act? And she goes, be like an extra be in the chorus or something. I'm like, Alright, so I auditioned for a play to get in the chorus. I guess. I didn't make it. And I'm like, I was like, wow, I didn't make it. And so the next time they put up a play auditioned again, and I got into the head, a couple lines. And it was really, it was rejection that made me dive back in the second time. I'm like, How dare you? And once I started doing it, I thought, Okay, this is incredible. This is really fun. I was so and I became like, kind of that one of the main guys in the in the theater group in high school. And then in college, I started the lead in place. And then I looked at the television and movie screens. It was in the late 80s. And I was like, hey, there are no Indians on there. I mean, the Ben Kingsley was the one Indian and and they they weren't going to make it Gandhi too. Right? So I was like, well, when they wanted Indians, they put you know, white guys in brown face and these guys did this hilarious accents. I thought like Fisher Stevens and

Alex Ferrari 3:01
Wow, yeah, yeah, that did that does that age well at all? It's a short circuit.

Jay Chandrasekhar 3:05
It's funny, short circuit. My dad told me he goes he goes you have to see short circuit. And I said why? Because they didn't Indian in it. And I'm like, that's not a real Indian. He goes, where does this closest we'll get.

Alex Ferrari 3:19
Look, I'm Cuban and Scarface. I mean, so there you go.

Jay Chandrasekhar 3:25
That's such a good foot. Peter Sellars played a good Indian in the party. I thought I thought he did a nice job. But, you know, like, Indians were showing up but they were the guys who are selling Brad Pitt the pack of cigarettes before he went over and hooked up with cheddar friends or whoever, right? Oh, it'd be the guy would have picked up whichever is. So I decided in college. I started a comedy groups. You know, because I was. I don't know, I don't know how much of this you want. But anyway, I was in college as a junior and I decided I'm going to try to make it and show business. And I said the way I'm going to do it is I can make my friends laugh, no problems. But can I make strangers laugh? And so I moved to Chicago, which is where I'm from. And I spent the summer in Chicago and then I took a semester off college and I went to college in Chicago got credits there, and I immersed myself in the improv comedy world. And I got involved in this thing called the Improv Olympic. And Chris Farley was the top guy at the time and Dave keckler. And they would go see their shows or improv shows, and they were incredible. Like, just like it was like magic. It was he couldn't believe how funny he was. And then I would go do my improv shows with my group, which was like eight beginners, and we would get almost no laughs I mean, I don't know if we got any laughs And I thought, well, wow, that's really failing the test of this. Can I make strangers laugh? So I decided I'd better go cross down and write some stand up. And so I went down an open mic and I did five minutes of stand up and I got laughs and I was like, okay, okay, I passed that test, I'm going to do it. And so I got back to Colgate. And there was an opportunity to start a comedy group. It was basically like, Hey, you want to direct a 1x? And I said, instead, I'll start a comedy group. And so I went around and getting look Magnificent Seven, I gathered all the funniest people I knew. And I put them in a room and I said, Here's, hey, we do improv. And I'm like, now I'm like this worst improv improviser in Chicago, teaching seven other people how to improvise. And it just didn't go anywhere. First of all, we had no the audience. So we were like, Is that funny? I don't know. Is that funny? I don't know. And then we're like, you know what, we're all history majors and English majors. This is right sketch. That's you Saturday live, we can do that. And so we started writing sketches. And one of the guys who I hired was from Los Angeles freshman, and he goes, I really pretty good with this camera. It's like, okay, well, like Santa Claus. We should share video. So we started shooting short videos, and we put on a show and the first night about 30 people showed up. And but it was a good show, I thought and the next night, it was 400. And you couldn't get enough seats it. And the next night was sold out in the next night was sold out. We're like, oh my god, this thing is really caught on. And so we did another show them, we moved to New York, and we reformed his broken lizard. And that was 1990. And I'm watching what was happening in the film business. And I'm like, so all these, like, just Kevin Smith, who's any person what's going on with that guy, Rick Linklater. And I'm like, you know, maybe the only way I'm gonna get because still, there are no Indians on screen. And I'm like, maybe the only way I can get into a movie would be if I wrote it myself. So we wrote a movie together. And then I'm like, you know, we had an experience of Comedy Central with another director who directed us. And I'm like, it didn't really feel right. until like, maybe I should learn how to direct. So that, and I've been directing all these little short films for broken lizard. So I kind of had a leg up. And so we raised money, and we made a half an hour film, and then we raised more money, and we made puddle cruiser, which got into Sundance. And it was just us, me and my friends in the movie. And that group, obviously, then went on to make Super Troopers. And you know,

Alex Ferrari 7:13
And the rest, as they say, is history. It's funny that you say like, you were looking at the 90s. And for people who listen to this show that many of them are younger, who does understand what the 90s and independent film was, it was the first time you really saw the technology is so cheap, and the opportunity for the festivals and Sundance and that Sundance decade, to blow up, you know, filmmakers, there was just a window of about 10 years really, that you could do that that gave you the inspiration to go. I think I could do this. Because if, if, if Kevin Smith made clerks for $27,000, and it's funny as hell, good writing and everything. Wow, what can I do that I'm funny? Similar, same idea?

Jay Chandrasekhar 7:51
That's exactly right. It's very much like if that guy can do it. I mean, it was very much like that. And, and it was, No, the truth is the, you know, the landscape was littered with the bones of filmmakers who didn't make it.

Alex Ferrari 8:06
Oh, and still are, sir.

Jay Chandrasekhar 8:10
But, but we, you know, I've always been some, like, like cocky to the point of stupid,

Alex Ferrari 8:20
Which has to be you have to be

Jay Chandrasekhar 8:23
Attempt to write and direct your own film and shove yourself into Milan. And help.

Alex Ferrari 8:30
Which, which, which. So you made your short film, which was Super Troopers. It was called Super Troopers Three?

Jay Chandrasekhar 8:35
No, no, the first No, the first fish called the tinfoil monkey agenda.

Alex Ferrari 8:41
Oh, fantastic. Name. Fantastic. Fantastic.

Jay Chandrasekhar 8:46
The second the first feature film was called puddle cruiser right. took place at Colgate. And then the the film after that was Super Troopers. One I'm writing Super Troopers three right now,

Alex Ferrari 8:57
When I was so so puddle cruiser. So that was kind of like your clerks. That was the that was your that was going to be that first film that was going to like, and you got to Sundance, which is a huge.

Jay Chandrasekhar 9:09
And Harvey Weinstein saw it and was, you know, tested it and it tested it tested well, but he didn't end up buying it. And he's like, I want to make it into a TV show. Because he just had a deal with ABC. So he's like, you gotta make it a TV show. And then we ended up making it into a TV show with another company and another guy but but we came like inches from being purchased by Miramax just didn't. He wasn't in the room at the right time.

Alex Ferrari 9:44
Fair enough. Fair enough. Now on when you made panel cruisers, I mean, that's the first time you made a narrative feature face you know, as a director, what was the biggest lesson you learned on the directing side making that first feature?

Jay Chandrasekhar 9:55
Well, you know, the thing about A comedy is it's all about rhythm and timing. And if you watch those, you know, I keep mentioning canceled people. But if you'd like to Woody Allen's great work, he'll have three minute takes where the actors are creating his comedic rhythm. And I'm sure he's telling it faster, faster, faster, faster. And he had his he has it taken one of his phones or two people are arguing in the living room, they walk into the kitchen, the camera just points the kitchen while they keep arguing that they walked back after about a minute of arguing in the kitchen. And the reason it works is because the rhythm, right. And so I always had a sense. I mean, I don't know, it may be if you're a comic, you know that it's all about really. And I was like, I think this movie is going to work based on the rhythm we've written into the script. And I don't know. And so we would shoot these scenes. And I'm like, Yeah, that's feels right. This sounds right, right. And then we cut it all together. I'm like, yeah, yeah, there it is. But But what we learned most is that there's so much extra stuff, and space that you need to eat, because the human mind works at a much faster rate than you think it does. And so you can pull things out and tighten it tighten and tighten. And the tighter you get, often the closer to the rhythm you even imagined was and you're trying to lock into a rhythm with the audience. And we were able to do that. So you know, what it taught me is that we couldn't we can do it. Making

Alex Ferrari 11:30
Which is, which is a very important thing, which gave you the confidence to make Super Troopers, which was a slightly larger budget.

Jay Chandrasekhar 11:38
It was 1.1 million.

Alex Ferrari 11:40
How did you get that? How did you get that movie? Money?

Jay Chandrasekhar 11:42
Well, we just asked everybody in Hollywood, and they all said no. And we were like, no, no, we're the pokers. Guys. They're like, yeah, where Joe was sold to Harvey Weinstein, but

Alex Ferrari 11:53
Almost

Jay Chandrasekhar 11:58
You know, we, we, we went to so many different people. And they were like, so let me get the stripe. You guys are the cops. Like, nobody knows who you are. You know, one guy is like, I'll give you the money. But we put Ben Affleck and as the role of authority. I'm friends with them. They'll do it. And I'm like, no, no, I'll play that part. Because good luck with that. And then we and we would we went from place to you know, we were repped at CAA at the time. And they introduced us to all their finance ears. And they interested in this and we got close again, we'd like the we were friends with the Zucker brothers so that they introduced us to the Farrelly brothers and the Farrelly brothers tried to get a made of Fox and they were like we just the studio won't. Because you guys, they just won't do it. And we went with Bob Simons, who was producing a lot of Adam Sandler films and he goes, I'm doing it. We're doing it for 5 million. I'm like, great. And then Bob couldn't get paid the amount he wanted to get paid in the budget. And so he's like, sorry, guys, I can't do it. And I'm like, Oh, okay so then.

Alex Ferrari 13:05
God just all this back and forth. I love people hearing and hearing the stories because it's like, oh, you know, one day you get into Sundance next day, you make broken lizards in the money just comes rolling in. Like, that's not the way it works.

Jay Chandrasekhar 13:18
So then we ended up a friend of ours was George Clooney as assistant. We moved to LA right. And we're like, we were hanging out with her. We're partying with her. We're you know, doing ecstasy. I don't know. Anyway, whatever we're having, but and we were sleeping at George Clooney his house because she was he was off making the peacemaker, I think, and we were, she was alone. And she's like, I can't sleep in this house alone. There are all these paparazzi in the woods. And we're like, okay, so we moved in there for a month. And we

Alex Ferrari 13:53
Does George know this?

Jay Chandrasekhar 13:57
Robes around the slippers and we go feed his pigs. Thanks. That's right. And we had a bomb. And when he got home, he's like, you know, introduce me to these knuckleheads are sleeping in my house. So we met him and he goes, What are you guys trying to do? And we're like, well, we're trying to do this movie and he read it and he goes, this is a great movie, I'll participate. And I was like, Alright, okay, so that was how we're going. And I think we asked him to be in it because I'm just gonna produce. Okay, good. So, then we, you know, we're like, trying to take that around town. And, you know, the jersey films, which is Dan to beat us company is like, we're simultaneously trying to create a television show with them around Super Troopers, because, you know, didn't make it as a movie. We're well let's make his TV show. Then we are unable to sell that. To Fox. We've had a pilot to Fox right. We had a pilot and there We're like, we don't know about them. We don't know about you guys. And they pass. So then Jersey films like why don't we make it move? And I'm like, Well, we're already making it with George Clooney. Great. We'll jump on. So now we're in Danny DeVito and George Clooney and two companies. And Soderbergh is giving us notes on the movie because he's with Clooney. And Soderbergh's, like I don't know about this opening scene, I guess. I don't even know what this he goes. I don't know what's so funny about these cops because I think you guys need a new wrinkle to it like you need you know how, like in Point Break there were those those President United States masks, he was like that, like, Why can't hide our faces? Because we're not famous. But I did. But but we're like, we're not doing that notice. In any case, so then we go around to all the studios, and they all go Yeah, already said no to that. We're not doing it just because you guys are. So now we're like, what the hell? All the independent people said no. And, and, you know, so finally, we're like, I'm in my office pack. I had a New York office, and I was I had moved to LA but I go in there, bring everything back. So pack in the opposite. Get ready, get unplugged the phone again. It's done. I'm moving out. And the phone rings and I pick it up and it's my friend cricket. And she goes, Hey, I hate to do this to you. But you know, my father is a investment banker. And he's, he's retiring and he wants to write scripts, and you're the only one I know is kind of in showbusiness kind of cricket. And he goes, Do you mind just talking to him? He wrote a script, he needs somebody else to look at it, I guess. And I'm like, alright, I'll do it. Right. And so I get on the phone with this guy. And he's like, because you write scripts. He's like, Donald banker, kind of like, tough guy. And I'm like, yeah, yeah, we've written a couple that goes, All right. Well, I wrote a script to it. I'm like, Oh, great. Don't make me read it. But I know you will. And then he's like, I guess I'll send it to you. But why don't you send me your script first. So I can just see what kind of writers you are. And I'm like, I'm being audition to read. Terrible script to sell Exactly. But I like cricket, and I kind of want to kiss her. So I'm like, you know, then I didn't kiss her. But anyway. So I said, I send the script over to this guy. And he, you know, a few days later, he calls me back. And you know, I'm unplugged the phone. Yeah. And he goes, I read your script. I said, Okay. I'm waiting for him to go. Okay. Now. Now I get to read your script. And he goes, pretty funny. Oh, yeah. Because what are you doing with it? I said, Well, it's a banker and raising money. Because how much you need. I said, we need a million to six. That's our budget. And he goes, I'll do it. And I hang up the phone and walk in my producers. I'm like, I know, the banker on the floor, wants to do the movie. And he goes, I will. My producer was an investment banker, too. He goes, Oh, to get this guy to fly? I'll find out, you know, I'll be able to suss him out. And he gets on the phone. He goes, Okay, right. Oh, and then he hangs up because he's a real deal guy. And within within about two weeks now, the bank,

Alex Ferrari 18:24
No, money dropped within two. I've never heard of a movie drop money dropping.

Jay Chandrasekhar 18:28
I'm funding the deal. Let's do it. That's how he looks at it. He goes, when I say I'm funding the deal, the money goes in the thing. And I'm like, why? Wow.

Alex Ferrari 18:38
That is what that is called. Just some some force in the universe just said, It's time for these boys to go make their movie started like that and

Jay Chandrasekhar 18:49
Run them all the way to the end where there's just unplugging the phone.

Alex Ferrari 18:55
Just just as a joke, we'll just go. Here's one last.

Jay Chandrasekhar 19:00
What do you got to pass the test? Which is to be nice to cricket.

Alex Ferrari 19:03
Right! Because if you so basically, we weren't I wouldn't be sitting here right now. God knows where your career would have been. If you wouldn't have been nice to cricket.

Jay Chandrasekhar 19:11
I would have been the Indian guy in the deli selling cigarettes to Brad Pitt when he goes to have sex with whoever.

Alex Ferrari 19:19
They're really funny. Really funny.

Jay Chandrasekhar 19:24
I it may not be true, but I call myself the Indian Jackie Robinson of of comedy. And it's because there were no there were no Indians in comedy. Right. And I got in and a lot of them have come up to him and like, Hey, I saw you on the screen. I thought I could do that too. And you know as these and Mindy and all these folks, I mean, if you look at the wave, there was me and then everybody came in and they're doing great work. I mean, look at all these great people. So

Alex Ferrari 19:58
Yeah, um, You were the Jackie Robinson, sir. You were the Jackie

Jay Chandrasekhar 20:02
Robinson. Yeah, I mean, you know, nobody hurled things at me from the stands are called me.

Alex Ferrari 20:07
There's that. There's that. But But you did have to sit in a room with Harvey Weinstein. So there's that.

Jay Chandrasekhar 20:15
You know, it was it was quite, it was actually quite thrilling. I didn't know. Obviously, all the stuff he had done.

Alex Ferrari 20:21
No, look, not everybody, every week could correct trash him now, because he's a monster and all that. But in the 90s, he was a god.

Jay Chandrasekhar 20:28
Yeah, I don't trash everyone's I mean, he's, what he was doing was awful. But you know, there were a lot of people around who seemed to know what he was, what he was doing, like it was just what the boss did. And you're like,

Alex Ferrari 20:48
I don't and there's, and there's a lot of that stuff that happens in Hollywood. I had heard stories running around town about that since I was starting out. So it's something that hopefully has changed a bit, but I think it has changed, I think, a tremendous, a tremendous amount since since the 90s. And early 2000s, without question, alright, so you get Super Troopers funded by a miracle. Miracle you're shooting? What is it? What is it like shooting? How did how did the production go smoothly? How did it run?

Jay Chandrasekhar 21:17
It had to go smoothly, because we only had the money for 28 days of shooting. Like he's like, in fact, peatland God put in 1,000,002, not a million to six pieces. Like that's all I'm giving you. And so I put in 30, and credit card and rich per element producer put in 13 credit card and we were like, hanging on by a thread. And, you know, like, the weather had to go well, the film. I mean, we shot on film, it had to be you know, everything had to go well, and it and it did. It went it went according to plan. And then we you know, we cut it together. And you know, it was Sundance was, was interested in the film because of the previous thing. But we were so close to the deadline that it was, it was you know, like we had shot it. We shot it in June and the Sundance deadline was, you know, September. Yeah, September. So we cut it together, we put together we sent it in, and I was in. I can't remember. Anyway, whenever we got the call, you get a Thanksgiving that they see or, or your or they don't call it. But the we got the call that we were in and we were like, oh my god, we have to finish this movie in time. And we're not sure we can even do it because we were the do art film lab. And yet all the films that got in were rushing. And so we just received finished, right. And, in fact, it was so close that we we ended up in the do art film lab on the morning that we were flying to Salt Lake City, that we're watching the final approach. And I was sitting in that room with Kevin Halford into play farva And the color timer. And we're watching it. And we're watching it and like watch the first the opening scene of Super Troopers. If you haven't seen it, like I'm a cop, and I know you've seen it though, I guess. And another, we pull over some stoners, and we we mess with them. And there's some other things that's so and it's you know what, it has gone on to become the scene which we're known most for, I would say like, you know, like they're like, it's the scene that describes broken lizards comedy, I think quite well, and people were like that to you guys. Okay, so I watched that scene. And the title of the film comes up Super Troopers. And I'm like, Can we can we turn the lights on for a second? And they stopped the film. And I stand up and I look at Kevin, I'm like, we blew it. That opening scene sucks. And he was we talking about? And I'm like, it's terrible. Otherwise, I act like that. I don't know what. Nobody was telling me that I was acting like that. And he goes, I think it's pretty good, dude. I'm like, What the hell do you know? And the color type of goes, I think it's pretty good too. I'm like, You know what, pal? It's not. And we got to go to Utah tomorrow and show this terrible learn. Right? And I'm like, Ah, Doom. I was just feeling doom. Wow. And in fact, the opening scene a puddle cruiser is the worst scene in the movie. It's just okay. You know, like, like it with comedies. You want to get them laughing fast so that you can keep them laughing and they're like, oh, yeah, we're laughing we're supposed to. So I was like, we tried so hard to make Super Troopers a good opening scene. It was just because of how bad the opening pedal cruiser was. We the product was there opening was so it wasn't bad. It was just slow and whatever. We used to take up a marionette. Like it was Jimmy the dummy, right? And it's like a little ventriloquist guy. And we did a whole scene at the first Sundance with this dummy, where, you know, like one of us would go up on stage and go, Hey, the film print broke. And we're getting a new one shipped in from Salt Lake, the whole packed audience, and the audience have grown. But it's coming, it's coming. We'd make up this thing. And then the dummy had like somebody on the on the, in the audience ago, unprofessional. That was one of us, right? And then another guy would be like, Hey, leave him alone. And is this guy with a ventriloquist dummy. And they go, what? I think these guys are young filmmakers, and they're trying really hard. And then the guy you shut up, you dummy. And then everybody be yelling at each other. And then a guy in a UPS uniform. What am I guys would come run it in. I got the film. And he'd run unspool everywhere, right? And the audience was laughing and laughing. And then we started the movie, and they're laughing and then they go, I was like, to Kevin, I'm like, we gotta go back to my house right now. We'll take the cab go back to pick up Jimmy, the dummy. We're doing the things sketch again. Because we're not doing it. We're just showing it and I'm like, to go to Park City. And we're in a bar, and I'm sitting in the bars, Harvey wants you. And I'm like, oh, we gotta get this guy in the screening, right? And so we send Marissa Coughlin who's in the movie, and she knows him. And she's, he's, she's, he's like, he's like, come on over. And so it was I'm telling the story of this criminal now. So and So Harvey, and, and he's like, look, Jay, I'd love to go to your movie. But I got a meeting right in the middle of it. I can't. If I go to your movie, and I leave, you're not selling your movie. And I'm like, I know. But if if I said, well just put you in the back seat. just sneak out and then you know, he goes, Okay, I'll come to your movie. Put me in the back seat. I'll sneak out and I'll come back. And I'm like, great. Let's do it. And so we do it. We put them in the back seat, back row. place is packed with really high and kind of drunk people because it's like a midnight screening. And we know a lot of people in LA and New York. Everyone's like, yeah, revved up, right. And they all turn and look at Harvey Weinstein. And they go well, right. He's here. Holy shit. He's here, right? And so he's sitting in the back. The movie starts unlike, it's gonna be terrible. And immediately the laughs start rolling and rolling. And then I mean, it rolled. And then when that title came up, the place blows up into an ovation. And tears rolled up. Because I was so tense. I was so tense. And then I'm like pacing in the lobby as enlisting to the movie laughter. And Harvey gets up around the 30 minute mark, he goes, this movie is killing, because I'm coming back. And he, he leaves goes to thing and he comes back and he slides right in he goes, incredible. And at the end of the movie, he goes, come over, talk to me talk to me, because I'm not going to necessarily buy your film yet, because I haven't seen it all. But this is going to help you. Because he watch what happens here. And he goes, in fact, I want you to meet me at this bar. And you watch where we'll be in. You'll be in the daily, whatever the page six. I'm like, okay, so we meet up at this bar, right? And, and I'm there and like, whatever. We're kind of chatting, I'm a spy the movie, because I got to watch it first, give me the print. So we're kind of doing that thing. And I'm at the bar and executives from searchlight. And executives from Sony are like don't sell don't sell to Harvey. Let us we need more people to come see it don't sell or don't sell. And in fact, it created this frenzy. And then we showed it again Saturday night. And we showed it again Sunday night and searched late and made an offer a three and a half. And we're like Harvey, you want to beat that with Sony, whatever. And search sites like that offer expires when your Sunday night screening starts. So take it early. And we're like, We'll take it. We'll take it. Thank God we took a search like because we had such a nice career with those guys. And we never had to deal with, you know, Harvey Scissorhands, which is what he was called by a lot of filmmakers. So we went in recut. I mean, like, obviously a lot worse things recut movies, but I always grateful that I never fell into his his hands.

Alex Ferrari 29:36
Right. But at least he did whatever he did for you back in the day. It started the conversation. It's that's that's an amazing story. So you tripled your budget, and your career was off the ground. I have to ask you, I mean, it turned into a huge hit. I mean, it was it and not only huge financial box office hit but then DVDs back then and

Jay Chandrasekhar 29:58
It made Fox over 100 A million dollars, cheese, a million dollar movie. Almost every penny of

Alex Ferrari 30:07
I was about to say almost every single buddy I like I'm sure that you didn't get that. But but so let me ask you a question I always love asking filmmakers who get this kind of situation happen to them this kind of lottery, I call it the lottery ticket. Because it's like it's, it is a lottery, it's a lottery ticket moment that you worked very hard for. It's not like you was lucky to get it. But all the circumstances that happened like crickets was gives you the money. And then Sunday, there's a lot of these things that happen. How did the town treat you as the director of this film afterwards?

Jay Chandrasekhar 30:43
That what happens is there's a period of, of heat, right? So we instantly got to television deals one with the NBC and one with ABC. You know, like we we entered into, you know, searchlight one at our next film, which would become Club Dread. And, you know, we were, I was in the conversation around town as one of the new guys. But I wasn't pursuing that I didn't even know how to pursue it. Because I was like, I would read these, you know, often not great comedy scripts. And I go, Well, no, I can't make a not great movie, but didn't occur to me that I could then put my improvement tour on it and rewrite it 10 Guys rewrite it or we rewrite I didn't even know that sounds like, well, if it's this now then I can't make that movie. That's how kind of dumb I was. And so I passed a lot of good movies. And then I said, Oh, well, you know what, this is an idea for a film this movie. And I'll just take it, I'll rewrite everything. And and then it'll be the same movie, but it'll be about my version, which should be in my opinion, a good now, like, that's what I do. But then, yeah, I was, I was like, one of the guys who, you know, I was on variety, top 10, directors, you know, all that stuff,

Alex Ferrari 32:22
You went through the water bottle. So you went through the water bottle tool, or you just went, you met everybody.

Jay Chandrasekhar 32:26
The bottom line is, in the film, business is a largely self generating business. And if you relax and be like, I made it, I'm in the top 10. Director, so it's meaningless. It's like, yeah, some producer might call you and go, Hey, can you do something with this, they're still trying to get the money. And, you know, if you're not generating yourself, if you're not out there going, I want to make a movie about this. And this, this, and I'm gonna write this script. And this is the writer is going to do it. We're going to do that together. And if you're not doing that, you're not getting movement. Still.

Alex Ferrari 33:00
Still, at any level. I mean, even Spielberg can can get some things made, but he still has to develop and build and do things like that.

Jay Chandrasekhar 33:09
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, he's has a little easier.

Alex Ferrari 33:13
But yeah, a little bit a little bit easier. That

Jay Chandrasekhar 33:15
Leads me to this. I don't want to jump off your train. Yeah. But if you want to continue we can I have a spiel Brooks. I love skills.

Alex Ferrari 33:24
I have so many people who've worked with Spielberg on the show. I have he, it seems to me that he always he's always in the mix somehow, with any any, any big thing that happens in town, you always get the call from even if it's just like, hey, man, great movie. What was your what's your Spielberg story?

Jay Chandrasekhar 33:39
Well, I was I was sitting at home in the pandemic. And I basically had turned into like a full time golfer, like I played every day. And I was just sort of there and I get this call from my agent that said, hey, what do you know about Joe coy? And I said, Well, Joe coy the comic I mean, it's funny, funny, dude. Right? Instead, well, okay, here's the deal. Joe coy has done a stand up special on Netflix. And Steven Spielberg during the pandemic happened to watch it. And he loves Joe Callie. And now he's like, wants to make a chill coin movie. And they want to do it in Vancouver. And they want to and you gotta go any day now, because the film can only be shot in May in June because that's Jo Koy standup window, where he's got stand up shows all over the world and the big show so and I'm like, big shows really? sells out 16,000 seat arenas. I was like, oh, oh, okay. And I'm like, okay, so May June. So we got to be in Vancouver when Monday and they're like, Yeah, kinda. And I'm like, Okay, so I'm in the strips. So I read this rapid I'm like Okay, I got it. I mean, I know Joe's stand up, and it's, uh, it's like attempting to be about his family. And I'm like, Yeah, I said, you know, look, this script, were I to do it would need some work, but it's not work that can't be done. So I said, y'all go. Well, I mean, cuz they Amblin was asking for me to go. And I said, Yeah, I'll do it. So I flew to Vancouver. And and when did a quarantine for two weeks in a in a hotel very nice. But it was hard, where I couldn't see any but I can step over the the entrance to the I just stayed in that room. And then I got out and Jo Koy came to town and I met him for the first time. I mean, I we'd met on Zoom. And we you know, I hired a writer, and she and I rewrote the thing. And, and then, you know, I started I met Steven Spielberg, I just because of the quarantine and the COVID thing, I get to know from every now and then like movie stars don't wear hats. And I'm like, okay, he can't wear a hat and the next thing but

Alex Ferrari 36:10
Steven, Mount Olympus called, and you can't,

Jay Chandrasekhar 36:14
You know, like, we were gonna hire an activist for a part that, and we sent it to him the choice. And you know, she was the more famous person, right? And I've been at Warner Brothers for years, I had to deal over there. And they're, like, just hire the most famous person, we'll put them on the poster, and we'll make it work. And I'm like, I just assumed everybody did that. And so I'm like, I get in the choice most vampers. And he sends a note back. There's other woman's much better actor than the most famous person or anything. And I'm like, Well, yeah, but she's not the most famous person. And he has when he when she was a better actor, I like of course I do. I didn't know I could. I did. So then I did. And it's the it's the central decision for the whole movie. Like, it's because we hired this woman. The movie works in a way you can't even believe in my view. It's called Easter Sunday. Right? Has this you know, you know, he's not just some rando. He's like, who just said, my name is on it? He's like, what about that? What do you think about that? And you're like, Okay, great. But you know,

Alex Ferrari 37:19
I'm assuming one day, you'll get a phone call, maybe,

Jay Chandrasekhar 37:22
You know, I will, I will. I will go to my grave, not assuming I'm gonna meet Steven Spielberg. Even though he's my boss, I just don't I don't see how that could happen. I live in a world where I'm like, constantly convinced I'm about to be kicked out of show business. So there's no space in that world for me to believe that I will meet Steven Spielberg. So

Alex Ferrari 37:41
I always love asking this question from from, you know, people who've hit a certain level in the business is like, do you do you? So you just said, you truly believe that at any moment, security is gonna come in, like, what are you doing here? You need to be escorted out.

Jay Chandrasekhar 37:54
Right! Like, I realized how ridiculous it is. Because I was I did a stand up show recently. And it was me. And Tiffany Haddish. And Anthony Jeselnik. And Tom Arnold, and we're upstairs. We're just chatting for comments, chatting. And I'm like, moments like these were my were where I have to admit that I might have made it. And I hate to admit that, because I'm so hungry. And I'm so they don't want me and show business. I'll show them I'll make a I'll make my 10th movie.

Alex Ferrari 38:33
No, I have to ask you. So that's fantastic. By the way, I was gonna bring you Easter Sunday because I saw Easter Sunday. And we've been working on this interview for months now. And then all of a sudden, I'm like, oh, Easter Sunday is coming out and like, and I'm such a joy cliff. I'm like, absolute huge joy play fan. And I've had I've had the pleasure of meeting him we almost work together on this close up almost working together years ago. And Joe is just wonderful. It's just I'm such a such a fan of his but Super Troopers to is such a unique story and how you got that made? Because the studio didn't want to make the sequel and you had to raise the money yourself. Right?

Jay Chandrasekhar 39:11
They were worried that it was too long. Between films. You know, first one came out in 2002. The second one might have come out in 2016 or 18, or something, I don't know. But it was it was it was a long time. They were like ah or no. And they're like, so they said well, why don't you raise the money yourself? Really, you made $100 million. You can't just carve a couple up. And they're like, yeah, it raise the money yourself will distribute it and like okay, and then they said and you have to raise the prints and advertising budget to which is all the money. It's the budget and all the money to release it. So you're talking about, in this case, we had to raise $30 million. And I'm like, I can't raise 30.

Alex Ferrari 40:13
Cricket, cricket.

Jay Chandrasekhar 40:17
Cricket, British jazz, like, I'll put money in. And we put money together. We had like, I don't know, maybe we got to about five or so. And then we were like, kind of hit a wall didn't weren't eight. And then they also said, we'll never let you take to another studio because other studios are like, Neff. You know, Netflix they will do. Oh, yeah. Can't take it out of work. No. And we're not making it but no, he can't take. So we happened upon this. I mean, we, you know, we, we watched watch the news, we saw these brought from Mars had raised some money for the movie of that. And we thought, well, cat, I mean, we're at least in a similar position, and you know that a thing they loved and they're doing a thing. So we we hired the guy did that campaign sky Ivan asked cough. And he he, he put together account, he first of all, he goes, I'm not terribly familiar with your work. That's the first thing he said. And I'm like a computer guy. And you have no tact or anything. It's so funny. And he then he goes, You know, there's quite a bit of interest in your comedy. around the internet. I've done a search. And I was like, how do you what, okay, and he goes, I'm gonna take this job. And I'm like, okay, great. Let's do it. Thanks. This incredible campaign with great art and incentives. And we made a video where you like, we locked farva in the trunk of a car, and I remember it, and then we said, Give us money, or else we won't let them out of the truck. And then we push go on the campaign. And it was like, oh, like, I mean, we raised I think $5.8 million

Alex Ferrari 42:15
On Indiegogo, right,

Jay Chandrasekhar 42:16
Indiegogo, something like that we were second to product remarks. Whatever they made, we've made a little less. And, and search site was like, what? Oh, how many 50,000 people gave me money. And they're like, Oh, okay. Oh, wow. Great. And then. So then we were able to then now they were really excited about it. And and then they agreed to release the film for us with their money. It's nice. And so yeah, so we still funded the production. They they funded the you know, but we made the movie. And then we tested the movie. And the reaction in the audience was like, I mean, it was insane. The reaction and all the searchlight executives are there. And when they put the they take keep 20 people back to talk to him about the what? How would you feel about the movie? And that and they're like, this is from a franchise? And yeah, so the test did I tell you about the testing of the screen. It tested incredibly well, like the numbers were astronomical. The audience was comparing it to franchises like Star Wars. And Fox, people were like, Oh, my God, we gotta hit. And so they pour the money and they did great campaign, two posters, super cool. Everything was great. And we were like, holy, this is incredible. We're gonna we're gonna have a, you know, it looks really good. We're gonna have a hit movie. And so then the weekend, the week we arrived in New York, it's what you do at the end of the of the campaign to do press in New York Press. We're, it's Monday, and the policy is with us. It's like, I hate to break it to you guys. But whatever, you got really bad tracking on this movie. Like, and the tracking predicts what the box office opening weekend is gonna pay. And they're like, it's it's tracking to open to about $3 million, right? In order to be a success. This movie would in search sites view what he wanted to open to 10 You know, that would be a success for a small film. And we were like, 3 million. How's that possible? Like we had a 50,000. And they're like, Well, you know, like our fans have been notoriously stoners, right? They're like a little slow to the mark. A little slower the market. Got there, like they would have to do a Stand Up Show. There'll be tickets available up until an hour before the Friday and there's like 100 Tickets available. And then boom, it's sold out and you're like gas kit. Get your internet Oh, can you do this? So I'm like, maybe that's it. And they're like, maybe I don't know. And Monday, Tuesday is still tracking three, Wednesday, it's still tracking 3 million. And everyone's like, we make the president of searchlight calls and go, Hey, man, we tried. I'm sorry, right. And then Thursday morning, we're in an interview in some brewery or something in Brooklyn or something. And publicists, because she's looking at her phone. She goes, there's some weird there's some weird and numbers out of the matinees that, well, they're just not, they're not right, but we're gonna get a check. We're gonna check. And I said, What are they there? She's like, well, the next are sold out. And I'm like, Yeah, that's that's true. And so she goes, yeah, there's a problem with the computer the system. There's a problem, obviously, obviously. So then the next screening she goes, yeah, these these numbers are stupid. They're all sold out. And the so two screenings are now sold out morning at 11am. And one and then the third one, she was sold out again. Like he's a real numbers, and suddenly, we've now we went Thursday, we went Friday, were the top movie in the country. And, and we had 1800 screens, I think, or something like that. And Amy Schumer had 2600 2800 screens. So we were beating her on per screen average. And then with the volume of Sprint's they ended up winning the weekend, but we won the per screen average for the weekend with our 1800 scripts. It was a miracle. It was a miracle, and searchlights. Like, let's make two more movies. And then you know, there we go. And there we go.

Alex Ferrari 46:48
And now that's why now you're writing Super Troopers 3.

Jay Chandrasekhar 46:51
We made a film called quasi, which is set in 13th century France. And Steve Lemmy plays a hunchback, and I play the King of France, and Paul said, replace the Pope. And it's a full on Monty Python esque style movie. I'm sure people are gonna go, you guys aren't as good as Python and will go away agree. But still, we made one and we said, You know what the end knew we were in it with this accent. You're like, oh my god, we're in the middle of a Python movie.

Alex Ferrari 47:22
That's amazing. That's amazing. Now I'm jam and ask you a couple questions. Ask all of my guests. What advice would you give a filmmaker trying to break into the business today?

Jay Chandrasekhar 47:31
Well, my advice would be don't wait around for other people to let you in. Because there are people like me on the other side of the door, pressing our shoulders against it to keep you up. And the only way and is through that door. So keep pushing. Until wait for me to let you in.

Alex Ferrari 47:55
That's not gonna happen.

Jay Chandrasekhar 47:56
I got this side. I'm in Vegas, the hotel. That's good. The answer as it's awesome. We respond to the same things you would think we respond to, which is followers. And, and numbers. Like if you can demonstrate an audience by making your short films and putting them on the internet and having people watch him, you know, and we go, Oh, my God, a million people watch Oh, wow, that's good. Maybe well, you know, comes with a built in audience, you know, it's like it. It, it's not easy, but it's also you have an ability to chart sort of do things cheaply. The problem for the new generation is that so many people are trying to do things cheaply. There's so much stuff you're like, it's hard to really get your mind around it. And so, you know, the system benefits those with access to capital. And that's sort of the sad truth of it. All right, if you can, if you can raise money. I mean, it's even harder now. Because it's like, Sundance isn't what it used to be, you know, like the people are not. Companies are not going to Sundance and necessarily buying. I mean, they are they're buying phones, but it's a little different. It's not, you know, you don't have these people are automatically in the theater. So yeah, I was streaming a little bit and you know, and that's all good. And that's all good. But that's sort of the changing moment here.

Alex Ferrari 49:20
Do you think that Super Troopers, what would happen if Super Troopers got released today?

Jay Chandrasekhar 49:24
It probably would have gone to somebody like Netflix, maybe?

Alex Ferrari 49:30
Maybe we've ended up knowing that you did. Nobody knew who you were, you made a million dollar movie,

Jay Chandrasekhar 49:35
I believe it would have sold because the response in the room was electric. And that's really the game right? If you can get to Sundance and show the movie in a room full of people, you've flipped the power dynamics so that the buyer instead of watching it on their desk on their laptop and drinking coffee and walking around and doing all this stuff, they are now in a room with audience in the hall. Do you have to like and they're like oh no what do i do i better buy it. I mean that's sort of how that works. And that still works that way you know like I you can still get a movie it into the theater so if you're nobody's and you know nobody's in the movie then it's harder right it's like the probably end up on a streaming service first and maybe you'll never get out of there. I don't really know. I mean, the problem with the problem and Netflix is they pay more money than searchlight does. And and you know, and then the movie ends up being sitting there you know, lost in the soup doesn't have the same when you get a postcard campaign and interviews and it you know, the movie series into audiences brains in a different way. You know, the the movies on Netflix, currently don't do that in my view.

Alex Ferrari 50:55
Right. Yeah, you've right I mean, Top Gun. did what it did because of it. Well, it did. Okay. Yeah. The biggest Memorial Day weekend opening ever. Oh, good.

Jay Chandrasekhar 51:05
Good, good. Good. I you know, the whole thing is I want I you know, I said to universal when we were getting ready to think about how we're going to put out this movie in the middle of the pandemic, of course, the movie tested well, Easter Sunday tested really well. Joe coy is the biggest ticket selling stand up comic in showbiz. He's number Wow, wow. That was 56,000 seats in Los Angeles and three nights. He says 30,000 in Seattle, he is filling hockey arenas everywhere he goes. And I said to them, Look, guys, we got to we got a theatrical comedy that works really the audience's we tested. They love it. We've Jo Koy in his first film, this is like having Steve Martin before the church or Eddie Murphy before for eight hours. We got him. And you guys are universal. And I mean, like, if we can sell this as a theatrical comedy. We you guys, we should all stop. You know. Cuz I said we gotta be you know, we're all looking around go, who's gonna bring the actual economy back? You know who it is? It's us. We're, we're, we've been put here to do this. This is our turn. It's time to do it. And so I've been telling people like, we're bringing the company back. And we're the only theatrical comedy coming out this summer. That's how bad it's gotten.

Alex Ferrari 52:22
You're absolutely right. I mean, yeah. I mean, it is outrageous. And now it's like everyone's saying that theaters are just for the event films. And they are for certain extent, of course. But, you know, like a film, a film like Easter Sunday will absolutely open. Well, I mean, you've got an audience that is used to buying tickets for this artist on top of it sounds like, make sense.

Jay Chandrasekhar 52:44
We'll see if I'm right. I mean, we'll see if I'm right. But I but I hope I am. I mean, you know, it's a gambling business, you know, that it's gunslingers and gamblers

Alex Ferrari 52:53
We're working on we're such a big joke, my fans, my family and our daughters, everyone. So we're gonna we're gonna head out to the theaters to see it when it comes out.

Jay Chandrasekhar 53:01
To do we do you know about my the APA credit, are you?

Alex Ferrari 53:05
I don't, ah, tell me about the app.

Jay Chandrasekhar 53:10
So it all goes back, Super Troopers comes out after this incredible Sundance experience comes out in the theaters. And the reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes, a site named for throwing rotten fruit that people like me some site. They give it a 38% Fresh, the reviewers, right? And I was like, what, what, what do we have to do? Like and the and then that's 100 people. Then over time, you know, the audience weighed in, and and the audience gave us a 90% Fresh, right? That's 200,000 people read it that way. And I'm like, Who are these strangers with outsize power, right? They're just, they're, you know, a reviewer, I got no problem with reviews, right? I shouldn't think they're valuable. But aggregating all of them, and putting it into a score is just nonsensical, like we got reviewed for Beer Fest from a woman in Arizona named grandmas reviews. And her review of the film was, I didn't like it. There's too much drinking. I'm like it's an ode to binge drinking. It's called Pure fats. So but that goes into a reviewer score. And you're like, I said, Oh, my God, I need to get revenge on Rotten Tomatoes and stood with me for 1820 years. And then I said, I know how I'm going to do it. I'm going to build an app. Right? I mean, look, the premise is this. reviewers are strangers. When's the last time you walked up to a stranger on the street and said, Hey, what movie should I see? That's what we're doing

Alex Ferrari 54:54
Exactly.

Jay Chandrasekhar 54:56
In Rotten tomatoes. You're taking all these strangers aggregate They're strange opinions and putting it together. There you go. Here's what the strangest thing. So I said, you know, I want to build an app that is, you if you want advice for a movie, you talk to your friends, right? You talk to your friends, your or maybe you know some celebrity on something that some filmmakers today, this is a good movie road to Busan or whatever it is, Train to Busan era. And so I made an app, I started to develop an app that was going to be a recommendation site for movies, TV books, podcasts, music, right? And I connected with these two guys who are computer guys, and they were already reacting to this. You know, like Amazon reviews or Yelp reviews, they're like, who wrote the review? Was it the owner of the restaurant who wrote it? Was it the restaurant across the street and wrote them a bad review? Was it somebody who doesn't like the waiter who gave them a bet? I mean, you know, you're like, you just you're strangers, right? So they were working on an idea to try to solve that problem. And we teamed up. And we made a thing called vouch fault. All right. It's in the App Store notes in the Apple Store. It's in the Android store. And it's basically that says, basically Instagram for recommendations. So if you open my vault, you'll see that I like Reservoir Dogs, you'll see that I like Pulp Fiction, you'll see that I like Richard Pryor live in Long Beach that Stand Up Show. You'll see that I like that joke Koy stand up, you'll see I put Super Troopers there you see, you know, if I like this indie hustle, you could see that like, you can put anything you like. And so if you follow me, like, oh, Jay likes this thing, and you push a button, you can try it, right. But books, anything, I have all sorts of books on there, right? And so it'll work best. I think the goal is to say it's a word of mouth machine, you know, it's also a memory machine so that when I tell my children you know, this Fleetwood Mac rumours album was very important for you to listen to they go, it's not just me saying it. It's there in the vault. Right? They go, Oh, yeah, Dad was talking about this album, I listened to it. You know, it's like and if you if you somebody recommend something in the past, you write it down on a little note in your phone right here. There's a tribal you just stick it in there. So when you're home on a Friday night and like what's in my tribe while you're like oh, yeah, this new BBC Three documentary I wanted to see I remember I wrote it down there it is. Try it. And so it's it's a machine that I hope is going to change the way specifically film is judged the way you know, I want reviewers on there. I'm gonna talk I'm trying to get oh and gleeman and trying to get Drew McWeeny and go hey, guys, I tell me what you love. Right? Tell me the films you love that nobody knows about. And then I'll watch them. You know? I'm not trying to kill reviewers. I'm I am trying to kill Rotten Tomatoes. I am. It is a revenge ploy. It is a revenge.

Alex Ferrari 58:02
You are not the only assert. You're not the only one who feels some vengeance as needed against Rotten Tomatoes, many filmmakers, many filmmakers feel the same way you are and I

Jay Chandrasekhar 58:12
All get on this app. And let's show them who we are.

Alex Ferrari 58:15
Fantastic. And last question, three of your favorite films of all time.

Jay Chandrasekhar 58:20
48 hours, Reservoir Dogs and Goodfellas

Alex Ferrari 58:29
Rest in peace Ray Liotta

Jay Chandrasekhar 58:31
They're all the reason they're all on that list is because they're all tough, funny films. And I like I like it when the guy when the people are tough in the movie. And I like when they're when it's that funny and it's that you know it's sometimes you know, violent and funny is some sometimes really funny but they played straight for eight hours you're like there's some broad stuff but there's some the bad guys are bad the violence is is terrifying and obviously Goodfellas is a way it's funny as hell.

Alex Ferrari 59:06
Joe Pesci scene alone

Jay Chandrasekhar 59:09
I can't believe really leave it at that Reservoir Dogs is still work.

Alex Ferrari 59:17
It's a masterpiece masterpiece. Jay and when is Easter Easter Sunday coming up

Jay Chandrasekhar 59:23
August 5th.

Alex Ferrari 59:25
Man I cannot wait to see it. And Jay thank you so much for coming on the show man and and sharing your adventures and your knowledge with experiences with the tribe man, I really appreciate you. Thank you for your inspiration and just like you were inspired by Ed burns and and Clerks and Kevin and Mariachi and all those kinds of films. People listening now hopefully will be inspired by us like if this guy can do it.

Jay Chandrasekhar 59:49
That's right. That guy can do it. That's a John Oliver said to me when I was I was directing him community. He had never acted before. And I'd seen him do stand up and I loved him to stand up. I said John has first acting scene ever and then like, he nervous at all. And he goes, how hard could it be?

Alex Ferrari 1:00:23
A pleasure meeting you my friend. Thank you again for being on the show brother continued success and I can't wait to see Easter Sunday, man. Thanks again.

Jay Chandrasekhar 1:00:28
For indie hustle, buddy. I'm gonna put indie hustle in my bouch ball.

Alex Ferrari 1:00:32
Indie Film Hustle. I appreciate you brother. Thank you again, man.

LINKS

SPONSORS

  1. Jambox.io – Royalty Free Music for Indie Films – 20% OFF (Coupon Code: HUSTLE20)
  2. Need Distribution for Your Film? – Check This Out!
  3. Bulletproof Script Coverage– Get Your Screenplay Read by Hollywood Professionals
  4. Audible – Get a Free Filmmaking or Screenwriting Audiobook

Tom Cruise’s Film Nior Short Film: The Frightening Frammis

We meet our anti-hero, grafter Mitch Allison, disheveled and walking by the side of the road. He tells us in a flash back narrative how he stole $25,000 from his con-artist wife Bette and jumped on a train hoping to double the money in a scam. He meets sultry Babe and gets involved in more than he bargained for. The twists and turns never stop in this fast paced tale.

Directed by Tom Cruise

Download Tom Cruise’s Screenplay Collection in PDF

SHORTCODE - SHORTS

Want to watch more short films by legendary filmmakers?

Our collection has short films by Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, Steven Spielberg & more.

Ultimate Guide To Sofia Coppola And Her Directing Techniques

FIRST WORKS (1993-1998)

The old adage that “first impressions are everything” is especially true in the world of cinema.  Chances are, if the first film an average moviegoer sees from a given director leaves a bad taste in his or her mouth, there won’t be much in the way of eagerness to see that director’s other work.

Some even take their criticism to a personal level, dismissing the director outright on terms of character and artistry.  For instance, the first film I ever saw from director Sofia Coppola was 2003’s LOST IN TRANSLATION.

I was captivated by the quiet sensitivity of her characters and the evocative melancholy of the Tokyo setting, and as such, I’ve come to regard her as an accomplished filmmaker with a uniquely sensitive worldview worth expressing.

However, I know plenty of other people who saw the same movie and have written her off entirely as “boring”, “out of touch”, “over privileged”.  As is the case with all forms of art, beauty is in the eye of beholder, and to my mind, Coppola’s films are all filled with an ethereal, ephemeral beauty and deftness of touch that’s exceedingly resonant in our increasingly-mechanized modern world.

godfather03

The highest-profile and, perhaps, most serious, charge leveled against Coppola’s artistic character is the charge of nepotism.  Nepotism courses through nearly every profession, naturally, but it’s an especially-visible phenomenon in Hollywood– after all, when you live in a town where a key barrier to success is “who you know”, having legendary New Hollywood auteur Francis Francis Ford Coppola as your father gets you a pretty serious leg up over the competition.

The film industry is full of such privileged and meagerly-talented royalty with which one could credibly argue for a case of actual nepotism, but the Coppola clan proves the exception to the rule.  From immediate offspring like Sofia, Roman, and Gia, to extended family members like Nicholas Cage and Jason Schwartzman, visual artistry clearly runs through Coppola blood like a hereditary trait.

Sofia in particular has had a steeper uphill climb than the others– not only did she have to contend with charges of nepotism from an early age, she also had to overcome the inherent challenge of simply being a woman in an almost-exclusively male profession– indeed, she’s only the 3rd woman in Oscar history to be nominated for Best Director.

She’s never disavowed her admittedly privileged upbringing, which has given her an unique, well-traveled outlook on life that many find to be uncompelling at best, and hopelessly out of touch at worst.  It’s easy to dismiss her work as a series of shoegazing portraits about the white leisure class, but look again, and you might see a biting self-awareness that adds layers of subtle nuance and humanizing depth.

Over the course of five features (as of this writing), Sofia Coppola has proven her bonafides as a director with her own distinct stamp, and has stepped out from under the overbearing shadow of her father’s legendary career to forge her own path.

e690d265feeb189656f106c5b5b445c6

Born in New York City on May 14th, 1971, Sofia Coppola was the youngest child of father Francis and mother Eleanor.  She quickly earned her status as an artistic figurehead of Generation X by getting herself involved with film and fashion at an exceedingly early age.

She made her film debut only a year after her birth, standing in for Michael Corleone’s infant son during the iconic baptism scene in her father’s 1972 classic, THE GODFATHER.  Her childhood was well-traveled, often accompanying her parents on Francis’ film shoots around the world– including a long stretch in the Philippines while her father was making APOCALYPSE NOW (1979).

In the 1980’s, she made efforts to cultivate an acting career by appearing in several of her father’s films from that decade: THE OUTSIDERS (1983), RUMBLE FISH (1983), THE COTTON CLUB (1984) and PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED (1986).

She even appeared in Tim Burton’s 1984 short FRANKENWEENIE under the name “Domino”– a stage name she adopted for what she perceived to be its implications of glamor.  At fifteen, she began exploring a lifelong interest with fashion by interning at Chanel (1).

1989 saw her professional writing debut, having collaborated with her father on the script for LIFE WITHOUT ZOE, a short film contained within the larger omnibus feature NEW YORK STORIES.  Following her graduation from St. Helena High School in New York in 1989, she moved to Oakland, CA to attend Mills College.

After her disastrous, Razzie Award-winning supporting performance in THE GODFATHER PART III (1990), Coppola abandoned her budding acting career altogether in favor of one behind the camera. She would transfer to Cal Arts in Valencia before dropping out altogether to start a fashion line called “Milkfed” (which is still sold exclusively in Japan)(3).

WALT MINK: “SHINE” (1993)

Coppola’s first official credit as a director is for a music video– a format that served as the entry point into the industry for many members of her generation.  Created for Walt Mink’s track “SHINE” in 1993, the video marks the first appearance of several themes and images that would come to define Coppola’s distinct aesthetic.

“SHINE” seems to foreshadow the central approach Coppola would take for her 1999 debut feature, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES: a dreamy, shoegazing feel with a pastel color palette and a warm, summery setting.  The piece is mostly shot as a conventional performance video, intercut with handheld footage of teenagers napping in the grass and swimming in the pool.

It’s obvious that Coppola is depicting a world she knows quite well– one of suburban privilege and leisure (that’s also exclusively white).  Notably, the video was shot on the Coppola estate, and edited by filmmaker Spike Jonze, who Coppola would marry in 1999.

A simple concept with little structural shape to speak of, “SHINE” nonetheless hints at the artistic style Coppola would come to be known for: an observational and nostalgic gaze spiked with a punk edge.

THE FLAMING LIPS: “THIS HERE GIRAFFE” (1996)

Coppola’s second music video, for The Flaming Lips’ “THIS HERE GIRAFFE”, further embraces the rough-hewn punk inclinations of its predecessor.  She again adopts a loose, cinema-verite approach that utilizes handheld photography to capture fleeting moments instead of staged setups, while embracing the imperfections of the format by keeping in light leaks and other filmic aberrations.

When combined with the punches of bright pastel colors dotting the otherwise monochromatic, blue-collar suburban environs, the overall effect reads as an avant-garde twist on the mundane.  The video, which also delightfully features literal giraffes, further explores Coppola’s aesthetic interests in the iconography of suburbia as perceived by the teenage female.

A substantial amount of attention is paid to what is undoubtedly a girl’s bedroom– festooned with cats, rock band posters, and a plentiful splash of pink.  Coppola’s unpolished technique echoes the rough, crunchy quality of the Flaming Lips’ track, making for an effortless match between sound and picture.

LICK THE STAR (1998)

At the age of twenty seven, Coppola made her narrative debut with the 1998 short film, LICK THE STAR. She wrote the script in collaboration with Stephanie Hayman, spinning a story about a clan of vicious teenage girls who hover obsessively around their queen bee while hatching a juvenile plot to poison the boys at their middle school.

Whereas most burgeoning filmmakers must make their first narrative efforts on a truly independent scale, her status as a second-generation Coppola filmmaker availed her of some admittedly enviable production resources.

LICK THE STAR was produced by Andrew Durham and Christopher Neil through Francis Ford Coppola’s production company American Zoetrope, as well as through her own directing representatives at Director’s Bureau.  She even got such cinematic luminaries (and family friends) as Peter Bogdanovich and Zoe Cassavetes to make brief cameos as a principal and a PE teacher, respectively.

Despite these considerable helping hands, Coppola’s work on LICK THE STAR ultimately asserts itself, reinforcing the strength and competence of her own unique voice.

LICK THE STAR was shot on black and white 16mm film by cinematographer Lance Acord, who would go on to become a regular collaborator of Coppola’s on her feature work, in addition to the work of other directors in their wider social circle (Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, etc.).

The decision to shoot in this format is undoubtedly an aesthetic one as opposed to a pragmatic necessity– Coppola’s handheld, observational approach effortlessly melds with the grainy monochromatic film stock and various needle drops from various garage bands like Free Kittens, The Amps, and The Go-Gos to create a tone that’s unequivocally punk rock.

The compositions are mostly functional and close-up, rather than deliberately artistic and cinematic.  At the same time, however, Coppola punctuates her fairly straight-forward cinematography with impressionistic flourishes like languid slow-motion shots at key beats in the story.

While the rough-hewn cinematography may stand in stark contrast to the dreamy beauty of her feature work, the narrative themes on display in LICK THE STAR are part and parcel with her core aesthetic.  The most obvious of these is the singularly feminine perspective, detailing the exploits of a squad of proto-Mean Girls who have managed to grip their entire school in a stranglehold.

They inflate the superficial dramas of middle school with life or death stakes, injecting a heavy dose of existential angst into the world of white suburban privilege.  Coppola delicately walks the fine line between empathy and self-awareness, giving the plight of her characters serious weight while never losing sight of the larger social perspective– these girls aren’t inherently bad people, they’re just conditioned that way by the materialistic culture they were born into.

Their disaffected style of talking isn’t simply bad acting (although that may indeed be the case for some), it’s a deliberate decision employed to illustrate how complacency can lead to a severe detachment from reality and emotion.

Beneath its choppy surface layer, Coppola’s first short evidences a substantial degree of directorial promise and raw talent.  It would go on to screen regularly on the Independent Film Channel, but has otherwise been little-seen by all but her most die-hard fans.

Nevertheless, LICK THE STAR accomplished its purpose of opening a path for Coppola to espouse her own distinct voice– one that has made American independent cinema all the richer.


THE VIRGIN SUICIDES (1999)

Some stories are so perfectly suited to a particular filmmaker that it’s inconceivable to think of anyone else sitting behind the camera.  Director Sofia Coppola’s 1999 debut feature, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, is such a film: a stunning harmony of source matter and artistic vision that immediately announced her as a major new voice in American independent cinema.

The film was adapted by Coppola herself from the 1993 Jeffrey Eugenides novel of the same name, which spun the nostalgic and melancholy tale of five sisters blossoming into womanhood one fateful suburban summer, hidden away from the world by their overbearing but well-meaning parents.

At the sprightly young age of 27, the music video director / budding fashionista / art world socialite reportedly hadn’t yet considered a feature filmmaking career for herself, but when she was given a copy of “The Virgin Suicides” by her friend (and Sonic Youth frontman) Thurston Moore, she knew she had the perfect story with which to make her feature debut.

Undeterred by the fact the book was already in development elsewhere, she went against the advice of her father, esteemed 70’s auteur Francis Ford Coppola, and wrote her own script anyway.  When she presented her draft to the rights holders, they agreed to make her version of the film instead of what they’d been developing on their own.

Soon enough, Coppola found herself in the suburban outskirts of Detroit, Michigan, shooting her first feature film with a budget of $6 million and the production oversight of her father’s company, American Zoetrope. THE VIRGIN SUICIDES is set firmly in the 1970’s, but the film’s perspective approaches the story from a point of hindsight, narrated in the present day by the curious neighborhood boys at the center of the film.

Now grown men with careers and family of their own, they can’t help but steal away to quiet corners whenever they’re back together, going over their old teenage obsession with the five Lisbon sisters who all took their own lives in a defiant act of rebellion against their strict parents.

James Woods and Kathleen Turner (who played Coppola’s older sister in father Francis’ 1986 feature PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED) play Mr. and Mrs. Lisbon, an uptight religious couple who fear for their daughters’ collective chastity to the point that they are willing to seal them off almost entirely to the outside world.

As such, the five sisters– Bonnie (Chelsea Swain), Therese (Leslie Hayman), Cecilia (Hannah R. Hall), Mary (AJ Cook), and Lux (Kirsten Dunst)– have taken on an enigmatic, almost-ethereal air that captivates the neighborhood boys.

Their focus (and Coppola’s) converges on Lux in particular, played by Dunst with a flirty, knowing sensuality. This may be Coppola’s first film, but this isn’t the first time she’s worked with Dunst– the actress previously appeared in Francis Ford’s LIFE WITHOUT ZOE, a segment for the 1989 omnibus film NEW YORK STORIES that she co-wrote with Dad.

This particular summer coincides with Lux’s sexual awakening, sparked by a romance with the school stallion Trip Fontaine, played by a gangly Josh Hartnett in an aloof, cocksure performance.  The revelation of this development causes a crackdown on the girls’ freedoms, leading to the mysterious group suicide that will captivate the neighborhood boys’ attention for the rest of their lives.

THE VIRGIN SUICIDES places an emphasis on its cast’s performances in lieu of sweeping turns of narrative, a challenge to which the members of Coppola’s cast ably meet– including short cameos from Danny DeVito as a psychiatrist and future Anakin Skywalker, Hayden Christensen, as a moody member of Trip’s football team.

Edward Lachmann’s cinematography ably evokes the summery, nostalgic vibe that Coppola aims for, and in the process helps to establish the foundations of Coppola’s signature aesthetic.  Exterior scenes are lathered in warm, saturated tones, golden highlights and lens flares, while interiors are rendered with pops of bright color against the beige florals of white suburban domesticity.

Coppola and Lachmann manage to imprint a palpable sensuality on the 35mm film image, imbuing it with a soft, creamy texture not unlike sun-kissed skin.  She frames the action primarily in wide, thoughtfully-considered compositions, making full use of the 1.85:1 frame while accentuating the potency of her closeups by virtue of their relative scarcity.

The camerawork adopts a classical, period-appropriate approach, utilizing dolly moves, locked-down one-offs, and languid traveling shots from the perspective of a car’s backseat (something of a signature shot within Coppola’s features).

Other aspects of the film, however, suggest more of an impressionistic, contemporary vibe– seen most visibly in the use of double exposures, 8mm home movie footage, timelapse photography, and even a present-day, documentary-style testimonial from a middle-aged, burned-out Trip Fontaine.

The most effective of these techniques is the staging of key conversations behind closed doors, reinforcing the film’s central themes of isolation and secrecy while subtly placing the audience in the same space of physical remove and unknowable speculation experienced by the male narrators.  Production designer Jasna Stefanovic rounds out Coppola and Lachmann’s approach with scene dressing, props and costumes that authentically evoke a vintage 70’s, yet timeless, feel.

While Coppola might embrace a subdued application of period iconography, she uses the opportunity afforded by the film’s soundtrack to indulge in some iconic 70’s-era jams.  Whereas other 70’s-set films like Paul Thomas Anderson’s BOOGIE NIGHTS (1997) embraced the glitzier disco aspects of the era, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES explores rock-and-roll’s contributions to the musical landscape.

Well known tracks like Electronic Light Orchestra’s “Strange Magic”, or Heart’s “Magic Man” and “Crazy On You” round out a suite of needle drops sourced from artists like Todd Rundgren, Al Green, and The Bee Gees.

French electronica band Air crafts a laid-back and melancholy mix of xylophones, beat kits, and other synthesized elements into an original cue called “Playground Love”, serving as the film’s de facto theme song while evoking the feel of a languid summer afternoon.

Like her generational peer Quentin Tarantino, Coppola isn’t afraid to abruptly silence a moment of non-diegetic music when she transitions to the next scene with a hard cut.  The soundtrack works in perfect harmony with Coppola’s dreamy aesthetic, establishing her reputation as a filmmaker with a strong ear for sublime music.

The feminine mystique is a common concept present through Coppola’s work, perhaps none more so than in THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, which is literally drenched in it like humidity.  The male narrators can’t seem to figure out what drives these enigmatic young women– their detached emotionality bears nothing in the way of clues or insight as to how they’re really feeling, which is why their dramatic group suicide comes as such a shock.

The artifacts of their lives– magazine clippings, records, hairbrushes, etc– become objects worthy of intense scrutiny and study.  Their bedrooms become sacred shrines to girlhood.  The process of puberty, of flowering into womanhood, is a magical, mysterious phenomenon to these boys.

The girls are fully aware of the mystery of their inner lives, evidenced early in the film by Cecilia’s response to a doctor who asks her why she would attempt something so drastic of suicide: “Obviously, Doctor, you’ve never been a thirteen year old girl.”

The quiet, observational femininity that drives Coppola’s worldview dovetails nicely with THE VIRGIN SUICIDES’ themes of teenage suburban angst.  Like her approach to her 1998 short LICK THE STAR, Coppola walks the fine line between empathy for her characters and a wider perspective.

The reasons for the girls’ group suicide are ultimately trivial– a permanent solution to a temporary problem– but she never discounts the sincerity of the personal stakes that the girls have staked to their situation.

When hormones are running rampant, emotions have a life-or-death immediacy– a notion that’s amplified in a privileged suburban setting, where there’s the time and the luxury to dwell on heartbreak and despair, and true love is the only thing that money can’t buy.

The punk flare that also ran through LICK THE STAR surfaces throughout the VIRGIN SUICIDES, most visibly in the hand-drawn title treatments, which resemble the daydreaming doodles of a teenage girl’s school notebook.  Behind the camera, Coppola also adopts her father’s tendency to mix work and family– recruiting her brother Roman as the 2nd Unit Director and bringing on Francis Ford as a producer and on-set source of sage advice.

Many directors’ first features are plagued by a variety of production difficulties and challenges, especially on the independent level.  By most accounts, Coppola’s experience on THE VIRGIN SUICIDES was a relatively smooth one– she proved herself a hard worker and a confident visionary.

The biggest challenge she reportedly faced was a shortage of film stock, often hitting the allotted daily maximum by lunch.  Her name and American Zoetrope’s backing may have played a part in securing a coveted slot at Cannes and Sundance, but the warm critical reviews made it quickly apparent that the film’s strengths were entirely a product of her own.

THE VIRGIN SUICIDES’ modest indie success proved that a talent for filmmaking ran in the family, establishing Coppola’s feature career with one of the best films of the 1990’s.

large


AIR MUSIC VIDEO, “PLAYGROUND LOVE” (2000)

With the 1999 debut of her first feature, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, director Sofia Coppola made a distinct splash in the world of independent longform narrative filmmaking.  Like many of her generational peers, Coppola got her start in music videos, but unlike many of those some peers, she wouldn’t leave that world behind entirely once she’d made the big jump.

In 2000, Coppola released a promotional music video for THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, taking the film’s original theme song by French electronica band Air and turning it into a pop single in its own right.  The resulting music video, “PLAYGROUND LOVE”, was easily integrated into the shooting schedule of THE VIRGIN SUICIDES by virtue of it simply re-using several prominent shots from the movie.

Presented in the square 1.37:1 aspect ratio, “PLAYGROUND LOVE” supplements the repurposed footage with new 35mm film shots that were captured on set, forming a vignette about a wad of gum being passed around the characters and locations seen in the film.

While the cue’s appearance in THE VIRGIN SUICIDES is purely instrumental, the music video incorporates vocals that are sung on-screen by the aforementioned wad of gum using subtle animation techniques.  As the video unspools, Coppola spins a larger meta-narrative that breaks the fourth wall to reveal the production itself, even going so far as to incorporate herself in a cameo as the production’s director.

“PLAYGROUND LOVE” is a simple, clever concept that’s executed very well.  The usage of chewing gum as a narrative device reflects Coppola’s thematic fascination with the teenage feminine mystique, what with its cultural connotations of emotional detachment, aloofness, and seductive allure crashing up against the trappings of adolescence.

Under Coppola’s subtle guidance, “PLAYGROUND LOVE” becomes more than just a standard-issue promotional piece; it’s a piece of art in its own right, further reinforcing Coppola’s undeniable appropriateness in adapting THE VIRGIN SUICIDES to the screen.


LOST IN TRANSLATION (2003)

I first saw director Sofia Coppola’s LOST IN TRANSLATION (2003) in college, and like several other films I saw at that time, the experience of watching had an immediate, profound effect on my own artistic development as a filmmaker.

I tried on certain aspects of the film’s stylistic sensibilities with my own work and found they suited me, but it wasn’t until my most recent viewing of the film for this essay that I became acutely aware of just how integral LOST IN TRANSLATION was to the backbone of my aesthetic.

As someone who spent a substantial portion of his early 20’s traveling back and forth across the country for college, the core of Coppola’s emotional message– the alienation of being a stranger in a strange land– resonated deeply with me.

Coppola too spent a great deal of her 20’s engaged in travel, although her status as the daughter of a wealthy film legend enabled her to voyage to farther-flung locales than people like me.  She had a particular affection for the city of Tokyo, Japan, citing the city’s luxuriously labyrinthine Park Hyatt Hotel as one of her favorite places in the entire world (3).

That hotel would serve as the setting for LOST IN TRANSLATION, her second feature following 1999’s THE VIRGIN SUICIDES.  Beginning with a series of short stories and personal impressions about the hotel and her experience in Tokyo, Coppola labored for six months to craft a screenplay about an understated love affair between a man nearing the end of his career and a woman just about to start hers– if she could only figure out what she actually wanted to do (4,5).

Coppola wrote the story with comedy icon Billy Murray in mind, even going so far as to leave hundreds of messages on the actor’s private voicemail box and enlisting her friend and fellow director Wes Anderson to make a personal overture (6).

Reportedly operating off of only a verbal agreement from Murray, Coppola and her producer Ross Katz risked $4 million in financing and untold professional humiliation, and moved to Tokyo to begin production without a firm contract from their lead actor.  Much to their relief, Murray did show up on the first day of production, and as they say, the rest is history.

Much of LOST IN TRANSLATION may be predicated on the absurdities that arise from the culture clash between east and west, but in endeavoring to make a film about a brief moment of romantic connection rather than a conventional plot or story arc, Coppola had to create a sustained mood of subdued emotional tension.

The film’s storyline is the faintest of sketches: a quietly inquisitive newlywed named Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) travels to Tokyo on a business trip with her husband, but spends most of the time brooding alone in her hotel room.  She’s coaxed out to experience the magic of the city by Murray’s Bob Harris, an aging, downwardly mobile American movie star who’s there to shoot a whiskey commercial.

During their various misadventures across the city, Bob and Charlotte develop a unique bond that allows them respite from their individual marital troubles.   It’s easy to dismiss the film as a story where “nothing happens”, but to do so misses the point entirely– Coppola’s narrative is about those fleeting moments that make us see the world in a different way.

A glance, a brush of fingers, a barely audible whisper in the middle of a crowded plaza.  It’s a film where every subtle interaction contains emotional magnitudes; the performances are the events.  The chemistry between the melancholic Murray and the contemplative Johansson (only seventeen years old at the time of shooting) is as sublime as it is unconventional– the marriage of an old soul and a young heart.

While Wes Anderson’s films RUSHMORE (1998) and THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (2001) foreshadowed the “Sad Bill Murray” persona, LOST IN TRANSLATION is the film that cemented it, fueling a late-career resurgence that would yield several similarly-sensitive performances that continue to this day.

Johansson’s work here put her on the map, paving the way to A-List stardom by acting as a fictional avatar for Coppola herself.  The supporting characters further point to the personal nature of Coppola’s story, with Giovanni Ribisi’s busy, disengaged performance as Charlotte’s husband, John, allegedly serving as a veiled reference to Coppola’s own husband, director Spike Jonze (they would ultimately split later that year).

Anna Faris’ bubbly turn as the aggravatingly ditzy actress, Kelly, is generally considered to be a swipe at Cameron Diaz, who had worked with Jonze in his 1999 feature, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH.  You’ll notice that all these familiar faces are almost exclusively white– a peculiar choice for a film set entirely in Tokyo.

While there are Japanese actors throughout, they exist almost exclusively in the periphery, confined by the bounds of their stereotype by The Anglo Gaze– a sore point of contention for the film’s many critics that lent ammunition to their argument for Coppola as an over-privileged rich kid with nothing meaningful to say.

While LOST IN TRANSLATION’s main cast may not be Japanese, the film’s approach to cinematography falls very much in line with the observational, interior nature of Japanese filmmaking espoused by such directors as Yasujiro Ozu.  Lance Acord, who shot Coppola’s 1998 short LICK THE STAR, joined Coppola on her trek across the Pacific to serve as the film’s cinematographer.

LOST IN TRANSLATION’s visual style is simple, but deceptively so– every shot is deliberate and thoroughly considered, even in the haphazard-seeming documentary-style setups achieved via guerrilla filmmaking techniques in stolen, uncontrolled locations.

Because the cinematography is so minimal, every composition and the action contained within it has a specific narrative purpose.  This begins with Coppola’s choice to shoot on 35mm film stock for its organic, romantic qualities– despite her father and executive producer Francis Ford Coppola’s insistence that she shoot on high definition video because it was “the future” (5).

Sofia and Acord draw a marked distinction between the tranquil, refined Tokyo contained within the Park Hyatt and the buzzing urban sprawl just beyond its walls.  The hotel scenes are often locked off into wide, observational compositions with a shallow focus that throws the surrounding city lights into the shape of glowing incandescent orbs floating in a sea of black.

Bob and Charlotte’s forays into the city are rendered in the aforementioned handheld, documentary-style photography– partly as a directorial decision, but also because the modest budget precluded Coppola from obtaining permits for every exterior locale she wanted to shoot in.

This meant keeping the crew to a minimum (a challenge compounded by the predominantly-Japanese crew’s linguistic barriers), but the effort results in a film that properly captures the vitality, vibrancy and unpredictability of urban life.

Despite this bifurcated approach, Coppola and Acord maintain a visual continuity by establishing a few visual constants like color, light, and compositional framing devices.  Coppola’s Tokyo is a megalopolis rendered in dusky blue skies, imposing grey monoliths, and garish neons.

She and Acord routinely shun artificial film lights, using the soft ambient light of the surrounding city as much as possible– an approach that gives the nocturnal exteriors in particular a distinctly textured immediacy.

Many shots, especially those of the up-close variety, use transparent or translucent framing devices and abstractions– glass, reflections, prisms, lens flares, etc– to break up the image’s natural lines into smaller segments, evoking the emotional barriers between the characters while reinforcing a subtle thematic undercurrent about the compartmentalization of modern urban society.

This idea arguably informs the evolution of a unique shot that Coppola would claim as a personal signature, akin to generational peer Quentin Tarantino’s iconic “trunk shot”.  This particular composition, which also pops in her later films, is captured from the back seat of a moving car.

THE VIRGIN SUICIDES contained an earlier iteration of this shot, assuming the characters’ POV looking out on the neighborhood as it rolled by.  LOST IN TRANSLATION flips the angle by mounting the camera to the car’s exterior and peering in on her characters caught in a moment of lonely reverie.

They’re moving through the world, yet they are also removed from it– enclosed in an alienating bubble of glass and steel.  Indeed, Bob and Charlotte can only truly connect with their surroundings once they engage it on foot.

LOST IN TRANSLATION’s musical landscape reflects the interior nature of Coppola’s story, sculpted by My Bloody Valentine frontman Kevin Shields using a variety of New Wave and Tokyo dream pop tracks.  Just as Air had crafted an original song for use as the theme for THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, Shields contributes a downbeat shoegaze track named “City Girl” in addition to My Bloody Valentine’s iconic song “Sometimes”.

Also boasting contributions from Death In Vegas, Jesus and Mary Chain, and her current husband Thomas Mars’ band, Phoenix, the soundtrack is more reflective of Coppola’s personal tastes rather than the cultural setting of her story– nevertheless, the cumulative effect of the chosen tracks is a sublime experience that resonates in perfect harmony with the story’s emotional truths.

To this day, LOST IN TRANSLATION remains the prime example of Coppola’s distinct voice as an artist.  The quiet, navel-gazing nature of her aesthetic is crystallized here in her treatment of a story that shows subtle growth through observation rather than direct conflict.

The air of detached emotionality and feminine mystique that pervades her filmography is embodied in Johansson’s performance as the disaffected and lonely Charlotte, often seen languishing in her hotel room in nothing but a t-shirt and panties.

The controversial opening shot is another example of this, imbuing the film with a lingering sensual charge as well as a youthful vulnerability by shooting Johansson’s butt in close-up while she sleeps– the contours of her shape just barely visible through her translucent underwear.

The emotionally distant protagonist (both Bob and Charlotte in this case) is a staple throughout Coppola’s filmography, but with LOST IN TRANSLATION she uses the archetype to begin another career-long thematic exploration: the malaise of privilege and the ennui of the entertainment industry.

Being a successful (albeit fading) movie star, Bob can have anything he wants.  However, the materialism of his profession leaves him longing for a profound emotional connection that he can only find with a complete stranger in a foreign land.

Coppola’s upbringing as a member of one of Hollywood’s royal families gives her a unique “inside baseball” perspective that fundamentally informs LOST IN TRANSLATION, as well as later works like SOMEWHERE (2010), THE BLING RING (2013) and A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS (2015).

Just as much as it is about the cultural landscape of Tokyo, LOST IN TRANSLATION is also about the emptiness of commercial Hollywood.  As such, the film is peppered with winking in-jokes to the film industry, like the aforementioned Anna Faris being a veiled jab at Cameron Diaz, or any one of Bob’s frustrating Suntory shoots.

The whirlwind shoot for LOST IN TRANSLATION spanned just 27 days– but in that short amount of time, Coppola managed to capture more emotional truth than three or four Hollywood films combined.  This can be attributed in part to her encouragement of Murray and Johansson to deviate from her script and improvise– a technique that, funnily enough, would net her first Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.

Coppola’s emphasis on improv would also result in perhaps the film’s most memorable and dissected moment– Bob’s inaudible whisper into Charlotte’s ear during their final embrace, just before a kiss that’s both anticlimactic and cathartic at the same time.

The dialogue is inaudible because it wasn’t planned for– it’s a fleeting, beautiful moment of improvisation on Murray’s part that fits perfectly into Coppola’s established tone while also conveying the novel idea that audiences aren’t always entitled to the complete bypassing of a character’s privacy.

While technically-oriented fans of the film have spent years analyzing the specific audio bite in a bid to parse out Bob’s exact words, we can’t know what he said with 100% certainty.  That ambiguity, however, is the key to the film’s profound emotional resonance– occurring at a register just below our conscious awareness.

After premiering at Telluride, LOST IN TRANSLATION quickly accumulated a high regard amongst critics. Many felt the film’s sensitive, nonjudgmental approach to the otherwise-unsavory theme of infidelity represented a new wave in cinematic depictions of love.

Academic Marco Abel called it “postromance cinema”, a subgenre that offers up a negative view of love and sex while rejecting the romantic ideal of “soul mates” (2).  The negative reviews (of which, admittedly, there were many), tended to fixate on Coppola’s treatment of Japanese culture from her “outside” (read: white) perspective, citing her depiction of Tokyo’s native inhabitants within stereotypical constructs as a patronizing choice that undermined her core message.

Ultimately, a film like LOST IN TRANSLATION is going to be polarizing– I personally know several people who hate it because “nothing happens”– and any given individual’s impression of the film is going to differ from the next.

By conventional metrics, however, LOST IN TRANSLATION was a success, scoring $120 million in worldwide box office receipts and four Oscar Nominations for Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor, Best Picture, and Coppola’s first nod for her direction.

With LOST IN TRANSLATION, Coppola fulfilled the promise she showed with THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, delivering an achingly beautiful portrait of longing and discovery while consolidating the formal aspects of her artistic aesthetic.


MUSIC VIDEOS (2003)

Shortly after the release of her second feature, 2003’s LOST IN TRANSLATION, director Sofia Coppola capitalized on her rising profile by directing two more music videos that would further reinforce her street cred as a tastemaking filmmaker associated with the “cool” of alternative musical acts.

KEVIN SHIELDS: “CITY GIRL” (2003)

Much like she did for “PLAYGROUND LOVE”,  Air’s promotional single for THE VIRGIN SUICIDES (1999), Coppola repurposed the numerous reels of footage she shot on location in Tokyo for LOST IN TRANSLATION into a moody piece for Kevin Shield’s original contribution to the film’s soundtrack: “CITY GIRL”.

By mashing together outtakes, b-roll footage, and printed dailies, Coppola manages to shape the video into a loose narrative vignette about a young American woman (LOST IN TRANSLATION’s Scarlett Johansson) roaming the streets of Tokyo while caught up in an introspective reverie.

By nature, the video is inseparable from the feature it’s meant to accompany, but it nonetheless stands on its own as an effective example of Coppola’s artistic signature from the period.  LOST IN TRANSLATION— and to a lesser extent, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES— boasts numerous documentary-style shots captured from (and looking in on) the back seat of a car, so it’s no surprise that “CITY GIRL” is comprised almost entirely of these setups.

As far as promotional music videos go, Coppola’s repurposing of filmed footage conveys the same kind of economical and minimalist approach that Coppola would cultivate in her later feature work.

THE WHITE STRIPES: “I JUST DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH MYSELF” (2003)

Throughout the 2000’s, alternative rock band The White Stripes managed to achieve a sizable cache in the minds of creative influencers, to the extent that frontman Jack White’s distinct approach to old-fashioned blues and garage rock came to define a large aspect of that decade’s particular character.  Coppola directed the video for the band’s 2003 single, “I JUST DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH MYSELF”, turning an act of sexual objectification into a liberating rallying cry for third-wave feminism.

The concept for the video is very simple: supermodel Kate Moss aggressively pole dancing in lingerie for the entire length of the video.  Coppola takes what would be an otherwise-leering and arguably misogynistic concept and executes it with the arresting flair of an edgy fashion film.

Her technical approach is as simple as the concept– she shoots on a square 1.33:1 canvas using high contrast monochromatic film, keeping the angles fairly static except for when she stylishly rocks the camera back and forth on its tripod hinges in sync with White’s percussive guitar riffs.

By juxtaposing Moss’ nearly-nude body in silhouette against a blank grey background, Coppola creates a look that focuses on the interplay between light and shadow.  Whereas her previous explorations of the feminine mystique in THE VIRGIN SUICIDES and LOST IN TRANSLATION broached the idea from the perspective of chaste, youthful innocence, “I JUST DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH MYSELF” finds Coppola conveying the same idea in the decidedly-sexualized syntax of stripping.

In the absence of the dreaded Male Gaze, however, the video instead becomes a punk-rock celebration of the female form in motion.  These two videos would constitute the last of Coppola’s output for a number of years– her next major work, MARIE ANTOINETTE, wouldn’t arrive until 2006.

Despite their relatively short length, these two music videos show Coppola’s subtle, but continued, growth as a director while effectively acting as the close of the first chapter in her celebrated career.


MARIE ANTOINETTE (2006)

The timing of this essay on director Sofia Coppola’s third feature, MARIE ANTOINETTE (2006), is curiously coincidental, considering that I first saw the film in college during its theatrical release with my friend, Scott Nye.  Nye is now a well-regarded film critic and writer, and just last week he posted his own thoughts on the film.

The timing of both these essays is of course a funny coincidence, but perhaps it’s more telling of the lingering impression the film has made upon us.  Ten years later, the climactic sequence where the furious rabble threaten to storm Versailles still fills me with the same abject dread I felt in the theater, striking right into the heart of an emotional center that’s not usually moved by stuffy Victorian costume dramas.

This power and sense of immediacy, I think, stems from the one of the most contested aspects of Coppola’s vision: her re-contextualization of the past in the pop-cultural parlance of our present.  MARIE ANTOINETTE is one of those rare films that challenges the most deeply-held preconceptions about period storytelling, proving that a filmmaker doesn’t have to be a slave to the tiny details if he or she is still able to tap directly into the story’s emotional truth.

As Wikipedia would tell it, Coppola initially wanted to make MARIE ANTOINETTE after the success of her 1999 debut, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES.  However, her relative inexperience as a filmmaker made for an unwieldy writing experience considering not just the sheer scope of the subject matter, but also all the various interpretations that 200+ years of historians have applied to the personal figure of the last Queen of France.

To overcome her writer’s block, Coppola set MARIE ANTOINETTE aside and started writing a small script about a love affair in Tokyo that would ultimately become 2003’s LOST IN TRANSLATION.  The success of that film eventually gave Coppola both the inspiration and the artistic momentum to complete the script for MARIE ANTOINETTE, setting it up at father Francis Ford’s American Zoetrope studios as her third feature.

The third film in any given filmography typically finds most directors flexing their muscles and aiming high, and Coppola’s MARIE ANTOINETTE is no different.  Armed with the confidence gained from her two previous successes, Coppola set out to tell at once both her most epic and her most intimate story yet, rendered in a stunning blend of candy-coated colors and sumptuous scenery.

One of the most impressive aspects of MARIE ANTOINETTE is that Coppola and her producing partner Ross Katz managed to obtain special permission from the French government to shoot entirely within the hallowed halls of Versailles Palace– a masterful producing coup the likes of which we’re likely never to see again.

The gilded seat of the French monarchy hasn’t changed very much since 1768, which gives MARIE ANTOINETTE an unrivaled authenticity and sense of place.  The plot chronicles Marie Antoinette’s development from her arrival at Versailles as a fresh-faced Austrian princess betrothed to the young French prince, Louis XVI, to her eventual fall from power as the despised symbol of royal excess on the eve of the French Revolution.

In her second collaboration with Coppola, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES’ Kirsten Dunst fully embodies the flirty, fun-loving teenager who would grow up to be a dignified (if misunderstood) Queen.  Her nuanced, sympathetic performance reinforces Coppola’s attempts to humanize a historical figure we only know from old oil paintings hung in stuffy museums while drawing a direct line to contemporary socialites like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian.

marie-antoinette_par_elisabeth_vigc3a9e-lebrun_-_1783

The first act of the film finds Marie Antoinette adjusting to life as a French royal, which apparently involves consuming an endless series of decadent luxuries.  She fulfills her initial duties by marrying the meek, effete French prince, Louis XVI.

Played brilliantly by Coppola’s cousin, Jason Schwartzman, the young man seems utterly uninterested in his new bride– which understandably complicates her efforts to produce an heir.  She ultimately prevails, becoming a beloved figure throughout France for her youthful rebelliousness (a trait that doesn’t quite go away even when she becomes Queen).

Unfortunately, the sun is not destined to shine on Louis and Marie Antoinette’s reign for long: the combination of her decadent spending and his unwavering insistence on helping the American Revolution along by sending funds overseas earns them nothing but violent contempt from the French working class.

The daily economic hardships suffered by their subjects seem a world away from the gilded halls of Versailles– that is, until the rabble show up on their doorstep to demand not only the end of the French monarchy, but Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette’s own heads.

The tragic story of France’s last King and Queen is told with the assistance of an inspired supporting cast, each portraying an actual historical figure with a similar postmodern flair.  Rip Torn plays King Louis XV as a well-respected (if a little pervy) ruler, while Asia Argento slithers around the palace as his slinky mistress, Contesse du Barry.

SNL alum Molly Shannon is well-suited to her character, gossipy noblewoman Aunt Victoire, as is Steve Coogan in his role as Marie-Antoinette’s lifelong counselor, Ambassador Mercy.  Jamie Dornan’s performance as the smoldering Count Axel Fersen– with whom Marie-Antoinette initiates a secret love affair– foreshadows his breakout in a similar role in 2015’s FIFTY SHADES OF GREY.

A few other familiar faces stand out, like Danny Huston as Marie-Antoinette’s reassuring older brother, Emperor Joseph II, and a baby-faced Tom Hardy as a stoic soldier named Raumont.  And last but not least, no conversation of MARIE ANTOINETTE would be complete without mention of my personal favorite cast member: Mops the pug, whose masterful turn earned him the Palm Dog award for Best Canine Performance at the Cannes Film Festival.

MARIE ANTOINETTE owes a clear debt to the visual style of Terrence Malick, Milos Forman, and Stanley Kubrick, who’s 1975 masterpiece BARRY LYNDON haunts nearly every frame.  LOST IN TRANSLATION’s cinematographer Lance Acord returns, shooting once again in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio on 35mm film.

As evidenced by his work in LOST IN TRANSLATION, Acord is quite adept at working with soft, natural light– a strength that pays dividends in MARIE ANTOINETTE by faithfully rendering a pre-industrial society.  The use of lens flares, especially in the sequences where Marie-Antoinette retreats to her small villa in the country, infuses Coppola’s story with a modern, casual edge that helps bring out her heroine’s interior state.

The film’s camerawork leans into the regal flavor of their setting, highlighting Marie-Antoinette’s increasing alienation from the royal court with formal locked-off compositions, steady dolly shots, and slow zooms. Acord’s work is harmoniously complemented by Coppola’s own brother, Roman, who serves as the second unit director in charge of capturing select shots.

Coppola even manages to find an opportunity to incorporate her signature shot– mounted on the side of a car, looking in on a character sitting in the backseat.  Since there were no cars in 18th century Versailles, Coppola simply swaps in a carriage.  It’s a small substitute, but it nonetheless reinforces her attempts to humanize the figure of Marie-Antoinette in the cultural parlance of today.

The use of the real halls and ballrooms of Versailles injects every frame with a palpable sense of history and grandeur, but returning Production Designer KK Barrett ably conveys a postmodern pop edge by providing fabulously ornate costumes, furnishing, and food in searing pastel colors like baby blue, hot pink, and seafoam green.

A sense of decadence and luxury pervades every lingering closeup of Marie-Antoinette’s material riches– Coppola even goes so far as to personally enlist legendary fashion designer Manolo Blahnik to provide the Queen’s endless supply of heels (2).

Little attention is paid to ensuring a temporal authenticity– in fact, Coppola and Barrett lean heavily into the film’s anachronistic elements, to the point that Marie-Antoinette is even seen wearing a pair of Converse sneakers.  Indeed, it wouldn’t have been surprising to also see her donning a pair of Apple earbuds.

This, perhaps more than any other aspect of Coppola’s approach, is the most controversial and contested factor in the entire film.  Critics fixated on the audacity of including the aforementioned pair of Chucks, or Coppola’s use of 80’s pop, shoegaze and punk tracks on a soundtrack that would traditionally be comprised of baroque classical compositions by Vivaldi (which, admittedly, Coppola does include to great effect).

Tracks from well-known New Wave bands like New Order, The Radio Department, and Gang of Four routinely pierce the stuffy bubble of regality that threatens to smother the film, creating a unique energy that many critics simply could not wrap their heads around.

In decrying Coppola’s vision by fixating on her decision to include anachronistic elements and music, they unwittingly prove that they miss the point entirely– and not just of the film, but art itself.  At the risk of going off on a larger tangent, cinema is an art, and art is about expressing some kind of an emotional truth about the human experience.

The world of 18th-century Versailles might seem totally alien to someone living in the 21st, but Coppola’s use of modern touches allows her to transcend the time barrier and give us a direct line of emotional access to her characters’ fundamental humanity.

We can see ourselves in Marie-Antoinette’s youthful misadventures, and as such, the film is exceedingly more vibrant and relevant to our time than others of its ilk (even more so now, after Wall Street’s similar decadence led to the 2008 collapse and the rise of the Occupy movement, who resemble the angry French mob in wanting to string up the bankers responsible).

The life story of Marie-Antoinette provides ample opportunity for Coppola to further explore her key thematic fascinations.  Like the ill-fated Lisbon sisters in THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, Marie-Antoinette has little agency of her own– she’s expected to adhere to a set of behavioral traits and customs that stifles her individuality.

She’s a kept woman, only coming into her own when she starts expresses herself and up-ending the court’s antiquated perception of how a Queen should act.  The air of mystique that surrounds Coppola’s female protagonists reaches something of an apex in MARIE ANTOINETTE, finding a palpable charge in the eponymous Queen’s transgressive femininity.

She remains an elusive figure to those around her– even those as close as her own husband– and it’s precisely that unknowable quality that draws people to her like a magnet; they’re all trying to figure out the mystery of her inner life.

Dunst plays Marie-Antoinette with the same kind of emotional detachment that defines most of Coppola’s female protagonists.  It’s a detachment rooted in loneliness– by virtue of her Austrian background, she is a stranger in a strange land.  She’s eternally set apart from everyone else, exiled into her own interior state.

Roger Ebert perhaps said it best in his review: “This is Sofia Coppola’s third film centering on the loneliness of being female and surrounded by a world that knows how to use you, but now how to value and understand you”. (3)

Just as much as MARIE ANTOINETTE is an inward-looking film on a historical figure, so too is it an intensely personal film on Coppola’s part.  The film’s extreme attention to detail in its costumes (and the narrative purpose thereof) echoes Coppola’s own association with the fashion world, but that’s merely the tip of the iceberg.

Her background as a child of privilege and status allows her to sympathize with her heroine’s plight.  As such, MARIE ANTOINETTE marks something of a turning point in the artistic character of Coppola’s filmography.  Beginning here, we see the director really begin to embrace her background as the daughter of a cinematic titan.

Growing up Coppola no doubt meant a childhood of frequent exposure to fine art (and fine wine), but it also meant being born with a pre-established air of pseudo-celebrity.  Before she was a filmmaker, she was a globetrotting socialite– her peers were the offspring of other similarly influential and wealthy households.

She very easily could have become another Paris Hilton or a Kim Kardashian, but instead she exploits that familiarity with the world of empty celebrity (and our obsession thereof) to give her work an added layer of thoughtfulness and relevance– especially in the context of MARIE ANTOINETTE’s endless pageants of manners, customs, and decadence.

017-sofia-coppola-theredlist

A vision as bold as Coppola’s is bound to beget equally bold reactions, and MARIE ANTOINETTE certainly received its fair share– on both sides of the aisle.  Critics famously booed the film after its Cannes premiere, yet it also ran in contention for the festival’s highest honor: the Palm d’Or.

Domestic reviews were similarly mixed, with the audiences that made LOST IN TRANSLATION such a runaway success largely staying away; in the end, the film grossed only $60 million over its $40 million budget.  $20 million is certainly nothing to sneeze at, but the bean counters at Columbia Pictures no doubt wrote it off as an underwhelming performance.

Still, MARIE ANTOINETTE’s inherent charms did not go unnoticed– many critics responded quite favorably to Coppola’s revisionist take on the French monarchy, placing lavish praise on its Oscar-winning costume designs in particular.

MARIE ANTOINETTE was released at the height of the aught’s prestige-picture bubble, shortly before it popped (along with the world economy) in 2008.  In the years since, the film seems to have only grown in appreciation– time has made Coppola’s intentions more apparent, leading some critics to come around on their initial distaste for her usage of anachronistic elements and dub it one of the best American works of its decade.

To this author in particular, time has also made it apparent that MARIE ANTOINETTE marks Coppola’s emergence as a mature filmmaker (an ironic notion considering the story is about a youthfully immature heroine).  Coppola’s pioneering vision remains as divisive as ever, but if you can manage to connect with MARIE ANTOINETTE on her own level, you just might find a beautiful and precious jewel of a film that’s as subversive as it is classic.


CHRISTIAN DIOR COMMERCIAL: MISS DIOR CHERIE (2008)

Of all the brands that director Sofia Coppola could have collaborated with on her first commercial, perhaps it’s appropriate that the honor went to the French fashion label Christian Dior.  Coppola’s lifelong interest in haute-couture fundamentally informs her artistic aesthetic, to the point that any given frame from THE VIRGIN SUICIDES (1999), LOST IN TRANSLATION (2003) or MARIE ANTOINETTE (2006) could be mistaken for a fashion shoot by the casual observer.

As her artistic profile has risen, so has the balance of influence– many prominent fashion designers now reference Coppola’s work for their look books and photo shoots. It was only a matter of time until commerce sought to appropriate her cultural “cool factor”, which leads us to her 2008 spot for Christian Dior, titled “MISS DIOR CHERIE”.

The spot follows the format we’ve come to expect from a modern fashion commercial: a glamorous young woman frolicking about in urban vignettes– in this case, Paris.  The piece plays evokes MARIE ANTOINETTE in its baroque, Old World setting while the handheld, naturally-lit cinematography and Brigitte Bardot’s midcentury pop song “Moi Je Joue” suggests a considerable debt to the traditions of the French New Wave (and a dash of Fellini for good measure).

The muted color scheme– comprised primarily of fashionable pastel pinks– echoes the female mystique that runs through Coppola’s filmography, employed here as a kind of carefree femininity; the kind that arises when a girl is comfortable and confident in her sartorial choices.

Coppola’s work here is evidence that her particular talents are naturally harnessed in service to the advertising industry.  Despite serving the overlords of commerce instead of her own artistic self-fulfillment, her vision remains as distinctive and immediately identifiable as ever, and makes for memorable ad that walks the runway with its head held high.


SOMEWHERE (2010)

Growing up as a member of Hollywood royalty, director Sofia Coppola spent a large portion of her formative years in hotels, often accompanying her father, iconic 70’s auteur Francis Ford Coppola, on film shoots in various locations both near and far.

The lack of attachment to a singular house or place during her childhood appears to have a direct correlation with the dreamlike emotional detachment of her own film work as an adult– her protagonists are almost always adrift in a sea of malaise, simply occupying a space rather than living in it.

Watching her fourth feature effort, 2010’s SOMEWHERE, it becomes readily apparent that Coppola regards Los Angeles’ historic Chateau Marmont hotel as her own kind of home; a place in which she spent a great deal of her youth because of her father’s work.

Within these hallowed halls, Coppola feels a special kinship with the actors, rock stars, and fashionistas that have lived, laughed, and loved there.  Over the years, Coppola has forged her own personal relationship with the hotel and its staff, to the extent that they would host one of her birthday parties and, like her all-access pass to Versailles Palace during 2006’s MARIE ANTOINETTE, allow her carte blanche use of the site for the shooting of SOMEWHERE.

After the extravagant period production of MARIE ANTOINETTE, Coppola was compelled to return to a simpler form of storytelling– a form that resembled her 2003 feature LOST IN TRANSLATION in that it served as more of a mood piece than a conventional narrative.

Indeed, SOMEWHERE plays like a close companion piece to her earlier film, dealing in the same feelings of alienation and uncertainty while effectively sealing off her protagonists from the outside world within the walls of a visually-distinctive hotel.

Coppola’s script drew inspiration from various aspects of her personal life (her own history with the Chateau Marmont and the birth of her second child) as well as a variety of other sources, from Bruce Weber’s Hollywood portraits, to Helmut Newton’s photos of models taken at the Chateau, and even Chantal Akerman’s 1975 film JEANNE DIELMAN, 23 QUAI DU COMMERCE, 1080 BRUXELLES (2).

SOMEWHERE— financed by Focus Features and produced by Coppola, her brother Roman, G. Mac Brown, and her father’s American Zoetrope studios– is especially unique within her filmography in that it is the first that follows a male protagonist: a burned-out film actor named Johnny Marco.

Played with effortless shabby-chic nuance by underrated character actor Stephen Dorff in a role written specifically for him, Marco is an artist who has lost sight of his art (1).  He’s marooned within the Chateau, bogged down in the boring, everyday business of acting: being shuttled around to promo shoots and press conferences, attending vapid awards shows in glamorous locales like Italy and Las Vegas, and navigating the endless, snaking boulevards of Beverly Hills in his exotic (yet unreliable) sports car.

The only thing that seems to bring a sense of life into his eyes is the sight of his daughter Cleo, played by Elle Fanning as an ephemeral and precocious little sprite who flits in and out of his life with little warning. SOMEWHERE’s key narrative turns hinge on this delicate relationship between a father and his daughter, observing how their limited time together helps the other mature into a more self-realized person.

This being a portrait of Hollywood, Coppola also peppers the film with several winking cameos by other famous faces, like THE OFFICE’s Ellie Kemper as Johnny’s eager publicist, Michelle Monaghan as his acid-tongued co-star, JACKASS crew-member Chris Pontius as his one-man entourage, and Benicio Del Toro as an incognito version of himself.

SOMEWHERE’s cinematography befits its simple narrative approach, adopting an observational, rough-edged aesthetic that makes inspired use of old lenses from Francis Ford Coppola’s RUMBLE FISH (1983) shoot to imbue the 1.85:1 35mm film frame with a timeless, vintage aura (1).

One of the last films lensed by the late cinematographer Harris Savides, SOMEWHERE revels in the long take, mixing and matching between the formalism of locked-off slow zooms and the immediacy of handheld shots.  Savides was a master of harnessing soft and natural light, and SOMEWHERE stands as a testament to his abilities in that regard while reinforcing Coppola’s own established aesthetic.

SOMEWHERE contrasts MARIE ANTOINETTE’s vibrant palette of candy-coated hues with a muted color scheme that deals in creamy neutrals and rosy highlights.  The film’s opening shot– a long static composition of Marco’s sports car speeding around a closed loop– establishes the elliptical nature of Coppola’s storyline, reinforced by returning editor Sarah Flack’s patient pacing and oblique assembly of key dramatic moments.

As in her previous films, Coppola uses music to striking effect, creating a soundscape where well-worn Top 40 hits are primarily heard as a diegetic element that reflects the cultural idea of what constitutes a “Hollywood Lifestyle”.

Coppola deviates from this approach only once, laying Julian Casablancas’ mellow track “I’ll Try Anything Once” over a sequence of Marco and his daughter enjoying a fleeting moment of happiness and connection in the hotel pool.  The effect is a subtle, yet transcendent moment for the audience as well as the characters.

Coppola unifies her disparate musical elements with an ethereal electronic score by French pop band Phoenix (of which her husband, Thomas Mars, is the frontman; continuing the long Coppola family tradition of artistic collaboration with other members).

SOMEWHERE contains many of the surface elements of Coppola’s established thematic signatures– autobiography, the fashion world, celebrity lifestyles, and the feminine mystique– but it also expands on them in interesting and insightful ways that show Coppola’s growth as a mature artist.

Her decision to make her protagonist a man throws her longtime examination of womanhood into sharp relief, casting each female character on either side of the male gaze, assigned a corresponding value between sexual appeal and innocence.

SOMEWHERE predicates its main narrative thrust on the paper-thin conflict between Marco and his self-doubt, or the tension between himself and the expectations of others from both his professional and personal life.  However, where Coppola’s film really resonates is in the dichotomy of the roles that women play in his life.

As a rich and successful movie star living in a glamorous Hollywood hotel, Marco is surrounded by beautiful women that serve as all-too-willing sexual playthings.  The women of the Chateau are so sexually adventurous that he merely needs to flash a smile for them to jump into bed with him.

As a father to a young girl, however, he has to reconcile the carnal aspects of himself with the responsibilities of raising someone who will one day be a woman too, complete with a self-realized sexuality of her own.  Marco’s interactions with his daughter are geared towards preserving the innocence of childhood amidst the wanton hedonism of his lifestyle, but in trying to protect her purity he also denies her a fundamental aspect of her emerging humanity.

The major breakthrough in their relationship comes when he directly acknowledges the complicated nature of adult life (signified by the failed relationship between him and her mother)– an act that requires him to view Cleo as not just his young daughter, but as an intellectual equal and a mini-adult in her own right.

SOMEWHERE’s secondary thematic exploration concerns the lifestyles of the rich and famous, a constant presence throughout Coppola’s work.  Like LOST IN TRANSLATION, SOMEWHERE follows a once-successful actor on the downslope of his career, but whereas the former’s exotic Tokyo setting hinted at a vibrant, sprawling world just waiting to be discovered, the latter’s depiction of sunny LA feels confining– twisted into a kind of limbo that only resembles paradise; purgatory with a pool.

As suggested in the aforementioned opening shot, Marco’s life is something of a closed loop: he wakes up every morning late for some photo shoot or promo event he forgot about, spends the afternoon driving around aimlessly, and then drinks himself stupid to the lullaby of two blondes’ pole-dancing his hotel room… all so he can wake up the next day and do it all over again.

Even when he’s high up in the air, surveying the city below in one of Coppola’s signature backseat reverie shots, he’s still confined within a cramped helicopter cabin.  Over the course of its running time, SOMEWHERE slowly shows how Marco’s connection to his daughter allows him to break out of his personal purgatory, evidenced via the closing shot that shows Marco abandoning his sports car (and thus the closed loop) altogether– setting out on foot towards an uncertain, but invigorating future.

After the gilded extravagance of MARIE ANTOINETTESOMEWHERE marks a return to the minimalistic form that defined LOST IN TRANSLATION.  However, the film didn’t experience the same warm reception enjoyed by its predecessor.

Critics mostly responded to the film with a tempered positivity, but those with a negative reaction felt very strongly about its perceived failings.  Those already predisposed to blast Coppola for her artistic indulgences were given even more fuel for the fire, citing SOMEWHERE as her most irrelevant and empty exercise to date.

Even its biggest critical win– the prestigious Golden Lion award for Best Picture at the Venice Film Festival– came under heavy criticism due to the fact that Quentin Tarantino, who once was romantically linked to Coppola, had championed the film in his capacity as the jury chairman.

This episode is a particularly unfortunate one in the annals of film criticism, in that it reinforces the deeply-entrenched marginalization of female directors by suggesting that her win only happened because of her relationship to a man, and not because of her own artistic abilities.

That being said, SOMEWHERE isn’t a particularly easy film to love; it refuses to traffick in digestible conflict or play into audience expectations.  Scant as its story may be, the film is nonetheless a sublime love letter to a unique refuge within LA’s sprawling megalopolis, crafted with sensitivity and subtlety by a confident artistic voice without compromise.

Of all the films in Coppola’s career, SOMEWHERE provides the most profound and intimate insights into her unique character, allowing us to look past the glitz and glamor to find the complicated, brooding soul deep inside.

somewhere_set_photo_image_sofia_coppola_01


COMMERCIALS AND MUSIC VIDEOS (2010-2013)

Between the release of her 2010 feature SOMEWHERE and 2013’s THE BLING RING, director Sofia Coppola would keep her skills sharp by taking commission work that further established her influence in the commercial, music video, and fashion film realm.

 Her previous advertising work hinted at the harmonious synergy that her aesthetic could bring to fashion and luxury brands in particular, but her output during this three period would cement her inherent appeal in that arena.

CHRISTIAN DIOR: CITY OF LIGHT (2010)

Thanks to her reputation as a filmmaker who can coax career-best work from her cast members, Coppola can command some serious star power whenever she steps behind the camera– even when said production is for the latest Christian Dior perfume.

Titled “CITY OF LIGHT”, her 2010 spot features established actress Natalie Portman and the up-and-coming Alden Ehrenreich slinking around the streets of Paris in elegant black-tie formalwear to the seductive strains of Serge Gainsbourg’s “Je T’aime… Moi Non Plus”.

Coppola’s distinct aesthetic is immediately identifiable– soft light, lens flares, and ephemeral handheld camerawork rendered in feminine hues like blush and cream.  The piece makes significant use of the idea of “the little black dress”, a hallmark of cosmopolitan female sexuality and mystique, while shots of Portman donning oversized sunglasses in the bath echo Coppola’s career-long exploration of celebrity and glamor.

H&M MARNI (2012)

To promote their 2012 collaboration with Italian fashion brand Marni, H&M commissioned Coppola to shoot a distinctive spot featuring young actress Imogen Poots on a moody summer night at a desert retreat amongst other beautiful people.

Coppola recruits her SOMEWHERE cinematographer Harris Savides to lens the spot, once again incorporating lens flares, soft natural light and a lingering pace to imprint her distinct stamp.  Several of her recurring thematic fascinations make an appearance here, wrapped up in the unmistakable iconography of California-cana: Palm trees, pools, and the back seats of cars.

“MARNI” had a high-profile rollout for a commercial, earning prominent placement and critical coverage that would position the spot as one of Coppola’s most iconic.

MARC JACOBS: “DAISY PERFUME” (2013)

In 2013, Marc Jacobs enlisted Coppola to direct a spot titled “DAISY PERFUME”, featuring a group of young blondes frolicking barefoot in a sun-kissed field.  The idea isn’t exactly novel, but Coppola nevertheless manages to make it distinctive by harnessing the feminine mystique of Peter Weir’s 1975 classic PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK (as well as her own 1999 debut, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES) via the dressing of the girls in long white dresses that stand out against the pastoral scenery.

The bright cinematography flares with natural light and an airy looseness while electronic music courses underneath on the soundtrack.  “DAISY PERFUME” isn’t the most memorable spot Coppola has made, but it still bears the undeniable mark of her hand.

CHRISTIAN DIOR: LA VIE EN ROSE PERFUME (2013)

Coppola delivered her third spot for Christian Dior in 2013, working once again with Natalie Portman to promote the brand’s La Vie En Rose line of perfume.  Set to a new rendition of the eponymous track made famous by Edith Piaf, the style of “LA VIE EN ROSE PERFUME” recalls the pastel color palette of blues, pinks, and creams that Coppola applied to MARIE ANTOINETTE.

The natural sunlight flares into the frame, reflecting a casual and carefree approach to the camerawork, while a gauzy soft focus is employed to round off harsh edges.  A fleeting reference to Federico Fellini’s LA DOLCE VITA (1960), wherein Portman happily splashes around inside a fountain, is a particularly nice touch.

The feminine mystique that enshrouds Coppola’s aesthetic is embodied in the glamorous allure of Portman as well as the unattainable air of her celebrity.  However, the effect isn’t as potent as it tends to be in her feature work– the mystique tends to diminish when it can be commodified as a tangible quality inherent in an item of clothing.

With its seductive glimpses of the LA celebrity lifestyle– swimming pools, sunglasses, and classic cars– “LA VIE EN ROSE PERFUME” slides quite easily into place as yet another succinct example of her unique artistic signature.   

PHOENIX: “CHLOROFORM” MUSIC VIDEO (2013)

For her first music video in nearly a decade, Coppola teamed up with her husband Thomas Mars to promote his band Phoenix’s new single “CHLOROFORM”.  Like her video for The White Stripes’ “I JUST DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH MYSELF”“CHLOROFORM” is built around a very simple concept stretched out along the track’s length.

Shooting in black and white with a slight rose tint, Coppola first shows the band performing in silhouette, the definition of their forms almost lost to the moody wells of shadow surrounding the edge of the frame. The bulk of the piece dedicates itself to a slow-motion dolly shot featuring young women watching from the audience.

Their faces– juxtaposed in shallow focus against the bokeh of fuzzy light orbs– are twisted into varying expressions of rapture, heartbreak and awe, projecting a nuanced and dignified beauty that could only be realized by someone as well versed in the inner life of femininity as Coppola is.

That being said, there’s something slightly odd (and maybe even amusing) about a director placing her husband on a pedestal for the worship and adoration of other young girls; a kind of winking in-joke to the nature of intimacy in the context of celebrity that could only come from the mind that devised SOMEWHERE.

Being the independently-minded auteur she is, Coppola isn’t necessarily the kind of filmmaker who can (or even should) stake her legacy on the box office performance of her feature work; her thematic interests and those of the megaplex crowd don’t exactly intersect.

Besides providing her with a steady stream of income, the advertising arena proves crucial to her development as an artist because it gives her an opportunity to experiment while maintaining her influence within pop culture.

Just as David Fincher helped to shape the distinct characteristics and conventions of the music video genre, so has Coppola’s unique style informed the legions of up-and-comers in the fashion film and branded content realm.

Having worked at a production company that produced a substantial amount of fashion films in particular, I can tell you from personal experience just how much Coppola’s style has influenced the next generation of directors– no matter the content, each piece bore some kind of creative debt to her aesthetic.

Her string of commercials and content during this three year period solidified her palpable influence, enabling her to weather the still-unfolding economic storm that would see the drastic drawdown of the mid-budget prestige pictures that enabled her rise.


THE BLING RING (2013)

The inherent superficiality of Hollywood, Los Angeles, and the greater cultural landscape that constitutes “SoCal” has been well-established over the past several decades.  The Golden State’s wealth and fascination with celebrity has created a value system based on material goods and the pursuit of fame and leisure in all its forms.

Those who move here in their adult years tend to keep a sense of perspective, embracing SoCal’s myriad pleasures at arm’s length.  But for those who are born and raised here, these material values can become their entire world– not having the latest BMW coupe or Chanel handbag is, quite literally, a matter of life and death for those more concerned with image over identity (or, more aptly, those who think the two are one in the same).

Frankly, I’m deeply anxious at the prospect of bringing up children of my own in this climate, where the biggest barometer of a person’s worth is how many Instagram followers one can accumulate.  In this light, a film like director Sofia Coppola’s fifth feature, THE BLING RING (2013)– wherein a group of overprivileged LA teenagers steal from the homes of celebrities and socialites in an attempt to live like them– is my greatest nightmare writ large.

Based on Nancy Jo Sales’ 2011 Vanity Fair article, “The Suspect Wore Louboutins”, Coppola’s script slightly fictionalizes the real-life exploits of the titular Bling Ring during their short-lived reign of terror– or, considering the staggering wealth of their targets, reign of inconvenience.

The story takes place in the wealthy suburban enclave of Calabasas, which has gained a reputation for surface glamor and trashy materialism thanks to the small population of reality stars, pop divas, fame chasers, and any number of Kardashians that call its endless rows of gaudy McMansions home.

It’s an honest mistake for non-Angelenos to make, but it bears repeated mentioning that Calabasas is not LA– a fact that THE BLING RING’s fresh-faced kleptos are all-too-painfully aware of as they gaze out at LA’s twinkling lights from a distance.

With the exception of Emma Watson and Leslie Mann, Coppola’s cast is composed primarily of unknowns– anchored by newcomers Katie Chang and Israel Broussard.  Chang, who had never been in a film before and only scored the role off the strength of her self-tape, plays the crew’s ringleader, Rebecca.

Rebecca’s love for fashion combines with a reckless amorality to create a sociopathically nonchalant teenager that effortlessly convinces the introverted new kid, Mark– played with a nuanced sexual ambiguity by Broussard– to rob nearby homes with her.

What begins as a way to combat their everyday suburban boredom soon grows into an all-consuming compulsion that ropes in their friends: aloof bad girl Chloe (Claire Julien), playful Sam (Taissa Farmiga) and the frighteningly vapid Nicki, played by Watson in a scene-stealing performance that she watched a disturbing amount of reality television to prepare for.

Adults hold little influence over the Bling Ring’s self-contained world of shiny baubles and expensive trinkets, which is not to say that their guidance would even be particularly helpful in the first place.  Mann’s Laurie, the only prominent adult in the film, is the kind of parent that would let kids get drunk at her house after prom; a self-styled “Cool Mom” whose utter ineffectiveness as an authority figure is rooted in her devotion to “The Secret” and its snake-oil “religious” message just as much as her obliviousness to what’s going on around her.

As the young criminals grow increasingly bolder in their exploits, they are seduced by the glitzy Hollywood lifestyle they think they’ve become a part of.  They may be partying in the same clubs as Paris Hilton and Coppola-regular Kirsten Dunst (each making brief cameos as themselves), but they’ll never truly be in those social circles– no matter how many of Hilton’s shoes they have in their possession.

They believe they’ll never have to answer for their crimes, despite conducting their raids on fleeting whims and making no effort to disguise their identity from security cameras.  Their perceived invincibility proves the Bling Ring’s ultimate downfall, and it’s only a matter of time until the authorities bust down their doors.

Where Coppola’s story really shines is its exploration of the fallout– within a year, these over-privileged suburbanites are back out on the streets and free to continue living their lives as if nothing ever happened. Some, like Watson’s Nicki character, even achieve a twisted semblance of the celebrity they so desperately aspire to, becoming D-list reality TV personalities.

At the risk of glorifying celebrity worship culture and robbery, THE BLING RING doesn’t take a damning view of its teenage subjects; instead, it channels their youthful energy in a bid to show how easy it can be to fall into this behavior in the absence of truly positive role models.

Coppola’s films have always boasted a punchy visual aesthetic, but THE BLING RING kicks it into overdrive with a high-energy, low-contrast look that almost resembles an Instagram filter.  THE BLING RING’s cinematography within the context of Coppola’s filmography is notable– having been shot on a Red Epic camera, it marks her first feature-length effort in the digital space– but a more important distinction lies in the fact that it also marks the late cinematographer Harris Savides’ final film.

Having previously shot Coppola’s 2010 feature SOMEWHERE, Savides succumbed to brain cancer during THE BLING RING’s post-production process in 2012.  Coppola dedicates THE BLING RING to Savides, who shares credit with Christopher Blauvelt.  Her trademark aesthetic loses nothing in the switch to digital, ably replicating the soft lighting setups, wide compositions and lens flares that have come to shape her signature.

With its rosy highlights and gauzy shallow focus, the 1.85:1 digital image possesses a distinct “fashion film” veneer.  Coppola makes a distinct visual differentiation between glitzy, colorful LA/Hollywood (here, they’re one in the same), and the bland beige of the San Fernando Valley suburban sprawl.

For scenes set in Calabasas, Coppola tends to lock off her camera (or employ controlled dolly movements) while overexposing the image to an almost-blinding degree.  Hollywood, by contrast, is rendered in deep wells of shadow and handheld footage that injects a seductive immediacy and energy.

As appropriate for a film about robbing celebrity homes, THE BLING RING’s visual approach places a notable emphasis on architecture– a minor, yet fairly notable, thematic through-line across Coppola’s body of work.  From LOST IN TRANSLATION (2003), to MARIE ANTOINETTE (2006), and on through SOMEWHERE, Coppola’s narratives have resembled chamber dramas in their inextricability of story to setting.

Put simply, the chosen stage fundamentally informs the nature of Coppola’s storytelling– all three of the above mentioned films dwell on the irony that the endless hallways of Tokyo’s Park Plaza Hotel, the stately, sprawling grounds of Versailles Palace, or the bohemian coziness of LA’s Chateau Marmont can end up feeling confining or constricting.

THE BLING RING’s gaudy McMansions don’t quite possess this same energy, but they nevertheless continue Coppola’s sensitive attention to location and her amazing ability to shoot in the actual locales she’s depicting.

Just like they did for the aforementioned Park Plaza Hotel and Versailles Palace, Coppola and her producing team (here comprised of brother Roman and Youree Henley) were able to actually shoot in Paris Hilton’s real house– which, funnily enough, resembles a warped, miniature funhouse version of Versailles.

It’s unclear whether Paris’ labyrinth of shoes, handbags and throw pillows bearing her face were actually there to begin with, or if they were a product of returning production designer Anne Ross’ imagination, but the infamous socialite’s sanctuary nevertheless represents the pinnacle of everything the Bling Ring aspires to.

Another striking example of Coppola’s attention to architecture with this film is the famous “glass house” shot, which places the camera high up in the Hollywood Hills looking down on reality TV star Audrina Patridge’s ultra-modern residence while Mark and Rebecca rob it blind.  The sequence is only ever presented from this observational angle, with the huge plate-grass windows that wrap around the house providing no cover for the small, silhouetted figures as they manically dart from room to room.  It’s, quite frankly, a brilliant shot– and one that almost didn’t make the final cut had Savides not convinced Coppola to keep it in (1).

If SOMEWHERE’s pacing was languid and drawn-out, then returning editor Sarah Flack’s approach with THE BLING RING is the total opposite.  Like a drunken night out, the film’s edit speeds by in a whirl of light, color, and music, in addition to other stylistic flourishes like slow motion, faux testimonials, and freeze frames.

In what was no doubt a veritable nightmare for Sarah’s assistant editor, Coppola’s approach also includes the use of various clips and found footage from a wide spectrum of sources: cable news, ripped YouTube videos, Facebook screengrabs, cellphone photos, and reality TV outtakes.

For what amounts to a digital mishmash of resolutions, codecs, and frame rates, Flack and Coppola are able to place it all in a cohesive and thematically-unified manner that reflects the hyperconnected ADD lifestyles of the characters.

An original score was composed by Brian Reitzell and Daniel Lopatin (who records under his stage name Oneohtrix Point Never), but the film’s true musical character stems from Coppola’s own eclectic ear.  This takes shape as a suite of pop and rap tracks from artists both established and underground.

Indie outfit Sleigh Bells’ crashing, disruptive track “Crown On The Ground” opens the film, lending a high-energy youthfulness with a dash of garage punk over closeup shots of designer heels and jewelry.  As he did for Coppola’s SOMEWHERE, Phoenix frontman Thomas Mars contributes another track for his wife.

Hit singles from MIA and Kanye West seem almost incongruous with Coppola’s established musical tastes, but they hit the nail on the head in her efforts to realistically portray what her characters would be listening to.

Most teenagers’ musical palettes don’t evolve beyond what’s on the radio– it was certainly the case for me and essentially everyone else I knew– but the use of rap in particular brilliantly reflects that peculiar tendency of privileged white kids from the suburbs to listen to hip hop and “urban” artists in a bid to feel edgy or cool.

In this regard, a character’s repetition of the lyrics “live fast, die young, bad girls do it well” from M.I.A’s single “Bad Girls” zeroes in the allure of this lifestyle while simultaneously demonstrating their youthful ignorance and naïveté to its consequences.

THE BLING RING is Coppola’s fourth consecutive film to grapple with the idea of fame, this time approaching it from the angle of someone on the outside looking in; someone with misconceived aspirations to the lifestyle.  In a way, the film serves as the logical endpoint for Coppola’s exploration of this particular milieu.

The hallmarks of SoCal celebrity life– luxury goods, velour tracksuits, BMWs, sunglasses, swimming pools, and palm trees– are present at almost every turn, beckoning the characters (and us) with a seductive pull.

The plot device of breaking into celebrity mansions also provides Coppola an opportunity to show that these people live on an entirely different plane of existence than us– they leave their expensive material goods in gigantic homes and fancy cars that are left entirely unlocked (or given a flaccid attempt at “protection” by leaving a key under the front doormat), secure in their ill-advised conviction that their homes will not be transgressed by anybody with their own set of wheels and an Internet connection.

The crime-free ideals of suburbia lead to this sort of blind, privileged trust, and when these ideals are inevitably violated, it’s admittedly hard to garner much sympathy for them.  This notion that, somehow, maybe these celebrities deserved it is crucial to the likeability of Coppola’s brat thieves– in this context, they become narcissistic Robin Hoodies, stealing from the rich to give to themselves.

Despite the stylistic departure from Coppola’s previous work, THE BLING RING’s thematic conceits continue to follow the trajectory of her development as a filmmaker.  The film’s high-stakes high school setting and focus on the vapidity of SoCal youth culture echoes the setup of her debut short, LICK THE STAR (1998), thus bringing her artistic growth full circle.

Her technical signatures remain present, most notably the car-based backseat traveling shot.  An outward-looking shot detailing the cookie cutter McMansions strung along a suburban block recalls a similar shot in THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, while its variation– the inward-looking shot that dwells on a character often caught in a moment of deep self-reflection– gets a fun twist by placing it within the context of a bus heading to prison.

the-bling-ring-sofia-coppola-emma-waston-claire-julien-taissa-farmiga

All in all, THE BLING RING marks Coppola’s pivot towards a mainstream audience after a series of arthouse chamber dramas, yet she (thankfully) can’t shed her indie sensibilities entirely, resulting in a film where conventional story beats are handled in oblique and inspired ways.

After the film’s premiere in the Un Certain Regard program at Cannes, upstart specialty distributor A24 snapped it up and gave it a well-strategized rollout that would result in Coppola’s best box office opening in nearly a decade.

Eventually earning $19 million in receipts against an $8 million budget, THE BLING RING restored some of Coppola’s lost luster after the disappointing performance of MARIE ANTOINETTE and SOMEWHERE.  While her work has been, and continues to be, sharply divisive by its nature, THE BLING RING managed to score generally positive reviews from critics, which combined with its respectable ticket haul makes it a bonafide success from any angle.

It may end up as a relatively minor work in her filmography, but it nonetheless marks an important transition in Coppola’s artistic development, whereby she retreats from a self-indulgent style of filmmaking to meet her audience halfway, and is in turn rewarded with a renewed relevance to a new, very different cultural zeitgeist.


GAP: DRESS NORMAL CAMPAIGN (2014)

In 2014, the iconic clothing brand Gap released a new campaign called “Dress Normal”, embracing their cultural reputation as purveyors of tried-and-true, inoffensive “normcore” staples like jeans, t shirts, and sweaters.  The campaign launched with a quartet of stylish monochromatic spots shot by David Fincher that channeled a midcentury avant-garde quality with cutting-edge digital cinematography techniques.

As the 2014 holiday season approached, Gap began to build another collection of spots with the intent of finding another high-profile director known for his or her own stylistic sensibilities.

The decision to go with director Sofia Coppola seems like a natural one in retrospect– just as natural as the low-key, grounded tone that her unique worldview brings to a suite of 4 spots that promote Gaps’ holiday sweaters and jackets.

Each spot tells a short, comical vignette set to music; “PINBALL” shows how a young woman uses a casual game of pinball as a seduction technique.  “CROONER” finds a precocious little boy lip syncing into a microphone to a living room full of people who aren’t even listening.

“MISTLETOE” details an awkward young man’s bold attempt to steal a kiss from an older woman (probably his friend’s mother) under the eponymous Christmas staple.  “GAUNTLET” features a young girl visiting home after being away at school and having to endure the touchy-feely reception of her family members.

This particular suite of “DRESS NORMAL” spots don’t hold much in the way of Coppola’s thematic signatures– in fact, they mark a departure from her portraits of privileged celebrity lifestyles in favor of naturalistic glimpses of young people from a comfortable middle-class background.

Indeed, after creating spots primarily for high-fashion brands like Christian Dior or H&M, Coppola’s taking on an assignment from Gap shows her widening her directorial reach to a wider audience with conservative tastes.  Her light, observational touch is an inspired and appropriate choice for the cheery, upbeat nature of these spots, helping to make Gap’s holidays (and subsequent sales numbers) that much brighter.


A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS (2015)

The collapse of the prestige specialty sector in American studio filmmaking during the late 2000’s left several prominent filmmakers stranded on desert islands surrounded by a sea of big-budget mediocrity. Those who had thrived during this period, like director Sofia Coppola, found difficulty jumping to the onslaught of play-it-safe sequels and compound franchises that followed– their audience seemingly having disappeared overnight.

Those who had fueled the runaway box office success of 2003’s LOST IN TRANSLATION failed to turn out for Coppola’s similarly-themed 2010 effort, SOMEWHERE, prompting an extended foray into commercials and music videos.

It was quickly becoming apparent that there was no longer a demand for the kind of patiently observed, delicately minimalistic chamber dramas Coppola had made her name from, and even her return to features in 2013’s THE BLING RING evidenced a distinct (yet, not total) pivot towards a mainstream audience. Meanwhile, ascendant digital services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon were, via their original programming initiatives, asserting themselves as The New World for our forsaken auteurs– a veritable promised land where cinematic pilgrims could stake out their artistic freedom, far from the oppressive hand of the studio system.

For Netflix in particular, their rapid ascent to the top of the digital media heap was thanks in no small part to their sophisticated algorithms that chewed raw user data into easily-digestible chunks of trend analysis. Their breakthrough foray into original content, HOUSE OF CARDS, infamously came together by way of using subscriber viewing data and finding a significant overlap between users who liked David Fincher’s films and Kevin Spacey’s performances.

Whereas the conventional model of packaging looked to past successes as a solid (if not entirely reliable) indicator of future return, Netflix’s use of up-to-the-second statistics allowed them to pinpoint with much greater accuracy the degree of creative alchemy they could achieve with any given pairing of talent.

It might seem like an admittedly cynical business model– after all, some of the greatest films ever made were bold gambles based off only a gut feeling– but with a programming slate that includes HOUSE OF CARDS, ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK, BEASTS OF NO NATION, and MAKING OF A MURDERER, it’s hard to argue that it hasn’t lead to some groundbreaking new entertainment.

At just 56 minutes long, Netflix’s 2015 holiday special, A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS, is a little too scant to be called a feature, and a little too long to be called a short, but it is undoubtedly one of their more interesting risks to date.

Despite Bill Murray’s widespread cult of internet fandom, a conventional studio or network might view the prospect of an old-fashioned holiday variety special directed by a polarizing arthouse auteur with a borderline-paralyzing trepidation.

But thanks to its treasure trove of user data and a decadently off-kilter script written by Coppola, Murray, and Mitch Glazer, Netflix would find the courage to forge ahead with a quirky one-off holiday special designed for the meme generation.

The story of A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS is as scant as its running time, featuring Murray as a thinly-fictionalized version of himself about to reluctantly perform a poorly-planned cabaret special when a major blizzard suddenly hits, trapping him inside the cavernous halls of New York City’s Hotel Carlyle on Christmas Eve.

Murray gamely plays the boozy ham we all would expect him to be, lampooning the “Sad Murray” archetype that propelled his career resurgence in the arthouse sector.  Indeed, his depression over his isolation in the hotel and entrapment in a gig he hates plays like a loose sequel to LOST IN TRANSLATION, finding his Bob Harris character hitting rock bottom a decade later.

After a power outage abruptly cancels the show, Murray starts wandering the hotel; striking up conversations with the hotel staff and guzzling whiskey until he passes out and hallucinates the glitzy star-studded holiday musical he should have hosted.

The plot serves as a loose framework for Coppola and Murray to stage various vignettes that frame a series of musical performances– some, refreshingly, by singers who aren’t even terribly all that good.  Coppola uses a wide mix of music, ranging from time-honored Christmas staples to unconventional tracks that have nothing do with the holidays, like Todd Rundgren’s “I Saw the Light”.

In the tradition of star-studded holiday specials past, the premise also serves as a convenient excuse for Coppola and company to parade several famous faces throughout, some playing fictional characters, while others, like Murray, send up their own celebrity images as “themselves”.

Paul Schaffer is one of these, proving himself the hardest working person in the film as he cheerfully accompanies every musical number on his trusty piano.  Chris Rock also plays himself to hilarious effect, as do George Clooney and Miley Cyrus in Murray’s Busby Berkley-inspired dream sequence (Clooney’s goofy backup vocals in a rendition of “Santa Claus Wants Some Lovin’” are a particular highlight).

The roster of fictional characters boasts the likes of Michael Cera as Jackie, a sleazebag agent aggressively pursuing Murray despite his infamous refusal to take on representation; Amy Poehler as Liz, the cabaret’s chipper co-producer; Rashida Jones and MARIE ANTOINETTE’s Jason Schwartzman as a glum pair of lovebirds whose wedding day is ruined by the big blizzard; Maya Rudolph as a Diana Ross-style lounge singer; and finally Coppola’s own husband Thomas Mars leading his Phoenix bandmates as the hotel’s crew of cooks.

A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS looks to continue the migration that Coppola began with THE BLING RING towards digital acquisition for her long-form work, calling upon cinematographer John Tanzer to create an aesthetic that spit-polishes her signature style.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the old-fashioned “Hollywood musical dream sequence”, realized with sweeping crane moves and bright, colored lights that wash over the elaborate Busby Berkeley-style choreography.  This sequence is effectively jarring when it arrives– a proper realization of the perfect “star-studded holiday musical” that contrasts with the dim, moody look of the film’s Hotel Carlyle setting.

For these waking narrative moments, which make up the bulk of the running time, Coppola returns to her familiar observational aesthetic.  Overall, the visual presentation of A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS lacks the stylistic flourish of Coppola’s previous work, but it is nonetheless conveys a handsome image and unassuming tone.

murray-christmas-sofia-coppola

Just as he did in LOST IN TRANSLATION, Murray proves an inspiring and effective canvas upon which Coppola can paint her musings about the ennui of celebrity.  Like SOMEWHERE or LOST IN TRANSLATION, A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS is structured as a behind-the-scenes portrait of show business as experienced by a melancholy and lonely soul lost within it.

In-jokes and winking references to the celebrity lifestyle are part of this conceit, albeit Coppola delivers them with much more of a comical flair here than in her previous work.  The plot device of entrapping Murray with the confines of the Hotel Carlyle also bears Coppola’s signature, the latest iteration of a recurring trope that stages an emotionally-isolated character against the backdrop of a singular space.

Coppola’s thematic fascinations translate well to the digital streaming format, with the shorter runtime boasting the added benefit of her concise narrative focus hampering her tendency to indulge in the kind of meandering, thinly-sketched storylines that have become a flashpoint for her critics.

Coppola’s high-profile reunion with Murray mostly pays off, having created an off-kilter musical romp that is bound to be a hipster holiday favorite.  Despite mixed reviews following its December 2015 release on Netflix, A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS would find enough regard to earn a Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Television Movie.

Its thinly-sketched narrative, while arguably not very satisfying to discerning cinephiles, oddly enough becomes an asset in what will most likely become its most routine exhibition context: as a background distraction at ugly Christmas sweater parties.

A Very Murray Christmas

As of this writing, A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS is Coppola’s most recent completed work.  She’s set to direct her next feature next year– a remake of Don Siegel’s 1971 western thriller THE BEGUILED, which will undoubtedly serve as an interesting opportunity for Coppola to apply her signature aesthetic to not just a period piece set during the Civil War, but to a genre that she’s never touched before.

In the 18 years that have transpired since her first short film (1998’s LICK THE STAR), Coppola has built up an impressive body of work that stands totally apart from the monumental legacy of her father– a feat made all the more impressive considering the endless parade of nepotism charges leveled against her by critics since day one.

She’s proven herself a supremely gifted director whose strength lies in the arthouse realm, especially in subject matter that assumes a feminine, introspective worldview.  Early works like THE VIRGIN SUICIDES (1999) and LOST IN TRANSLATION have already grown into esteemed classics, possessing an ethereal essence and mystique that rewards repeat viewings.

Despite her clearly-defined aesthetic, Coppola has also shown she can move with the times, as evidenced by her pivot to commercials, mainstream-friendly long-form narrative and experiments in digital storytelling in response to the decline of the very prestige arthouse sector that made her early works possible.

Her trailblazing career as a female director has been inspiring to countless women aspiring to make their own films, to be sure, but to confine her accomplishments to the context of her gender does her a severe disservice.

In a cinematic landscape increasingly besieged by the smog of “connected universes” and flashy IP, Coppola’s films are a breath of fresh air– a reminder of film’s potential for profound emotional resonance in even the smallest of moments.

Coppola is only now just beginning to enter the years that constitute “middle-age”, meaning the multitude of works these essays have explored only constitute half of a celebrated filmography. It might be too early to talk about her “legacy” in concrete terms, but if the second half of her career is as striking as the first, then she won’t have just effectively carried the “Coppola” mantle into the twenty-first century; she’ll have redefined it on her own terms.


THE BEGUILED (2017)

First, a bit of personal sentiment if you’ll indulge me.  I try not to editorialize too much or insert myself into these essays— after all, that’s what my original film work is for. That said, I can’t help but express an appreciation for this harmonious coincidence of a new essay on director Sofia Coppola with the (very) recent birth of my daughter, Maisie.

Needless to say, she’s going to have an exceedingly nerdy dad that will share every ounce of his love for cinema with her. I don’t expect her to follow in my occupational footsteps, but if she does, I want her to see her womanhood as a major asset in her storytelling perspective.

Female filmmakers like Coppola, Kelly Reinhardt, Ava DuVernay, Agnes Varda, and Kathryn Bigelow (amongst countless others) have made incredible strides within an industry that has traditionally suppressed their femininity as a liability, and I want Maisie to come to see them as role models (in addition to her mother, who’s already handily carving out quite a career for herself in children’s television).

Coppola in particular has been a formative influence in my own artistic development, and I’m beyond excited to someday share her work with this brand-new little lady.

The high-gloss productions of THE BLING RING (2013) and A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS (2015) showcased Coppola as an indie-minded director flirting with the commercial sensibilities of Hollywood filmmaking. Despite the lavish perks that such a move engenders, she couldn’t quite shake a deep-seated repulsion to the industry’s materialistic values— a repulsion no doubt inherited from her iconoclast father, Francis Ford.  After THE BLING RING in particular, Coppola cited her wish to “cleanse herself” from what she described as a “tacky, ugly world”.

After washing out of her first attempt at moving on, an adaptation of the source text of THE LITTLE MERMAID she was developing to direct over at Universal, a friend suggested the rather surprising idea of remaking THE BEGUILED: a contained thriller from 1971, directed by Don Siegel and starring Clint Eastwood against wan antebellum backdrop.

Coppola initially needed some convincing; nothing in her filmography suggested she had the desire to make a thriller, let alone tackle a full-on remake of an existing work.  The longer the idea marinated however, the more opportunity Coppola saw in the project.

Rather than remake the original film, she would execute a fresh adaptation of the source novel by Thomas Cullinan (1), and by shifting the story’s perspective to that of the female’s perspective, she could reframe it as an elegant character study with genre elements.

The resulting work, 2017’s THE BEGUILED, would arrive as an invigorating new direction in Coppola’s artistic trajectory, exhibiting a newer, darker side of the feminine mystique that has come to define her work.

Coppola’s script retains the core conceits and general structure of both the novel (originally titled “The Painted Devil”) and Siegel’s original film, but her desire to shift the storytelling perspective opens up new angles of attack, carving deeper grooves of meaning and insight below the surface.

Her vision transplants the action from Mississippi to Virginia, where the waning days of the Civil War have left the countryside ravished and weary. The students and faculty of a local girls’ seminary proudly languish in a once-grand (but now-decrepit) plantation mansion, patiently waiting for their boys in grey to return home.

They fill their days learning high-society disciplines like classical music or French, all while the ceaseless booms of distant cannon fire remind them of the conflagration outside their crumbling stone gates. Their ethereal beauty stands in stark contrast to the desolation around them; they’ve become ghostly reminders of an elegant antebellum lifestyle that seems already consigned to the limbo of history.

This waking purgatory abruptly ends when one of the girls comes across an injured Union soldier hiding out on their land. The women bring the soldier — the only man they’ve seen in quite some time — into their house as both prisoner and ward, becoming increasingly gripped by curiosity as they nurse him back from the brink of death.

As the injured soldier, Corporal McBurney, Colin Farrell delivers a manipulative, charismatic performance that divides the girls against each other in their desire for his affection. Farrell leverages his Irish heritage to add depth to the character’s smoldering darkness, playing McBurney as a recent immigrant who was immediately drafted up into the Union Army upon arrival, and thus holds no allegiance to his adopted country— only to himself.

He still bears traces of his accent, which highlights how conflicting the process of assimilation has been for him even as it imbues him with a European exoticism in the eyes of the young women.  He thinks he’s hit the jackpot — a mansion full of beautiful women at his beck and call — but the toxic rage and entitlement that forms the bedrock of his true character proves no match for the united front put up by his female caretakers.

That their final stand is so quietly effective is a testament to the pragmatic clarity and bottomless strength of the school’s headmistress, Miss Martha. Played by Nicole Kidman in a career-best turn, Miss Martha is a strong and dignified matron, blessed with the social graces of her elite Southern pedigree.

Her age and experience enables her to resist McBurney’s charms while ferreting out his weaknesses.  The same can’t be said of the school’s French teacher, Edwina, a fading southern belle who refuses to go quietly into spinster-hood.

Coppola regular Kirsten Dunst imbues the character with an assured, yet weary, elegance— a stark departure from the bubbliness that marked her performances in THE VIRGIN SUICIDES (1999) or MARIE ANTOINETTE (2006), signaling surprising new avenues for the actress to explore as she matures out of the comparatively-youthful roles that made her name.

Last seen in Coppola’s filmography as a gangly adolescent in 2010’s SOMEWHERE, Elle Fanning appears all grown up here as Alicia, one of the older students caught in self-serving thrall to her teenage hormones. While Edwina’s attraction to McBurney is misguidedly romantic, hers is purely driven by sexual curiosity.

Together, they stand as critical faults in the armor that Miss Martha labors to project, giving THE BEGUILED an additional layer of nuanced tension and conflict.

$10.5 million dollars is not a lot of money when it comes to film production budgets, but Coppola’s experience in the independent realm as well as the artistic pedigree of her home studio, American Zoetrope, allows for ample creative resources that stretch the value of her dollar.

THE BEGUILED was shot in Louisiana over the scant span of 26 days (1), utilizing real-world locations like the historic Madewell Plantation and the private New Orleans residence of actress Jennifer Coolidge (3).  Such a scenario doesn’t leave much room for things to go wrong, so it’s fortunate that Coppola has cultivated a crack team of collaborators that ensure a smooth shoot executed in unwavering allegiance to her vision.

This circle of trust begins at the top, with returning producing partner Youree Henley, as well as familial connections like her brother Roman Coppola and her father’s producing partner Fred Roos, who guide the project in an executive producer capacity.

Returning production designer Anne Ross and editor Sarah Flack continue to sculpt and hone Coppola’s distinct aesthetic— Ross’ understated recreation of plantation-era Virginia utilizes soft neutrals and desaturated pastels to underscore the story’s inherent feminine viewpoint, while Flack’s simplistic — but no less evocative — montage patiently evokes the observational nature of Coppola’s approach to coverage.

The band Phoenix, fronted by Coppola’s husband Thomas Mars, once again provides THE BEGUILED’s original score, albeit via atmospheric compositions that are so subtle and spare that one could argue that the word “music” no longer applies.

Coppola’s one wild card is cinematographer Philippe Le Sourd, but thankfully, their first collaboration together yielding stunning results.  After her brief foray into digital with THE BLING RING, Coppola returns to the organic beauty of 35mm celluloid film, utilizing the unconventional 1.66:1 aspect ratio so as to fulfill her desire for a vintage canvas without imposing the severity of the square 1.33:1 frame.

Le Sourd and Coppola pulled their exposure by one stop in the lab so as to achieve a low-contrast look that preserves detail in the shadows, resulting in an aesthetic that splits the difference between a fashion film and gothic haunted-house horror.

Apropos of THE BEGUILED’s pre-electric antebellum setting, Coppola and Le Sourd cultivate a “no-light” approach, favoring silhouettes framed against blown-out windows or the dim glow of candlelight.  Even sequences shot in broad daylight employ a gauzy, soft quality. Coppola takes the opportunity afforded by her evocative backdrop to craft assertive compositions, oftentimes framing in the wide so as to emphasize landscape.

Her confidence in the narrative integrity of these compositions is reinforced by the camera’s distinct lack of movement; indeed, the static gaze of a locked-off camera projects something of painterly aura. She rejects the modern sensibility of conveying immediacy or danger through handheld photography, opting instead for elegant crane or dolly sweeps whenever the story motivates movement.

Small audiovisual flourishes like lens flares, black puffs of smoke on the horizon, and the distant sound of encroaching cannon fire further tease out the beauty of the environment while reflecting the growing tension that threatens to tear this fragile world asunder.

For all the narrative details that make THE BEGUILED a rather unconventional entry within Coppola’s filmography, its thematic undercurrents hew extremely close to her established characteristics as an artist. Almost every Coppola film to date can be described as a chamber piece that takes place within a confined setting, usually with some degree of architectural value or interest.

Oftentimes these backdrops are real-world locales playing themselves— Tokyo’s modern, monolithic Park Hyatt in LOST IN TRANSLATION or the old-world regality of NYC’s elegant Hotel Carlyle in A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS immediately come to mind.

She’s cultivated a reputation for responsible stewardship over delicate or sensitive locations, with successful shoots at Versailles Palace for MARIE ANTOINETTE or the Chateau Marmont for SOMEWHERE emboldening subsequent location caretakers to open their doors to Coppola and her crew, secure in the knowledge that they will leave the space better than they found it.

THE BEGUILED proudly continues this tradition, finding Coppola and her team utilizing the Madewood Plantation House, a National Historic Landmark that now operates as a rustic bed and breakfast.  Far from a decaying, isolated mansion in real life, the Madewood kindly permitted the production to dirty up its pristine white facade to suggest years of neglect.

The encroaching squalor of the seminary affords Coppola some artistic wiggle room to maneuver around the story’s thornier prospects.  Recent years have seen the commercial co-opting of the southern antebellum aesthetic, especially by brands and influencers that cater to an affluent, female, and predominantly-white audience.

The quaint beauty of southern architecture, culture, and fashion becomes problematic when fetishized, as it tends to focus entirely on surface aesthetics at the expense of the shameful history (i.e., slavery) that drove its proliferation.

Coppola risks critical exposure on two fronts here: on one hand, her privileged upbringing and personal taste for designer fashion makes her susceptible to similar accusations of cultural tourism, or passive tone-deafness of the kind that dogged the reception to LOST IN TRANSLATION.

On the other hand, Coppola does omit one notable detail that other versions of THE BEGUILED included: the slaves who lived and labored on the seminary grounds.  Indeed, there is not a single person of color to be found throughout Coppola’s adaptation— an admittedly alarming choice for a story set on a Civil War-era plantation in rural Virginia.

For better or worse, this was a deliberate choice on Coppola’s part; when she was called out on the matter during press interviews, she was openly candid about her own struggles with the omission, citing her convictions that such an important topic shouldn’t be “brushed over” (4).

Whether or not her audience agrees with her conclusion is guaranteed to run the spectrum of reactions, but the conscious decision to de-glamorize the seminary allows for a kind of thematic distance where one can better judge THE BEGUILED’s story on its own merits as an insular thriller about sexual tension and manipulation.

Some may (rightfully) feel that the relatively-recent phenomenon of remakes constitutes a scourge on modern cinema.  They are almost certainly a reaction to studios’ desire to hedge their bets with lucrative intellectual property over original ideas; indeed, every studio has some form of internal document that compiles all the titles in their back catalog that they feel are ripe for the remake treatment, which they frequently circulate to filmmakers for pitching purposes.

This environment leaves very little oxygen for well-intentioned artists to bring new insights into familiar stories, but every so often, one or two remakes manage to flare up with genuine inspiration. Think back to Gus Van Sant’s PSYCHO (1998), which dared to quite literally re-make Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 masterpiece shot for shot.

While this approach generally backfired with critics and audiences alike, there is nevertheless an intriguing artistic exploration unfolding at the conceptual level.  By doing the “shot-for-shot remake” first, Van Sant was effectively demonstrating its fundamental emptiness as a commercial venture, undercutting future filmmakers who might have the same idea.

On the other hand, by copying Hitchcock’s approach, Van Sant evokes a larger conversation about the inscrutable, magical aspects of cinema, prompting a debate on how color impacts a film’s psychological impression versus black-and-white, or whether a given director’s artistic “essence” can be replicated by xeroxing their techniques.

Say what you will about the end product, but Van Sant effectively gave his remake of PSYCHO a valid artistic reason for existence— albeit one better suited to the forum of museums and academia instead of cinema. Coppola similarly imbues THE BEGUILED with a valid approach that justifies the story’s retelling, leveraging her perspective on the feminine experience to yield fascinating new insights.

The film’s atmosphere is heavy with her characteristic mystique, which presents the female perspective as both intimate and unknowable; a tangle of melancholy navel-gazing, passionate desire and calculating defensiveness.

These women — matronly Miss Martha included — are naturally curious about their masculine house guest, their stark physical and psychological differences in gender made all the more pronounced by their isolation. The code of Southern hospitality dictates they must greet this fox in their henhouse with a warm civility and a gentle grace: social expectations that splinter their tight-knit community with disharmonious drama.

It’s not until they realize that McBurney is using their very womanhood against them that they band back together, pulling from deep, untapped reserves of strength in order to rid their house of this charismatic monster.

Despite barely recouping its budget at the domestic box office (5), THE BEGUILED stands proudly as one of the most successful films of Coppola’s career. It would compete for the prestigious Palme d’Or at Cannes, ultimately winning the festival’s Best Director award— the first time a woman had won in fifty years (and only the second time overall) (1)).

Her first foray into genre territory resonated strongly with critics, who praised the film’s delicate balance of tone while singling out Kidman’s compelling performance. THE BEGUILED’s sophisticated portrait of womanhood under siege seems to mark an inflection point in Coppola’s own development, exhibiting the nuanced maturity and confident restraint of an artist settling into middle age.

There are no signs of crisis here; no frantic realization that time is beginning to run out. There is only the promise of creative rejuvenation, like a vibrant flower poised to bloom into new avenues of expression.  This new era has already proved quite prolific: the same year that she released THE BEGUILED, Coppola also directed an imaginative retelling of the opera LA TRAVIATA for the stage, complete with costumes by Valentino.

She’s also preparing to shoot ON THE ROCKS, a movie for Apple’s upstart streaming service that will reunite her once more with Bill Murray as an aging playboy on an adventure through New York with his daughter, played by Rashida Jones.

Indeed, it seems there are so many opportunities that lay ahead for Coppola, it’s become outright impossible to forecast where her artistic development is headed. If THE BEGUILED’s brooding sophistication is any indication, however, then Coppola stands poised to recapture — and redefine — the elusive, melancholic ethereality that made her name.


ON THE ROCKS (2020)

For twenty years, director Sofia Coppola has endeavored to assert her artistic voice out from under the monolithic shadow cast by her father, revered New Hollywood figurehead Francis Ford Coppola. She has largely succeeded, crafting her own distinct legacy through a collection of assured and distinctive feature films. While she regularly drew inspiration from her own life — particularly, the pitfalls of fame and celebrity as experienced by an artist who spent her formative years as a glamorous socialite — she had yet to focus her lens on her relationship with the person who made her charmed life possible. The making of her seventh feature, 2020’s ON THE ROCKS, would prove a suitable opportunity as a kind of love letter to father Francis, structured as a comic caper with a light, elegant touch. Produced by Coppola and her creative partner Youree Henley as the first picture in an agreement between indie powerhouse A24 and tech titan Apple to produce a slate of original films for the latter’s upstart streaming service, ON THE ROCKS doesn’t evolve Coppola’s voice so much as refine it, giving us added insight into the director’s unique storytelling sensibilities.

Indeed, ON THE ROCKS positions itself as more of a refreshing confection than a nourishing meal — a cinematic amuse-bouche pursuant to its double-entendre title alluding to both boozy indulgence and relationships undergoing conflict. Coppola’s script centers on Laura, a busy woman whose glamorous Manhattan lifestyle is complicated by the need to balance her successful writing career with the unique and thankless demands of modern motherhood. Having previously appeared before Coppola’s cameras as a bummed-out bride in 2015’s A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS, Rashida Jones takes center stage with a lived-in and authentic performance as a woman on the verge of forty whose material success in life masks a nagging self-doubt. ON THE ROCKS initially finds Laura in a vulnerable position, her career momentum seemingly having slowed while her husband’s is rocketing to the stratosphere. With Dean (Marlon Wayons) frequently away on business, the day-to-day responsibilities of parenthood fall squarely on her, threatening to derail her delicate life/work balance entirely. The plot begins in earnest when Dean comes home drunk from a work party and initiates a midnight kiss as Laura lies sleeping, only to recoil when she turns to embrace him— almost as if he was expecting someone else. Despite a desire to stay above petty suspicion, Laura can’t help but grow consumed by doubts about Dean’s faithfulness, especially in light of long nights at the office spent in the company of his flirty young colleague, Fiona (Jessica Henwick).

Against her better judgment, Laura reveals her marital misgivings to her father, Felix, a shameless flirt and worldly connoisseur of life’s finer things. Though they enjoy a fairly warm back-and-forth,  an undercurrent of strain keeps their relationship at arm’s length — lingering scars from Felix’s thinly-veiled infidelity to Laura’s mother during her youth. It takes a cheater to know one, judging by how quickly Felix assumes Dean’s strange behavior to be a byproduct of his own unfaithfulness. Though Laura is initially wary of Felix’s claims — a writer wanting to resist the oldest cliche in the book, perhaps — she can’t help but be swayed by the clues he pieces together. So begins Coppola’s caper, with father and daughter teaming up to get to the bottom of this mystery, first by rooting through Dean’s text history and then tailing him through crosstown traffic. They even go so far as to follow him to Mexico, where Dean’s beachside business trip threatens to blossom into a romantic rendezvous with Fiona… or so they feverishly speculate.

Though the light touch of Coppola’s plotting suggests a rather scant story, her characterization and the cast’s performances provide ON THE ROCKS with a great deal of nuance and depth. Jones has the unenviable task of standing in for Coppola herself — a fictionalized avatar through which to mount a meditation on the difficulties of asserting oneself against the intimidating legacy of one’s parents. Thankfully, Jones’ familiarity with Coppola is extensive; in addition to their aforementioned collaboration on A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS, Jones once played an important part in Coppola’s artistic development, preceding Scarlett Johansson in breathing life into the role of Charlotte while workshopping an early draft of the screenplay for LOST IN TRANSLATION during an acting class (1). For his part, Murray settles back quite effortlessly into his groove with Coppola, harnessing the easygoing charisma that gave LOST IN TRANSLATION and A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS their charm. His Felix isn’t a one-to-one replica of father Francis, but he does share the same sort of Continental, “Man Of The World” sophistication that distinguishes the elder Coppola. The source of Felix’s wealth is never revealed — indeed, he has or had no apparent profession to speak of — leaving “family money” as the most likely answer, which he clearly is enjoying holding on to until it inevitably passes to Laura. He dresses and flirts like a man without a care in the world precisely because he has yet to have one, but even his fine scarves can’t veil the growing regret he feels about the scars left behind by his inability to commit to being a family man.

Wayans’ performance as Dean suggests a similar fate, giving Laura and Felix’s investigation its urgency and the story its stakes. In contrast to Felix, Dean is a dyed-in-the-wool career man who’s earned every dollar he’s made through hard work. He’s emblematic of a certain type of guy that’s ubiquitous throughout the modern white-collar economy: the stylish, slim-suited and Peloton-framed Salesforce bro speaking entirely in corporate buzzwords. ON THE ROCKS finds his company undergoing a period of dramatic growth, requiring his constant presence both at the office and on the road. Though he effortlessly projects the image of the perfect husband and father, his inability to concentrate on the needs of his marriage for too long fixes his characterization — at least from Laura’s point of view — onto a very one-dimensional plane. As the story unfolds, however, Dean reveals himself to be quite sympathetic indeed; his ambitions stem from a place of profound inadequacy, having conflated happiness with material success. This aspect is where ON THE ROCKS reveals the heart of its story: in essence, a subversion of the “suspicious spouse” tropes that have long figured in Hollywood comedies to demonstrate how easily we can lose sight of the Big, Important Things in the confusing and complicated sweep of our day-to-day lives — and the sometimes-contrived, near-Herculean effort it takes to reaffirm those fundamental forces that shape and clarify our existence.

After their brilliant collaboration on THE BEGUILED, Coppola reteams with cinematographer Philippe Le Sourd to pursue a natural elegance with an unadorned, simple aesthetic— “beautifully simple”, as Le Sourd would later articulate in an article with Moviemaker Magazine. “Deceptively simple” might be a better description of ON THE ROCKS’ 35mm 1.85:1 frame, which tends to emphasize functional coverage over conspicuously-artistic compositions. Befitting a story that’s largely conversational, Coppola and Le Sourd routinely employ medium two-shots that frame the top half of characters, saving closer setups for when nuance is critical. Production would occur in New York City throughout June of 2019, but the filmmakers’ focus on a human-oriented scale precludes a need for wide establishing shots of Manhattan landmarks. One could be forgiven for thinking this approach would fail in realizing a sense of place, but the actual result is that kind of daily grind, block-by-block-level impression of place that a local New Yorker would have. The shallow depth of field so characteristic of Coppola’s overarching aesthetic style facilitates this conceit, allowing her characters to meld into the very fabric of the city around them. Her quiet confidence echoes in the deliberate nature of the camerawork, which favors static setups and the occasional pan or tilt (if the characters deign to move beyond the bounds of the frame). There is one exception to the rule: a light-hearted car chase in Felix’s lipstick-red Alfa Romeo through the empty streets of after-hours SoHo. The sudden acceleration invigorates ON THE ROCKS at its midway point, capturing Laura and Felix’s breathless delight at an all-too-rare instance of mischief-making (2).

Though the palette cultivated by Coppola and Le Sourd favors cool hues and muted neutrals, color figures quite prominently as a visual storytelling device. A desaturated, low-contrast look establishes Laura’s status quo by minimizing the prevalence of shadows. With the spires of Manhattan greedily drinking up the direct sunlight, Laura moves through perpetual shade— the diffuse daylight eliminates shadows in a manner that suggests there’s no intrigue in Laura’s life anymore; nowhere to hide from the existential uncertainty that complicates her seemingly “perfect” life (2). In contrast, the image grows more dynamic when Laura and Felix venture to Mexico: the sunlight shines warm and free, stretching the shadows across the beach (2). The plum red of restaurant walls and the canary yellow of Laura’s cocktail dress offer a sharp rebuke to the slate and brick environs of New York, becoming the chromatic equivalent to the kineticism of the Alfa Romeo chase. It’s no accident that these bursts of concentrated color occur at key moments with Felix— they are deliberate signifiers that highlight the importance of this particular father-daughter relationship in Laura’s dramatic trajectory (2).

ON THE ROCKS continues Coppola’s commitment to photochemical film, with the medium once again asserting itself as the appropriate choice for her artistic intentions. Like THE BEGUILED before it, a great deal of the action occurs in the dark, necessitating additional layers of technical consideration when it comes to the relationship between lighting and camera. Where previously entire city blocks would have to be lit in order to achieve the desired exposure — a costly and time-consuming undertaking — the filmmakers found themselves benefitting from the city’s relatively-recent transition to LED street lamps, which served to raise the overall ambient light levels. Combined with the wide latitude and reduced grain field of Kodak’s 500T and 200T stocks, as well as the evergreen ability to push the film in the lab, Coppola and Le Sourd found they could achieve an ease of exposure comparable to digital cameras like the Sony Venice. A set of Panavision Super Speed MKII and Ultra Speed lenses complete ON THE ROCKS’ soft, low-contrast look, putting a sophisticated polish on Coppola’s well-established aesthetic.

Indeed, ON THE ROCKS demonstrates Coppola operating entirely in her comfort zone, enjoying the creative freedoms afforded by a streaming service leveraging the popularity of her artistic persona in a bid to turn her audience into active subscribers. The return of key creative partners is crucial in this regard, beginning with brother Roman serving as executive producer alongside Fred Roos, who actively produced most of father Francis’ work. Frequent production designer Anne Ross goes to great lengths to soften New York’s rough edges with a dim, romantic atmosphere — a prime example being the repeat appearance of Bemelmans Bar, the seductive and high-class watering hole in the lobby of the Hotel Carlyle, previously a main location in A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS. Editor Sarah Flack’s deliberate, unhurried pacing complements Ross’ use of leisure and culture as an anchoring force in these characters’ lives. The French rock band Phoenix, fronted by Coppola’s husband Thomas Mars, delivers their third score for the director: an upbeat, yet subdued, suite of cues that reach for an electric ambience in lieu of distinct melodies or themes. A wide-ranging mix of needledrops further reinforce the idea of Coppola’s narratives as manifestations of her own self— musical windows into the way she sees the world. Electronic and French pop songs are positioned against jazzy torch standards, classical piano arrangements, and even the melancholic whimsy of a Chet Baker ballad, suggesting a collision between youthful energy and the sedate sophistication of New York’s moneyed class. This is arguably where Laura and Coppola’s wavelengths overlap most completely, the pre-existing tracks further shading her story about asserting one’s identity out from under a smothering lineage and a domineering environment.

Befitting her own stage in life as a middle-aged artist, wife and mother, the ethereal mystique that defines Coppola’s leading ladies is manifest in Laura as a fading force, subsumed to the rigorous and thankless demands of motherhood and housekeeping. The effect is compounded by the sagging momentum of her writing career; more and more, she’s having to define herself in relation to the success of others instead of her own. As absurd as it is to team up with her father to stake out or investigate her husband’s shady whereabouts, the central mystery serves to rejuvenate her own enigmatic qualities. Though her rational side can never quite take the endeavor as seriously as Felix does, Laura can’t help but surprise herself along the way; she’s emboldened by this sudden dash of spice in her life, allowing herself to believe she can ultimately avoid conforming to the burned-out contours of middle-aged domesticity. A fun running joke with Jenny Slate as a fellow mom who can’t stop blabbing about her ill-advised conquests in the kindergarten drop-off line serves to contrast with Laura’s perceived lack of mystique, although we can’t help but join Laura in pitying the poor girl’s utter inability to mature into a responsible person.

Though she often catches flack for writing stories about cloistered worlds defined by luxury and privilege, there is surprisingly little discussion about Coppola’s onscreen exploration of architecture and how it shapes her silver-spooned protagonists’ lived experience. The homogenous suburban sprawl of THE VIRGIN SUICIDES alienates the Lisbon sisters from everyone except themselves, drawing them ever tighter into a kamikaze spiral of malaise and discontent. LOST IN TRANSLATION’s Park Hyatt Hotel serves as a cozy cocoon nurturing the blossoming love between a young married woman and a middle-aged has-been movie star just before they flutter back out into the world as self-realized butterflies. The ornate halls of Versailles Palace become nothing but a gilded cage for MARIE ANTOINETTE’s eponymous royal, while SOMEWHERE depicts LA’s storied Chateau Marmont hotel as both a refuge from and facilitator for a burned-out actor’s inherent vice. THE BLING RING juxtaposes stucco McMansions against glass hillside homes to demonstrate gradations of privilege and the all-consuming covetousness that can breed. A decrepit Antebellum mansion perverts the architecture of domesticity to stage THE BEGUILED’s battle of the sexes. With ON THE ROCKS, Coppola uses the backdrop of Manhattan’s SoHo and Tribeca neighborhoods — tony enclaves defined less and less by tastemaking artists and more by their patrons — to underscore a professional creative’s identity crisis.

Surrounded by the polished grit of this Basquiat Disneyland, invaded by gentrifiers and wealthy pretenders who want to live the Art Life without that pesky “starving” business, Laura’s creative stagnancy is the logical endpoint of her slow decline from producer to consumer. Candlelit booths in cozy bars, industrial lofts with designer finishes, and the burnished leather backseat of Felix’s town car are bubbles of privilege that further fuel Laura’s discontent, encouraging talk of Cartier watches and fancy private schools instead of anything truly substantial or creatively nourishing. Through it all, an interesting subtext reveals itself, putting a finer point on Coppola’s portraits of wealth and privilege as insightful critique. As ON THE ROCKS unfolds, one gets the distinct impression that financial security is growing ever more elusive — even for those we’d readily consider to be “well-off”. Be it inflation or widening wealth inequality, the dollar simply doesn’t travel as far as it used to. Laura clearly comes from money: she’s chauffeured around town by her father’s longtime driver, her work hours are her own, and she enjoys a sizable apartment with ample size within a city where space is the hottest of commodities. Conspicuously absent, however, is a nanny. One would expect a family of Laura’s financial strata to have one on hand, but the duties fall squarely on her. The strain also manifests itself in her marriage to Dean, whereby Dean’s insecurity about providing for a woman apparently accustomed to so much already compels him to put in long hours at the office so he can fortify their marriage with material goods instead of what she really wants: his simple presence as a husband and father. As absurd as Laura and Felix’s vigilante stakeouts are, the reasons for Laura and Dean’s malaise are arguably even more nonsensical, having fallen prey to the attendant insanities of life in the throes of late-stage capitalism.

Released in October of 2020 with a premiere at the New York Film Festival, ON THE ROCKS would join the handful of films experimenting with unconventional distribution models in response to the coronavirus pandemic. As A24’s first joint venture with Apple TV+, Coppola’s film was always bound for the tech giant’s nascent streaming service following a limited theatrical release, but the strategy couldn’t help but resemble the reactionary swings other studios were making in a bid to recoup their investments without the windfall of box office revenue. Interestingly enough, the minimization of the theatrical window might have spurred on the film’s modest success, encouraging audiences to take a chance on the film by lowering the cost of entry and boosting the ease of access. To wit, ON THE ROCKS would enjoy some of the warmest critical notices of Coppola’s career, arguably coasting off our collective desire for some lighthearted escapism during troubling times. While David Sims of The Atlantic would find himself wanting by Coppola’s threadbare plot, he was ultimately won over by its “rush of unintentional catharsis and pure diversion”. Critics mostly focused on Murray’s undeniable charm, but they also were quick to articulate the inherent charm of Coppola’s dreamy storytelling voice as applied to the form factor of the classic screwball comedy. Polygon’s Jesse Hassenger would put it most poignantly with his succinct takeaway: “for this lonely moment, ON THE ROCKS feels right”.

Indeed, ON THE ROCKS is the kind of film that Coppola could only make at this exact moment in her career, replete with mature insights into that nebulous phase of life we call “happily ever after”: keeping the spark of love & marriage alive amidst the long slog of business meetings, school drop-offs, and all the attendant uncertainties of middle age. Coppola’s ability to imbue the slightest of narratives with profound depth is a feature, not a bug; a key signifier of her voice that, much like Laura does with Felix, allows her to assert herself out from under the intimidating weight of the preceding generation’s achievements. ON THE ROCKS reads like the clearest window into the personal life of a fairly private artist, using Coppola’s evocative and enigmatic storytelling to convey, arguably, the thesis for her entire career: that the legacy of our parents doesn’t have to define our own.


Author Cameron Beyl is the creator of The Directors Series and an award-winning filmmaker of narrative features, shorts, and music videos.  His work has screened at numerous film festivals and museums, in addition to being featured on tastemaking online media platforms like Vice Creators Project, Slate, Popular Mechanics and Indiewire. To see more of Cameron’s work – go to directorsseries.net.

THE DIRECTORS SERIES is an educational collection of video and text essays by filmmaker Cameron Beyl exploring the works of contemporary and classic film directors. ——>Watch the Directors Series Here <———

IFH 602: Can Martin Scorsese Save Cinema? with Margaret Bodde

Margaret Bodde is the executive director of The Film Foundation, the non-profit organization created by Martin Scorsese in 1990 dedicated to the preservation and protection of motion pictures. Working in partnership with the archives and studios, TFF has preserved and restored over 925 films, including 49 restorations from 28 countries as part of the World Cinema Project.

TFF educates young people about the visual language of film through its cinema literacy program, The Story of Movies. In addition, Bodde is the award-winning producer of several of Scorsese’s documentaries.

“Our American artistic heritage has to be preserved and shared by all of us. Just as we’ve learned to take pride in our poets and writers, in jazz and the blues, we need to take pride in our cinema, our great American art form.” – Martin Scorsese, Founder and Chair

The Film Foundation, the non-profit organization created by Martin Scorsese to preserve cinema, invites you to come together for a series of beautifully restored films in the Restoration Screening Room, our new virtual theater, available through any web browser.

Presentations will take place within a 24-hour window on the second Monday of each month, along with Special Features about the films and their restoration process. Monthly programming will encompass a broad array of restorations, including classic and independent films, documentaries, and silent films from around the world.

The next free screening is August 8th. They will be playing an amazing Film Noir double feature. Arthur Ripley’s 1946 classic The Chase and Edgar G. Ulmer’s 1945 masterpiece Detour. 

Margaret is also a producer, known for Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story by Martin Scorsese (2019), The 50 Year Argument (2014), Public Speaking (2010), George Harrison: Living in the Material World (2011), No Direction Home: Bob Dylan (2005), and the PBS 7-part series The Blues (2003).

Right-click here to download the MP3

Alex Ferrari 0:00
I like to welcome to the show Margaret Bodde. How you doin Margaret?

Margaret Bodde 0:23
I'm doing great Alex, it's so great to be here.

Alex Ferrari 0:26
Thank you so much for coming on the show. I'm excited to have you on because we're gonna be talking about film restoration and the work you're doing at the Film Foundation. And as well as some others, you do you have a little side hustle that you do as well, besides film restorations, we'll talk about that as well. But the first question I have for you is how did you get started in the business?

Margaret Bodde 0:46
That's a really great question. Because, you know, looking back, it all seems so well planned. But it was really just a random set of circumstances. I did go to film school, which is, you know, kind of rare in this business. Usually everyone studied history, or politics or global studies. But I studied film, and I, my first job out of school, was at the Library of Congress. And I was doing archival work at the Library of Congress, I was I was making photographs from either their glass negatives or nitrate negatives, their, their incredible photographic collection that included like I said, glass negatives from Matthew Brady, to you know, nitrate, you know, four by fours and two by twos that were created during the WPA era. And I remember I was, I was making both copy what they called copy prints, this is in the days of the old fashioned photographic lab, where you would, you know, you know, expose the paper and then process it and all these wonderful chemicals that I breathed for about two years. And what happened was, I became, it was like a master's degree in history, in exposure in photography, and also by extension in film. And so that was, that was an amazing milestone in my career that I hadn't intended really necessarily as, as what I wanted to do. And then from there, I went to independent film exhibition, I worked at a movie theater, we booked independent films. And so I had the exhibition side of it. And then I went to work, I moved to New York, and started work for a fledgling company called Miramax. And I was doing independent film, distribution and marketing. And there were about 20 people at the company at that time. So it's early days. And then and I, I worked there for a couple of years. And then I moved into this kind of miracle where I got a call from a colleague who said, You wouldn't want to work for Martin Scorsese, would you? Would you want to be his assistant? And I was like, I would sweep a floor for that guy like that was, you know, what a question. So it was, like I said, this kind of random set of circumstances that just now kind of all add up and make sense. But at the time, it was just, you know, you get the jobs you can get that you're interested in.

Alex Ferrari 3:21
Yeah, exactly. Like, I mean, how many filmmakers around the world with like, Hey, would you like to, to work with Martin Scorsese? Can you imagine?

Margaret Bodde 3:22
Doing anything doing anything right?

Alex Ferrari 3:26
Absolutely anything. So that brings me to my So my next question. I mean, you got to work with him on some some nice early films, but early 90s films, like the age of innocence, which I absolutely adore, I was just obsessed with age of innocence when it came out. And Casino. So I'm assuming as an assistant working with him, what did you see on set? Like? How would I have to ask you the question that every filmmaker listening wants to know, when you first walked in and met Martin Scorsese for the first time? What was going through your head? How did you deal with it? How did you? I mean, because essentially, even even in the early 90s, he was still, he was already a legend. At that point.

Margaret Bodde 4:15
He was absolutely a legend. I mean, he had just made I mean, you could fill us with 1990. Right. And then I started working for him on my first night, my first night on the job was the premiere of cake fear. So, you know, it's, it's just, he was, he was to me, he was the top of the mountain, you know, I mean, he was it, because he had also started the film foundation in 1990. And when I met with him, which I'll never forget, he lived at the time at the Metropolitan towers on 57th Street. And so I literally, it's like, I went up, you know, to the I went up to like, you know, Mount Olympus Exactly. And I, I remember, you know, obviously I was I was nervous But I also was just, I had kind of the attitude of like, I just want to meet this man who has made films that meant so much to me and so many people. So it was really kind of an experience of a lifetime. I thought, whatever happened with the job, I kind of thought this was this wonderful opportunity to meet this, to meet this person. And when I met him, we just really hit it off. He's, he's so warm, he's so smart. He's so funny. He's really like, just an easy person to talk to and get to know. And one of the things that stood out for him with me, was, Oh, so you went to film school, you know about film, you know about film history, we just started this foundation, maybe you can help with that. And so, you know, that was, to me, that was part of this glorious package, you know, of just, you know, being able to work with someone who's an absolute master of the craft, and the art of filmmaking, and someone who cares about other people's films, and also cares about the audience. And, and making sure that, you know, the continuum of film history is available to filmmakers today, and in the future, who can look back on the past films and be as inspired by them as Marty has been.

Alex Ferrari 6:22
That's remarkable. So when you are so you're working on age of innocence, or casino, what? How do you see him working? What do you mean? I'm assuming you're trying to take as much in as you can, when you're watching him. Were you on set watching him work?

Margaret Bodde 6:36
Yeah, yeah. And you are taking as you're taking it all in, but you know, everyone on that set has this mission. Right. And, you know, there, you don't have a lot of time for reflection. So you're not necessarily, you know, kind of absorbing and processing, you're just kind of like running from like, as an assistant, especially you're running from one task to the next. And your mind is has to be very sharply focused on, you know, whatever he has, you know, needs you to do has asked you to do whatever communication you have to give to the various different department heads. So I'm not like I wasn't ever involved in like the making of the film, it was just there to support all the things that he needed. But the set is an extraordinary place to be with Marty, because it's so it's such a pure expression of filmmaking, where it's all about, what do we need? How do we get it? He's brilliant, about, you know, creating an environment where the actors feel like, it's all about what they need to do, where the DP feels like, it's all about what he or she needs to do. Everyone feels like they're the most important person in that process. And it's just it's, it's kind of a mean, you know, not to be, you know, have a have drank the Kool Aid, I will admit to that. But it is like kind of a sacred place. It's really exciting place to be, but it's very much there's nothing frivolous about it.

Alex Ferrari 8:10
Yeah, it seems to be I mean, I've any filmmaker worth their salt has studied Marty's work over the years. I mean, and every documentary, I mean, I remember working at a video store in the 80s and early 90s. And I was I saw Goodfellas in the theater multiple times. I mean, and you just sit there and you wait for any making of document back in the day when there wasn't any information about i my first laser disc was raging bull. Because I wanted to hear I wanted to hear Marty's commentary on things like that is fascinating.

Margaret Bodde 8:43
There was an early laser disc of the Last Waltz, I remember, they came out like in the early like, mid 80s, early 80s. And I remember just, you know, I had seen the Last Waltz is ageing me quite a bit. But I had seen the Last Waltz when I was like in, in high school. And I remember just being it was something very special. I couldn't really articulate it. because not a lot of people were making documentaries in that way that weren't Verity. You know, I mean, you think about like Woodstock. You're capturing everything. And that's, that was really what was happening with music documentary. At that time. And then I remember the Last Waltz felt like a film. Right. And I and I remember thinking like, that's interesting.

Alex Ferrari 9:32
What really happened? What's, what is he doing differently than everybody else's? And didn't he also worked on Woodstock as an editor?

Margaret Bodde 9:38
He was I think he was a assistant director, and I think he did some editing. Yeah, but Michael Wadleigh you know, was the director of that film and both Marty and that's where Marty and film I think, first work together. Almost gunmaker was an editor on Woodstock and you know, who knew back in the day You know, 72 or whenever that can't remember the exact year of Woodstock, you know, who knew that that would create this? You know, legendary partnership?

Alex Ferrari 9:38
That I mean, is there ever been a partnership like that in the history of film that I can think of an editor that's she's edited everything he's done.

Margaret Bodde 10:18
She has edited everything from Raging Bull on so triple 98 on yeah.

Alex Ferrari 10:24
That's a 42 year.

Margaret Bodde 10:29
A lot of a lot of masterpieces in there.

Alex Ferrari 10:31
Oh, my God, to say the least. Now, tell me about the work you're doing in the film foundation. What is the film foundation?

Margaret Bodde 10:38
Well, the film Foundation was created in 1990. And it really grew out of advocacy that Marty had already been involved in, in the after raging bull in the in 1980 81. Era, Marty was he started a campaign to get to encourage Kodak to create a low fade color film stock. And in fact, one of the reasons that Marty made Raging Bull on Black and White was because he didn't want it to fade in 10 years. And he was, you know, aware of every filmmaker wants their film to last, right, that's, that's the goal, you're putting, you're putting a workout into the world, and you don't want it to go away, you don't want it to look like, you know, diminished, you know, in terms of color and, and degradation. After you know, five or 10 or 15 years, you hope that it will survive the test of time, as they say. And so he decided to use black and white, for Raging Bull for you know, artistic reasons, but also for that practical reason. And so, after the film was released, he used the press tour in Europe and all over the world to talk about this issue of color, color film stock fading. And thankfully, Kodak did create a low, low fade, LPP stock, I believe it's called that that would that would last if it was properly cared for. It would it would last for 50 to 100 years. With a stable color, the color of the color wouldn't change over time. So he was always thinking about film, and the history of film, and how much it meant to him, and how much it meant to his fellow filmmakers like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg and Francis Coppola, Stanley Kubrick at the time. So Marty got these galvanized these filmmakers, and came together and said, Look, we'll be so much more impactful if we formed this organization. And if we use our collective power, our collective clout to go to the studios to talk about working in partnership with these archives, these film archives that are in the nonprofit world, who have been collecting negatives cast off material over the decades. And let's try to build a bridge. So these two important parts of the film world can work together to preserve films for the future. And I don't think that there was a real clear cut concrete plan of how this would get done. But it was definitely agreed, you know, with this group and with with many other people in the field, that something needed to be done. Something needed to be done because, you know, Marty talks about this story a lot were in the 1970s when he was living in Los Angeles. He went to a screening at LACMA and it was a it was a fox retrospective. And on the particular night that Marty remembers there was a double feature. Marty went to LACMA to see a double feature of Niagara And The Seven Year Itch, okay. And The Seven Year Itch came, the projectionist put up the put up the film print, and it came on screen and the entire Marty describes the entire audience erupted with booze because the film The print had faded to pink. So everything everything looked magenta, there was no there was no reflection of what the film was supposed to look like. So you couldn't see like the actor's face you couldn't see what the colors of the set and what what the color design was supposed to look like. And you know, you think about it, that was maybe 20 years at most, after the film came out. No more than 20 years. So you know, the real is Asian hit Martin and many other film scholars and filmmakers and people who just care about cinema. If this is happening to a huge hit with Marilyn Monroe, right? What's happening to silent films, what's happening to industrial films or, you know, documentaries that were made, we can't just lose all this, you know, at that point, you know, 80 80 years of film, and of our culture. So, the, the idea was, let's create an organization that can advocate for film preservation, and restoration. And also for this is as important as that is for getting these films back out to the public. Because if people, if young people don't know about films from the past, if they don't see them, then what's the motivation to preserve them? So, you know, between the preservation program that we created the film Foundation, and the education program, we have a curriculum that teaches young people, the language of film, the unique language of how stories are told visually. And then, and then access, you know, we make sure that the films that we the films that we help fund the restoration of and, and make sure are preserved, get out to the world through festivals, archives, screenings on you know, Turner Classic Movies and other outlets, and also our great partnerships with places like criterion channel, and the Criterion Collection, and movie, and many other organizations and companies around the around the world that really present film in what is a very kind of like, wonderful, celebratory and respectful way, making sure that people see the films without commercial interruption, and the way that the directors intended them to be seen.

Alex Ferrari 17:06
By means you're doing God's work. I mean, this is this is is a very, very important mission. And I'm so glad that Marty, I think it's it needed to be someone like Marty, to be able to spearhead this, you need to be someone with his kind of gravitas to to let everybody knows, hey, wait a minute, we we need to keep an eye on this. What I always found fascinating about film preservation, is that it is a constant moving target. It never it never said so it's unlike the pyramids, that will be around for 3000 years. I mean, stone is stone. But film even today, we still have to preserve it and just continue to move it as technology changes. So even film stock today, in 500 years, we don't know if film stocks going to be the way these things are projected. If that's projection still around, is it going to be on a hard drive? And if it is going to be on a hard drive? How long will the hard drive live last before it crashes? How many so it's a constant. It's a never ending. So just because you you restore a film today, you're thinking, okay, in 30 years, or 20 years or five, we have to check to see where it is. And we have to keep moving. The ball is almost like a game of hot potato, you constantly have to keep moving it along history are along the future. Is that correct?

Margaret Bodde 18:25
Alex, you're hired. I mean, you have it, you have it, you hit the nail on the head. Because, you know, we were lucky that we had this technology for what 120 years or so a film history where yes, the film stock changed over that time. But it was still using light and emulsion to capture life to capture whatever you want to create and put in front of the camera. And we were also very lucky that that even as ephemeral and fragile as film is and has been. We still have films from the silent era. Best, then you can run through a projector, you can also hold it up and you can see oh, yeah, there's people dancing. And then oh, there's a tinge of blue. You know, old films can still be viewed. The issue with digital and we all know Digital's is wonderful innovation. You know, it's allowed a lot of filmmakers who haven't been represented in the past to make films and get their stories out there. And that's vital. That's that's, that's an infusion of energy into the into the whole art form. But the big butt on that is Digital's untested in terms of the longevity of digital and the changes in digital technology. I don't have to tell you are just I mean the cycle is spinning. so fast. Do you remember D-1 tape?

Alex Ferrari 20:03
Of course I'm older than I look, Margaret. Well, yeah, I remember D-1 tape. I remember D-2 tape. I remember D-3 quarter inch or one inch or two inch I edited, I edited one inch between reel to reel back in the day. Yeah.

Margaret Bodde 20:18
So you think about the span, the lifespan of digital is, what 30 years maybe so far, how many formats have there been in that really short period of time. So we will be the Archivist of the future and the present are just going to be unraveling that you've got to make sure that you've got the hardware that will play back those formats. You've got to be able to, you know, migrate that digital data now. Every I mean, they recommend every six months. I mean, but you know, filmmakers? Yeah. And filmmakers are, you know, you will, you know, you know, well, when you make a film, you're just on to your next project. You know, most filmmakers don't have the time to kind of like, well, let me manage all my data from my last five projects. I'll take a couple of months here to do that. You know, it's, it's, it's its own challenge. And I don't think that that maybe the industry, maybe the studios, you know, have a handle on that. And they're managing their assets, you know, because they have the budgets for it.

Alex Ferrari 21:27
And there's so and it's also money now, they realize that that's ever ending, you know, how many how many versions of Star Wars have I purchased, how many versions of Godfather, every time there's a new version, and the rest of you buy a new platform. So from VHS to LaserDisc to DVD to blu ray, and digital, it's constant. So that's where the money is, I think the studio's finally caught up with like, oh, wait, there's money to be made here.

Margaret Bodde 21:50
That was key. That was key, having this, what they call, monetized, right, having having the classic film libraries and collections that the studio's had having another outlet. And another way to, like you said, package and release on home, home, video, home, home video, laser, just DVD, you know, streaming now, those that we were so lucky that those formats demanded the best possible resolution, and audiences demanded the best possible resolution. So you did have to go back to the original camera negative, you did have to go back into the vaults, and take a look at your assets and see, if you had the original camera negative, if you didn't have the original camera negative, what were the best elements that you could find? So that those DVDs are that, you know, whether it's an SD, HD, 4k, whatever the format is, you're working from, you know, the best possible source for that for that transfer. And I think we were very lucky that there was that robust home entertainment market in the in the 1990s, and the 2000s. And now with streaming, it's, it's a different, it's a different series, I think, yes, unfortunately, because of the business because it is a business and an art for you know, there's a different economic model now. And it might be harder to, you know, justify, although I don't want to use that word, but a vast expenditure of money on a single title that may not make that back. I mean, we, of course, yeah, that's what we do all day, you know, we advocate for that, and we try to find ways to, you know, to make that as appealing as possible for studios and other rights holders. Because, you know, we think we think of something like film, and this is true, and with books and paintings and, you know, other art forms, music and theatre, you know, people can't really own it. Right, you're a bit of a custodian.

Alex Ferrari 24:14
We can't own anything. We're only on the earth for a certain amount of time. So even land you eventually have to give it to somebody else, just like we're just here for a moment of time.

Margaret Bodde 24:22
So if you have let's say, let's say what's your favorite film, Alex?

Alex Ferrari 24:25
Oh god, I love Shawshank Redemption. I love Shawshank Redemption.

Margaret Bodde 24:30
Okay, so let's say you obtain the rights to Shawshank Redemption, right? You you know you have the rights to it. But you know, I would argue that you are also holding it for the rest of us to alright,

Alex Ferrari 24:45
I'm not going to put it if I bought it like imagine if I got the rights to Shawshank I would like I'm putting it in my vault only I can see it. All copies have taken off the shelves. No one could ever see it again. No, you're a custodian of art for the work for the good of The populace the good of the world. That's what you should that's how film should be. And arguably, that's how studios should be as well. But with them, it's a business now, because it's the you know, as you know, the corporations have taken over the main studios it before it was run by filmmakers. And now it's more more corporate.

Margaret Bodde 25:18
Yeah. I mean, it's always been a business. And I think that's part of the challenge, I think with the film with film as an art form and a commercial. I won't say product, but as a commercial endeavor, right? films were made for the weekend and the months that they could be in the theaters. And then really, until television, there was no, there was no you maybe there would be a rerelease 10 years later

Alex Ferrari 25:48
Of the hit ones.

Margaret Bodde 25:49
Of the hit ones Yeah! but what about the every b picture? And you know, until television came along, it was considered, you know, disposable as a strong word, but it was considered that's an old movie, what do we what are we putting out? You know, next weekend, what are we putting out next year. And that, and that is just by nature, the way that the movie business, you know, works, and it makes sense, because, you know, your profits are only in the future, and only on your current films, everything is pretty diminished once it's made its initial run. So yeah, yeah, these are the challenges, I think in terms of trying to, you know, balance, you know, film, the high minded notion that film is an art form and needs to be protected and preserved. And the reality of, you can't spend a million dollars restoring one film, you know, that's not no one's gonna, you know, no one's gonna, it's not really, you know, necessary most of the time. And it's not something that a studio is going to put that kind of money in. So we do what we can, and we make sure that we try to get both the kind of the high minded advocacy and awareness out there and then also work practically to try to make sure that these as many films that can be restored in any given year, can get restored.

Alex Ferrari 27:15
And I've heard lately that there is you work with film and films from 90s From 1990s. And back from what I understand from your, from my research, but there's an issue now with movies created in the 80s that now the best quality versions of them are VHS tapes, like that's all the negatives are gone, because they were so disposable in those kinds of be movies and you know, these kinds of things. But it is still cinema. So I know there's a lot of organizations trying to even save VHS tapes, because that's or laser disc might be the best version of it out there. So it is a problem. It is a pro we're losing our we're losing movies every day.

Margaret Bodde 27:59
And you know, it's interesting, because you know, the 80s were this I mean, especially with what you do, right, the 80s were this kind of the golden era of independent filmmaking. That's what it is. Yeah. 80s and 90s. And that's when you know Jane Campion and Spike Lee and John Sayles and Mira Nair year, you know, all these amid Jim Jarmusch. All these amazing independent filmmakers that you think of as these you know, kind of Legends right? They were making movies for small companies. And there were a lot of very successful small companies like cynic calm and that's when Miramax started and new line you know, new world I mean, we could probably if I dig back in my memory banks I could think of even more I mean even even you know Sony Pictures. Sony Pictures, classics, no, Orion,

Alex Ferrari 28:54
Ohh Orion.Let's not forget cannon.

Margaret Bodde 28:57
And cannon right. And trauma.

Alex Ferrari 28:59
Oh, yeah can't forget.

Margaret Bodde 29:03
So, you know, and when those companies then no longer, you know, we're no longer in business. You know, those collections. It's unclear, you know, where they bought, who bought them? And I've talked to, you know, so many filmmakers who say, I don't know where my elements are, for that hit for that, for that independent film hit that I that I made in, you know, in the mid 80s. You know, and they have maybe a 60 millimeter print of it. You know, if they're lucky, they have a 35 millimeter print of the film. But those are, it's like detective work. You have to follow you have to trace everything back, you know, was it at a lab that closed did then those materials go to an archive, hopefully they were saved, and they're in an archive? It was that was that collection then sold outright to like maybe a television company. You have to trace all those things back and I Do you think that archivists, you know, do have a certain kind of detective gene that they that they tap into where they track these films down, I'll tell you a story. And interesting is just one example of many, when we work very closely with all the different archives in the US and around the world, and we have a great partnership with the UCLA Film and Television Archive. And at the time, there was an archivist working at UCLA, Ross Lippmann. And he was, as they often do, he was he was made aware that, you know, got a call from a lab, we're closing, we're getting rid of all the stuff here, you got today to come by, and find whatever you want pick it up. So he and his team go over to the lab, and they're looking through the material. And there's all these elements, all these film elements, and some of them have proper labeling, many of them don't. And he finds on the label, the name of a of a New York based producer. And he just thought, you know, that guy produced the one film that Barbara Lowden made, Wanda, that she that she starred in directed, wrote and directed, and it's, it's considered this kind of independent film, you know, milestone and independent cinema, and, you know, feminist, you know, films made by my women. So, you know, he takes it, he puts all these elements in his trunk, it turns out, this was the original negative for the film, Wanda, and were it not for the archivist, the knowledge that this archivist had the kind of random serendipity of, you know, the lab thankfully, calls the archive materials are gathered thrown into his trunk, and you contact the film foundation, that was one of the films that they asked us to support the restoration of in that given year. And, you know, now that film has inspired so many people who hadn't, they would never be able to see that film in the way that that it exists now restored, and saved for filmmakers and audiences to, to, you know, getting inspiration and and joy from these films.

Alex Ferrari 32:29
Yeah, it's, it's remarkable. I know, there's a movie that Marty found. At least the legend goes, there was a wonderful film, called I Am Cuba. years ago. I'm Cuban, of Cuban descent. So I was very interested in watching that film. And then it was released for criterion, I think it really once and then really released the criterion. And it was him and Francis, who presented the film. And they said, I remember it, I remember the when it came out, everyone's like, if this movie would have come out, when it was made, it would have changed cinema. Like it would have skewed cinema in a certain direction. Like there are those landmark films that when once that comes like, well, everything's changed. And it was in it was, I think it was found in in a closet somewhere, I don't know in an archive somewhere in a salt mine somewhere. And when they saw it, it was just a game changer and any filmmaker listening if you haven't seen IQ, but please go out and see if Cuba I mean, PT Anderson, you know, he, he borrowed a very famous shot from that. And he says, I was inspired by this shot and I am Cuba, and the stuff that they did in a film like that, like you're looking back, you're like, they're running around with 100 pound camera. And it looks like it's a Steadicam, but it isn't. How do they do that? How do they hang the camera over these two? Like, this is this is cinema at its best. And but it was lost was gone?

Margaret Bodde 34:02
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, I'm glad you brought that up. Because, you know, people, you know, filmmakers, and there's not many of them, right filmmakers like Marty and Francis Ford Coppola. Putting attention putting a spotlight on the has been a really crucial part of this whole movement. Right, the film, preservation and appreciation movement, you have filmmakers who are beloved and masters, putting a spotlight on a film like I am Cuba, or a film, like, you know, even even a big popular film, like, I think when when Marty and Steven Spielberg, I think did the first Lawrence of Arabia restoration way back in the photochemical era. And I remember going to the Ziegfeld and watching it on that big screen. I had never seen Lawrence of Arabia. And and and I just you know, I remember One of the main reasons I went to see it was I knew that like Martin Scorsese, a filmmaker that I love who I just if he likes this film, I want to go see it. And it's obviously a masterpiece. So directors, filmmakers who, you know, are generous in that way. And I think they instinctively are because, you know, when something hits you in a profound way, you want to share that. And I think if the film Foundation has been successful over these years, I think that's, that's, it's really all because of Marty, and the other directors on the board, who have generously shared their enthusiasm for these films and their, and their dedication to making sure I mean, they have a righteous anger about like, you know, let's not lose these films. You know, we don't we don't know who is going to be hit by these films and inspired in the future. And it's a it's a, it's a deep well, that I think we have to make sure, you know, stays available for filmmakers who, you know, are working today and who are going to be working in the future.

Alex Ferrari 36:11
Exactly. I mean, how many painters and artists have been inspired by Van Gogh or Basquiat, or Pollock or any of these, like, just imagine if Van Gogh would have never been found? Like, thank God, he made 900 of those things, just kept making them and no one bought them, but he just kept making them because he had to because he was an artist. But imagine if that was all lost in a fire once, and no one would have known about Van Gogh, what a loss to humanity. That would be how you look at it.

Margaret Bodde 36:39
Yeah. And I think it's also kind of interesting, because film inspires filmmakers. But it also inspires painters and musicians and dancers, and scientists, and you know, I mean, and, and yeah, because I think if you, if you look at art, and cinema, art, and you know, fine art, if you look at it as a transcendent experience. I mean, it's really one of the things that makes life worth living. You know, I mean, we transcend our daily lives, when we read a book, or when we look at a painting, or when we watch a great film, and when we, you know, experience a dance that we're seeing, you know, performed, these are things that take us out of the daily, you know, grind of, you know, working and, you know, I mean, I think that we have to remember that there are so many important issues in the world. But this is this is a vital thing that we want to really keep alive and keep available to people, because it's what kind of propels us into the future in a in a kind of renewed way?

Alex Ferrari 37:54
Well, there's no, there's no question because then there's a conversation about the arts, you know, that's the first thing they cut at school, when the budgets gonna look, but art is what makes your mind think what creates it's what creates imagination, and that is what creates innovation. In our in our in humanity without the great scientific, or the Sci Fi books of HG Wells, a lot of that has come true. Yeah, we don't have a time machine yet. But there's a lot of concepts that that were laid out there that were inspired, inspired scientists, and they wanted to go and then I mean, in many of the filmmakers we spoke about today have inspired so many scientists, so many artists, so many people in the world. Art is something that needs to be preserved and needs to be protected. And even if there isn't a monetary reward right away, there's a much greater reward, which is the culture of it. And I always tell people, when I when I try to inspire filmmakers to go out and make their films, I go, you have no idea who you are going to touch, what your film your film might be seen by 10 people, but one of those 10 People might go off and make the great cinematic masterpiece or might go off and become that doctor because of the story that you're telling her or go off and save lives to change. You have no idea the power that art has in changing people's lives. And that's why I think the work that you do and Marty is doing is so so so important in the world.

Margaret Bodde 39:19
Well, I have to say that we are a small team. So I want to take a moment to give a shout out to the other three or four people who work at the foundation with me, Jennifer On is our Managing Director. She's been at the foundation for over 20 years. And she's you know, kind of a genius in many ways in terms of creating programs, creating partnerships with people who will, you know, help fund these restorations. And she's truly a partner for Marty and I and she's just an extraordinary talent. And Kristin Merola who's Our program manager, who is just, you know, again, just so dedicated and devoted to film and cinema, and is just is no one who can keep more things in the air at the same time. She's terrific. And my colleague here in New York, Rebecca Wingull, who's actually moving on to grad school, we're sad to see her go, but she's been with the foundation for six years. So we're kind of a very small and kind of dedicated group that, you know, we're lean and mean, we make a lot happen. So I want to give a shout out to my colleagues at the foundation,

Alex Ferrari 40:38
Absolutely no question about it. Now, I have a question. A few questions I want to ask you that are kind of the nitty gritty of of actually film restoration. So we've talked about the ideas and the concepts and the love about it. But how long does it take to restore a film?

Margaret Bodde 40:53
Well, it varies depending on the condition of the materials, the length of the film, the type of of workflow that you decide. The first, the first thing you want to ask is like, Is this is this the original negative is this the best element to work from? If it's if the original negative is damaged, if it doesn't exist, if it's missing reels, that time to track down, and to kind of bring together all the best surviving elements for a film can be very time consuming, but it's really crucial, because you don't want to spend resources and time preserving something that you think is the best element. And then oh, you know, this archive in you know, in Germany, they have this whole film, and it's, it's a better element than what you're working from. So this consortium of archives, in under this group called FIAF, the International Federation of film archivists, they're really crucial in this process, the archives will do these calls around to the world to make sure that they've working from the best, the best material, so it's a, there's a long way of saying, it can take a long time. However, if you have an original camera negative, that's an, you know, really good or decent condition. And you know, that you're going to do either a photochemical preservation or a digital restoration. You know, it can be, it can be as short as, you know, two to four months, you know, if you can really focus on that, and if the if the, if you don't have to track down materials, if you don't have to do a lot of physical repair, and manual work on on the film itself. We've worked on projects that take 10 years. Wow. And that 10 year timeframe, is from the time that someone first starts talking to you about hey, and in this instance, I'll tell you what the project was one of Marty's oldest dearest friends, J. Cox, every time I would say, j, and he's a renowned writer, he would say to me, we got to save the memory of justice. It's this Marcel Ophuls. Four and a half, documentary on Nuremberg, Vietnam, and the French Algerian War, it's a masterpiece, we have to save it, no one can see it. So from that investigation, right, you have to then find out in the instance of this project, it was a subject of various lawsuits. It was, you know, bought and sold. There was only a 16 millimeter print at the New York Public Library. And so we had to do tracking down finding, you know, the original 16 millimeter was was made on 16 millimeter 16 millimeter negative. In this instance, we had to, which is one of the only times the film Foundation has ever had to do this. We had to go back because it's a documentary. And it had like 380 cues of clips, music, we had to go back and re license Oh, that material and scan the 16 millimeter negative, do all the work involved in restoring a film of that length. Then, we found the original German, French and French language tracks. And at the time the film was made, it was you know, in the 1970s, mid 70s. It was common, a common stylistic decision in documentaries, where you would to kind of put the original language track down or take it out entirely and have a very staid British, you know, voiceover

Alex Ferrari 45:09
Yes, I remember.

Margaret Bodde 45:10
Yeah. So we contacted Marty contacted Marcel Ophuls, the filmmaker of the director of the film, and said, you know, we found these Lane language tracks, what would you like to do? We don't want to change anything about the film. Unless it's a directorial, you know, choice. He said, I always wanted to use the original language tracks, they made me put that VoiceOver on. So what happens when you put the original language tracks and you know, your user interviews with former Nazis, right? So you want to hear the tone of their voice, you want to hear the tone of voice that Marcel Ophuls is using to interrogate these guys. And so it's a whole different experience. So we we really look at that that was a that was a massive undertaking that the film foundation took on with the Academy Film Archive. And it brought back a work of art film, really important, monumental documentary, to the world where, you know, I don't think anyone could have seen it. And we were able to work with think Thank you Sheila Nevins at HBO. Because she loved the film, she knew of the film. And she was able the HBO licensed it. And we were able to pay for all those licenses so that audiences could see the film. Because it's an important milestone, it's an educational tool, it's a real document for for for the 20th century. So that's just one very long winded example of how long it can take to to fully restore and make a film available to audiences.

Alex Ferrari 46:55
And what is the average cost? I know that depends obviously, on the the length, but generally, the average cost of a color film a black and white film that

Margaret Bodde 47:04
Generally a black and white film is somewhere on the 50 to $80,000 range, if it's a feature, if it's a feature length film, it can be more obviously, a color film is more than that, it's usually somewhere more like, you know, 80 to $120,000, for a full feature to do a full restoration, where you're really doing frame by frame work. And again, there that's kind of a ballpark, there are outliers that are less than that, and more than that, but that's the general ballpark.

Alex Ferrari 47:41
Now, tell me about your monthly on demand screening. So you guys have just started up?

Margaret Bodde 47:46
Well, this was this is a very exciting opportunity for the foundation to to reach the audience directly. When we, when we were in the pandemic and everything was shut down. And we had our annual board meeting, the directors, we were talking about all these great festivals that we work with that had migrated online and pivoted to presenting films, virtually, and also companies like criteria channel and movie and, and great organizations and also great theaters like the film forum and Anthology Film Archives and MoMA, they all had kind of presented their offerings online. And our board said, hey, you know, we should do that, you know, once in a while, we don't need to, you know, obviously we're not, we're there's all these great organizations doing it. But we should show people what we do, and the kind of work that we that we support. And so we went to a wonderful supporter, who used to be at IBM, Jeff Schick, and is now at Oracle. And we described the challenge to him, and he worked with us, as pro bono to kind of build a site that would allow us to present once a month for 24 hours, a fully restored film, and we build around each presentation interviews with archivists, filmmakers, actors, scholars, historians, talking, contextualizing the experience for an audience and, and giving information about the restoration about the film, why the film is important to you know, any given filmmaker, how it inspired them. So we're, we're creating really kind of like, a bit of a of a festival experience online for people, you know, all over the world. Most of the time. I mean, it's it depends on film by film we have we have more or less territories available, but it's free. And you can look at it if you look at it in a live way like we start each screening at seven o'clock in your local timezone. And if you're in the US or the UK or Canada, you You can join us for a live chat if that's the way you'd like to watch films if you're seeing a film for for the second or third or fourth time or for the first time, and you just like to talk to people while you're watching a film, which is kind of anathema to some people. But you know, we have that option. And then we also have an on demand option for the majority of the people who just want to be able to watch the film either on a large laptop or on their, hopefully on their, the television that they have at home, where they can cast onto a big screen, and enjoy the film. And you know, the films, you know, look beautiful, you see the restoration. And if if you have never seen the film before, you can learn all about the film, and join in this community that we think is still really vital every month and see a wide range of films, everything from we you know, for the for the initial launch, we showed a 1945 British film called I know where I'm going. That's one of the great romantic films of all time, we showed la strada which is, you know, Fellini's masterpiece that we, you know, restored in partnership with the chinet ticket to Bologna and criterion. And, and then after that we have a wonderful double feature. Because we love our double features. It's a film noir double feature of the chase, Arthur Ripley's the chase, and Edgar almost detour. Yes, we're thrilled about about that. Because, you know, we really, we want to show as many films as possible. So it's, it's fun to be able to show some double features here and there, too.

Alex Ferrari 52:24
And now you're going to be doing this, it's a monthly it's a monthly screening, right?

Margaret Bodde 52:28
It's every second Monday of each month. Okay. Yeah, we just wanted to make it, you know, we don't have the bandwidth with our small team to be doing this, you know, you know, every day, we also have so many great partners who do do this all the time. But we did want to have, you know, an opportunity to kind of directly connect with an audience and show them the kind of work that we support, we're going to be showing films from our world cinema project, you know, films that have been, you know, made in regions where, you know, a lot of times these films are really only known in the region that they were made in like commodity and like Samba Xanga, which is a French Angolan, and go and film that was directed by Sarah Mulder. And it's, it's a wonderful film, you know, a political film that's, again, being being discovered and rediscovered because of the restoration. And, you know, we're just really thrilled to, to get a real diverse offering of films out to audiences, because, you know, film is pretty, it's rich, and it's broad in its genres and era. And we want to celebrate all of that.

Alex Ferrari 53:47
Yeah. And it's, and you're gonna be doing this every every month, moving forward every month. Yeah. Before that's, that's, that's an amazing service. I will do everything I can to get the word out to to my audience, because I think it's, it's really, really important for filmmakers to, to watch old cinema and I mean, we all know, the usual suspects we all have to watch. But discovering those the Inq bits of the world and those kinds of films that are not mainstream classics, that's where a lot of really interesting filmmakers are and voices are heard that shouldn't be seen by different generations without question. I had one one question Where do you when you when you're done restoring it now? I'm assuming you put it on celluloid archival Sell, sell the Lord and put it in a salt mine somewhere and then also digital?

Margaret Bodde 54:35
Yeah, when when when we still do photochemical preservations with some of the archives, in which case you want to make sure that the original materials and elements are held in cold storage temperature and humidity control as well as the new film elements. But it allows you know, film prints to be circulated at theaters that are still showing 35 millimeter film. And then when we have digital work Hello. And when we restore films digitally, we always have, we have a film neg negative, that's output from the digital files, and then 35 millimeter film prints made from that negative. So we always have 35 millimeter film print and a DCP available to theaters so that audiences can see they have the theaters have the option of showing either. And I think, you know, it's important for us to always now have some kind of digital element. So because that's really the way that the majority of people are going to see the film's right. So we try to kind of as long as films available, we'll be we'll be making some prints and negatives of the films that we that we help restore.

Alex Ferrari 55:49
But there's some there's some Fourcade and maybe 8k Quick times out there somewhere.

Margaret Bodde 55:55
Absolutely. Well, quick terms are probably held by the rights holders. But yeah, we put

Alex Ferrari 56:00
As archival.

Margaret Bodde 56:01
Yeah, absolutely. Well, LTO tape is usually what we're preserving. Yeah.

Alex Ferrari 56:07
Wow. Yeah, cuz I mean, again, it's you're fighting against time, time is the enemy here. It's it just, it just keeps pounding away in these elements. I mean, eventually, hopefully, there'll be a hard drive that will last indefinitely. And I think that will happen one day, but knows, you know, well, about a diamond or something.

Margaret Bodde 56:27
Well, what we hear is it's going to be DNA.

Alex Ferrari 56:31
DNA. So what is that? Exactly?

Margaret Bodde 56:33
DNA storage.

Alex Ferrari 56:35
So what is DNA storage? I have no idea I've never heard that,like DNA DNA?

Margaret Bodde 56:40
You need bigger brains than mine are going to have to explain that. But you should try to get someone on the show who can talk to you about DNA storage, because that's apparently the future, not just for film preservation and film storage, obviously. But for data storage, I mean, we are creating the the amount of, of, you know, computing power needed to store all that's being created on the internet, and, you know, crypto, everything is just so massive. I think the goal and the future is to have DNA strand hold all this information. Apparently, it's exponential, the amount of material that can be held, once you once you can, you know,

Alex Ferrari 57:24
Kind of like block kind of like a blockchain mixed with the DNA kind of world. Yet, again, brains bigger than you and I will have to explain this to people.

Margaret Bodde 57:35
As smart as we are. It's beyond us.

Alex Ferrari 57:40
Right! When we because you're on the cutting edge of everything. I mean, you're talking about, it's kind of like us trying to explain to somebody in the 1900s This thing right here is really, really important.

Margaret Bodde 57:52
Yeah, exactly. We use it all day, every day, but we cannot tell you how it works.

Alex Ferrari 57:59
Right. Exactly. Exactly.

Margaret Bodde 58:01
I can tell you how a toaster works. I can't tell you how this thing works.

Alex Ferrari 58:07
Now, Margaret, I'm going to ask you a few questions. I ask all of my guests. What is the lesson that took you the longest to learn whether in the film industry or in life?

Margaret Bodde 58:26
Interesting, I feel like I'm still learning things. I'm not trying to dodge the question, but I'll tell you what I'm glad I haven't learned yet. Is the word no.

Alex Ferrari 58:36
Yes, thank you.

Margaret Bodde 58:38
I really, I can be kind of a pain in this way. But I don't feel like anything is impossible. And I try to do you know, and maybe it's because I've worked for Martin Scorsese for over 30 years, but I'd never, I never say no. I really try to make them I'm tenacious. And I think you need to be tenacious in, in, you know, roles, like I have with the film foundation, you can't give up on things, you know, how many people are gonna, like, you know, hang around for a 10 year restoration of a 1976 documentary. You know, so I'm trying to think of the less so I don't know if if you can unwind that into like the lesson.

Alex Ferrari 59:26
No, it makes it. I mean, the the lesson I think that you're learning is to not take no for an answer, which is a very, very big lesson for people to go if you can understand that. No, is the default. No, is what everyone's going to say to you most of the time, especially in the film industry. You know, I'm sure Marty I'm sure Marty can attest to that because he has been said no to so many times.

Margaret Bodde 59:51
I know and even even now, it's funny because people will say, Well, he's Martin's processor. You can you can do anything. It's like, yeah, people say You know, to him all the time. So it's like, you know, you, you really have to find ways to work around. You know, you have to you have to commit to your dream, whatever it is, if you're, you know, if you want to be an actor, if you want to be a writer, if you want to be a filmmaker, you know, you gotta believe in yourself. Because no one's gonna believe in you, unless they see it coming from you first.

Alex Ferrari 1:00:26
Absolutely. Now, I think we might have answered the question, but I'm gonna ask it anyway, what advice do you have for a filmmaker trying to break into the business today?

Margaret Bodde 1:00:37
I think this seems like an obvious bit of advice. But know your story, have a story to tell and know what that story is. And, you know, as much as you can draw deep from your own personal experiences, knowledge, you know, bring the emotion to it. And I think that's what people respond to, you know, people respond to the truth of something. And even if it's not like, Yeah, I'm not talking about documentary truth, I'm talking about something's authentic. You know, try to try to make a try to tell a story and make a film about something that matters to you. And that, you know,

Alex Ferrari 1:01:28
That's great piece of advice. And my last question, and arguably the most difficult question, you can be asked three of your favorite films of all time.

Margaret Bodde 1:01:37
Oh, wow. That is really difficult because it changes as you know,

Alex Ferrari 1:01:43
Today, I always say as of right now, what comes to your mind, tomorrow it canchange. Yesterday was different right? Now, what are the three favorite films?

Margaret Bodde 1:01:52
Um, I would say, vertigo, and this is in no particular order. I would say vertigo.

Alex Ferrari 1:02:01
So good.

Margaret Bodde 1:02:05
I would say Mean Streets. And mean, maybe my I mean, it's a hard it's a hard call, because I have so many Scorsese favorites. You know, I'm really loving 2001. You know?

Alex Ferrari 1:02:21
I mean, my favorite Kubrick. I'm a huge huge Kubrick fan. I've gone down the rabbit hole, probably a little too much with with Stanley. But I love eyes wide shot I just adore. It is not the one that everyone talks about. But for me. I just I still remember walking out of the theater in 99. And my friends are asking me, what did you think I go, I don't know. I don't understand it, but I will in 10 years. And that's generally, all of Stanley's movies, they all are understood. About a decade later, really, truly, like appreciated. And then I saw it 10 years later after I was married. And it hit me at a whole other level, because you're just like, Oh, God, I understand what he was trying to say. And it's just it's such a hypnotic film. And main streets, there is a, there's a rawness and Novolog velocity, but like this, this energy energy that a young Scorsese is making there, you know, and I've seen I've seen, who's that knocking? Or what is a good girl? What is it? doing in a place like this? Yeah, I saw that one, I've seen almost all of Marty's short films and everything. But Main Street has this raw kinetic, that's kinetic energy, that you can start seeing the seeds of what's coming. And that's what that was such a brilliant piece of work as an independent filmmaker,

Margaret Bodde 1:03:53
It's really and it's the definition of what we just talked about, of like having a story, you know, important to you, goes deep, that's like a personal you know, these people, you know, this story, I will add, one film that I that I mentioned before, is, you know, did watch Some Like It Hot, again, reasonably good. And there are, you know, how many films hold up and make you laugh so hard? Every time you see them. And over, you know, film was 1960 I think maybe, you know, however many years, you know, 70 years later, it's it's just it's a real masterpiece. And you know, I've had a real Billy Wilder re appreciation lately,

Alex Ferrari 1:04:45
I'll tell you from from my generation of filmmakers, which was coming up in the 80s and the 90s laser discs were the thing and the Criterion Collection introduced me to films. If it just came out on the Criterion Collection, I would be like, I have to watch this. So Graduates I saw I saw movies, classic movies, when there wasn't a lot of information about movies unless you were in film school. And like the lady in the mid 80s, late 80s It just wasn't there's no internet. Unless you went out and studied in books, you really couldn't know what was something you should watch. And the Criterion Collection was one of those those collections that you'd like to graduate. Okay. Some Like It Hot as I saw some like a how to LaserDisc for the first time. So that was in these in that collection, especially the early stuff. And then of course, Raging Bull taxi driver, I think Mean Streets came out afterwards. And then Lawrence of Arabia, and the list goes on and on. But yeah, there's those films. But I remember, even when I was a knucklehead in the video store days, which I was a teenager, I call myself the knucklehead because I had no taste in cinema. I was learning my tastes and cinema. Again, I was watching like, you know, Jean-Claude Van Damme films and going he is the best actor ever. But because I was, you know, 16 So of course, you know, but even then films like The Graduate films like Some Like It Hot pierce through that because it hits you at a whole other level. It's at a superficial level. And that's when I fell in love with Billy Wilder Preston, Sturges, all it's just these these filmmakers, those film like Sullivan's Travels still holds.

Margaret Bodde 1:06:18
Oh, so Well, yeah. Even more, even more. And, you know, the thing is, is it's important to know, I think that comedy is hard.

Alex Ferrari 1:06:29
And that it can last

Margaret Bodde 1:06:31
Yeah, and we think of like, oh, lighter, you know, the the critics and awards, you know, groups, I think, underestimate how hard it is to make people laugh. And,

Alex Ferrari 1:06:46
And you watch a master like Billy Wilder and something like, that's an absolute masterpiece, like it's a it's a comedic masterpiece, the timing, the characters, the writing, just that everything in the editing, it's just such a well made comedy. And then yeah, because comedy is like, oh, it's everyone's laughing. So you shouldn't take it seriously. And that's a lot like awards. And, you know, Oscars and these kind of things don't don't usually award these kind of films. But it's so hard. So hard. I've, I've worked on comedies, it's the timing, you're talking about a frame here or frame there. The joke lands or doesn't land on that frame. It's such a nuanced art form. You know, one of my favorite comedies of all time, is airplay, and, because of the lunacy, but that is another deceiving. Comedy. It is. So well, the timing of the jokes, how they did it. And you do know the story of their their god, what is when you go in a test audience, the test audience review story. So when they it was one of the worst tested films ever Paramount thought it was going to be a bomb, because nobody wanted to admit that they were laughing. Nobody wanted to admit that they enjoyed it because it was so silly. And there was really never been a film like that. That's that's true, crazy slapstick. And but then when the audience when they hit this theaters, it just exploded. But it was considered one of the worst tested films ever. Because nobody wanted to admit that they were having a good time. So it's even then.

Margaret Bodde 1:08:25
Yeah, thank goodness, they didn't like it. I mean, that launched a whole that was groundbreaking. It launched a whole new genre, genre that didn't exist before. Right.

Alex Ferrari 1:08:38
Right. And so these are, these are pieces of cinema that, you know, in the world that we live in today, Margaret, we have so much content, and so much information coming at us and with you know, I remember a time I always tell I talk filmmakers, this young filmmakers, I'm like, I remember a time where I could watch everything that came out that week. Because I was working at a video store and every movie that came out on that given week, five movies, six movies, maybe I watched them all.

Margaret Bodde 1:09:08
Yeah, that'd be a day, you could take a day and watch everything.

Alex Ferrari 1:09:11
Day or weekend and you're done. And I would watch everything. And I would be you know, that's how I got my cinema knowledge. But today's world, there is so much coming at you the content and the amount of films, the amount of television not an assignment talk about YouTube and content be created there. But just in cinema, and in television, storytelling, there's so much coming at us. You and I could spend 10 lifetimes and not watch at all it's it's insane. So it's that's why it's so important to highlight these wonderful pieces of art that you are working with, with the foundation to to bring light to because like content and cinema has become disposable in many ways where before you know, there was only three channels.

Margaret Bodde 1:10:00
Yeah, I know, I know. Well, no, Alex, it's so we're so grateful for you to, you know, be talking about this to your audience to be highlighting it. Because I think for filmmakers, this is, it probably is just this really important. I mean, nothing is more important to filmmakers than having that well to draw from, where you can go back and be inspired by a film that was made. That's part of that legacy. It's part of the continuum of the creative evolution of storytelling on film.

Alex Ferrari 1:10:34
Right, exactly. And I can't imagine a world without the filmography of of Martin Scorsese, or Stanley Kubrick, or Steven Spielberg, or Hitchcock or Kurosawa, you pull these just those those names alone, or Coppola, you pulled them out of cinema. Can you imagine the next generation of filmmakers without being able to see Mean Streets or Jaws or 2001?

Margaret Bodde 1:10:56
Yeah, I mean, nothing exists in a vacuum. And, you know, you can't have you know, you can't have, you know, fill in the blank, contemporary filmmaker, without their antecedents, you know, without without the things that came before them. Because everything it builds on it, it's music is the same way any art form, it echoes the past, then, and then create something new right now, because like, we're not, we're not mimicking the past, we're using, you know, we're kind of building on that. And, you know, using your own voice and your own story, but always having that awareness of what's come before.

Alex Ferrari 1:11:37
Margaret, it has been an absolute pleasure and honor talking to you. Thank you so much for coming on the show. And thank you, Marty, and your entire team at the Film Foundation for what you do, because it is such important work. And I'm so glad that I can in my small way help you along the way. So thank you again, and please continue the good work. You are doing God's work without question.

Margaret Bodde 1:11:56
Thank you, Alex. It's been such a pleasure. And hopefully we'll be back and talk about other restorations in the future.

IFH 601: What the Hell is the Nutshell Technique with Jill Chamberlain

Jill Chamberlain has helped thousands of writers find their stories. She has consulted on projects for major studios, for small independents, and for many, many spec screenwriters.

Jill’s Nutshell Technique for screenplay story structure has been praised throughout Hollywood. Producer Callum Greene (Star Wars Episode 9, Crimson Peak, and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug) said “the Nutshell Technique is like the Rosetta Stone: it cracks the code behind why we love the movies that we love. It goes way beyond tired old beat sheet ‘formulas’ and instead guides you to organically write the story you want to tell.”

Jill’s screenplay story structure guide, The Nutshell Technique: Crack the Secret of Successful Screenwriting, was an instant classic upon its release in 2016. Of the over 3,000 books on screenwriting on Amazon, The Nutshell Technique: Crack the Secret of Successful Screenwriting is one of the highest rated ones. It’s on the syllabus for film schools across the world including the world renowned screenwriting program at Columbia University.

Right-click here to download the MP3

Jill Chamberlin 0:00
I really need to hear that point of no return what happens at 25%? What is the big event that makes this movie this movie? And what is the climax of the movie? And if we if you don't have those figured out, the other ones kind of don't matter until we figure if we don't have a nice satisfying climax for you. Let's stop. Let's talk about this. Let's find it interesting climax for you.

Alex Ferrari 0:21
This episode is brought to you by Bulletproof Script Coverage, where screenwriters go to get their scripts read by Top Hollywood Professionals. Learn more at covermyscreenplay.com. I'd like to welcome to the show returning champion Jill Chamberlain, How you doin Jill?

Jill Chamberlin 0:37
I'm doing great. It's a pleasure to be back.

Alex Ferrari 0:40
Yes, it's been a while I mean, you last time you were on the show. Bulletproof screenwriting hadn't been created. So you were on the indie film hustle show. And it's a lot of things have changed since then, you know, your book has blown up your your shirt, you're doing workshops, you know, your business has grown a lot, you're helping a lot of screenwriters and and your episode that was on indie film, hustle is easily one of the most downloaded episodes in the history of both indie film, hustle and have bulletproof screenwriting, which is really, I was like looking at the numbers, I gotta get you back on the show. And we have video this time videos. So that's how old we were. And your book and the way your book, which is called the nutshell technique, the way you approached screenwriting, and the craft is so unique. So we're gonna get into the weeds of that. And I could say that coming from a very educated space, because I've spoken to every single screenwriting instructor guru author that exists on the planet, honestly, over the years. So I've studied every kind of technique, and yours is one of the most interesting, and people love it. Writers love it. They rave about it. So that's why I wanted to have you back on the show to kind of reintroduce a lot of the techniques that you're talking about to this audience that stopped listening to both bulletproof and indie film hustle. So before we get into the weeds, how did you get into this insanity? That is the film business of screenwriting and all that?

Jill Chamberlin 2:18
Well, I was a frustrated screenwriter, I was a screenwriter in New York City. And I did, by the way, it did not stay in screenwriting that long, I sold a couple of things. And, and I've kind of completely gone into this direction. But But when this process began, I was a frustrated screenwriter. And I was getting a note back. That was kind of like, very often it was like, why I don't understand it, why it's this character on this journey. And I had a hard time interpreting that note. Another way I would put the note or the way I interpret it now in the language I use is that I was writing a situation, not a story, which I've discovered in my work as a consultant and teacher is a chronic problem. And the, what I did was I partially as a procrastination technique, and I personally, because I just couldn't move forward, I just, I could tell that I could understand intellectually the problem I was getting by had, but no one, no one had any idea how to fix it, or to explain how to fix it. And I had benefited very good training, I went to Columbia University, I also studied with a man named duck cats in New York City, and, but I needed something that put all the important principles together. And so I started analyzing a lot of movies based on some of the things I knew, to develop a universal technique. And, you know, I watched you know, maybe I'm not gonna say I watched 1000s of movies, but I watched a good 100 movies or, you know, in some cases, rewatched, I still take notes. As I watch movies, I'm still analyzing structure. And I was finally able to create this technique that I call the nutshell technique. And the only reason I call it that is because the first time all of these eight it's eight elements that are involved fell into place. I kind of scribbled on the page screenplay in a nutshell. And so the name is kind of stuck. But but that's the idea. It's the eight interconnected elements that are required to tell a story. And it's not I want to differentiate that it's not a strictly it's not a beat sheet method. Most of the books that you're going to find on structure, that deal structure in screenwriting are have a beat sheet approach, right? They tell you you're supposed to hit 15 or 22, or however many pre prescribed beats that appear in most Hollywood movies. And I have no I have no problem with those methods. A lot of A lot of my writers use those methods in conjunction with my method, it does not conflict with my method. But the issue is that a lot of people, writers, when they use strictly a beat sheet method, just looking at moments in time, they do end up with a situation instead of a story because they don't the the principles of what the connection between the beats is not explained. And so, you know, I would say, life is a situation. Life is this happens, then this happens, then this happened, then this happened. That is not a story. Boring, right? Yeah, a story is this happens, which leads to that happening, which makes it ironic when this third thing happens, right? There's a connection between they're not just moments in, you know, episodic moments in time, there's a connection between these methods. And I'm not aware, I was not aware, I'm still not aware of any in there, by the way over 3000 books on Amazon, on the topic of screenwriting?

Alex Ferrari 6:08
No, stop it!

Jill Chamberlin 6:12
Are you aware of the numbers?

Alex Ferrari 6:14
Yeah, I've been I've interviewed a few, probably about 2900 of them.

Jill Chamberlin 6:17
Yes, yes. Right there. You know, everybody's everybody's got a book on it, it seems. And I'm not aware of any book that comes out that explains comprehensively what the connection is. And that is exactly where my problem as a writer fell. And where I find 99% of first time screenwriters who come to me, that is where their problem Falls is that they are presenting a situation, there's proof, they might have a clever idea. They may have some great elements to wit, but it's ultimately not a satisfying story, because there isn't the cause and effect that we need. And so and in my method, I have, you know, I it's not a purely linear method, it's, it's a visual method we can fix we'll see in my book. And by the way, they can everyone can download free versions of my natural technique worksheet on my website, if they go to Jill chamberlain.com/worksheets, you can download the natural technique. And there's one form for comedy structure. And by the way, we're talking about Aristotelian comedy, the academic term, I'm not talking about a haha, comedy, and tragedy. And, and using this structure, it's way easier for me to help you fix your story, if we're looking at these eight elements on a page, than if we're trying to do with over the course of 120 Page screenplay. Because we can see visually you can see what's working and not right there. Because you can see the arrows point you and say, Oh, these things don't relate. And only four of those moments are really moments in time, you know, we have your first scene, your last scene, what happens at 25%? And what happens that 75% Other than that, there are no beats, and you know defined for you the other it's so there are eight elements that make up the technique. Four of them involve moments in time, the other four are about the glue that are what link these moments, how the you know, you know, what is the character's flaw that's behind it? And how does that relate to what happens at 25%? So it's the glue that it's looking at. And that is that is what is the difference between a situation and a story. Otherwise, your protagonist is, if you don't do this, or something like this, if you don't find a way to make the journey specific to the character, you're just making your protagonist a victim, essentially. And you know, even if your character is a victim in some senses of the word, and by victim I mean, basically just ringing them shits happening to them. It shouldn't be random shit, it is you are specifically picking this character and this thing to happen to this character for a reason. The character doesn't know that. But that is what's going to produce a story.

Alex Ferrari 9:13
So that's really interesting, because I love that originally, when you start this whole thing about the note of like, why is this character going through this story? It's really an interesting way of looking at story because you're right, sometimes you look at movies and you just like, I don't I don't there's no reason that why what's going on, but when you when you have a main character who has different stakes, different things that they're trying to overcome, and the story is allowing them to evolve as a as a character as a human being. That's what you connect to. So I mean, I always go back to Josh, I always go back to Shawshank. I mean, you know, Tim Robbins ended the frame from the moment he walked in. To the moment he left are two very different people even read is different. Morgan Freeman's characters is very different. I The End took him a lot longer to get there than it took Andy. But you see this shift and it's those specific things or happened to those specific characters in that story. It wasn't just kind of like, Indiana Jones got thrown into Shawshank. Which would be an interesting would be an interesting movie.

Jill Chamberlin 10:18
But a very different one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I could speak to get specifically Angie's flaw. And that's really what the journey is right is we're trying to find the right event to bring out something in the character they've never had to face before. Right. And the thing in him that he realizes in the end is that he is he has a bit of a victim mentality. And by the end he is taking, you know, he is taking charge of his own destiny that he has to and this all of this awfulness happened to him. Yes, that's awful. And I'm sure he would prefer it hadn't happened to him. But in the end, it is a comedy and meaning a happy ending, at what because he has learned and has become out come out a stronger person, despite the less suffering that he went through, and a more fully realized person, right than the person who had been cold and not present in his marriage, and was the whole reason why his wife had strayed in the first place, as you know, coming to accept that about himself and his how he will he didn't cause her murder. He, you know, taking some responsibility there actually has made him a better person in the end. And that's really what the journey is about, right? That's not the plot description at all, you probably won't see any mention of his flaw. If you look at IMDb of the I don't think it would mention that I haven't looked. But that's what makes it work. Because otherwise you could just be a victim. Right? If he was an unflawed Angel, who, you know, he admitted nothing in the end and you just broke out. It's like, yeah, that's kind of a cool thing. But I don't really care that much. You know, I don't really care versus having someone realized, oh, I need to change. It's Yes, yes, I'm a victim of the system. But the story isn't about me being a victim, it's about me realizing I actually did stuff that I need to be a better person. And and this is getting me to face and getting a deep hit rock bottom. So you finally face it.

Alex Ferrari 12:27
But that's but a good story connects with us because it's a mirror of life. Because we all go through our own trials and tribulations, whether that be in relationships, whether that be jobs, a boss, you know, an accident, a tragedy, a trauma, all of these things that happened to us are what test our mettle and help us evolve. I am not the guy I was when I was 25. Thank God. And I'm sure you're not the same person you were when you were 25. We've evolved because of the challenges and life situations that have tested us and pushed us to a place where now we can we are who we are. And I think I can I think I can speak for you is like I wish possibly I wouldn't have gone through a lot of that stuff. But at the end, when you start looking back, you're like I am who I am. Because it's literally so I wouldn't say I really wouldn't change it. Would you? Would you rather not sure, but that's a vacation. But that's not what we're here to do. We're not here on vacation.

Jill Chamberlin 13:25
So yeah, no, absolutely. Yeah.

Alex Ferrari 13:28
Do you think that and I've asked this question a ton on the show. And I always love asking, you know, story experts like yourself. Shawshank is one of those stories that connect at such deep levels with so many people and, and always loved it. I've analyzed that film every which way. And I haven't had Frank Darabont on the show yet and I've been trying to so long because I want to talk to him about Shawshank for like, an hour's on how he like broke it all up in stinks. But the there's a connection there because I remember when I saw it I saw in 94 when it came out. And I was in the theater. I was in my early 20s And I had a bunch of knucklehead highschool friends still. And we were all knuckleheads. And we went to go see this, and we walked out and it touched all of us even through the knuckle headedness. You know that it penetrated something so deep. You know, at the time when you know, John Claude Van Damme was the best actor of all time in our eyes, you know, so we weren't very sophisticated, but it connected at a primal level. What is it about this story that connects with almost everybody who watches it? I always love why I always love looking at bad reviews. If I get a bad review on anything. I just type in Shawshank bad review and I feel better about my own work. Because if someone hated Shawshank someone's gonna hate anything.

Jill Chamberlin 14:51
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm not an expert in the movie, but a couple of things. I mean, that I can say one is the thing that I said that right that ultimately, it? And you'd have to I could, you know, especially if you're dealing with prison people wrongfully convicted, you know, we're dealing with rape, we're dealing with some very ugly, traumatic things that you're putting a character through. But again, we're putting them through it for a reason, right? It's not you know, he's a, he's a pretty nice guy, I have to say he doesn't have the most flawed flaw in my book. But ultimately, the story works because of that, if he hadn't had those if he had just been a nice guy, if he had, if he had no, then I think we wouldn't be, I don't think would have had such a visceral reaction, because you're watching someone be victimized so much, right, that we need to see that? Well, there's a reason why there's something that they learned from it. I think that's one part of it. I think it's also great because they are really following three characters. And there are three different ways that they deal with it, right, that similar journey, but three different characters and three different results. As far as read, and as far as the older gentleman whose name I forget, the senior citizen. I look, I use this character, and I use it as character intro in my class all the time, slipping or not right?

Alex Ferrari 16:23
Before the interview is over,

Jill Chamberlin 16:24
Yeah, but there are three really good journeys, right, that that complement each other to, you know, and that they mirror each other, we see, we've see how the, you know, both read and the fellow has named we can't remember, actually are in that exact same room, right and read, you know, was able to handle it on the outside. And the other guy, Brooks, thank you see, I remember the rest of his character, and Joe Brooks, the one senior citizen of the group, and the oldest resident, I remember the rest of it, right. And so, so it's dealing with all three journeys, and three different voices. And it does interesting things with the concept of the protagonist, right, that we, that red is the narrator. And they will that's typically who we think of as the protagonist. He's also I would say, arguably the one who does change the most. Because you know, from being cynical to having hope and faith, you know, from an ad it is, but it's a product of meeting Andy and the both of them change because of each other. But structurally, Andy actually is the one who makes the story. It I call it, the issue of the protagonist is a whole we could have a whole episode on that. And people, people love to question quiz me on the internet and things about, well, who is the protagonist of what, you know, this movie, because sometimes it is hard to tell. And you know, but one of the I'll tell you the easiest in there, there are a couple of criteria. But the biggest criteria is typically, who makes the climatic choice that's involved at the climax, that's generally going to be the protagonist, right? So it's Andy, who makes that what's the climax of movie is his breaking out of prison? Who makes the choice and Bob with that him, he makes that choice to make this risky move? Right. So that's usually going to point to who the protagonist is. And then there are some other factors we do look at as well. And so yeah, it's got a lot of interesting things going on it I learned I use I use say for the script. I use the character intros to this day when I teach character intros in my classes, because I, you know, the I can I can actually recite to you, the character intro for the warden. Warden Samuel Norton strolls fourth, fourth, a colorless man, in a maybe get a few words on a colorless man in a in a gray suit, with a church pin in his lapel. He looks like he could piss icewater. He, he praises the newcomers with plenty eyes. Perfect, perfect. Isn't that? Yes, it's perfect. And it's exactly right. And it is, you know, Fugo I love that you have a choice detail of the church pin that says, but that while Liam's

Alex Ferrari 19:28
Three words, three or four words, just load you up with so much information. And that's what a lot of screenwriters don't understand when they're writing is that every word they use has to have that kind of impact. I mean, Shane Black's intros or descriptions are legendary How beautifully he he's a wordsmith, the way he writes his, his, his descriptions of things I was reading was like, It's my god. It's so vivid with a sentence, a sentence. So that opening I mean you everything you You need to know about that man is going to set as opposed to four paragraphs, which a lot of first time screenwriters do.

Jill Chamberlin 20:06
Yeah, it's picking very specific details, right? It's just, you know, the church. And then then it's a little bit of the writers voice breaking the fourth wall a little bit. And to get to do that with a character, intro, and giving us a GPS. Don't be fooled by that church pin. This man is the opposite of the arc idea of Christian charity, this man is so cold, he could piss ice water, you know. So you pick one or two physical details that then you can bet are emblematic of the character. And it's a nice way to give us a heads up about the character. And it's a great way to establish your voice as a writer on the page as well.

Alex Ferrari 20:48
So So we've talked about the nutshell technique, what are those eight elements?

Jill Chamberlin 20:53
Yeah, so the, it's a schematic, I'm not going to go into the flash, a flash, this is what it looks like. That's on the camera. So there are the the obstructed moments in time is that we're we're looking at first of what I call the setup want or it's an initial want. It's not necessarily the characters biggest one. This is actually the elements that's, that confuses people the most is the want. So I wrote two chapters on that, because a lot of people get, we want lots of things in life. And there's only one want that is actually the one that comes into play, specifically, what happens at 25%. And what happens at 75%. And so it might not be their biggest want, it might not be the thing that they say they want. It's something they want. And the key is that it's connected. Remember, everything's connected, it's connected to what happens at 25%, which I call the point of no return, meaning it's an external event. And I'm sure anybody who's studied screenwriting they've dealt with, they know something happens at 25%, right, any book that you're talking about, we'll talk about that something happens at 25%. And I refer to it as the point of no return, meaning that it is a external event that happens to the protagonist. So it's not, the point of never no return is never somebody decides to do something, never, it's something happens to character, then they might decide to do something. And in that point of no return, they're going to get that want. So that's the tricky part. So it's not necessarily so a lot of times in a movie, it looks like they don't get what they want. I'm telling you, they're getting something they want it, it may not be the biggest one may not be the thing that they said that they wanted, but they're getting something they want. If you don't do that you're making your character, a victim, that the idea is what we're doing is setting up be careful what you wish for. The character asked for this, on some level, even if even if they what they asked for it in. They're gonna get it in a way that's highly ironic. So you know, they're, they get their want. But they get the third element is attached, the point of no return is the catch. The catch is an upfront problem, right? You got the thing that you wanted, but you're getting something you didn't want. And, and then I'll go through the linear and then I'll talk about to that arch. And then the next elements happen at the 75% mark. So we have other comedies or tragedies. And so it's going to be different for comedy and tragedy. But so comedy means again, I'm not talking about a haha, comedy. This, these are Aristotle's definitions. If you don't like them, blame him, look it up with him, pick it up with him. His his definition is a comedy is about a character who a hero who faces a flaw, and in the end changes and gets a happy ending. And that's the definition I'm using. And then a tragedy is going to be the opposite. It's a character who has a flaw, but they failed to change and that's going to bring their sad ending, right. So in my comedy form the we're actually going to hit a low point at the 75% Before we go back up to in the third act to the happy ending. So they're going to hit rock bottom at 75%. You know what I think Blake Schneider refers to is that all is lost moment I think and I think it's an apt way to describe it. But I would also describe it as being the opposite of where they were in the in the setup want. So that's the tricky part. Again, not every one is going to work we need a want that they get in the point of no return. It is also The opposite of what they wanted in the beginning. And then in a tragedy is going to be high point called the triumph, which is the highest moment of success. And is the also related to the one it is the ultimate manifestation of the thing that they wanted. And then the, we're gonna be followed by the chromatic choice. So the climax is the beginning of Act Three, but central to the climax is the protagonist is making a difficult choice. In a comedy, they have two kind of bad choices in the way I like to describe. So people say that a great ending is inevitable, yet unexpected.

That's a pretty tall order, by the way. That is our goal is to have an inevitable yet unexpected ending. And

Alex Ferrari 25:56
So with that said, I'll use Titanic. Okay, inevitable. But yes, some surprises in it.

Jill Chamberlin 26:03
Yes, yes. Yeah. Yeah, it happened. But yes, that, you know, that, you know, in Titanic, and I will use Titanic as my example here. Right? That is that she begins by wanting to go overboard, because she's suicidal. She's on the, on the rail there. And the I think I'm getting this, right, because, by the way, it's very hard to not show movies on command, I'm kind of I want to cheat and look at my book, because I have to watch these movies several times. It's very difficult to identify. But I believe it's in the moment when Leo rescues her, you know, she gets her want, or she wanted to go over the boat, she wants to get back on the boat, I have to cheat and look at my

Alex Ferrari 26:03
She did, she did want to get back onto the boat. And then he convinces her to get back on the boat. And then when she's about to die, because she's see trips, or stumbles, then it's like, I want to get back on the boat. So yeah, Leo does bring her back on the boat.

Jill Chamberlin 27:01
Yeah, but the one has to go overboard. The point of no return is when she actually falls over overboard. But Jack saves her. And the catch never catches attached. She got her want to go overboard, but the catch is Jack. That's the catch. Right? And by the way, the deal with Jack now Yeah, well, and that's what the story is really about is about what happens when these two people meet whatever the catch is, sets up all of act two, which is twice as long as act one or act three. Right? So it's all about what happens when this society girl who is in this arranged marriage is falling for someone who's not in her class who shouldn't be with and who, you know, can't be together. And the you know, the they actually don't hit the iceberg until the midpoint of the film. So that's actually not the primary story. And that was kind of a smart thing to do. Because we only are you. Yeah, we know the chips gonna sink that, you know, we already know that. Right? What we don't know is what's gonna happen to Rose and Jack. And so that's,

Alex Ferrari 28:07
That's the brilliance of that story. It's so like, even to this day, you go when I remember. I mean, you and I are both have similar vintage. So we both remember when Titanic came out. And everybody was like, Oh, God, Twitter. We all know it's a boat, it's gonna sink. Why are we this is a catastrophe who's gonna watch this. And then you go to see it for the first time, among many times, I went to go see it in theater. And you just look at it. And he's like, it's about Jack and Rose is so brilliant. And then the class system, there's so many layers to what James did. And that is, it's, it's truly remarkable. And you're talking about a tragic ending. If you look at Jack character, Jack changes a little bit but doesn't change a whole Jack's pretty much Jack. At the end as he was at the beginning, generally speaking, generally, rows completely different human being.

Jill Chamberlin 28:57
Yeah, so she's the actual protagonists that and that's why it's actually a comedy in my book, because her endings happy, right, we find out she's had this incredibly exciting life. She didn't end up in that arranged marriage. You know, yes, it's sad, you know, the love of her life, you know, died, but she went on to marry other people and have these exciting things happen, all because she met him, right. And he gave her the strength to learn courage to stand up to society, to not do what people are told her had she not met Jack, you know, she would have either sunk, you know, with this ship, or ended up in that arranged marriage and had this unhappy life, that would have been a tragedy. So what's unexpected and what was really smart to do with Titanic is to use this tragic event actually portray a story that's an Aristotelian comedy. And, you know, while it's sad that Jack dies, he's not the protagonist, and so But he because he is if he is a victim, you know, we can have characters who aren't the protagonists who are the victim, he is a victim. It's not his fault, the ship sank there was nothing and nothing to do with a flaw of his. That's fine. But we need a we need a protagonist who is there's a reason why they're being tested on the story, right? And she's being tested about this, which she unbeknownst to her, you know, this is going to completely change her life not so much because she's on Titanic because she meets Jack.

Alex Ferrari 30:29
Right, which is so was just so brilliant. But so continue, we continue with.

Jill Chamberlin 30:33
Yeah, so when Yeah, in that case, so the climatic choice in that one. So the crisis, for example, in that one, because it's a comedy would be actually that she wants to go back on the ship after she kind of goes off and on a couple times and goes back to get jack or something. And so she actually wants it ironically wants the opposite. She wants to go back on the ship. And then the choice the climax, right is where, you know, to to be a survivor and to save herself. Right. You know, that's so emotionally what we feel is the climax is oh, you know, Poor Leo dies. And that the the climax and chromatic choice, by the way, are are two different concepts that happen at the same time. So the most surprising moment, I think is, you know, when you know, that he's drowning, but the choice that is involved is that she chooses to save herself. So that's climatic choice. And the final step is that she, you know, throws away the the diamond, whatever that was called, because that's not you know, that's not what matters. And then the other two elements are the Florida Strength. So she started as a coward, basically, right, she's unable to stand up to her mother. And in the end, she has shown courage, right to be your own person. And, yeah, and that's what this journey got her to face. And that's what makes it a story, right, and not just a sequential events about the sinking of a famous tragedy. But that's not that interesting, right? We needed the right character, to put in that for you put could have used a different character. But this character, you know, was the choice of how to make this story. Because real life it's not a story like that, to remind people all the time because they come to come to my classes, they come to my consultancy with their own stories. And I'm not saying you can't use it, but inherently life is a situation not a story. So we're going to have to find ways to we're gonna have to find the story in there by which elements you know, we are highlighting and which elements maybe we're leaving out and some stories, some life true life stories that can't be adapted easily.

Alex Ferrari 32:54
So yeah, that was gonna ask you about that. Because that's a problem with a lot of true life stories. Sometimes you just like, it's, it might be interesting might be fascinating, but it can't it's hard to adapt those kinds of those kinds of stories. That's why I mean, I'm trying to think of I mean, there's a ton of really great life stories they've been adapted. Gandhi just for whatever reason keeps coming into my head but but there's but there are but but a lot of them are really tough.

Jill Chamberlin 33:22
Yeah. A lot of them fail a lot of biopics. Right a bore you to death.

Alex Ferrari 33:25
Right, right. Like the new the Desi the Desi and the Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball, one that aren't working did. It wasn't a bio on them. It kind of was but the way he interacted, he wrote that script, about a week in their life. And use that as the backstory to tell their story of how they came up in the background. So because it's too difficult to like, how can you tell the story? Yeah. Of Desi and Lucy. Balding in its entirety in 90 minutes. But yeah, so that's the way he did, um, Steve Jobs. He, me, he just basically took four keynotes at four different times of his life, and did scenes around it. I mean, it's pretty, pretty fascinating, but it is, yeah. What advice do you have for people who are adopting true lives?

Jill Chamberlin 34:14
Yes, yes. So to be just to be aware of the fact you are inherently dealing with a situation, not a story, that's what you're starting with? Right? Life is not a story. It's a situation so to know that going in there, that means you're gonna have to figure out, strike. That's why structure is going to be really important, you know, structure really all structure means is the events you choose to show in the order you choose to show them. That's all it means. Right? And so, you know, I was I was at a party where someone introduced me, I ran into a student who was with a famous documentary filmmaker who I will not name and she introduced me as her teacher. screenwriting teacher who wrote a book on structure. And His attitude was, to me was a little bit like, structure structure. And so I asked him, I said, you know, your documentary films, just so we understand, are they 90 minutes with the camera like on one person with no cuts at all? And he was like, No, that's not a documentary filmmaking is at all we cut to different things. I'm like, that structure. If you're cutting to different things, that structure if you're not, if you're not showing me 90 minutes of real time, you're structuring things. So that's all we're talking about with structure, right. So a documentary, if you're trying to make tell a story, and you can, by the way, use the natural technique for documentaries, I know documentaries, if you used it. Or if you're telling a real life story, as you're trying to do a biopic, you're going to need to choose the moments that are going to be involved, you're one of the other key moments is Remember, I talked about a flaw was one of the eight elements. And this is hard, a lot of people are doing stories based on themselves, you may have to make your character more flawed than you feel you were because it's not going to be that interesting to see how Koroneiki work throughout it when these incredible things happen. Because that's not a story. A story again, is that, you know, someone faces something, something happens to them, which gets them to face something in themselves. So I would advise being very willing to that you better be willing to look at yourself or whoever the subject is, in the most negative possible light, because you may have to do that. And then ultimately, some stories don't completely work with that character as the protagonist. And I have a technique I talked about in the book in the last chapter called The Secret protagonist that comes in handy for a lot of things. But it can happen with biopics because you look at someone's life, and maybe they were just a nice guy the whole time. And there's no end they there wasn't a change in, in, they didn't have a tragic ending, but they had a happy ending, that's not going to fit what we need for a satisfying story. Well, maybe there's somebody else in their life, who we can hear their story through that characters framework. And so that, and that that character can follow this pattern, because this is what we need. Ultimately, we need one character to follow either this pattern, or this pattern. Right, you know, Leo's pattern was this, that's doesn't work. That's why he's not the protagonist, right?

Alex Ferrari 37:44
And for everyone listening, you're pointing down.

Jill Chamberlin 37:47
Yeah. And the end. So sometimes you have to look to you know, if you had somebody who started happy and ended up sad, and that's the biographical figure you wanted, it's going to you're gonna have to look at other events there and and see if you can find a way to make them follow the tragic pattern perhaps, or maybe that's not going to work. And maybe you're going to have to tell it through their partner or somebody else in their life who actually was affected. That's the technique, you'll see sometimes, that the actual, you know, central figure is not actually the protagonist from a structural point of view. And let me just add protagonist is a structuring device, it really is, it doesn't mean the most important character, it doesn't mean the character who has the most lines. It's the character that fits the pattern of this, or this, either, they're either they went up, up, up, and then came down, down, down and failed to learn. Or they went down, down, down, down, and then they learned something and went up. Not everybody has to follow that pattern. But we need one character to follow that pattern, or you need to find the moments in that character story that, you know, are their life that follow that pattern to make it work. Because otherwise it's not gonna be satisfying. It's right.

Alex Ferrari 39:09
Right, so so so looking at, let's say, a person's life, and there's a meet queue of the two people like the protagonist and the their wife, let's say, in a life, there are those interesting moments where like, oh, it was, you know, there was a very adorable meet cute that happened. And it was ironic because of this. And this. Those are a couple of moments you can pull out of a real life story, and included in the story, but if you actually laid it out how long it actually took all the different things, it's boring as hell. But if you take the highlights of those things, and incorporate them in a structure that makes sense for a movie, then it works. I think that's where I feel that's where screenwriters make mistakes, is that they try to like well, it didn't happen that way. I'm like, well A Beautiful Mind did not happen to wait. Ron Howard made it that that the brilliance of that movie is they changed it for for something they say for dramatic purposes. That was because real life is even the most interesting life is if you take it, you know, an hour of a very interesting life. A lot of times is still boring. Yeah, yep. Even of course of a year of of someone's life, you're like, Oh, my God, it did so much to 1000s of hours that went through is boy, you got to cut through all of that stuff to eyeline. And that's editing that's editing a movie. You're taking our documentary, you taking 80 hours of footage, and whittling down to 90 minutes of the most interesting things that tell a story. And that's how screenwriter should approach Yeah.

Jill Chamberlin 40:50
Yeah, I also like to work backwards too, sometimes. Because it's, you know, we also need not just the meet cute, right? But the other really key moment is that climactic moment, it to me. And so, you know, a lot of times people come in, and my clients or students and they, they're proud, they filled up their nutshell form. And we kind of go through it. And by the way, I put calls, put calls, cold calls, and then and then we try to build it up the strongest. But I'll tell them, I'm not too attached to what you're saying, frankly, about the want with flaw even until I hear your climax. Because I really need to hear I really need to hear that point of no return what happens at 25%? What is the big event that makes this movie this movie? And what is the climax of the movie. And if we if you don't have those figured out, the other ones kind of don't matter until we figure if we don't have a nice satisfying climax for you. Let's stop. Let's talk about this, let's find it interesting climax for you. Because that's what everybody paid their money to see. That's, you know, so those are two incredibly important moments that the whole story rests on that if they're not, you can fill out my form correctly. But if those moments aren't, you know, powerful, then it's, it's, you know, unsatisfying and surprising, then it's no, it doesn't matter that you filled it out correctly. That, you know, we need to find, let's find you more, you know, I saw that ending coming a mile away, let's find you a third choice that we find some way to set it up so that we didn't see it, and work backwards. From there. I do that a lot of the times.

Alex Ferrari 42:28
So you need those kinds of, you know, signposts, um, two pillars, if you have those two pillars, you can connect a bunch I can

Jill Chamberlin 42:37
I can get I can make anything work if I get those two. But I know what those are. I don't really know your story.

Alex Ferrari 42:45
Right! That's, that's really interesting way of looking about it. Because, because a lot of times you like when I write I'm like, Oh, I got the beginning. And I got the ending. And then once you have those two things in your in their good satisfying enough, then you can you connect them is really intuitive. Yeah, exactly. You're just this happens. And this happens. And then he falls into a pit with snakes in it. And he's afraid of snakes. Why is he afraid of snakes? We won't find that out until the third Indiana Jones and things like that. But but we just know the two ending. So if you start looking at movies we love you know, the 25% mark, I mean, the climax and yeah,

Jill Chamberlin 43:24
I like to point out like to people, you know, who like my students, they know my book, they like my method, and I sign up a movie every week for them to watch. And nutshell, and I tell them, Don't get distracted with trying to figure out what was trying to figure out this. You want to find and it's the same thing with your stories. Let's figure out what is the big event? And what is the climax? If you were to turn to your spouse while you watch any movie and ask them what was the big event that made this movie this movie? And what was the climax? They don't know anything about structure? They haven't read my book, or, you know, watch screenwriting podcast, they would be able to answer that. We should feel those two moments in our gut. They're not intellectual. Really. I mean, ultimately, there is emotional stuff going on. Right? But it is it is a gut answer that we should feel this is the thing that changes everything, and that this movie is going to be about and this is the climax. Right? So I like to start with those first really.

Alex Ferrari 44:23
So if we can analyze some of the most popular films of all time or action currently right now

Jill Chamberlin 44:29
I'm really bad with that selling on that we'll try we'll try.

Alex Ferrari 44:32
Not necessarily but just ideas, just general ideas of why things are working. Something like endgame, the Avengers endgame the last Marvel the big the big Avengers movie.

Jill Chamberlin 44:43
Okay, is that the one with Thanos? Yeah, well, yeah, the big battle, the big battle and where he sat at the end or he stood at the end.

Alex Ferrari 44:50
That's the note when he sat well, he's dead at the end. So he dies this is the the last the last Avengers

Jill Chamberlin 44:57
That I didn't see it. Okay, so I'm the one before I can come that was done before

Alex Ferrari 45:01
The one before is sad. But the last one was I can't talk to you about because I'm gonna ruin it for you. But anyway.

Jill Chamberlin 45:09
But the one before it can take no Thanasis the protagonists. That's the interesting structure there.

Alex Ferrari 45:14
Really! Yeah, it is. Yeah. The Infinity War, the Infinity War. What Yes. Thanos is.

Jill Chamberlin 45:20
So again, not not necessarily the most important character, not necessarily the character who's on screen the most, or says the most lines. It's the one whose structure whose change or lack of change holds everything together without Thanos. There's no story. That's the story, right?

Alex Ferrari 45:38
Yeah. Because there's so many heroes, that it's almost impossible to follow. Like, you could pull out a couple of heroes from the Avengers. And the story will continue. It will change a bit.

Jill Chamberlin 45:51
Yeah, but it will continue. Yeah, you can easily Exactly. The story. Yeah. Without him and it would be it's just not even that movie.

Alex Ferrari 45:58
Right. It's, it's, it's, it's really fascinating. There was one interview I saw of you that you you talked about fat Tootsie, can you talk about can I talk about fat Tootsie? Because I love that?

Jill Chamberlin 46:08
Yes, yes, this is the ease. This is kind of the best way I know to to explain what my method is addressing when I'm talking about story versus situation is that it does require that you've seen Tootsie and sometimes people are like, Why you bring up a 40 year old movie, you know, and I'm like, Why haven't you seen Tootsie? One of the greatest movies that every screenwriter should watch. So it's such a tight screenplay to Yeah, you need you need to watch Tootsie people if you have not seen Tootsie for some reason, but I'm going to talk as if people have seen it because they should have right. So the you know, the plot. So the real Tootsie the movie Tootsie is about Michael Dorsey out of work actor gets a job on a soap opera, but he has to pretend to be a woman. And at the climax, he reveals, you know, spoiler, he pulls off his wig and reveals you know that he is a man. And the and then we get into comedy he gets in the end, he gets the girl because he's learned and he's changed. So what if I have the exact same movie to see Michael Dorsey out of work actors, our protagonist gets a part on a soap. But I'm gonna make two changes. First changes is that the part he gets is not a woman it's a part is a male character. But it's it's an obese man. It's a fictional they, you know, in this fictional soap opera world, they have an obese man who's going to be a central character. And Michael really wants this part. So he's going to get his costume or friend to make them a fat suit, and a makeup artist to make him prostheses and he's going to go in and audition and pretend he's actually fat. And he's going to get the part. And then the other changes, I'll have him tell Julie, the love interest that he's gay. And so Julie can be just as comfortable with him, as in proceeds no sexual tension, because she thinks he's a gay man. Just the same way. She felt comfortable with the Dorothy persona in the real Tootsie, right. And we have a very similar movie when you think about it. You know, it's we tend to find it funny in movies. When men are dressing up as women. We find it you know, it can be funny having a little guy like Dustin Hoffman pretending to be a big you know, a big guy. You know, when he grows to hate it. He's getting in and out of its fat suit as quick as he can before people discover him. It grows to hate it so much that live on the air, he pulls off his prostheses and his fat suit, and He reveals his little Dustin Hoffman. But that Tootsie is a situation not a story. What and what is the difference? Do you think so?

Alex Ferrari 48:54
I mean, in initially, my thoughts are you're right, the basic story blocks of the story are very similar. You know, could it be as funny? I argue that him dressing up as a woman in 1980 I think it was 82 or something like that is funnier than him being in a fat suit. So there's those but that's we're talking about really nitpicking stuff here. But the difference why is this a situation versus a story? I think it's a bigger leap. A bigger transformation for a man to dress as a woman as as opposed to dressing as up as a gay Batman. That's my initial thoughts. But I know you have the answer, Jill, so please.

Jill Chamberlin 49:42
Well, you you're in the ballpark. That the the critical difference between the two, the most important and I should set of my eight elements really the most important of the eight elements is the flaw. What is the character Central flaw because remember, that's the story. That's the story not really the external becoming, pretending to be a woman or pretending to be a fat man. That's an event that sets the story into motion. The real story is a particular person being flawed in a particular way having that event happened to them. So what in the real Tutsi is his flaw? Do you think

Alex Ferrari 50:26
I think wasn't was he a womanizer? I think? Yeah. Yeah. I think it was that right.

Jill Chamberlin 50:31
Yeah. He has a lack of respect for women. You know, he's not as egregious example as the Dabney Coleman character, in fact, that cater to that comparison, is part of how he starts to realize he's not such a great guy. You know, I think he described himself as a feminist he thinks he is. But we see right from the beginning him hit on every single woman at this party with the same stupid line, right? He's friends with the Tergar character, and works with her. But the moment he sleeps with her, he treats her terribly, right. So his central flaw of lack of respect of of women, is being tested perfectly. By putting him having him have a point of no return where he actually has to pretend to be a woman. That's the perfect test. With fat Tootsie. It is a arbitrary, it may or may not be a funny situation we're putting it in, but it has, you know, unless we give him a specific character flaw that has to do with and we could do that, right, we could give him a specific character flaw, change the character and he has a problem with, you know, he is shallow about people's appearances or maybe fat people specifically, right, we could do then you could then you could do that. But the character is I presented, you know, we're using the same Michael Dorsey as in the movie. It has nothing to do with it. Here's the thing. Yeah, 99% of writers are writing fat Tootsie. Right, they may have a clever setup, but it's got nothing to do with the protagonist. Right? That's not a story. You have to find the right journey, for the end the right character to go on that journey. That's what we're doing. And that's what I think the nutshell technique breaks down in a very clear way. And that's, you know, I like it's a visual form where you can see right there, oh, yeah, that flaw doesn't work with that catch. They have nothing to do with each other. And so you can make those adjustments to so you can find the most satisfying story

Alex Ferrari 52:34
That says it's that's that's a profound statement your most, most most most Reno's writing fantasy, because you're absolutely right. The Writing Situations, not story. And I'd argue, so wanted to go back to one of the biggest franchises in movie history, James Bond. And I always love bringing him up. Because up until Daniel Craig, James Bond never changed. never changed every movie, he was the same due to the beginning as he was at the end. It was just adventures, and it was just plot and stuff. But if you it was just basically pieces of action back of it. It was at that time in history. It made sense, but things had to change. So I'd argue that Casino Royale, which was the first time you're correct film, arguably one of the best, if not the best, maybe Skyfall. You know, is it was so so amazingly good. Because of the character that I completely agreed. Just changed slightly agree. The depth of the onions you like, Oh, this is why he womanizers Oh, this is one because he was hurt. And this in you just like for the first time you're like, Oh, this is who James Bond is. But But you go back and they're fun. You know, you go back to the Sean Connery's or the Pierce Brosnan or Roger Moore once they're fun little, but they're they're almost serialized. They're almost like, like flash forward a sonic Yeah. Yeah, they're not really deep. Yeah. And that is but but but we learned so there is no flaw in the character of James Bond. Prior to Casino Royale once Daniel Dennett all flaws, and then just did he's had these fight and every movie, he's fighting something within himself, who says it's all fair statement? Yes, absolutely.

Jill Chamberlin 54:25
I completely agree with you. Right? It completely changed with Daniel Craig, as far as going for being a situation might be entertaining, right? A lot of a lot of people, you know, we'd like to see things blow up. And we liked the clever things. And we liked the bad guys, but gadgets and the gadgets and the martini and all that and it's charming. And it can be entertaining, but I think absolutely their situations, not stories. I think it's a great example to that. One of my frustration with franchises is that I think you can do what Casino Royale did and have Both will have a story and it's you know, it's fun and spectacle right in there seems to feel like there's an either or I get frustrated. I'm not a big fan of this. Why was when you through super happy hero movies and I get so bored in superhero movies because for the most part, there's not much story to me. And I don't think you'd lose your audience. If you had a deeper story, right? The the most of the people go there to see the spectacle to see the special effects to see the climax. And that's all great. But you get gain a little bit more. And I think the James B, the Daniel Craig movies did very well, I don't think they hurt. They didn't do worse. I'm not that I'm not an expert on the box office. But I don't think they they certainly didn't decline. They were there were some of the highest grossing Yeah, right. So you get both, you're gonna get both you're not going to and there seems I feel like there's some sort of idea of like, No, we've always done it this way. And this is what people want. It's like, yeah, yeah, they're more people would want it if you actually had story and not just spectacle, and you can do both. Yes.

Alex Ferrari 56:06
Well, yeah. I mean, Dark Knight. Nolan's Dark Knight is, I mean, the whole trilogy, nearly from Batman Begins to dark night, but you look at Dark Knight and you're like, oh my god, it's a crime. It's crime movie. It's it's heat. It's basically he with a psychopath and a joker. You pull out the superhero aspect of it. It's still a fascinating crime, crime, you know, crime thriller. And then you look at something like Logan, which is the last Wolverine movie, and oh, my god, the depth in that. And then they took that to a whole other place. But again, its flaws. It's what that character what Logan is fighting is so much greater than his physical issues that he has, or that he's taking around Professor X. Who's got dementia, the most powerful person in the world with mind powers as dementia. Holy cow, what kinds? You know, I'm I love James Mangold. I think he's brilliant, and what he does as well, but it's but you're right, you can't have both. And when you do, that's when things will go which whole other level?

Jill Chamberlin 57:12
Yeah, it's whole other level. And like you said, I mean, you know, we're talking about, you know, Wolverine, it's the flaw is the story. Really, I mean, it's yes, you have some sort of external event to put it in motion. But it's really the flaw in how you know, the character's flock gets in their way. That is creating what is the story, right, otherwise, it's a situation.

Alex Ferrari 57:36
So right now the biggest movie as we as of this recording of this year's top gun, Maverick, and I was watching Top Gun, I, when I went to go see it, I was just going, Oh, my God, I mean, as perfectly as you can execute a SQL for that for Top Gun for the original Top Gun, which is spectacle, it was spectacle. But the flaw and the challenges that they threw at Maverick, having to go back and teach gooses son, and, and go through the emotional trauma and there was flaws that he was dealing with, in order to and that's what makes that work was yes, it's a spectacle. Yes, the action is amazing. But I saw grown men cry. I was one of them. Because every dad went to go see. But there was but there was something else there besides just spectacle. And that's what yeah, a lot of screenwriters don't understand.

Jill Chamberlin 58:30
Yeah. And that's what hooks us, right. That's what makes us feel that is what why we care. You know, we may be entertained by the spectacle, but you could have spectacle and emotionally engaged us and pull us in. Right. And that's going to come down to that flaw. Yeah.

Alex Ferrari 58:45
Now, I'd love to ask you this question. What do you think is the main difference between a professional screenwriter and an amateur screenwriter? Besides being sold?

Jill Chamberlin 58:55
Circumstances is it right is so

Alex Ferrari 59:00
Just the work how they're actually approaching the craft?

Jill Chamberlin 59:04
I mean, I don't know. There's so much that's outside that control as far as the business goes, right. So I'm not sure that I can say there's one thing that is different, you know, I know, I know, writers who, you know, who I've worked with, who are incredibly talented, whose scripts, I think are amazing, I can't believe aren't being produced and they're not being produced. And I work with some professional writers sometimes whose work does not impress me, I'll just say, and I treat all my clients equally, I'm here to help and I'm here to make everybody's script better. But it's not like there's something inherently better necessarily in the professional writer. I do feel a lot of it is circumstance. I think I can just describe better what's between the difference between the amateur writer who is serious or how as potential and the amateur writer who's not that I could maybe answer that, if I may answer a different question than the one you asked, you know, and I think that is the difference there, to me is somebody who's got one script, basically, they've got one script idea, it's one baby, they think that it will make, you know, 200 million at the box office, if only they can get it in the right hands. And they are, you know, they obviously don't know how the business really works. But they've got just that one baby. And that's it. Versus the writers who I think who are on the right track, are one, two, no, you can't just have one script that they're writing all the time. They're constantly writing, and that they're trying different things. And they're not just writing there they are taking, you know, Hollywood's not looking to discover people. I know, people want to think that they're not on there.

Alex Ferrari 1:00:57
They don't want they don't want unknown quantities.

Jill Chamberlin 1:00:59
They don't want exactly. There are plenty of of writers who are in the you know, in the WGA, who've had stuff done who are out of work and in, but are already known. And those are the people who are who are they're looking to for the next job, not somebody who's yet another unknown out of there. So you need to make your own opportunities is what you know. So that's, that's a big part of it is just you're not going to wait, you can't just wait to be discovered, because it's not going to happen.

Alex Ferrari 1:01:28
Right. And so everyone listening understands why that is, why don't they want this new untapped talent, because before Hollywood was about on tap talent. Now, as you know, it would be I bet I'm talking two years ago, like they were looking for new ideas to 70s. That's how Yeah, that's how the film Brad's got in if we had no idea what now, the whole town is run by fear. And I take a chance on you Jill, as an unknown writer, or me as an unknown writer. If it fails, I lose my job. And then I get and I have that on my permanent record, quote, unquote, that like, oh, yeah, they, they gave this schmuck you know, 5 million for that script, and it bombed. There, they rather be able to hire someone who has done a few things might not be as good. But if everything goes to hell, they're like, Hey, what are you talking about? He, she, she she wrote a script that, you know, won an Oscar. Yeah, it's just wasn't my fault. Basically, the way it is,

Jill Chamberlin 1:02:28
That's, that is a big part of it, you know, it is, you know, if you are not already in Hollywood insider, in, you're trying to get in, you know, you're trying to crash a party that people don't really want you in. And, and you need to be aware of that. I'm not saying don't try to crash it, but you need to be aware of that there are plenty of out of work, right. WGA writers with who have agents and managers already who can't get work. And so, and I'm not saying I'm not let me just say I'm not saying give up. I'm saying, you know, I wish more writers were just aware of how the business works, that the spec market script market is dead, you know, the spec script market is dead, you know, 30 some about 30 spec scripts get bought a year. 30 You know, how many scripts or 30 scripts are registered with the WGA every year?

Alex Ferrari 1:03:19
30 40,000 more?

Jill Chamberlin 1:03:21
Yeah. 50,000 Yeah. 50,000 So, and I'm not saying that bums people out when they hear it and but you need to be aware of the statistics and how the business works. And so stop trying to think if only I get discovered in and, you know, whine about the way the business works? Well, you know, what, that's the way the business works. And, and it's, well, some of it is about fear it also, just to give it a little bit more nuance. I mean, if you wanted to design cars, you wouldn't send to Ford Motor Company, a cocktail napkin where you have designed a, your thoughts on what the next best car design is and expect to get anywhere. Right, right. Right, right. There's uh, there are things you know, there are people who've worked very hard to get there to where they are, and they're not really probably looking for new ones. And so you have to realize you're crashing an industry and you need to try to take you know, most of the writers who I've worked with who've done well, didn't wait. They did not wait to be discovered. They tried lots of different things. I'm going to mention a couple of TV shows and I want you to tell I'm sure you can be able to tell me what they have in common. Letter Kenny Smith, Broad City, insecure. workaholics crazy ex girlfriend. They all have something very poor. in common, I know two of those shows. Okay, what are those two shows? What are those two shows have in common that you can think of

Alex Ferrari 1:05:06
I think crazy ex girlfriend, and I haven't seen them but I'm aware of them workaholics, I can't speak, I can't speak intelligently about it, because I don't know, I've never watched an episode just know of them.

Jill Chamberlin 1:05:18
Okay! What I love all these shows, by the way, what all of these shows have in common is that the Creator started by funding their own prototype. They were either web series, or they were short film that went somewhere, or they had YouTube videos,

Alex Ferrari 1:05:37
Like the like the Philadelphia was the one with Danny DeVito, that show within some Yeah,

Jill Chamberlin 1:05:42
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is a little bit different, a little bit different, because that was kind of an internal thing. These were actually they, you know, that was something that was internally distributed, I don't think that they ever distributed to the public. These were all things people put on YouTube, they said, they did not wait to be discovered, had any of these people waited for someone to discover them and fund them. I don't think a single one of the odds are incredibly slim than any, any of these things would have been made it made. And like I said, I think these are all great, great shows, and creators with great talent. And so talent alone is not people, they're not going to find you. You need to be your own protagonist and find ways to put it out in the world that you are an interesting, you have an interesting voice. That's what's unique about you. There are a gazillion writers already in Hollywood. But what what they don't have is you and your specific voice or your specific kind of humor or your specific angle. And whether that's to do a, you know, a web series or to have a Twitter presence or to have a podcast. And by the way, I don't think you should just do one thing. Most of my writers who've been successful have done many things. They did a web series, it didn't do well. They did a short film, maybe it did a little bit they did this they did that they did lots of things, if that's what you're interested in, don't just hide in your room and write scripts and enter competitions and network, you know, in LA, if that's all you're doing, the odds are really, really going to be slim. It's not impossible, it's really slim. Instead, find a way there all these you know, with internet, they're all these ways that cost virtually nothing. Where you can show the world I'm creating great content, you know, you would be very well advised to come find me, you know, versus putting ourselves as writers in the positions of please please, please hire me. What a turn off right?

Alex Ferrari 1:07:43
You're so you're so on the on the money on this because so many of us screenwriters and filmmakers are still looking at the business as if it was the 90s, the 80s and 90s, early 2000s. And the world that we live in now you actually have to take the bull by the horns and go out there. There's a movie coming out as of this recording this week, but and the interview I did is coming out next week. Marcel, the shell with the hotshoe. Hassan, I don't know if you're familiar. I am. I saw it. It's amazing. Yes. It's amazing. A 24 is releasing it. It's this thing. And I didn't know that it started off with a short film. Well, years ago.

Jill Chamberlin 1:08:24
Yeah, I didn't know they were making feature of it. But it was great. It makes sense. Yeah.

Alex Ferrari 1:08:28
Right. So they made that so that and then they did like a few years later, they did another one then Hollywood came calling and they wanted to team up with like Ryan Reynolds. And they're like, that's not what this is. So they just they released a couple of books. So they created an IP to the point where they went out and finally got the money to make the feature on their own terms, complete creative control and Final Cut. But they had this base. I mean, the first short was watched 40 million times 50 million times. So and then the second one was watch 36 million times 40 minutes. I'm like that. So they had this massive audience that they could tap into. But it was just a shell. That's a little talking of three minutes short, and it turned into this beautifully wonderful film. But there you go is and it was just to creators to just like, I got it. I'm just gonna put this out there. No masterplan, but they at least created something and they can go in and go, that is the future. That's that's the way you have to do it. And it's, it could be podcasts, it could be literally changing your screenplay into a story based podcast where an audience you could do this so many. Affordable!

Jill Chamberlin 1:09:39
Very affordable, very affordable. Yeah, but yeah, you're gonna you may have to invest a little bit, right. So people have ideas like I can't spend $1 Like one of us already had to spend $1 But like, you have to buy the mic. Yeah, you're gonna have to get the mic, you know, and put some pillows in the room and you know, and it's not that expensive, but you if you're just gonna wait to be discovered you're gonna just keep waiting until Get all the great stuff we wouldn't have today. If you know these other creators I mentioned it just been just been waiting. And you know, you're gonna have to try lots of things.

Alex Ferrari 1:10:08
Yeah, absolutely. July could talk to you for at least five hours. I know that. I'm going to ask you a few questions. I asked all of my guests. What is the lesson that took you the longest to learn whether in the film industry or in life?

Jill Chamberlin 1:10:25
You know, perfectionist, perfectionism is, is not your friend. Yeah, that's why deadlines are great. You just sometimes you just got got to get it done. And it's, it's never, nothing's ever gonna be perfect. Deadlines are great for that they actually force us like, you gotta, you know, good or bad. You got to turn it in. And you need that sometimes, because otherwise, it's a lot of people won't get anything done.

Alex Ferrari 1:10:51
What are? What are three screenplays that every screenwriter should read?

Jill Chamberlin 1:10:56
Well, the first one, I'm gonna guess many of your guests have said before because everybody knows. I think that everyone should read it. But I'll go ahead and bring it up because it's everyone should read it. The Breaking Bad pilot, I'm sure people have brought that up. Right. That's if you have perfect breaking pilot, what is wrong with you, you need to go find the Breaking Bad pilot. It is it is a must read just an excellent example of of establishing voice of the way he's able to lead our eye. And in story just is a is a masterpiece. I believe the pilot script is another pilot, it's another pilot that I really recommend my writers read is is the pilot for the leftovers, Damon Lindelof. And it's because by the way, these are the things I'm going to run back recommend I liked the scripts better than the final product. So Breaking Bad, it's a great pilot scripts even better. The Leftovers was kind of a little too dark for my taste on the screen. But on the page, it's one of the it is probably the strongest example I've seen a voice of just out there voice of the end. And I think it's helpful for writers to see how far you can go and you know, there are a lot of moments where he stops and says You described something and then says what the fuck it like literally says that in the in the scene description. You know, this happens What the fuck? Right? He's commenting on us and keep in keeping us engaged in that story. And I think that's a really good example for writers, especially ones who are been taught you only write what's seen and heard and to understand what that really means. And the last one is is another one I'd like the it's for voice is big fish. John August. Again, it's the script I like better than the movie I think the script he just is great with vapes in the way he delights us that's what that's the word I like to use a good good voice is kind of Oh, I I didn't have to have that described that way but it delights I'm readers are human we want to be pulled along. And you know voice is one of the hardest things to teach. That's something you really have to practice to to learn. So that's why like, the primary reason I like those scripts are I think are just excellent examples of writers with really strong voice.

Alex Ferrari 1:13:25
And where can people find out more about you your work your workshops, where they can get the book and so much more?

Jill Chamberlin 1:13:30
Yeah, so my book is The Nutshell Technique: Crack the secret of successful screenwriting is on Amazon and all you know, basically all the places you buy the books. It is I don't know if anyone is able to do it, but it is available also in Italian, Korean, Mandarin Chinese is coming out soon. And there's an audiobook version. I'd recommend getting the paper back because the paperback has, has nice big diagrams. It's a larger format book, it's easier to see that. So I teach classes on Zoom, and my screenwriting school is the website is thescreenplayworkshop.org. And I have 10 week classes where you write a feature film or a TV, TV pilot. I have a special class going right on right now. That's actually only for alumni that I just want to mention because it's really unique where we are a TV writers room. It's called TV writers room. People pitch ideas for new series and one idea is chosen and the whole class. Everybody writes an episode of a season the new show, it's really one of the only classes like that. You have to be an alumni though. That's the one class you can't just sign up for my other classes all levels take them beginners to me winning screenwriters take my classes. And then to find out more about my script consultation, you can go to Jillchamberlain.com. And that's also where you can find the free worksheets that I mentioned.

Alex Ferrari 1:15:03
That's awesome. And I advise everyone listening to go check your stuff out you, you have a really unique way of looking at story. And again, again, I've become an expert on looking at stories from so many different angles over the years. And years is really one of the best. So Jill, thank you so much for coming on the show. You're welcome back anytime to talk shop. But I appreciate you. Thanks again for coming back.

Jill Chamberlin 1:15:25
Thank you. It's my pleasure. It was great fun to see you again.

LINKS

SPONSORS

  1. Jambox.io – Royalty Free Music for Indie Films – 20% OFF (Coupon Code: HUSTLE20)
  2. Bulletproof Script Coverage– Get Your Screenplay Read by Hollywood Professionals
  3. Enigma Elements – Cinematic Tools & Assets for Serious Filmmakers
  4. Audible – Get a Free Filmmaking or Screenwriting Audiobook

Paul Thomas Anderson’s Micro-Budget Short Film: Cigarettes & Coffee

Cigarettes & Coffee is a 1993 short film written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, starring Philip Baker Hall. It tells the story of five people connected through a twenty-dollar bill. The film helped launch the career of Anderson and was used as a basis for his first feature film, Hard Eight.

This is the short film P.T.Anderson directed back in 1992 (shot on a borrowed camera), which used the money he saved from dropping out of NYU film school to help fund it.

Paul Thomas Anderson: The Complete Guide To His Films & Techniques

Download Paul Thomas Anderson’s Screenplay Collection in PDF

SHORTCODE - SHORTS

Want to watch more short films by legendary filmmakers?

Our collection has short films by Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, Steven Spielberg & more.

Ultimate Guide To The Coen Brothers And Their Directing Techniques


BLOOD SIMPLE (1984)

My first experience with a Coen Brothers film was 1998’s THE BIG LEBOWSKI.  I must have been somewhere around 17 or 18 at the time, and when I saw it, the film itself had already been out for five or so years.  When my longtime friend heard that I had never seen the film, he immediately went home and brought back his worn DVD copy.

Watching the film, I was struck by the sheer originality and audaciousness of the storytelling.  I knew that the film had a cult following, but I was totally unprepared for the sheer, batshit-craziness of it all.  It was a hell of a cinematic introduction.

Long hailed as two of the finest contemporary directors, Joel and Ethan Coen have carved out a formidable niche for themselves in the world of cinema.  Their works are exercises in dichotomy– oftentimes dark and heavy subject matter approached from a wry, comic viewpoint.

This approach has given the Coen Brothers one of the most original voices in filmmaking, and each film has managed to accumulate its own dedicated cult of followers.  They often credit their sardonic, intellectually-oriented worldview to their Jewish upbringing in the suburbs outside of Minneapolis, Minnesota by parents who both worked in collegiate academia.

Their mother, Erna, was an art historian at St. Cloud State University while their father served as an economist at the University of Minnesota.  Joel arrived first, in 1954, and Ethan followed three years later, in 1957.

Their childhood in the St. Louis Park area, an enclave for Jews and Russians in an otherwise-predominantly Christian state, gave the two brothers something of an outsider’s point of view towards life as well as their art– indeed, their best work often assumes the vantage point of a protagonist at odds against his environment.

The duo is famously averse to critical analysis of their work… they take every opportunity to take the piss out of critics and analysts who assign any of their films with a “deeper meaning”.  They no doubt would be quick to dismiss this very video series as a frivolous waste of time; an ill-advised attempt to interpret a filmography that actively defies interpretation.

Nevertheless, the Coens are a major force in American independent film, and their work is very much worth the risk of coming across like a pompous intellectual if it will bring some valuable insight as to to their cinematic legacy.

The Coens became enamored with filmmaking at an early age, making their own homegrown Super8mm movies with neighborhood friends and a camera they bought using their savings from mowing neighbors’ lawns.

Their droll sense of humor, by now their stylistic signature and a major aspect of their cultural appeal, was apparent even at the beginning, judging by such humorously idiosyncratic titles as HENRY KISSINGER, MAN ON THE GO and ZEIMERS IN ZAMBIA.

Upon completing high school, both Joel and Ethan went on to study at Bard College in Massachusetts. From there, Ethan went on to Princeton, while Joel went to New York University and made the short film SOUNDINGS– a project that marked the beginning of a serious pursuit of professional filmmaking.

After graduation, Joel found work as a production assistant on various industrial films and music videos, working his way deeper into the industry until he landed a gig as an assistant editor on a feature film for an enterprising young director.  That director was Sam Raimi.  The film was 1981’s iconic cult hit, THE EVIL DEAD.

Raimi proved an invaluable ally when it came time for the Coens to develop their own feature, a violent western / neo-noir hybrid titled BLOOD SIMPLE.  The title came from a term coined by novelist Dashiell Hammett, used to describe the addled and fearful mindset people are prone to fall into after becoming involved in a violent situation.

The Coens’ felt it a fitting title to bestow on their inky crime thriller about the fatal consequences of infidelity and miscommunication, whose tone took a page from the Raimi playbook by blending lurid pulp and violence with touches of sardonic humor.

The existence of BLOOD SIMPLE. owes a lot to Raimi’s mentorship– in the absence of any connections to studio money, Raimi convinced Joel and Ethan to create a two-minute pitch trailer for the film, featuring THE EVIL DEAD star Bruce Campbell as a man pulling his bloody and broken body along a desolate stretch of highway.

The Coens’ then went door to door, showing neighbors their pitch trailer in the comfort of their own homes, and within a year, they had raised roughly half of their $1.5 million budget– enough to begin production.  In the fall of 1982, Joel and Ethan began production of their first feature film, shooting in the Austin and Hutto areas of Texas over the ensuing eight weeks.

BLOOD SIMPLE. illustrates a signature Coen storytelling trope, whereby they take a basic story and layer in a series of plot twists and genre homages to create a wholly original work.  While the film’s story story is morbid and dark, the brothers openly acknowledge the sheer absurdity of their scenario and their characters without playing them for laughs.

So too does the cast, who wholly embrace the material and make it even funnier with their convincing, stone-faced performances.  For the central role of Abby, the housewife whose affair with her husband’s employee kicks off a series of violent turns, the Coens initially wanted Holly Hunter.  She wasn’t available, but she knew someone who could knock it out of the park: her roommate, Frances McDormand.

If only the Coens could have known then how profoundly this fateful little development would shape their professional and personal lives.  Not only would her debut performance here mark the beginning of a highly-accomplished acting career, it would also lead directly to her marriage to Joel in 1984.

McDormand’s performance in BLOOD SIMPLE. is a highly memorable one, with a relaxed femininity and syrupy Texan drawl belying a cunning intelligence and a superhuman ability to keep it together under extreme stress.  Her character goes against the grain of the era’s gender archetypes, and her razor-tense showdown with M. Emmet Walsh’s antagonist character at the film’s climax serves as a great showpiece for the salty courage and determination that McDormand can convey.

As Abby’s lover and aimless barkeep, Ray, John Getz doesn’t get a lot to say, but his soulful eyes speak volumes about the character.  The opposite goes for Dan Hedaya, who chews up every scene he’s in as Julian Marty– an oily, vindictive man who isn’t afraid to get his own hands dirty.

Hedaya is an interesting casting choice, as his physicality seems to lend itself more towards East Coast gangster pictures instead of cowboy neo-noirs, but his casting here echoes the fish-out-of-water sentiments no doubt felt by his directors, a pair of Jewish filmmakers from Minnesota immersing themselves in the country western landscape of deep Texas.

As Visser, the film’s chief antagonist , the aforementioned Walsh strikes at once both a formidable and genial presence.  He’s clearly having the time of his life with his jolly, plump cowboy shtick– a characterization that’s rendered chilling by his relentless malevolence in the third act.  There’s a reason that Walsh is featured in the film’s promotional material above everyone else– his performance sears its way into your brain.

To create the film’s uncompromising look and carefully-balanced tone, the Coens turned to Director of Photography Barry Sonnenfeld, who would later go on to become a director in his own right.  As the legend goes, Joel had met Sonnenfeld during a party, having hit it off quite nicely after discovering they were the only two Jewish people in attendance.

Shooting on 35mm film, Sonnenfeld fills the 1.85:1 frame with warm, strong colors, inky blackness, the lurid glow of neon on a hot desert night, and shocking geysers of crimson blood.

The Coens’ knack for strong imagery is already apparent here, regularly showcasing memorable images that wordlessly reinforce the narrative themes, like the final shot showing Emmet’s dying perspective of the underside of a bathroom sink, light streaming through bullet holes in the wall, or even pools of blood seeping up through a towel hastily thrown over the backseat of a car.

For the most part, the Coens use classical camera movements like dollies and cranes to tell their story. However, these tried-and-true techniques are also used in some instances to convey their subtle sense of humor.  One memorable instance finds a dolly shot moving across the top of the bar, towards a drunk man who has fallen asleep and threatens to block the camera’s forward movement.

Instead of cutting, the Coens simply… pop the camera up over him and continue along as if nothing ever happened.  This visual inventiveness extends to several creative transition shots, like the one where a camera swings around as McDormand goes from a standing position in the bar to her lying asleep in her bed several miles away, all captured within a single unbroken shot.

Raimi’s influence is even further felt in a handheld shot that races in on the characters at breakneck speed, a technique used quite extensively by Raimi himself in THE EVIL DEAD. Beginning with BLOOD SIMPLE., the Coens also perform the editing themselves under a fictional pseudonym, Roderick Jaynes.

It’s a true testament to the their utter mastery of the craft when they can perform the writing, directing and cutting of a picture without compromising the quality of any part of the process.

The score, composed by Carter Burwell in his first feature-length effort, is appropriately pulpy and lurid. An ominously-spare piano theme is complemented by an electronic synth texture that buzzes with sharpness and malice, while also paying homage to the 70’s slasher thriller sounds pioneered by the likes of John Carpenter.

The exaggerated audio motif of a swirling ceiling fan gives the film’s sonic landscape a rhythmically percussive flavor that draws out our sense of suspense and intrigue.  An inspired mix of country, R&B, and Spanish folk music fills out BLOOD SIMPLE.’s soundtrack and reflects the diverse, multicultural landscape of rural Texas.

The Coens’ lifelong fascination with the traditions of American music is modestly referenced for the first time in their work, with the Four Tops’ hit track “It’s The Same Old Song” featuring prominently over several scenes.

There’s a few other “classical Coen tropes” of note, some of which make their first appearance in BLOOD SIMPLE.  There’s the moody prologue, set to long shots of the empty landscape while a low-key voiceover in a strong regional dialect muses about the setting and the film’s themes. Many Coen films start this way, a technique that’s no doubt influenced by Billy Wilder’s similar incorporation of the device throughout his own filmography.

BLOOD SIMPLE. also introduces the Coens’ penchant for positioning their protagonists as middle class men and women; common folk who are able to provide a street-level view of the action and sit comfortably between the desperation of poverty and the complacency of wealth while observing and commenting on the absurdities of either station.

This conceit manifests visually via the iconography of Americana– BLOOD SIMPLE. prominently features images of uniquely American brands like Converse sneakers, Miller High Life beer, and Cadillac cruisers. Despite the film’s self-seriousness, the Coens indulge every opportunity to playfully subvert our genre expectations.

The recurring image of fish rotting on a desk while hiding Visser’s easily identifiable and forgotten lighter is about as literal as red herrings come.  BLOOD SIMPLE. plays like an early version of the Coens’ Oscar-winning masterpiece, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN— both films are sparse on dialogue, and heavy on atmosphere.

Some of BLOOD SIMPLE.’s most memorable sequences, such as the infamous “live burial” scene, contain no dialogue whatsoever.  Beyond the tone and the  rural Texas setting, the similarities include the use of sound effects as a suspense-generating device, or the sudden, premature death of the male protagonist.

Both are brooding crime dramas, although NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN enjoys the benefits of nearly two decades of professional filmmaking experience and sells its seriousness quite readily.  The grit of BLOOD SIMPLE., on the other hand, feels slightly forced… Almost over-compensatory.
That being said, BLOOD SIMPLE. is still an extremely effective thriller and a striking debut film, made all the more special by the careers that the Coens have cultivated for themselves in the years since.

The finished film was turned down by every major Hollywood studio, but it proved to be a big hit on the festival circuit, taking home the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance and winning Best Director and Best Male Lead categories at the Independent Spirit Awards.

After its selection into the New York Film Festival, the Coens inked a deal with Circle Films to distribute the film around the US.  The small box office returns were to be expected, but the Coens most likely did not anticipate how much the film would resonate with critics.

BLOOD SIMPLE. has enjoyed a particularly healthy after-market life, with a retooled director’s cut premiering at the 1998 Austin Film Festival to wide acclaim, and a full restoration being performed in 2015.  Typical of the Coens’ preternatural ability to defy expectation, their director’s cut actually clocks in at three minutes shorter than their original version, thanks to tighter edits and some shots that were dropped altogether.

With BLOOD SIMPLE., the Coens had established themselves as a formidable new force in the realm of independent cinema.


RAISING ARIZONA (1987)

For their follow-up, the Coens approached Circle Films with a long-gestating script of theirs titled “The Hudsucker Proxy”.  The anticipated budget proved too high for Circle to reasonably cover, however, so the Coens turned their attention to a much smaller and more realistic idea.  Influenced by the madcap capers of Preston Sturges, they wanted their second feature to be almost the polar opposite of BLOOD SIMPLE.’s moody tone–in other words, they wanted to make a zany, live-action cartoon that would illustrate the comedic side of their artistic identity.

Armed with a significantly higher budget than their last go-round (about $5 million), the Coens ventured back out into the high deserts of the American southwest for a 10-week shoot that would result in 1987’s RAISING ARIZONA.  Well aware of the phenomenon of “the sophomore slump”, the Coens poured as much style, energy, and pure eye candy as they could into their second large-scale effort, and would come out the other end with a divisive heist comedy that demonstrated the sheer breadth of their directorial range.

Thanks to the critical success of BLOOD SIMPLE., the Coens were able to secure an eclectic group of fairly well-known faces for RAISING ARIZONA.  With his ridiculous mutton-chops and meth-head stare, a young Nicolas Cage is perfectly cast as career screw-up H.I. McDonnough.  Cage has acquired something of a reputation as a problem collaborator, but there’s no denying his actions come from a place of unbridled passion and eccentric conviction.

The Coens reportedly had a tense, yet respectful, working relationship with Cage, who would grow frustrated when they declined to consider the various ideas he kept bringing to the table.  The role of H.I.’s wife, a sweet police officer named Edwina, was written specifically for Holly Hunter, who finally made herself available to work with the Coens after turning them down for BLOOD SIMPLE.

She’s a great foil for Cage, with a reserved nature that helps keep the film grounded and makes her eventual breakdown into hysterics even funnier.  Together, this oddball pair transforms into a couple of folk heroes, out to right what they perceive to the natural injustices of the world– like, say, the local furniture tycoon’s wife giving birth to quintuplets when she herself can’t bear any.

John Goodman is a common fixture throughout the Coens’ work, and he makes his first appearance in their filmography here as Gale Snoats, an old friend of H.I.’s who has sprung himself out prison along with his younger brother Evelle, played by William Forsythe.  Together, these two serve up as much trouble for our two leads as they do laughter for the audience.

Randall “Tex” Cobb plays a wild bounty hunter named Leonard Smalls, or to put it another way, The Lone Horseman Of The Apocalypse.  Looking like he’s just walked off the set of THE ROAD WARRIOR, Cobb is a fierce presence that puts the fear of God in people’s hearts as he tears through the desert on his chopper.

The character is cartoonishly over-the-top, all fire and brimstone, but he works well within the film because he’s meant to be a manifestation of McDonnough’s own outlandish imagination.  A few familiar faces from BLOOD SIMPLE. return, albeit in smaller cameo roles.  Frances McDormand shows up briefly as Dot, a chatty friend of Ed’s with a plentiful supply of overbearing motherly advice.

M. Emmett Walsh also appears as a fellow worker at the steel drilling plant where H.I. is employed.  His face may be covered in grime, but that unmistakable laugh of his cuts through the clutter of noisy machinery like a laser.  The characters’ florid dialogue style marks a stark departure from the gruff spareness of BLOOD SIMPLE., which was engineered by the Coens to be a mix of the local Arizonian dialect and the particular language tics they’d absorb from their reading material– namely, magazines and the Bible.

The Coens re-team with Barry Sonnenfeld to create a distinctly different look for RAISING ARIZONA, which speaks to their ability to handle diverse visual styles and camerawork.  Whereas BLOOD SIMPLE. was all pervading darkness and wells of concentrated light, RAISING ARIZONA’s 1.85:1 35mm film image is brightly lit and obscenely saturated with color like a Tex Avery cartoon.

The brothers frame the action much wider this time around, with a deep focus that highlights an exaggerated theatricality to returning production designer Jane Mursky’s sets.  The camerawork is exceedingly more dynamic than BLOOD SIMPLE.’s, showcasing the Coens’ technical dexterity and brilliance via sweeping crane and dolly shots and frenetic action sequences laced with slapstick humor.

The influence of Sam Raimi is further felt in RAISING ARIZONA through a small number of shots that adopt an EVIL DEAD-style perspective, wherein the camera rushes at breakneck speed towards a target, jumping and gliding over many obstacles along the way.  Interestingly enough, RAISING ARIZONA is one of the few Coen films that the brothers did not edit themselves, instead handing off that particular honor to Michael R. Miller.

Carter Burwell returns to provide the score, a folksy theme comprised of banjos, whistles, and full-throated yodels.  It perfectly complements both the absurd nature of the story as well as the redneck qualities of its characters.  Pieces of Beethoven’s classical works also dot the film and provide an ironic, high-class counterpoint to the proceedings.

Several thematic ideas and images that the Coens established with BLOOD SIMPLE. can also be found in RAISING ARIZONA, further coalescing their particular aesthetic into its own highly identifiable and contained universe.  The film takes place decidedly within Middle America, in a vast expanse of desert that the coastal elite would know as “flyover country”.

The protagonists are, for lack of a better term, trailer trash, and their aspirations reach only as high as creating a smsll family for themselves.  McDonnough is an outsider in his own environment, deemed unfit by the government to adopt a baby because of his expansive prison record.  There’s no struggle between the rich and the poor here; everyone is more or less on the same socioeconomic level.  Even the local business tycoon derives his modest wealth from a decidedly unglamorous market: unpainted furniture.

Convenience stores, trailer homes, references to the Bible, and even tattooed images of The Road Runner contribute to the Coen’s growing portfolio of Americana-inspired imagery while giving the film a unique visual identity all its own.

RAISING ARIZONA screened out of competition at the Cannes Film Festival, marking the Coens’ debut on the world stage.  It secured studio distribution from Warner Brothers, thus bringing the brothers to the attention of the moviegoing public beyond just the indie community.  The film received mixed reviews, with some critics turned off by the abrupt tonal reversal from BLOOD SIMPLE.

However, RAISING ARIZONA has persisted through the years, slowly accumulating a loyal cult following typical of the brothers’ other lesser-known works.  There’s no denying that the film is wildly entertaining– the cast and crew are clearly having so much fun with the material that it’s impossible to not get swept away in their infectious enthusiasm.

As to the film’s actual quality, it has many flaws inherent in the subject matter and approach– albeit the brothers Coen make a full-throated attempt to transcend these flaws at every opportunity.  For that reason, the film has aged much better than it has any right to.  The fact that it has cultivated a small but dedicated following also speaks to the film’s understated strengths.

All told, RAISING ARIZONA– while it doesn’t quite deliver on the promise of BLOOD SIMPLE– is a strong entry in the Coens’ canon, and its distinctive tone and energy is a benchmark for all those who might follow in those wild footsteps.


MILLER’S CROSSING (1990)

The Coens’ third feature film, MILLER’S CROSSING, would up the ante in nearly every department to become their most ambitious film to date. Their infamously labyrinthine gangland tale about shifting loyalties and reckless violence pulled inspiration from a variety of sources like Akira Kurosawa’s YOJIMBO (1961), Sergio Leone’s A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (1964), and the Dashiel Hammett novels “Red Harvest” and “The Glass Key” (Hammett, if you’ll remember, was the writer who coined the phrase “blood simple”, which the Coens appropriated as the title for their debut feature).

Indeed, the plot is so complicated that during the scripting process, Joel and Ethan managed to write themselves into a corner. To break through their writer’s block, they did what so many writers find it unbearable to do: they walked away. They embarked instead on a diversionary project called “Barton Fink”, which we’ll get back to in a moment. This action served as something of a palette cleanser, allowing Joel and Ethan to return to the writing of MILLER’S CROSSING with a fresh eye.

Joel and Ethan also produced the film, which shot in New Orleans on a $10­14 million dollar budget. MILLER’S CROSSING is set in an unspecified American city circa 1929, and the Coens specifically chose New Orleans for its untouched Jazz­age architecture.

Mirroring the dark, subtly­humorous tone of BLOOD SIMPLE., MILLER’S CROSSING derives a great deal of sly comedy from the over­serious and impassioned performances of its cast. Gabriel Byrne plays the primary antagonist Tom Reagan, a brutish enforcer to Albert Finney’s Irish mob boss Leo O’Bannon.

His unconventional Everyman physicality makes for an ambiguous hero­­ his dark eyes cloud his intentions, and we can never quite tell if he’s angry, sad, or drunk (most of the time it’s a combination of the three). Leo’s existing friendship with Reagan makes for a compellingly conflicted antagonist­­ a tough, lively son of a bitch who’s given a real chance to shine during a masterfully­ orchestrated home invasion sequence.

To add to their already­-conflicted business relationship, both men are romantically entangled with Marcia Gay Harden’s slinky femme fatale character, Verna Bernbaum.

Like their cinematic peers Paul Thomas Anderson or Wes Anderson, part of the Coens’ distinct directorial stamp is the continuing cultivation of a small repertory of performers. This electric group already included Joel’s wife, Frances McDormand, who makes a small cameo here as the Mayor’s secretary, and John Goodman, who played a supporting role in their previous film RAISING ARIZONA (1987).

MILLER’S CROSSING is notable within Joel and Ethan’s filmography in that it marks the addition of three new faces into this select group: John Turturro, Steve Buscemi, and Jon Polito. In finding the inspiration for Verna’s oily, neurotic brother, Bernie Bernbaum, Turturro reportedly looked to cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld.

His role is fairly small here, but his performance garnered some of the highest praise of his career, and set the stage for his starring turn in the Coens next project. Buscemi’s role is even smaller, amounting to little more than a cameo, but the combination of his unmistakable facial features and motormouth dialogue delivery makes for an appearance that lingers in the mind.

As rival Italian crime boss Johnny Caspar, Polito is one of the most dynamic presences in the film, delivering an in­your­face performance that all but leaves spit on the lens. Finally, the Coens’ filmmaking mentor and colleague Sam Raimi appears as a fresh­faced lawman who can wield dual pistols with proficiency

For their third and final collaboration, the Coens and cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld have created a darkly handsome 35mm film image. The 1.85:1 aspect ratio frame is filled with evocative lighting, moody contrast, and natural colors that draw from a tobacco palette of earth tones. Being a film with Irish protagonists, the color green is extremely prominent throughout (appearing in the opening titles, wall sconces, desk lamps etc.).

While the camerawork of their previous film resembled a zany Tex Avery cartoon, the Coens and Sonnenfeld shoot MILLER’S CROSSINGrelatively sedately, with glacially­paced dolly moves that echo common techniques of cinema from the era. Despite the austere nature of the film’s cinematography, the Coens still incorporate select bursts of kinetic playfulness, like handheld camerawork during a fistfight, or the Sam Raimi­patented camera POV move that flies towards its subject at breakneck speed.

Dennis Gassner, a recurring production designer for the Coens who makes his first contribution to their filmography here, fills the frame with authentic period detail that never feels out of place or anachronistic. Little touches, like period­appropriate fedora hats, are given an unusual amount of attention– indeed, closeups of Reagan’s fedora hat become something of a prominent visual motif throughout the film. RAISING ARIZONA’s editor, Michael R. Miller, returns to bring a punchy rhythm and pace to an otherwise slow­moving presentation.

While the phrase “Miller’s Crossing” understandably refers to the woods in which these gangland executions are carried out, an obscure piece of Coen trivia maintains that the title also refers to Michael Miller himself. There doesn’t appear to be a particular reason why, but it adds yet another in­joke to a long line of sly references the Coens have packed into their body of work.

For the score, the Coens bring back Carter Burwell, who fashions a waltzy, whimsical score that reflects the Irish heritage of the film’s characters while also bestowing a sense of place and time to the proceedings. A number of Irish folks songs also make an appearance, with “Danny Boy” being a musical highlight that pulls double duty as as an ironic counterpoint and a bombastic directorial flourish during the aforementioned home invasion sequence with Albert Finney’s character.

As they did in their two previous films, The Coens subvert our genre expectations at every turn, imbuing a somber gangland narrative with touches of cartoonish absurdity. Gunfire erupts with the staccato urgency of a Sam Peckinpah film and the bottomless magazines of an arcade shooter, while the characters walk around with an almost­meta sense of self awareness.

Even the opening sequence plays like a bizarro alternate reality where Francis Ford Coppola lost out the director’s chair on THE GODFATHER (1972) to Billy Wilder. The film’s narrative structure reinforces the Coens’ predilection for positioning their common­man protagonists against their own environment, painting Byrne’s protagonists as a feared (but barely respected) mid­level enforcer who lashes out against the power systems and social values of organized crime.

In what could be considered an additional nod to the growing universe of in­jokes the Coens have been cultivating, a building named the Barton Arms is prominently featured­­ no doubt named for their next film’s protagonist, whose creation helped the Brothers see MILLER’S CROSSING through to its completion.

While it may not glue you to the screen like some of their better ­known works, MILLER’S CROSSING still stands as an engaging and entertaining spin on well­trod material. The Coens are at they’re best when they’re subverting genre expectations, but it comes with a price: namely, a ceiling on box office earning potential.

Most cinema­literate audiences know what to expect by now when they buy a ticket for a Coen Brothers film, but try telling that to audiences circa 1990­­ the film’s marketing promised an exciting mafia picture in the vein of THE GODFATHER or ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, but delivered something altogether different and unexpected. The fact that MILLER’S CROSSING was regarded as a box office failure upon release, then, shouldn’t come as a surprise, nor should its gradual accumulation of a distinct cult appreciation in league with other “failed” Coen pictures.


BARTON FINK (1991)

As mentioned before, the Coen Brothers hit something of a mental block while writing MILLER’S CROSSING, so they stepped away from it and traveled to New York and for 3 weeks, where they hammered out a new story intended as a vehicle for their MILLER’S CROSSING star John Turturro.

They drew from a wide variety of references­­ Preston Sturge’s SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS, Roman Polanski’s REPULSION and THE TENANT, and Stanley Kubrick’s THE SHINING, in addition to numerous other literary influences and traditions­­ to create a thoroughly post­modern tale about Barton Fink, a New York playwright who moves to Hollywood to write for the movies on the eve of America’s entry into World War 2.

Initially intended as something of a diversionary project, the Coens’ fourth feature, BARTON FINK, taps into a primal aspect of the writer’s psyche. Most writers wants to create lasting, important works that inspire their audience, but these ambitions are usually incongruous with the commercial aspects of the profession.

Hollywood has a long history of appropriating celebrated playwrights for the cinematic medium, and an even longer laundry list of brilliant ideas that were trampled over by populistic commercial schemes hatched by those who couldn’t write their way out of a paper bag.

BARTON FINK covers this external aspect of the profession quite comprehensively, but it also spends a considerable amount of time exploring the writer’s internal conflict: the debilitating uncertainty about whether the work at hand is something important, or merely trash, when oftentimes the difference between the two is completely indistinguishable. By channeling these frustrations and unloading them onto their hapless, eponymous protagonist, the Coens managed to create one of the most inspired and celebrated works of their entire career.

Set in Hollywood shortly before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, BARTON FINK serves as one of the earliest showcases for actor John Turturro as a leading man, and he pours his heart and soul into his performance as the titular Jewish playwright with coke bottle glasses and the battiest hairdo this side of ERASERHEAD. The character, as well as the central conceit of the story, is loosely based on New York playwright Clifford Odets, who worked to promote social issues and the Stanislavski method of performance through his work with the Group Theatre during the 1930’s.

When his audience began to migrate towards escapist fare, Odets also moved to Los Angeles and became a working screenwriter. The Coens applied this basic template to their own ambitious protagonist, tailoring it specifically to Turturro’s idiosyncratic strengths as a performer and isolating him within the mysterious labyrinth of the fictional Hotel Earle.

BARTON FINK went before cameras shortly after wrapping on MILLER’S CROSSING, shooting for 8 weeks on a budget of $9 million dollars. Likely owing to how fast the production of BARTON FINK ramped up, the Coens pull from their roster of stock actors more heavily than usual. Such Coen company regulars as John Goodman, Jon Polito, and Steve Buscemi are all heavily featured throughout the film.

As the Hotel Earle’s concierge, bellhop and seemingly­only employee Chet, Buscemi plays up his natural weirdness to memorably inquisitive effect. Polito pulls a 180­degree reversal from his MILLER’S CROSSINGcharacter by assuming a quiet, bookish mentality in his performance as the studio lackey, Lou Breeze.

Goodman outright steals the show as Charlie Meadows, a perpetually­sweaty insurance salesman with a small brain and a big heart. Always armed with a cheap colloquialism, Meadows is an endearing character who initiates a friendship with Fink by sheer virtue of being the only other visible inhabitant of the hotel. He’s given a chance to shine in the film’s show­stopping climax, an opportunity he relishes with a psychopathic fury and glee.

Even the first­time cast members already seem to have that inimitable Coen company touch. John Mahoney, as Fink’s literary idol WP Mayhew, channels the alcoholic ghost of William Faulkner. His secretary and secret ghostwriter, Audrey Taylor, is played by Judy Davis with a dry glamor that’s reminiscent of Katharine Hepburn.

Tony Shalhoub turns in a memorable performance as Ben Geisler, a producer with a rapier wit and a rapid­fire verbosity. Finally, there’s Michael Lerner, that venerable character actor of corrupt bureaucrat types. He absolutely devours the scenery as Jack Lipnick, a greedy Hollywood titan and the de­facto owner of Fink’s soul. He’s cut from the sage cloth as other larger­than­life producers like Albert Broccoli or David O. Selznick, which makes him a perfect foil to Barton’s artistic integrity.

Over the course of their career, one of the Coens’ most valuable collaborators has been cinematographer RogerDeakins. BARTONFINKmarkstheirfirsttimeworkingtogether,anditbecomesquicklyapparent that this is a match made in heaven. Deakins, who filled the role after Barry Sonnenfeld left to pursue a directing career of his own, crafts a darkly handsome 35mm film image highly suited for both the 1940’s time period and the Coens’ unique visual sensibilities.

The 1.66:1 canvas deals in the same tobacco-­toned color palette and classical camera moves as MILLER’S CROSSING, albeit with a heavily impressionistic panache that echoes Fink’s interior state and lends the film a sweaty, dreamlike quality. The keys of Fink’s typewriter strike paper like deafening clashes of thunder.

The chaos of a rowdy brawl at a USO party manifests in woozy, canted-­angle slow motion. The creeping one­-point perspective compositions in the Art Deco-­styled Hotel Earle conjure haunting memories of THE SHINING’s Overlook Hotel. All these expressionistic moments, and more, are blended together into a feverish lather by returning composer Carter Burwell, and the Coens themselves under their editing pseudonym Roderick Jaynes­­ an alter­-ego whose existence owes to guild regulations.

One of the Coens’ distinct directorial talents is the ability to imbue a relatively simple story with multiple layers of subtle thematic context. BARTON FINKhas an uneasy feeling that courses underneath the plot, like something crawling under your skin or (more aptly), wallpaper sweating off the walls– entire sheets at a time.

The Coens leave the true meaning of the plot’s developments just ambiguous enough so as to stoke all kinds of fan theories about what’s actually going on, the chief interpretation being Fink’s contract with Hollywood serving as a metaphorical deal with the devil, and the hotel in which he languishes in limbo being a gateway to Hell itself. Artifacts of the Hotel Earle’s residents (like their shoes) are seen, but we never actually glimpse the residents themselves– we only hear their mysterious individual dramas between the walls.

Audrey Taylor’s mysterious murder halfway through the film promptly veers the story into a waking nightmare, culminating in Goodman emerging as Lucifer himself amidst the raging inferno that has engulfed the Hotel Earle. It’s almost as if the Coens knew how thoroughly audiences and critics would dissect their vision, peppering in deliberate images that point in that direction without bearing any particular relevance to the plot, like Charlie Meadows’ mysterious box that may or may not contain a severed head, numerous references to the Bible, or the camera traveling down the drain of a bathroom sink during a sex scene.

BARTON FINK continues to build out the particular character of the Coens’ self­contained universe by rearranging recurring ideas and themes within the context of Hollywood’s Golden Age. The narrative framework of an east coast playwright transplanted to California echoes the outsider’s perspective the Coens bring to their sense of storytelling.

Like so many Coen protagonists, Barton Fink is a man at odds against his environment, railing against a system that encourages exploitation, mediocrity and profit over artistic integrity­­ even as his own writer’s block pits his productivity against his desire to create. Up until this point, the Coens had fashioned their protagonists in the mold of the common man, but BARTON FINK flips the script on the formula by making the titular character an entrenched member of the high society intelligentsia who lionizes himself as a warrior for the middle class.

He’s so intent on promoting middle class values, even, that he frequently talks over the very people whose plight he romanticizes, ignoring the very real human stories they have to share. He commodifies their hardships in a misguided campaign to stroke his own ego, just as his own talents are commodified by the head of Capitol Pictures in a vain attempt to gain prestige. It should also be noted that the Capitol Pictures depicted in BARTON FINK is the same studio seen in HAIL, CAESAR! (2016), further solidifying the interconnectivity of the Coen­verse.

As a film that started life as a simple diversionary project, BARTON FINK exceeded nearly every expectation to become the Coens’ first true masterpiece. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the tastes of mainstream audiences, the film was a financial bomb­­ but what it lacked in box office receipts it more than made up for in critical plaudits. BARTON FINK holds the esteemed distinction as the only film to win the top three awards at the Cannes Film Festival: Best Actor, Best Director, and the Palm d’Or.

It also went on gain three Oscar nominations: Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, and a Best Supporting Actor nod for Michael Lerner. The earliest instance of the Coens’ artistic aesthetic coalescing into something truly identifiable as their own, BARTON FINK has grown in appreciation over the years to become not just a cornerstone of the brothers’ filmography, but an indispensable cinematic treasure in its own right.


THE HUDSUCKER PROXY (1994)

Ever since they first started working together on 1981’s THE EVIL DEAD, the Coens and fellow director Sam Raimi had endeavored to write an ambitious screenplay about corporate fat­cats and towering Gotham spires they called THE HUDSUCKER PROXY. They had completed the screenplay as early as 1984, and tried to make it following their breakout with BLOOD SIMPLE., only to be told that their vision was too expensive.

After the critical success of BARTON FINK raised their artistic profile to the level of the mainstream studios’ attention, producer Joel Silver managed to bring the brothers’ long­gestating business satire under the fold of Silver Pictures at Warner Brothers. Thanks to their cinematic reputation as well as Silver’s own clout as a massively successful producer, the Coens managed to achieve what so many emerging directors would kill for: complete artistic control on their first studio film.

Released in 1994, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY is the Coens’ love letter to the sentimental screwball comedies of yesteryear. It is the bastard child of Preston Sturges, Frank Capra and Howard Hawks, whose existence marks the culmination of their early string of postmodern period pieces.

Shot mostly on the Carolco Studios sound stages in Wilmington, North Carolina as well as locations in downtown Chicago, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY finds the brothers working with major Hollywood stars for the first time, all of whom effortlessly fold into the wryly idiosyncratic nature of their artistic voice.

Tim Robbins headlines the film as Norville Barnes, a plucky and naive small­town dreamer whose boundless optimism propels his rapid ascent to the top of Hudsucker Industries while also blinding him to the cynical manipulations by his Board of Directors, led by Paul Newman’s grumpy, cigar­chomping executive, Sydney Mussburger. One of the most venerated actors of his generation, Newman proves an inspired choice in a role that plays against the handsome leading­man roles he’s best known for. He easily connects with the Coens’ off­kilter sense of humor, turning in a dignified, winking performance that never descends into camp.

A fresh­faced Jennifer Jason Leigh steals the show as Amy Archer, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter with a heavy Mid­Atlantic accent who initially endeavors to deceive Norville into leaking corporate secrets only to fall hard for his plucky brand of optimism. Leigh consumes all the energy in the room, redirecting it back out through her full­throated performance while subverting our expectations of the conventional love interest archetype.

BARTON FINK’s John Mahoney and THE EVIL DEAD star Bruce Campbell join her in the bullpen as the hotheaded Chief and the rival reporter Smitty, respectively. Bill Cobbs, Peter Gallagher, and the late Anna Nicole Smith round out the cast while fleshing out some mid­century flavor beyond the confines of Hudsucker Tower.

Cobbs plays Moses, a folksy clock tower mechanic and the source of the picture’s drawling narration. Gallagher mashes together the spirits of Dean Martin and Elvis Presley in his performance as a soulful crooner, while Smith plays to her strengths with a fictional take on Zsa Zsa Gabor. Of course, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY wouldn’t be a proper Coen Brothers film without appearances by members of their particular stock company: John Goodman, Jon Polito, and Steve Buscemi.

Goodman makes a voice cameo as a newsreel announcer, while Buscemi plays the beatnik bartender of a juice bar. Polito’s cameo is even more brief, popping up during a throwaway gag in what seems to be a reprisal of his character from MILLER’S CROSSING.

Right away, we notice that THE HUDSUCKER PROXY has a highly-stylized Art Deco look, accomplished via imaginative skyline miniatures and elaborate sets designed by the Coens’ regular production designer, Dennis Gassner, as well as highly theatrical cinematography by returning Director of Photography, Roger Deakins. The soaring Gothic spires and their smoky, mechanical underbellies call back to Fritz Lang’s iconic 1927 silent classic, METROPOLIS, presenting an extremely stylized and retro­surreal vision of 1958­era Manhattan.

It’s into this cold, angular environment of straight lines that the Coens introduce a simple plot device: a circle, in the form of a hula hoop. As we all know, a circle has no straight lines. No beginning, middle or end. It’s a constant loop of maddening defiance. In the perfectly­structured world of industry, the circle is anarchy. On a fundamentally thematic level, it’s very fitting that something as innocuous as a circle turns the world so violently on its head.

Deakins’ photography echoes this sentiment, imprinting a cold, desaturated aesthetic onto the 1.85:1 35mm film frame. What little color there is draws from a steely neutral palette­­ which makes the introduction of Norville’s hula hoops, rendered in brilliant primary colors, all the more disruptive. Precise dolly moves and one point perspective compositions reflect the calculating will of corporate forces, and are countered at nearly every turn by chaotic whip­pans, high­velocity push­ins, unbalanced low angle compositions, and a playful willingness to break the fourth wall.

The Coens’ lofty, overtly theatrical approach to THE HUDSUCKER PROXY is matched by returning composer Carter Burwell’s operatic and lushly romantic score, which courses through the increasingly­absurd narrative with a building urgency and grandeur.

Considering how long the brothers spent working on the script, it should be no surprise that THE HUDSUCKER PROXY serves up a quintessential Coen experience. Their wry sense of humor is immediately evident, beginning with the folksy opening voiceover that muses about the film’s setting­­ a narrative device that the brothers have frequently employed throughout their work.

Their uniquely sardonic stamp continues throughout the film, with cartoonishly exaggerated minor characters like the mail chief, the elevator boy, and the executive secretary, as well as an absurdist dream sequence that deals in the same “Hollywood musical”­based visual grammar as its 1998 counterpart, THE BIG LEBOWSKI.

The structural framework of a small town protagonist trying to make it in the big city stays consistent with the outsider’s perspective that the Coens regularly bring to their work, while their fondness for the iconography of midcentury Americana is brought out in the imagery of towering skyscrapers, vintage newsreels, and even President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

THE HUDSUCKER PROXY premiered at Sundance, and then went on to screen in competition at Cannes, ultimately losing the prestigious Palm d’Or to their insurgent generational peer, Quentin Tarantino, and his second feature, PULP FICTION. Like MILLER’S CROSSING and BARTON FINK before it, the film premiered with a resounding flop at the box office.

Critics appreciated the unique visuals and the bold risks undertaken, but they deemed the element most lacking was the human element, and thus embraced the film only at arm’s length. The culminating chapter in the Coens’ triptych of postmodern period pictures, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY has proved itself to be one of their most fantastical and imaginative films, and has gathered a devoted following of its own on home video.

While their first mainstream studio effort might not have met their expectations, the Coens had laid the necessary groundwork to begin a new phase in their career­­ one that would see their fan base grow exponentially, along with their stature amongst the pantheon of great contemporary directors.


FARGO (1996)

In 1996, directors Joel and Ethan Coen achieved their first mainstream success story with a project that would take them back to their homeland: the snow­ covered sprawl of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Their quirky blend of humor and violence had evolved through their previous films, coalescing into an artistic persona that tapped directly into the cultural zeitgeist of the Clinton era.

They collected a mix of sensational crime stories and urban legends from around the area, and threw them together into the proverbial wood chipper to create an undeniable masterpiece of atmosphere, tension, and pitch­ black comedy called FARGO.

Perhaps because the Coens know their subjects so well, they can sustain an exaggerated comic tone that nonetheless manages to project an air of authentic sincerity. This is thanks in large part to the performances by FARGO’s cast, who seem to be fully aware of the film’s significance and are thus applying career­best efforts. As the conniving salesman Jerry Lundegaard, William H. Macy plays to his eccentric physicality in a career­best performance, creating a sad­sack, emasculated schmuck cursed with the awareness of his own incompetence.

In a desperate bid to dig himself out of a mountain of debt and bad business decisions, he enlists the help of two bumbling criminals to kidnap his wife and split the ransom money paid by his wealthy father-­in-­law. Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare deliver star making turns as the two incompetent crooks, Carl Showalter and Gaer Grimsrud. Showalter is the oily-­haired brains of the operation­­ a manic, motor­mouthed antagonist who the locals can only describe as “funny­-looking, in a general kind of way”.

Far more imposing is his calm and collected counterpart, the bleach-­blonde Grimsrud, who has a nasty propensity for sudden, cold­-hearted violence. This interesting pair possesses a dynamic that’s reminiscent of the Coens’ own diametrically-­opposed cinematic influences. If Buscemi alludes to the slapstick comedy of Buster Keaton, then Stormare is straight out of a hard-­edged Sam Peckinpah picture.

While the ensemble nature of FARGO’s storyline might suggest otherwise, the film truly belongs to Frances McDormand and her Oscar­ winning performance as the plucky, pregnant policewoman, Marge Gunderson. She adopts a heavy Midwestern accent that’s endearing and infectious– the minute she opens her mouth to speak, you can’t help but fall in love with her even as you try to contain your laughter.

In a world of scheming, comically­-incompetent male types, Marge excels with a very simple agenda: use the facts to find the bad guys. She’s a refreshingly insightful protagonist, offering some of the film’s most poignant moments in her obtuse cadence and simple musings.

Roger Deakins returns as the Director of Photography, rendering the 1.85:1 35mm film frame in bright swaths of blinding white and suffocating black. This monochromatic color palette is accentuated by vivid splashes of crimson red, which recur throughout the film like bullet wounds in the otherwise­-pristine landscape. Natural lighting schemes and dolly-­based camerawork help to create a sedate, observational tone that places the emphasis on the cast’s off­-kilter performances.

Despite its straightforward visual presentation, the Coens manage to cultivate a noir vibe reminiscent of their 1984 debut, BLOOD SIMPLE.­­ especially during similar sequences that both feature murder on an isolated country road. Editing once again under their pseudonym Roderick Jaynes, the Coens infuse the film with a languidly succinct pace that complements the film’s deadpan sense of humor while injecting a sense of gravitas that sustains returning composer Carter Burwell’s iconic, brassy score.

The theme to FARGO, borrowed from an old Norwegian folk song titled “The Lost Sheep” and headlined by mournful strings, injects the proceedings with a confident assertion of (quote, unquote) “importance”­­ a pretension that would sink most films, but elevates FARGO into the realm of transcendent cinematic experiences.

FARGO is usually the first film cinephiles go to when trying to describe the essence of what constitutes a “Coen Brothers” film, as it marks a convergence between the crystallization of their particular artistic identity and the widespread embrace of mainstream audiences.

Like many other iconic Coen works, a great deal of FARGO’s humor stems from a playful fascination with the absurdity of the mundane. Whereas most filmmakers prefer to explore the people and stories of exciting cultural epicenters like New York or Los Angeles, the Coens are primarily interested in Middle America.

This manifests in protagonists who belong firmly to the common class, the prominent inclusion of Americana­inspired imagery, and frequent references to the Bible. With FARGO in particular, these fascinations coalesce into the recurring appearance of fast food­­ every other meal comes from an Arby’s or McDonald’s, reflecting the culinary tastes of 90’s­era flyover country.

The outsiders perspective that the brothers bring to their work is doubly­present in FARGO, with McDormand’s maternal policewoman being a figurative outsider in a violent, male­dominated profession, and also with Buscemi and Stormare’s inept crime duo being literal outsiders­­ foreign agents intruding on a lifestyle that’s not their own, represented musically by their taste for punk rock when the world around them listens primarily to honky­tonk country tunes.

In a way, the Coens themselves are outsiders within their own art form­­ they’re quick to pop the bubble of cinema’s inflated sense of self­importance. FARGO pursues multiple avenues in this regard, the most high­profile of which is their decision to falsely portray the film as a true story. While we all know better today, audiences were easily roped into the fiction, to the extent that some even made the journey out to Minnesota themselves in search of Showalter’s forgotten briefcase of money, still buried somewhere out there in the snow.

The Coens took advantage of our collective tendency to blindly accept art as initially marketed to us; after all, it has to be based on a true story if it says so on the poster, right? While cynical studio marketing departments have used this same technique in recent years, none of their efforts have come even remotely close to the potency of the idea’s use in FARGO.

Joel and Ethan’s anti­genre convictions lead them to further subvert the expectations of the crime drama. For instance, McDormand’s protagonist isn’t even brought into the narrative until the second act. Furthermore, they stage the death of Jerry’s kidnapped wife­­ a major character, integral to the plot­­ entirely offscreen, a technique they would use again a decade later in another anti­genre masterpiece, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. The brothers also sabotage the seriousness of their crime narrative at every turn by incorporating exaggeratedly comical minor characters.

This refusal to play by the cinematic rule book has made the Coens iconoclasts in the eyes of Hollywood, but it’s also directly responsible for their distinctive appeal, which continues to fuel their success in spite of the occasional misfire.

FARGO was the Coens’ first true commercial hit, but it fared even better with critics, who lauded it with Best Directing honors at the 1996 Cannes Film Festival as well as their first Oscar­­ a win in the Best Original Screenplay category. It is routinely cited as one of the best films of the 90’s, but perhaps the most significant prize would come in 2006, when the Library of Congress deemed FARGO worthy of inclusion into the National Film Registry in its first year of eligibility­­ thus assuring its place in the canon of great American films.

There have been many attempts to replicate FARGO in the years since its release, but none have been able to reproduce it’s bizarre, macabre charm. The success of the Coens’ sixth feature film established them not only as an immediately identifiable voice in mainstream American cinema, but as a cultural force that would be appreciated and studied for a long time to come.

 


THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998)

When the Coens made their debut with BLOOD SIMPLE., they managed to develop a personal friendship with their sales rep, Jeff Dowd. The brothers were fascinated by Dowd’s eccentric character, known throughout LA as a good-­natured stoner/slacker nicknamed “The Dude”. Around the time of Barton Fink, they started developing a script inspired by Dowd, supplemented with the character of their other friend Peter Exline, a Vietnam war veteran whose life story contained several anecdotes that would be incorporated as they wrote.

This project, which they dubbed THE BIG LEBOWSKI, was further influenced by the sprawling structure of Raymond Chandler novels, which tended to weave a densely-­layered tapestry of the multitude of subcultures that called The City of Angels home.

Polygram Filmed Entertainment and Working Title Films, who had also developed and financed FARGO, once again ponied up the cash for production of the Coens’ seventh feature film­­ a labyrinthine kidnapping anti­-caper that blends the essence of the brothers’ comic sensibilities with the inherent weirdness of LA to create a delirious postmodern brew that’s attracted one of the most rabid cult followings in cinematic history.

Every performance contained within THE BIG LEBOWSKI borders on the legendary­­ for a substantial portion of the cast, it’s the movie that they are most well­-known for. Jeff Bridges was born to play The Dude, by sheer virtue of the role probably being the closest to how he is in real life– give or take his notorious preference for White Russians.

He’s never been more comfortable on-­screen, no doubt owing in part to the fact that he’s wearing his own clothes in the film. Coen­Verse regular John Goodman cribs the style of right­-wing film director John Milius in his scene­-stealing performance as the cranky Vietnam vet Walter Sobchak, barking his lines like an overbearing, angry bear.

Steve Buscemi puts in his fifth consecutive appearance for the Coens as The Dude and Walter’s bowling buddy, Donny. Buscemi assumes a meek, slightly stupid affectation that serves more as a bouncing board for Goodman’s outsized performance, striking a stark contrast to his over­-caffeinated motormouth performance in FARGO.

An inspired mix of faces both old and new round out the Coens’ eclectic cast. As the titular Big Lebowski, David Huddleston channels the pungent odor of Dick Cheney for his wheelchair­-bound performance. In one of his earlier roles, the late and inimitable Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Brandt, Lebowski’s brown­-nosing butler. Julianne Moore tries on a heavy mid-Atlantic accent reminiscent of Jennifer Jason Leigh in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY for her performance here as the Big Lebowski’s aggressively feminist daughter, Maude.

Tara Reid plays Lebowski’s young gold­-digging wife, Bunny, to great effect. Peter Stormare expands on the comically austere personality he developed for FARGO,channeling it into his performance here as the droll leader of a gang of German nihilists. John Turturro makes his return to the Coens’ set as the purple-­clad pederast and bowling fetishist, Jesus Quintana.

Jon Polito also returns in a brief cameo as a sweaty PI following The Dude around town. Ben Gazzara, on loan from the John Cassavetes Repertory Players, exudes sleek sleaze as porn producer Jackie Treehorn. And finally, Sam Elliot gives the proceedings a drawling, southwestern flavor in his smoky narration as The Stranger.

Roger Deakins cements his relationship with the Coens as their go­to cinematographer by returning to shoot THE BIG LEBOWSKI, creating a unique blend between 1970’s pop western and 1960’s mod aesthetics. The 35mm film image is rich with saturated, natural colors that brilliantly capture the story’s dusty, neon­tinged locales.

There’s not a huge emphasis on composition within the 1.85:1 frame, opting instead for a low­key, tighter approach achieved with slow dolly and crane movements in a bid to emphasize the performances. However, THE BIG LEBOWSKI does take the time to punctuate the story with some impressionistic flourish, like slow­motion speed ramps, fourth wall­breaking narration, and highly imaginative dream sequences, which swipe elaborate dance and camera choreography from old Busby Berkeley musicals.

Production designer Rick Heinrichs’ richly­detailed work is evident from the first frame, getting the Gulf War­era period details right while not screaming “period” itself. This is due in part to the mix of other anachronistic elements, which gives the film a timeless, bygone­era feel that’s countered by the characters’ very­modern pathos.

While Carter Burwell delivers his seventh consecutive score for the Coens here, THE BIG LEBOWSKI’s true musical identity stems from the contribution of rock legend T­Bone Burnett, who compiled the eclectic mix of cowboy country, classic rock, art pop and soul ballads that give the film its distinct, timeless character. T­Bone works with the Coens to create a different musical motif for each character, the most memorable of which being the Gypsy Kings’ cover of “Hotel California” to underscore The Jesus’ lewd hip gyrations.

The success of their first collaboration here would lead to many more efforts in subsequent films, making T­Bone a vital collaborator in the Coens’ filmography. Like many of their previous works, the Coens further imbue the film with their distinct stamp by editing THE BIG LEBOWSKI under their pseudonym Roderick Jaynes, in collaboration with Tricia Cooke.

If FARGO was evidence of the Coens’ mastery of a starker, Peckinpah­-style aesthetic, then the THE BIG LEBOWSKI balances the dichotomy with a prime example of their zanier, Buster Keaton-­inspired side. The film is a quintessential example of their wry sense of humor, which tends to highlight the absurdity of wealth and power by aligning the audience’s perspective with members of the common class. This conceit is further underscored by the Coens’ decision to set the film in the San Fernando Valley, away from the glitz and glamor of elitist Hollywood or Beverly Hills.

That physical distance also allows for a remove from temporal immediacy, an opportunity that Joel and Ethan take advantage of by incorporating the distinct iconography of stale midcentury Americana at every turn: retro­-flavored bowling alleys, greasy diners, fast food burgers, Corvettes, and striking architectural structures. Just as much as the overt stylistic elements, the BIG LEBOWSKI distinguished itself as a Coen Brothers film by what it omits: namely, explicit instances of social commentary.

Subtext-­obsessed critics have written reams about what they perceive to be veiled critiques of sociopolitical constructs and ideologies, like Walter’s neocon leanings­­ but in true Coen fashion, conclusive evidence for such claims proves to be elusive, and­­ like the kidnapping plot that drives the film­­ is ultimately irrelevant to the larger cosmic narrative.]

Unlike FARGO, THE BIG LEBOWSKI was initially met by most audiences with confusion and disinterest upon its release. It did modest business at the box office, grossing just above its $15 million budget, but the mixed reviews from critics, who just prior had showered FARGO with raving plaudits, imprinted the Coens’ latest effort with the distinct whiff of failure.

Their vision was so unique and eclectic that most people didn’t know what to make of it­­ they did know, however, that it possessed an undeniable magnetism. That same magnetism would serve the film well in the home video after­market, where a cult following slowly amassed as tapes and DVDs were circulated amongst taste­making cinephiles.

While most of the Coens’ films have found their own devoted fan followings, THE BIG LEBOWSKI stands heads and shoulders above the rest with its own distinct subculture­­ replete with annual events like Lebowski Fest and even a pseudo­religion called Dudeism (or, The Church Of The Latter Day Dude), which boasts a membership of over 220,000 ordained “Dudeist Priests”.

All of this appreciation would eventually culminate in one of American cinema’s highest honors­­ an induction into the National Film Registry in 2014 that would ensure its preservation as a nationally important cinematic work alongside its sister film, FARGO.

 


O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (2000)

It was around the year 2000 when I started really becoming cognizant of cinema as a cultural phenomenon.  Sure, I knew everyone liked movies, and many of them liked the same movies I did, but at the age of 14 I was growing more aware of a world of cinema outside my own perception.  A small film I had never heard of before, O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? was released that year and caused a modest sensation.  One of my school teachers even used the film’s soundtrack to show us examples of historical folk songs like Harry McClintock’s “Big Rock Candy Mountain”.

Everywhere I went, everyone seemed to be talking about the film and its now-legendary soundtrack.  I had no clue who the Coen Brothers were at the time, and I wasn’t particularly moved to see the film until much later, when I was in college.

Seven features into their career, Joel and Ethan had managed to to carve out their own distinctive sub-genre of films– an aesthetic marked not by an immediately identifiable visual style, but by a sardonically playful approach to story and character.  Music served a major purpose in that regard, often acting as a subtextual thematic device but not yet as part of the narrative itself.

As the world celebrated the dawn of the 21st century, the Coens embraced their growing reputation as cinematic stewards of the American musical tradition by looking back on the early years of the 20th– specifically, the Mississippi Delta during the height of the Great Depression.  Their eighth feature– O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU?– would borrow so heavily from the structural framework of Homer’s ancient epic “The Odyssey” that Homer himself is given a co-writing credit in its telling of the story of three escaped convicts using the popularity of dustbowl folk music to seek treasure and return home to their families.

Released by their frequent production collaborators Working Title Films in the year 2000, O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? marks another significant hit in the Coens’ filmography– one that, like THE BIG LEBOWSKI before it– would send ripples through the fabric of American pop culture itself.

Taking its title from the movie-within-a-movie in Preston Sturge’s SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS– the latest bit of inspiration the Coens have taken from that particular film throughout their filmography, O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? finds the brothers working with Hollywood megastar George Clooney for the first time.

Clooney plays Everrit McGill, a slick and conniving con-man with an unhealthy affection for pomade.  As the Depression-era stand-in for THE ODYSSEY’s Ulysses, Clooney has the unenviable task of embodying the film’s heart and soul, but in his efforts he manages to find a special kinship with the Coens’ distinct worldview– kicking off a string of buffoonish Coen rascals that deliberately play against his polished, leading-man image.

Coen regulars John Turturro and John Goodman appear as Everritt’s right-hand man, Pete Hogwallop, and the treacherous cyclops bible salesman named Big Dan Teague, respectively.  Both men are entirely comfortable within the Coens’ quirky style of filmmaking, and channel it into larger-than-life performances.

Neither man finds in their role a career-best or particularly memorable persona, but both give the entirety of themselves over to the brothers’ idiosyncratic vision.  Rounding out the central trio of escaped convicts is seasoned character actor Tim Blake Nelson as Delmar O’Donnell.  To date, this is his only appearance in a Coen Brothers film, somewhat of an oddity given the brothers’ propensity for re-using talent.

A few other familiar Coen faces emerge, including Charles Durning and Holly Hunter.  Durning, who played the titular suicidal CEO in the THE HUDSUCKER PROXY, assumes the affectation of a bloated, aristocratic dandy in his portrayal of craven bureaucrat Pappy O’Daniel.

O’Daniel is a broad stroke of a character, relying on our recognizance of the “desperate-for-votes incumbent politician who’s up for re-election” archetype, but Durning nevertheless makes the role his own.  Holly Hunter, who hasn’t been seen in a Coen film since 1987’s RAISING ARIZONA, has a relatively small role here as Penny, Everritt’s estranged wife.

From the first frame on, O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? immediately distinguishes itself as one of the Coens’ most visually-stylized films to date.  The dawning of the new millennium brought with it major advances in digital filmmaking technology, and while the film was shot on old-fashioned 35mm celluloid, its cinematography nevertheless achieves one of the earliest distinctions of the digital age– the first American motion picture to be color-timed and mastered via a digital intermediate.

The process of scanning film into digital files that can be endlessly manipulated and stored is commonplace now, but O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU?’s adoption of DI technology was, at the time, truly unprecedented.  This choice allowed the Coens and their cinematographer Roger Deakins full control over the color grading of the image, which takes on a washed-out, gold & tobacco patina after they were able to isolate and reduce the saturation of blues and greens.

This earthy, impressionistic color palette recalls the monochromatic texture of old photographs from the era, while their first-time use of the 2.35:1 aspect ratio makes for wider, inherently-cinematic compositions.  Energetic camerawork proudly shows off returning production designer Dennis Gassner’s authentic, well-worn patina, which evokes the cracked, warbly texture of the gospel folk tunes that inform the film’s musical soul.

Leaving a legacy arguably larger than O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU’s cinematography– at least in the eyes of the public– is the soundtrack.  Returning musical team Carter Burwell and T-Bone Burnett’s eclectic musical palette provides a brief, yet sprawling survey of Depression-era American folk music while also singlehandedly kick starting a popular resurgence in contemporary pop.

Indeed, Harry McClintock’s hobo anthem “Big Rock Candy Mountain” probably hadn’t been enjoyed at this wide a scale since the Great Depression.  The inspired mix of blues, religious hymnals, Appalachian mountain folk and bluegrass drives the film with a lyrical, rollicking energy that reinforces the film’s central theme of music being an agent of personal redemption.

The soundtrack proved so popular upon the film’s release that it’s said to have surpassed the success of the film itself, selling five million copies in its first year and earning five Grammys.

O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? deals in many themes and ideas that the brothers had explored to varying effect in previous films, putting a particular emphasis on references to the bible.  The characters’ spirituality and remarks on scripture are naturally incorporated into the story, thanks to the evangelical ideology that sculpts the social landscape of the Mississippi Delta.

The outsider perspective that guides the Coens’ work is also present here in its portrait of three escaped inmates on the run and ostracized by society at large.  The characters that inhabit this world belong mostly to the common class, a demographic predisposed to lionizing Everett and his gang as folk heroes, out to stick it to fat-cat bureaucrats and expose the absurdity and wastefulness of the concentrated pockets of wealth that dot the Delta.

The Coens never let the proceedings get too serious, subverting the weight of the central quest narrative at every turn with exaggerated minor characters and old-fashioned slapstick humor.

O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? premiered in competition at the Cannes Film Festival, which by now had become almost standard procedure for the release of a new Coen Brothers film.  Save for one notable exception in Roger Ebert, the film received warm reviews from critics who appreciated the brothers’ effortless transition into an epic story scope, as well as their pioneering use of digital intermediate technology and realistic implementation of computer-generated imagery.

Most of all, they simply appreciated how fun it all was, and their praise helped propel the film t0 sleeper-hit status at the box office, earning back almost triple of its $26 million production budget.  The film received two Oscar nominations– one for Joel and Ethan’s creative adaptation of Homer’s epic poem, and the other for Deakins’ cinematography.  The mainstream success of O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? is evidence of the Coens hitting their stride, having delivered yet another bonafide masterpiece to their already impressive body of work.


THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE (2001)

The success of O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? propelled the Coen Brothers into the hearts of Middle America, broadening their fanbase considerably.  So how did they capitalize on this large, captive audience?  By making a small, black-and-white murder noir that would alienate those heartland sensibilities entirely.  But such is life with the Coens– their body of work is an exercise in contradictions and winking in-jokes made at the audience’s expense.

Initially inspired by a prop poster of 1940’s haircuts on the set of THE HUDSUCKER PROXY, Joel and Ethan expanded the idea into an acutely sardonic meditation on mid-century American values and suburban malaise titled THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE.  Their ninth feature finds the celebrated filmmaking partners consolidating their tragicomic strengths while further exploring a highly-stylized visual aesthetic, making another postmodern bid to recontextualize the iconography of the past for contemporary storytelling tastes.

Billy Bob Thornton makes the most of one of his rare leading turns as the laconic, calculating barber at the center of the story, Ed Crane.  He narrates the film with a disaffected, almost-clinical temperament that highlights the Coens’ morbid sense of humor.  Joel Coen’s real-life wife and frequent leading lady, Frances McDormand, turns in a memorable performance as Crane’s unfaithful spouse, Doris.

It’s a much more unsavory role for McDormand, and it’s a testament to her diverse range that she can effortlessly transition to the other side of the bars after her last performance in FARGO as the kindly police officer, Marge Gunderson.  As the philandering department store owner, Big Dave Brewster, James Gandolfini simultaneously eschews his tough-guy Tony Soprano persona while subtly embracing it.  He’s the alpha male, the biggest figure in his small town.

Every noir needs the arrogant sucker character, and Big Dave fills that role in unexpected ways. Longtime Coen mainstay Jon Polito has a substantial role here as Creighton Tulliver, a street-smart huckster with an ill-fitting suit and a worse-fitting toupee.  Polito throws his considerable weight around in his energetic performance of a shady get-rich-quick schemer who regards dry-cleaning technology as the second coming of Christ.

The film’s supporting cast boasts several famous faces who have already made or are making the first of several appearances in the Coens’ filmography.  Scarlett Johansson, looking almost child-like in one of her earliest roles, plays Birdy Abundas, an inquisitive young girl with a talent for music and a hidden sexuality beyond her years.  Her innocence here contrasts quite dramatically with the character she’d play fifteen years later in 2016’s HAIL, CAESAR!.

Well-respected character actor Richard Jenkins also delivers his first performance for the Coens as Birdy’s bookish father, Walter.  He shares an easy friendship with Crane, although he’s blind to his friend’s burgeoning inclinations towards his daughter.  Tony Shalhoub, in his second Coen outing since BARTON FINK ten years earlier, steals the show as Sacramento’s quote/unquoted “best” lawyer, Freddy Riedenschneider.  His character sucks all the air out of the room with a rapid-fire verbosity, which counters rather neatly with Crane’s silent brooding.

Finally Michael Badalucco, who played Pretty Boy Floyd in O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? appears again here as Crane’s portly brother in law and fellow barber, Frank.  All in all, the performances are perfectly serviceable and believable, if not particularly memorable.

The Coens’ regular cinematographer, Roger Deakins, earned his second consecutive Oscar nomination for his work on THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE.  While O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? fully embraced the freedoms of digital intermediate technology, this time the Coens turned to conventional laboratory processing techniques to achieve their highly stylized look.  The 35mm film stock was shot in color, but printed in stark black and white to achieve the evocative silver screen look we associate with classic film noir.

His lighting setup complements this old-fashioned approach, favoring a moody, high-contrast aesthetic. Black and white film represents a kind of purity when it comes to exposure, because when a cinematographer doesn’t have to deal with traditional chroma concerns, he or she is free to literally paint with pure light.  Deakins knows this well, and artfully uses light and shadow to distinguish the various gradations of grey for a compelling look.

THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE seems like a film out of its time, because it is– the Coens and Deakins limited themselves to the common filmmaking techniques of Hollywood’s Golden Age: the stylized silhouettes of the noir genre, the 1.85:1 Academy aspect ratio, and classical dolly-based camera movement.  The Coens and Deakins have crafted a nightmare of a Norman Rockwell painting, fleshed out by returning production designer Dennis Gassner’s authentic period designs.

This sense of melancholy timelessness extends to an appropriately classical bed of music characterized predominantly by piano and the violin.  The Coens supplement longtime composer Carter Burwell’s nostalgic, bittersweet score with sourced opera tracks and various Beethoven compositions like “Moonlight Sonata” to imbue their portrait of suburban malaise with a classical universality.

While the Coens go to great lengths to meticulously recreate the cinematic conventions of Eisenhower-era Hollywood, their signature thematic conceits infuse THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE with a decidedly modern sensibility.  The detached, hard-boiled voiceover is a defining characteristic of the noir genre– a trope that the Coens subvert with their sardonic comic worldview, which is able to see humor in our darkest moments thanks to a degree 0f psychological remove from the immediate actions onscreen.

This outside perspective fundamentally informs every aspect of THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE, right down to the title.  Like so many Coen protagonists, Ed Crane is a man at odds against his own environment.  He’s set apart from the flow of life around him, giving him an elevated perspective that makes clear the idea that the trappings of modern life are ultimately a distraction.

He nihilistically sits back and watches the ceaseless parade of mid-century Americana and small-town culture: images of barbershops, churches, department stores, pulp magazines, and even flying saucers serve as diversionary constructs that distract the characters from the fact that one day this will all come to an end.  Even Crane’s narration is ultimately revealed to be meaningless, the product of a writing prompt for a men’s magazine he performs while on death row, paid by the word with money that he’ll never actually get to use.

This isn’t to say that the film itself is nihilistic– indeed, as he sits on the electric chair his narration expresses hope that he’ll be reunited with Doris in the afterlife.  It’s only another layer upon multitudes of contradictory sentiments that reinforce the Coens’ love of confounding anyone who tries to take their films too seriously.

THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE met with modest success upon its release, earning warm applause from audiences and critics alike.  It earned the Best Director award at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival, which it shared with David Lynch’s mystifying masterwork, MULHOLLAND DRIVE.  While it hasn’t gained the kind of cult following enjoyed by works like THE BIG LEBOWSKI, the quality of the Coens’ craft holds up with a sense of timelessness that ensures its longevity.

Together, these two films are indicative of an industry acquainting itself with the possibilities of breakthroughs in digital technology, figuring out how to use a suite of new and exciting tools.  By placing themselves at the forefront of this adoption, the Coens have made the old new again– making the past come alive in a tactile, impressionistic way that, for the most part, had never been seen before.

O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? is, without a doubt, the more influential film of the two, having ushered in an age of radical color timing and abstract palettes, but THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE stands strongly on its own merits, having carved out a space for itself as another cult classic within the brothers’ filmography.  Most importantly, this pair of old-fashioned works set the stage for a new act in the Coens’ career– one that would see them soar to ever-greater heights while cementing their legacy as the preeminent chroniclers of the darkly absurd.


INTOLERABLE CRUELTY (2003)

The Coen Brothers are generally regarded as two of the finest living American filmmakers.  Each of their films has been released to some modicum of critical acclaim and/or box office success.  However, they are people like you and I, and are prone to mistakes.  Every career has its mis-step, and the Coens’ tenth feature– 2003’s INTOLERABLE CRUELTY– is just that.

Drawing inspiration from Howard Hawks romantic comedies like BRINGING UP BABY (1938), INTOLERABLE CRUELTYis an old-fashioned love romp cursed with a modern-day cynic’s attitude.  Miles Massey (George Clooney) is a devilishly handsome and slick matrimony lawyer who’s built his career upon a foolproof prenuptial document of his own devising.  He’s used to winning, and has the fancy car and huge Beverly Hills mansion to prove it.

He finally meets his match in the form of Marilyn Rexroth (Catherine Zeta-Jones) a woman who’s made a career out of marrying rich men and divorcing them for a hefty profit.  As he represents Marilyn’s husband Rex Rexroth (Edward Herrmann) in the divorce proceedings, Miles finds himself falling hard for the alluring wife.  After a brief barely-romance, Miles and Marilyn marry in a Vegas drive-thru chapel.  But is it true love, or is Miles just another target in Marilyn’s treacherous scheme?

The film’s performances draw heavily from the slapstick romantic comedies of yore.  Clooney and Zeta-Jones’ chemistry plays like a forgotten James Stewart/Katherine Hepburn film, yet despite their best efforts, the film doesn’t quite pull it off.  In his second Coen outing, Clooney lampoons his suave, star persona quite well.  His vanity is manifested in physical traits like obsessively checking his teeth, a recurring joke that is one of the movie’s more brilliant aspects.

It’s clear that he’s having a lot of fun, and his enjoyment is infectious.  As the shrewd, calculating Marilyn, Zeta-Jones is a worthy adversary to Clooney’s charms.  The role requires someone with effortless grace, beauty, and sexuality– all of which Zeta-Jones possesses in spades.  It’s a serviceable performance, if only because the role itself doesn’t require much in the way of involved acting ability.  For what the film is and what it aspires to be, the casting of the two leads is pitch perfect.

The supporting cast allows the chance for the Coens to trot out their signature outsized characters.  Billy Bob Thornton, who last starred for the Coens in their previous film (2001’s THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE) plays Howard Doyle, a Texan oil baron and one sucker in a long line of them competing for Marilyn’s fake affections.  His role is the polar opposite to his laconic, nearly-mute barber in THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE, a casting technique that the Coens are fond of (see the dichotomy between Steve Buscemi’s roles in FARGO (1996) and THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998).

Geoffrey Rush plays Donovan Donaly, a ponytailed television producer who goes on a wild shooting rampage when he comes home early to catch his wife in bed with the pool boy (which is odd because they have no pool).  Rush embraces the full-tilt psychopath aspects of his unhinged character to considerable comedic effect, and is one of the standout performers in the film.

Cedric The Entertainer plays Gus Petch, a private investigator specializing in philandering husbands.  His catchprase, “I’m gonna nail yo’ ass”, is invoked in almost every other line.  It’s an energetic, memorable performance, but I don’t know if you can really call it a performance when Cedric The Entertainer is essentially just being himself.

Richard Jenkins, who appeared alongside Thornton for the Coens in THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE, shows an unexpected knack for comedic timing in his depiction of Freddy Bender, Marilyn’s impotent and perpetually-aggravated lawyer.

A few other Coen cameos clue us in that INTOLERABLE CRUELTY exists within their winking, self-contained universe: Bruce Campbell appears as a surgeon on a television screen and the man who plays Mortimer Young (of the infamously fictional Forever Young film preservation society concocted by the Coens as a skewering of pretentious cinephiles) makes his first in-film appearance for the Coens as a curmudgeonly lawyer.

INTOLERABLE CRUELTY conscripts regular Coen cinematographer Roger Deakins into service once again.  Shooting on 35mm film, Deakins evokes the bright, cheery visuals of romantic comedies past.  The sun-dappled environs of Los Angeles and Las Vegas are rendered within the 1.85:1 frame with warm color tones and a high-key/somewhat overlit lighting scheme.

The film makes extensive use of handheld cinematography in the opening sequence, while opting for a more traditional locked-off/dolly/crane scheme for the remaining scenes.  It hurts me to say this, but this is perhaps Deakins’ worst-looking film.  That’s not to say it looks bad, but only that it is uncharacteristically bland and pedestrian.  It gets the job done, but I’m sure Deakins won’t be putting it in the proverbial reel anytime soon.

This time around, the Coens swap their usual production designer, Dennis Gassner, for Leslie McDonald.  McDonald does a commendable job recreating the privileged lifestyles of Los Angeles’ elite, imbuing the film with a stuffy old-money sensibility.  Her work is not unimpressive, but neither is it impressive.  It, like most of the movie, is bland, middle-of-the-road journeyman stuff.  Hardly the eccentric, nuanced design we’ve come to expect from a Coen Brothers film.

Carter Burwell returns to score the film, utilizing a brassy, big-band sound that further alludes to Hollywood Golden Age comedies.  His music is accompanied by a generic mix of folk rock offered up by the likes of Simon & Garfunkel.  It makes the film more enjoyable, to be sure, but it rarely makes for a transcendent experience.

There is one instance of what seems to be genuine inspiration here:  the Monty Python-esque opening credits that animate Victorian paintings of Cupid and couples in love.  However, it’s not enough to save the film from its lackluster execution.  Many signature Coen conceits are present, like their fondness for Buster Keaton-style slapstick.

Their dark sense of humor is also incorporated, but to substantially diluted effect.  The whole thing seems to have the stink of big studio meddling about it, from well-known producers like Brian Grazer and Grant Heslov on the payroll, on down to a screenplay in which the Coens had to share credit with no less than three other writers.

Considering the strength of their earlier films, INTOLERABLE CRUELTY is a major disappointment.  It seems that I wasn’t alone in my thinking– the film bombed upon its release and was not warmly received by critics.  I don’t know if the Coens just weren’t trying this particular go-round, but something is very noticeably off about their execution.

Ten years after its release, it’s been all but forgotten– denied even a small cult following like the ones that cropped up around many of their other lesser films.  Every filmmaker has a mis-step in his/her career, but because this is the Coen Brothers we’re talking about, INTOLERABLE CRUELTY is a nearly-unforgivable transgression by virtue of its indifference– arguably the biggest filmmaking sin of them all.


THE LADYKILLERS (2004)

I had never seen Joel and Ethan Coen’s 2004 feature, THE LADYKILLERS, until only recently.  However, funnily enough, I do remember its release.  I remember seeing posters for the film displayed at Pioneer Place mall in downtown Portland, OR, which had a theatre that I frequented in those days.  I distinctly recall being wholly uninterested in the film, an impression that barred me from seeing it until a few days ago– nearly ten years later.

I was expecting a creatively indifferent dud like their previous film, 2003’s INTOLERABLE CRUELTY.  However, I was pleasantly surprised by the film’s humble charms and it’s picturesque Mississippi setting.  It’s certainly not one of the Coens’ great films, but it is an unexpectedly entertaining effort that plays like a hayseed version of OCEAN’S 11.

Marva Munson (Irma P. Hall) is a wealthy widow and God-fearing Christian living in a small Mississippi town.  One day, an eccentrically-dressed man named Professor Dorr (Tom Hanks) arrives at her doorstep, inquiring about her upstairs room for rent.  He presents himself as a worldly, educated man and a member of a musical ensemble specializing in church music.  He gains permission to live with Munson and have rehearsal with his band in her basement cellar, so as not to distract her during the evening.

What he doesn’t tell her, however, is that his band is a front– together, his merry little group uses the basement to conspire and execute a daring heist of a ferryboat casino on the Mississippi River.  The casino’s vault is located underground on the river bank, and Dorr’s master plan requires them to tunnel directly from underneath Munson’s house and into the vault.

Dorr and his men pull off the heist successfully, but their getaway is bungled when Munson discovers their haul and presents them with a choice: give the money back and go with her to church, or go to prison.  In response, these bumbling thieves come up with their own response: kill kindly old Mrs. Munson.

The performances are energetic and suitable for the zany tone that the Coens are after.  Tom Hanks clearly relishes the opportunity to ham it up, Coen-style.  His Professor Dorr is a southern gentleman and a dandy with a bizarre, gulping nervous laugh.  As the matronly Marva Munson, Irma P. Hall is endearing and sweet in her stubborn indignation.

Her rants about the “hippity-hop” music are funny, and her conversations with the portrait of her long-dead husband are poignant.  Despite her elderly stature, she’s a tough old broad that can stand her own against the basement full of criminals under her feet.

Dorr’s crew, haphazardly assembled from want ads he placed in the paper, is a veritable rogue’s gallery of clumsy fools.  The standouts (Marlon Wayans, JK Simmons, and Tzi Ma) provide the film with its best comedic moments.  Wayans, as the gangsta janitor of the boat casino, is the fiery, unpredictable inside man.  It’s a little sad, after his bravua performance four years earlier in Darren Aronofsky’s REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, to see him revert to a cliched ‘hood archetype, but his knack for comedic timing transcends the role’s limitations.

As an animal wrangler/demolitions expert with chronic IBS, Simmons’ Garth Pancake makes full use of his particular cadence and body language.  Simmons is known primarily as a comedic character actor, but here he gets to embrace a unique dynamic entirely apart from his best-known roles.  And then there’s Tzi Ma, the mute Vietnamese shop owner known only as The General.  He proved to by my favorite character in the film– his effortless slinking, tunneling, and cigarette-swallowing abilities are truly hilarious.

The fact that he gets the film’s biggest laughs without barely speaking is a testament to Ma’s physical talents.

THE LADYKILLERS is fairly light on the expected Coen cameos, but Bruce Campbell shows up briefly in a dog food commercial shoot.  Stephen Root, who previously appeared up as the blind record label owner in O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (2000), makes his second Coen outing as the casino’s stern manager and Wayan’s boss.  It’s a small role, but Root makes the best of his limited screentime.

Roger Deakins returns as Director of Photography, crafting a gorgeous looking film from the Coens’ preferred 35mm, 1.85:1 shooting format.  The film takes on a sepia-tinted hue, drawing from a murky palette of earth tones and bright colors.  The camerawork is appropriately elaborate in proportion to the film’s comfortable budget, consisting of artful dolly and crane movements that add scale to the story.  The Coens also utilize a brilliant POV camera shot from within a football player’s helmet during a chaotic game.

Moments like this make it clear that THE LADYKILLERS is considerably more engaging subject matter to the Coens than INTOLERABLE CRUELTY, their uninspired previous film.  Subsequently, Deakin’s work is markedly better as well.

Dennis Gassner reprises his Production Design duties as well, bringing an authentic, lived-in quality back to the Coen universe.  He really brings out the Old World charm of the Deep South, making for an immersive experience.  The languid pacing, courtesy of the Coens’ cutting alter-ego Roderick Jaynes, echoes the leisurely Southern mentality while bringing dynamic energy when it’s needed.

Carter Burwell is again credited as crafting the score, but I barely noticed his efforts within the finished film.  Instead, the story is peppered with a mix of blues, gospel, classical and hip-hop music– all chosen by the Coens’ frequent music supervisor T-Bone Burnett.  The carefully chosen tracks do a great job in conveying a distinct culture and place, while giving the film a unique gospel-inspired patina.

While it’s not as memorable a mix as the soundtrack to O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?, the soundtrack is another great survey of Americana folk music.

The film is technically a remake of the 1955 of the same name, but the Coens bring enough of their quirky vision to the proceedings so that it stands on its own merits.  It’s chock full of their signature gallows humor (sometimes quite literally), and the characters are well-drawn variations on unexpected archetypes.

While it can still be considered one of their minor works, THE LADYKILLERS is far from their worst.  Rather, it’s an underrated, enjoyable little surprise of a film– one that I suspect will respectably hold its own against the ravages of time.


TUILERIES (2006)

In 2006, a film called PARIS, JE T’AIME premiered with a unique concept.  It was an omnibus film, consisting of twenty separate shorts directed by twenty different directors.  The common thread uniting them was that timeless city of light, Paris.  It was well-received, spawning a series of similar anthology films built around a single city (New York, Rio, Jerusalem, etc…).

Joel and Ethan Coen served as contributors to PARIS, JE T’AIME, ultimately creating one of the best shorts of the project.  Their piece, entitled TUILERIES after the Parisian subway station, concerns an American tourist: Coen regular Steve Buscemi.  He’s sitting in a station, waiting for his train and reading his tourism book.  One passage encourages him never to make eye contact with others on the subway, which of course he does.  He’s caught staring at a pair of young, hotheaded lovers (Axel Kiener and Julie Bataille), who begin accosting him belligerently.

As the young woman uses Buscemi to instill jealousy in her boyfriend, Buscemi quickly finds himself in over his head.

The short is no more than five minutes long, but the Coens are able to pack a great deal of their specific brand of comedy and quirk into the piece.  They are able to effortlessly convey a complicated comedic scenario using only French dialogue (no subtitles) and Buscemi’s increasingly confused facial expressions.  The action builds to a fever pitch, leading to the angry young Frenchman pouring Buscemi’s tourist trinkets all over him before waltzing off with his girl, their own relationship troubles seemingly forgotten.

The film is shot by Bruno Delbonnel, in a departure from the Coens’ usual cinematographer Roger Deakins.  However, Delbonnel stays faithful to the Coens’ established look- 35mm fill framed with a 1.85:! aspect ratio, wide compositions interspersed with detailed close-ups, etc.  The subterranean location is rendered in a saturated amber hue that’s romantic and wistful– a device that lulls Buscemi’s American tourist into a complacent state.  Music is included via the diagetic presence of a street perfumer strumming a classical guitar tune.

Even at its short length, the Coens’ distinct touch is immediately apparent.  The shortform medium limitations and self-imposed dialogue restrictions on Buscemi’s part allows the Coens to really dig into what they do best: outlandish characters getting into absurd scenarios with unexpected results.

TUILERIES is only the second short film the Coens have made to date (if you’re counting Joel’s student film SOUNDINGS), but it’s just as good as much of their feature work.  It’s like those little bite-sized candy bars you get at Halloween, except instead of chocolate… it’s Coen.


NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007)

The year 2007 was a watershed year for me in regards to my development as a filmmaker.  For starters, it marked ten full years that I had been making films– I was only eleven when I trained a video camera on my action figures and made a stop-motion movie with them.  2007 also saw the year I shot and completed THE ARCHITECT, my thesis film that would cap my studies at Emerson College.  And finally, the top three films of the decade (a opinion shared by many besides myself) all debuted within a few months of each other during 2007.

These three films– David Fincher’s ZODIAC, Paul Thomas Anderson’s THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and Joel & Ethan Coen’s NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN– left an indelible mark on me, and have influenced and informed my work ever since.  It was the closest that I felt modern-day Hollywood has ever gotten to my favorite era of cinema– the 1970’s– and the success of these films suggested the dawn of a new age of artfully-made films.

Sadly, this was not meant to be.  Only a year later, the specialty studios that made these kind of prestige films– Warner Independent, Paramount Vantage, New Line, etc– would shutter, paving the way instead for the dominance of big-budget, rudderless spectacle films, remakes, sequels, and prequels.  I had the pleasure of interning at Warner Independent Pictures in its closing days, and it was heartbreaking to see the house collapse in on itself.

The studio executives I worked with were the complete opposite of your archetypal Hollywood producer: they were unbelievably kind, had great taste in scripts, had little regard for the box office results of their work, and genuinely desired to create great movies.  And in the great American tradition of capitalism, all their hard work was rewarded, not with bonus checks, but with pink slips.

It was a short, glorious era for filmmaking, and as a budding filmmaker who had recently made the big move to Los Angeles to finally start his career in earnest, it was an incredibly exciting time.  Walking around the Warner Brothers lot on my lunch break, I felt like anything was possible.

My optimism was countered by the pessimistic nature of these three films.  I once read somewhere that periods of war and controversial presidencies often influence pop culture to ask tough questions and reflect the somber view of reality.  It was certainly true for the 1970’s, quagmired in Vietnam.  It was also true for the Bush administration, which was losing two wars and slipping into the worst recession in nearly eighty years.  For many, it seemed like the world was ending, and this pessimism bubbled it’s way to the surface, channeled into our art as a coping mechanism.

It’s into this climate that the Coen Brothers released NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.  Adapted from the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, the film stunned audiences into a dumb silence, almost as if they were bludgeoned by some blunt instrument.  I had caught the film during my last days of living in Boston, and it felt like nothing short of a revelation.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is undoubtedly the Coens’ masterwork, rightfully rewarded with their biggest box office take at the time, as well as golden statues for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Adapted Screenplay at the Academy Awards.

It was a perfect synergy of the cultural zeitgeist, the Coens’ unique directorial style, and the national mood.  The film’s tagline, “you can’t stop what’s coming”, proved to be true on untold levels.  Its success was an unstoppable juggernaut, and its barren, desert setting hinted at the economic wasteland and devastation that, much like the terrifying specter of Anton Chigurgh and his fateful coin, was traveling from some unknown place to arrive at our front door.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN concerns a briefcase full of money, and the wrath it incurs on those who possess it.  A gruff man, Lleweyn Moss, comes across it when he finds the aftermath of a drug deal gone south.  He takes it back home with him, only to learn that its original owners, a dangerous gang of Mexicans, are after him to take it back.  Meanwhile, a fundamentally unsettling assassin known as Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) is relentlessly stalking closer to Moss, also in pursuit of the briefcase.

He kills anyone who gets in his way, utilizing a variety of macabre techniques: strangling a police officer with his handcuffs, using an air-powered bolt pistol to punch holes in the head of unlucky fellows, or savagely gunning down Mexican gangsters with a silenced shotgun.  One step behind both players is Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), a weary police officer who, in his old age, has become deeply troubled by the realization that existence could be meaningless.

These three figures pursue each other across the Texas countryside, and their encounters with each other will change their lives forever.

The calibre of acting talent on display is simply staggering.  Although Bardem was the only cast member to be nominated for an Academy Award, Jones and Brolin are just as eligible in their respective turns.  Sheriff Bell was the role that Jones was born to play– both men hail from the same area of West Texas, and Jones imbues his aging lawman with a haunted, wanderer’s soul.

As he enters his twilight years, spirituality is beginning to enter his life– but not like he imagined it.  What he expected to be a sudden swelling of faith in Jesus Christ instead gave way to a philosopher’s forlorn musings on a world where human life is snuffed out as inconsequentially as if it were a household fly.  It’s a towering performance by Jones, one that reminds us why he’s one of the best actors working today.

Brolin, who before this point was a relative unknown, found his career kicked into high gear after having to fight to secure the role of Llewelyn Moss.  His performance is gruff, quiet, and tough– but he doesn’t take himself so seriously that he’s one-note.  Moss is a stubborn man who thinks he can outsmart the unstoppably evil force that draws closer, but he must pay the price of his hubris with his own blood.

Another unknown to US audiences, Javier Bardem was a pants-shitting revelation the minute he stepped on-screen with that unnervingly creepy haircut.  As Anton Chigurh, he’s one of the most indelibly terrifying monsters in cinematic history, right up there with Dracula or Heath Ledger’s Joker.  He’s whip-smart, efficient, and deadly quiet.  When he speaks, the low monotone timbre of his voice suggests nothing less than Lucifer incarnate.  It was a hell of an introduction for Bardem, easily netting him the Best Actor Oscar that would kick off one of the most acclaimed careers of any actor ever.

The supporting cast is equally great, starting with Woody Harrelson as Carson Wells, a dandy bounty hunter tasked with finding Chigurh and the briefcase.  Harrelson’s screentime is brief, but his casual drawl and relaxed tough-guy attitude makes for a highly memorable appearance.  Kelly McDonald, a pretty Scottish actress, defied any doubt about her ability to portray a timid Texan girl with her performance as Moss’s wife, Carla Jean.  She pulls off a heavy West Texas accent effortlessly, and her feminine presence is a welcome relief in a film that is otherwise dominated by brutal machismo.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is unique in that almost none of the Coens’ regular actors make an appearance in the film, save for Stephen Root.  Root makes a brief cameo as a big-city boss that hires both Wells and Chigurh, only to find himself on the receiving end of Chigurh’s silent fury.  Root plays his character as appropriately sleazy, but it never feels over the top or out-of-place within the stark tone that the Coens have cultivated.

Roger Deakins, serving once again as Director of Photography, effortlessly creates one of the Coens’ best-looking films.  The 35mm film image, limited to a 2.35:1 aspect ratio so as to give the film a bigger cinematic punch, is spare and stark.  Highlights are blown out, suggesting a place where hard men toil under the intense beating of a vengeful sun.

Colors are desaturated to reflect the arid desert climate that surrounds them, and blood (of which there is a copious amount) stands out as a creeping, dark crimson fluid that stains the earth and seeps into cracks in the floorboard.  The Texas nights are as hot as the days, represented via warm amber tones in place of the more conventional moonlight-blue.  The austerity of Deakins’ images are complemented by reserved camerawork that uses imperceptibly slow, creeping dolly shots that add an air of foreboding and malice to slow-burn suspense sequences.

For their twelfth feature film, the Coens bring on a new Production Designer in the form of Jess Gonchor.  Like Dennis Gassner before him, Gonchor creates a tangible world for McCarthy’s characters to inhabit.  West Texas in 1980 is a dusty, color-less place that’s still somewhat stuck in the decade that preceded it.  Walls are wood-panelled, motels are dingy, clothes draw from the earth tone palette that defined fashion in the late 70’s, etc.

The film’s editing, done by the Coens under their Roderick Jaynes persona, is spare and allows their compositions to breathe.  This low-key approach pays off in spades in some of the film’s most suspenseful sequences.  Instead of using quick cuts to ratchet up tension, the Coens wisely opt to dwell on their shots for an inordinate amount of time, allowing the sound effects to pull us to the edge of our seats.

One example is this masterful shootout sequence that occurs halfway through the film.  Note how Chigurh is barely glimpsed as he attacks Moss.  No tricky camera angles, no fast-editing, no thumping music– just the compressed explosions of Chigurh’s shotgun and fleeting footsteps bouncing off wet concrete:

Speaking of music, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is infamous for its lack of music throughout the entirety of the film.  Carter Burwell, the Coens’ regular music man, is credited for his score, but you wouldn’t know it upon a cursory listen to the film’s soundtrack.  Burwell’s score does exist, albeit in a radically imperceptible way.

Comprised mainly of ambient tones, it buzzes low under select sequences, giving a palpable ominousness to them that registers on a subconscious level.  It’s an effective approach to score, especially for a film that already achieves such a powerful atmosphere without it.  The only blatantly musical notes we hear come in the diagetic form of a mariachi band that plays over Moss as he wakes up wounded in a Mexican town square.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN ironically finds the Coens working in top form, while simultaneously adopting a stylistic approach markedly different from their previous films.  Many of their directorial signatures— beginning the film with a regionally-accented voiceover musing over establishing shots of the setting, traveling point of view shots, and wry humor– are all present, to varying degrees of subversion.  The violence is sudden and brutal (and often occurs offscreen), as it always has been with the Coen Brothers, but there’s considerable more malice this time around.

The image of a storm of scuff marks on linoleum– the aftermath of a savage murder by strangulation– is haunting by the slow, torturous death said marks imply.  Quirky Coen characters abound, but they’re grounded in the harsh, sun-baked reality that the story demands.  If their fondness for influences like Buster Keaton and Preston Sturges were evident in their previous films, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN finds the Coens swinging towards the other side of the pendulum, channeling the likes of John Ford and Sam Peckinpah.

An air of pessimism abounds throughout the film, implying a weary hopelessness to life that can only be soothed by a woman’s grace.  Thematically, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN’s nihilistic viewpoint has much in common with the Coens’ previous masterpiece FARGO (1996), as well as their pitch-black debut BLOOD SIMPLE (1984).

It’s interesting to note that the Coens’ biggest cinematic successes have been when they indulge in darker subject matter.  For all their worth as intelligent tricksters and comedic stylists, perhaps their greater voice is that of documentarians of our own inhumanity towards each other.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is an unmitigated highlight in the Coens’ development as filmmakers.  The stripped-down aesthetic allows them to channel the best of their craft into the proceedings, making for an unforgettable experience.   The Coen Brothers are lucky enough to have a great deal of films that they’ll be forever remembered for, but NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN stands above them all as a staggering achievement.

It is one of my personal favorite films of all time, inarguably one of the very best films of its decade, and a reference-grade masterwork that raised the bar for all filmmakers to come.


BURN AFTER READING (2008)

Hot off the career highlight that was the dual Oscar wins (Picture and Director) for 2007’s NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, Joel and Ethan Coen found themselves the subject of lofty expectations regarding their next project.  While a short contribution to the TO EACH HIS OWN CINEMA anthology project entitled “WORLD CINEMA” (2007) is their true follow-up, it is unavailable on these shores.  This brings us to 2008’s BURN AFTER READING.

Written in tandem withNO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, (alternating between scripts every other day), the Coens’ thirteenth feature film was a paranoid satire of spy genre conventions that featured an impressive lineup of A-list talent and first-rate execution.

BURN AFTER READING has a zany energy that calls to mind the Coens’ previous work on RAISING ARIZONA (1987) andO BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (2000).  When Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), a low-ranking analyst in the CIA, is unceremoniously fired, he deludes himself into the idea that a book of his memoirs will be both his meal ticket and delicious revenge on his former employers.

The digital files containing his notes inadvertently find their way into the bumbling hands of Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) and Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt), an inept pair of fitness trainers who believe they’ve stumbled upon juicy state secrets.  When their plan to extort money from Cox in exchange for returning the files goes south, they then try to sell the information to the Russians.

Meanwhile, Cox’s wife (Tilda Swinton) carries on an affair with the sex-obsessed Harry Pfarrer (George Clooeny), who grows paranoid when he becomes entangled in the complicated machinery of the plot and begins to suspect he’s the subject of government surveillance.

If the plot sounds ridiculously convoluted, that’s because it was meant to be.  The Coens’ chief aim in creating the film was to lampoon the spy and political thriller genres by orchestrating a complex, lurid plot that ultimately was meaningless by sheer virtue of the worthlessness of the central macguffin.  This makes for extremely silly moments that stretch the bounds of believability, but the Coens have a strong enough command of their craft to keep the tone consistent and the action clear.

The cast is remarkable in that it is comprised primarily of A-list talent that willingly subvert their self-serious images to great comedic effect.  Clooney’s third appearance in a Coen film acts as the capstone to what the directors have informally dubbed the “trilogy of idiots” (the other two being O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? and INTOLERABLE CRUELTY (2003)).  Clooney’s Harry Pfarrer is handsome, but a schlub nevertheless.  His increasing paranoia over the events of the film provides ample opportunity for him to ham it up.

Malkovich, a character actor celebrated for his oddball performances, also parodies his “thespian” conceits as the disgruntled, violently confused Osborne Cox.  His character is an intelligent, well-educated man who has effectively weaponized his genius against those he considers to be intellectually inferior, wielding it with an ultimately-murderous intent.

Frances McDormand, who hasn’t been seen in a Coen Brothers film since THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE (2001), is a sight to behold in her incarnation as Linda Litzke.  McDormand, no longer the fresh-faced lass we saw in 1984’s BLOOD SIMPLE, embraces her middle age and channels it into her performance of a vainglorious woman with fading looks and sagging skin.

Litzke is probably the most emotionally pure of all the narcissistic characters in the film, as she spends most of the film desperately looking for love before it’s too late.  Ultimately, her relative innocence makes her the only character that gets away scott-free.

Undoubtedly, the film’s highlight performance is Brad Pitt as Chad Feldheimer.  Feldheimer’s personality is perfect for his profession as a personal trainer.  Pitt bounces around like a hyperactive spazz with bad hair and a worse sense in clothing.  His air-headed performance is so great because of the unfettered familiarity he conveys– how many of us actually knowsomeone like that?  I certainly do.  Pitt’s character is responsible for some of the biggest laughs in the film, like the infamous“Security of Your Shit” sequence (embedding disabled, sadly).

The remainder of the cast is filled out with more A-list names, like Tilda Swinton, Richard Jenkins, and JK Simmons.  Swinton plays Katie Cox, Osborne’s unfaithful and unsupportive wife.  Jenkins plays Ted, the manager at the gym where Linda and Chad work.  Ted is a pitiable character, hopelessly in love with Linda even though he’s romantically invisible to her.

Simmons, who appears in his second Coen film with a small cameo, is highly memorable as the CIA boss who finds himself baffled by the inane plot developments and unmotivated to intervene.  His omniscience is a handicap, leaving him scratching his head over the bizarre events as they unfold.  However, it’s in his confusion and indifference that the Coens’ core message resides.

The Coens’ regular cinematographer, Roger Deakins, was unavailable to shoot BURN AFTER READING due to already committing to shoot Sam Mendes’ REVOLUTIONARY ROAD (2008).  Instead, the Coens turned to Terrence Malick’s current cinematographer, the supremely gifted Emmanuel Lubezki.  Lubezki does a great job appropriating the Coens’ signature visual style, while putting his own subtle stamp on the material.  Shot on 35mm film, BURN AFTER READING is one of the most gorgeous-looking comedies in memory.

The 1.85:1 frame complements the crisp coldness of autumnal New York (subbing in for Washington DC and its environs) by adopting a palette of desaturated pastels.  The contrast is deep, with highlights that take on more of a cream cast (rather than a solid white).

The camerawork, consisting of dolly and handheld-based moves and predominantly low angles, evokes the seriousness of hard-hitting political thrillers– a visual device that only heightens the overall joke.  The more seriously the characters take themselves, the funnier the film becomes; a conceit that the film echoes in its own construction.

This self-seriousness is matched by the film’s score, crafted by regular collaborator Carter Burwell.  In an attempt to match the characters’ delusions of grandeur, the score takes on a bombastic energy.  Comprised of booming war drums and swelling strings that are reminiscent of the work of Phillip Glass, the score’s overt seriousness is the perfect companion to the Coens’ established tone, helping to communicate the sense of self-importance these characters have.

In their eyes, the stakes are life or death– but as outside observers, we get to be in on the ultimate joke:  all their efforts and trials amount inherently meaningless.

BURN AFTER READING is a first-class comedy that builds upon the formidable skillset the Coens have established.  The Coens have made a career of doing the exact opposite of what people expect them to do, and this film certainly continues that legacy.  Their affection for pitch-black humor is on full display, as well as their sudden, brutal treatment of violent acts.  Some moments (like Chad’s ultimate fate) are shocking in their abruptness (and messiness), while other violent moments are left offscreen entirely.

It’s refreshing when filmmakers feel that they don’t have to show you everything, allowing imagination to fill in the blanks.  The Coens’ ability to subvert genre expectations while still delivering a satisfying experience is rivaled only by a few filmmakers, all of whom could be considered to be in the top tier of great directors.

Any Coen Brothers film released after the sheer phenomenon that was NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was bound to be a letdown.  While it’s not their strongest film, BURN AFTER READING limits the possibility for disappointment by being genuinely hilarious.  It’s as good as any film the Coens made in the first decade of the new millennium, bested only by its immediate predecessor.

While it was met with middling success upon its release, I suspect that BURN AFTER READING’s stature in the Coen canon will only grow with time.


A SERIOUS MAN (2009)

In the late 2000’s, Joel and Ethan Coen were experiencing a career resurgence in the wake of their Best Director win at the 2008 Academy Awards.  After shooting BURN AFTER READING (2008), a comedic palette-cleanser of sorts, the Coens again defied expectation by tackling subject matter they held very close.  Their fourteenth feature film, 2009’s A SERIOUS MAN, is arguably the Coens’ most personal and autobiographical film to date, by virtue of its dealings with Judaism and midcentury suburban Americana.  

A SERIOUS MAN is a film about a man’s struggles with faith, a topic that most everyone can relate to.   Coming from a pair of filmmakers who are infamously guarded about their private lives and influences, it’s a curious inclusion in the Coens’ canon.  For instance, not a single well-known actor appears in the film (let alone any of the Coens’ regular repertoire of performers).

By taking our attention away from who is in the film, we are able to more clearly focus on what the film is trying to say.  But, what is it trying to say, exactly?  In a good way, the film itself doesn’t seem to know.  What is there to say when confronted with the unknowable force of a higher power?

Reading like a modern-day retelling of the Biblical story of Job, A SERIOUS MAN is about Larry Gopnik, an ordinary man whose faith in God is put to the test on an almost daily basis.  Throughout his ordeals, he tries to a good and righteous Jew, but he finds it increasingly hard to be a good role model in an old-fashioned community, especially when the world around them is modernizing at a rapid pace.

While the story is based on the Coens’ own experiences and notions about their Jewish heritage, people of any belief (even atheists) can sympathize with the hard questions that the film asks.  But make no mistake, A SERIOUS MAN is a deeply personal film for the Coens, made even more so by the 1967-era Midwestern suburban setting that they themselves are a product of.

The cast, while comprised mostly of unknowns, thankfully doesn’t fail to deliver the Coens’ unique brand of quirk and characterization.  Stage actor Michael Stuhlbarg plays Larry Gopnik, a mild-mannered physics professor who is growing frustrated with his increasing ineffectiveness.  He haggles with his students over grades, he can’t control his kids, and trying to salvage his marriage to his wife Judith (Sari Lennick) is a lost cause.  

Stuhlbarg’s non-celebrity is a blank slate, giving him an everyman quality onto which the audience can project their own existential crises.  Lennick runs the risk of being the “evil, cheating wife”, but her own convictions and sincere charms work well in her favor.  As Judith’s new beau, Sy Ableman, actor Fred Melamed steals the show.  He’s an overbearing presence with no conception of personal space. His cool, calm demeanor makes his invasion into Gopnik’s family all the more evil. 

Character actor Richard Kind  also appears as Uncle Arthur, Larry’s idiot savant brother who is continually laid low by the cyst growing on the back of his neck.  The remainder of the cast all perform admirably, but it’s upon these four principals that the weight of the story really rests.

Roger Deakins returns as Director of Photography, adopting an earth-toned color palette that fleshes out the late 60’s setting that has been meticulously recreated by returning Production Designer Jess Gonchor.  Highlights within the 1.85:1 frame often take on a greenish-blue tinge while primary colors are desaturated and dull.  On paper, it sounds visually dull, but Deakins’ expertise makes for a rather handsome 35mm film image.  The Coens’ use of classical camera movements like dollies continues, and is supplemented with punches of handheld camerawork and canted angles that serve to illustrate Gopnik’s increasing disorientation.

Carter Burwell again composes the score, using a lilting harp to add an air of mystery to the proceedings.  It also recalls the ancient heritage that serves as the film’s focus, alluding to Old World sensibilities while retaining a traditionally cinematic sound.  Such sensibilities are also illustrated through the use of various opera cues.  Additionally, the Coens use period-appropriate psychedelic rock throughout, most notably the recurring musical motif of Jefferson Airplane’s “Want Somebody To Love”.

Other bands like The Velvet Underground and Jimi Hendrix serve as encroaching voices of modernity that threaten to penetrate this ancient culture from the outside.  This is illustrated in the scenes where Larry’s son, Danny, listens discretely to rock music on a walkman during his Hebrew classes.

The opening of A SERIOUS MAN is worth mentioning, notable by sheer virtue of its inclusion.  Presented in an old-fashioned 4:3 aspect ratio, the prologue depicts a (probably made-up) piece of Jewish folklore concerning a man who has invited an old family friend into his humble home for soup and shelter from a cold winter’s night.  The man’s wife is shocked to learn the identity of the old friend, who she is convinced died of disease three years earlier.

When the old man enters their home, the wife tries to prove that he is a dybbuk, or the malevolent, spiritual manifestation of a dead person.  She even goes as far as stabbing the man, who laughs off the wound as he bleeds to death.  He wanders back out into the night, while the married couple ruminates on the spell of bad luck that surely awaits them.  While some take this sequence as a prologue showing the genesis of the Gopnik family’s bad fortune, the Coens publicly insist that it has no bearing on the overall plot.

Instead, it is meant as a callback to an older time when short films played before features.  This short introductory sequence (spoken entirely in Yiddish with subtitles) sets the mood for the ensuing story, while also introducing the audience to some of the more arcane, superstitious tenets of Judaism.

It stands to reason that the Coens’ most personal film will have the most distinct bearings of their directorial aesthetic.  This is more or less the case.  The Coens’ distinct sense of character quirks seems to manifest itself from the deeply-rooted idiosyncrasies of their cultural upbringing.  By this, I mean that the characters in A SERIOUS MAN are purer, more-distilled versions of classic Coen character archetypes.

A fundamentally Jewish sensibility courses underneath each of the Coens’ character creations and plots, an observation that seems obvious now upon reflection, but didn’t really make itself known to me until A SERIOUS MAN.   Other elements of the Coens’ aesthetic– period settings, sudden/brutal violence and the withholding of onscreen deaths for prominent characters– are all present and accounted for.

There’s even the occasional in-joke acknowledging a self-contained universe across the Coens’ body of work (for instance, a callback to Tukman/Marsh, the fictional law firm mentioned in BURN AFTER READING).

The Coens don’t strike me as particularly religious, but Judaism– arguably more so than any other major religion– is as much a cultural and ethnic heritage as it is a belief system.  Even if they’re not ardent observers of their own faith, their upbringing in that particular culture informs their filmmaking style and view of the world.  By tackling their religion head-on, the Coens are sharing more of their intimate selves than they ever have before.

But don’t try to look for these insights too hard– even their most nakedly personal moments ultimately reveal themselves as red herrings under intense scrutiny.  The film was released to middling box office success, but met with strong critical acclaim.  It went on to be nominated for Best Picture at the 2010 Academy Awards, and has ever since enjoyed a comfortable standing among the Coens’ best films.

A SERIOUS MAN asks hard questions, and provides little in the way of answers.  And rightfully so, for a film that concerns itself with vague concepts of God, fate, and destiny.  Everything about the film, including its knockout ending, defies easy explanation.  So it is with such an unknowable, ultimately un-proveable thing as a religious belief.  In the end, all you have to go on is faith, and only when it is is tested will your strength of character make itself known.


COMMERCIAL WORK (1995-2009)

Over a career spanning nearly three decades, Joel and Ethan Coen have built up one of the most impressive bodies of work in cinematic memory.  Their feature work is often held up as the gold standard of directing excellence, made all the more special by their independent roots.  So color me surprised to learn (when I’m nearly at the end of my examination of their work) that the Coens have racked up an astonishing number of commercial credits since 1995.

But I’ll be damned if that isn’t the defining nature of the Coen Brothers– once you think you’ve got them figured out, they have one more trick up their sleeve that changes all your perceptions.

*Embeds and links to spots are made when publicly available.  The rest of these spots are available to watch via the paid commercial archive site, Source Ecreative.

OLYMPUS: “TOURIST”- 1995

What appears to be the Coen Brothers’ first commercial is an exercise in genre subversion.  In the spot, a young man finds himself the subject of a harsh interrogation in some foreboding underground bunker.  The dramatically-lit, cobalt-blue 16mm film image is the result of a collaboration between the Coens and Director of Photography Daniel Hainey, who, like Roger Deakins in their theatrical work, would become the Coens’ regular commercial cinematographer.

  The production design recalls Ridley Scott’s “1984” Apple spot in its moodiness, but the Coen’s signature comedic sensibilities make the spot something else entirely.

HONDA: “OFFICE”- 1996

A year later, Honda enlisted the Coens’ help to realize their spot for “OFFICE”, which features a young man rushing through his place of work and ignoring the frantic pleas of his co-workers so he can reach his “special place”– a white room that holds his beloved Honda sedan.  The piece is shot in black and white, and uses relentless dolly movements and outsized characterization to create a high-energy piece in line with the Coens’ comedic sensibilities.

PARISSIENNE CIGARETTES: “PARISSIENNE”- 1999

This commercial, from European cigarette brand Parissienne, is a riff on old Hollywood silent vampire films like NOSFERATU (1992).  As old-timey horror music plunks over the soundtrack, a wiry vampire approaches a sleeping woman and feeds.  In his post-feeding stupor, he lights a cigarette to calm his nerves.

Curiously enough, the Coens go to great lengths to replicate the wide, proscenium-style shooting aesthetic of early Hollywood films, yet they shoot in color.  They add another modern touch by slowly trucking the camera to the side as the vampire staggers back towards us.  This is a great example of Coens subverting genre expectations (modern techniques applied to silent film aesthetics).

HONDA: “FAMILY NEGOTIATIONS” CAMPAIGN- 1999

In 1999, the Coens once again went to work for Honda, creating a series of four spots built around the comedic concept of a family using individual lawyers to haggle with each other over who gets what features in the new family car.  Out of the four spots created, I was only able to view two, but I imagine my observations equally apply to the remaining spots.

The Coens employ their standard black/brown color palette to reflect the relative generic-ness of their surroundings.  This places a greater emphasis on the larger-than-life characters as they argue vociferously amongst each other.  The Coens use canted camera angles and circular dolly movements to add visual punch to the proceedings, which emphasizes the off-kilter nature of the comedy.  All in all, this is a clever campaign made all the more memorable by the Coens’ skillful helming.

ALLTELL CAMPAIGN- 1999

1999 was a busy year for the Coen Brothers on the commercial front.  They also tackled a small campaign from Alltell.  The conceit of the campaign is simple enough: two characters stand against a white background and argue with each other.  The hero eventually convinces his opponent that switching to Alltell will solve his problems.

The first spot, “CFO”, features a typical Coen archetype: the cigar-smoking, fat-cat boss.  The second, “PUPPET”, is a little more bizarre in that the opponent can only interact through his hand puppet.  It’s not exactly the most clever thing in the world, but hey, it’s a commercial.

Both spots were shot by the Coens’ regular commercial cinematographer, Daniel Hainey, who lights the 16mm film frame with the Coens’ signature black/brown color palette.  The execution of these spots speaks to the Coens’ affection for screwball comedy.

H&R BLOCK: “DESK”- 2002

The black/brown color palette returns in earnest with the Coens’ 2002 spot “DESK”, made for tax firm H&R Block.  The commercial features a mass of people slaving over their ledgers while the man in charge monotonously reads from a gigantic tome.  It’s a joke about the massive amount of boring work that goes into doing your taxes, which H&R Block is all too happy to help you with.

The Coens use classical camera movements to add scale to the room, which adds to the overbearingness of the situation.  Daniel Hainey collaborates with Daniel Pearl on the cinematography, while the Coens’ sometime-feature-editor, Tricia Cook, lends her cutting talents in post production.

For a bunch of number crunchers, the characters have well-developed personalities that are efficiently established within the spot’s 30 second running time.  This is further proof of the Coens’ great love for the characters they create, as well as their attention to behavioral detail.

GAP: “TWO WHITE SHIRTS”- 2002

In 2002, the Coens directed what is arguably their most well-known spot.  Shot by Daniel Hainey in stylish black and white, their spot for Gap– “TWO WHITE SHIRTS”– features Dennis Hopper and Christina Ricci engaged in a low-key game of chess as they lounge by the pool.  A classic rock song blasts over the image.  The camera starts in close on Hopper’s calm, emotionless face.  Gradually, it dollies back to reveal an idyllic southern California setting and an equally emotionless Ricci advancing one of her chess pawns before retiring to her lounge chair.

The spot exudes an effortless cool, using the contrast between black and white to great effect (white letterbox bars are a nice touch).  Gap has always been known for their stylish commercials, so their choice of the Coen Brothers as directors is somewhat curious.  However, it’s a well-made spot, and easily my favorite commercial of theirs.

PARISIENNE: “PARISIENNE PEOPLE”- 2003

A few years after their “PARISIENNE” spot for Parisienne Cigarettes, the Coens shot another spot entitled “PARISIENNE PEOPLE” (not exactly the most imaginatively-named set of commercials, is it?).  This spot plays off the dichotomy of a stone-faced man smoking a cigarette as he sits in the audience, watching a hyperactive man belt out showtunes on stage.

The commercial employs simple camerawork, relying on an alternating shot/reaction shot execution to sell the comedy.  Daniel Hainey again serves as Director of Photography, casting the backgrounds into deep shadow while handsomely lighting the two characters.

Like their feature that year, INTOLERABLE CRUELTY“PARISIENNE PEOPLE” finds the Coens in pure screwball mode.  Short, little-known works like this help to paint a picture of the brothers’ larger mindsets during particular eras of their career.

REALITY COALITION/ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION CAMPAIGN- 2009

The Coen Brother’s most recent commercial work is a pair of PSAs for the Reality Coalition/Alliance for Climate Protection.  The spots, “AIR FRESHENER” and “LAUNDRY”, feature fake household-cleaning products that are hailed as wondrous scrubbing agents that ironically pollute the environment around them.

The tongue-in-cheek nature of the concept is perfectly suited to the Coens’ sensibilities.  Each spot is done in the robotically cheery tone of midcentury cleaning commercials, while a genetically perfect Aryan family with plastered-on smiles extolls the virtues of the miracle cleaner as they gleefully choke on the black smoke it emits.

As shot by cinematographer Daniel Hainey, the image is low-contrast in the sterile way that many commercials are now shot in (a trend I find extremely distasteful).  Pastel color tones complement the blandness of the suburban setting, and the animated graphics of the cleaner in action recall the cutesy cartoons seen in similar commercials back in the 50’s.

True to the Coens’ nature, the oddball comedy hints at a darker truth– that there’s no such thing as a wonder chemical that doesn’t pollute.  It’s easy to see why the Coens were attracted to the concept, and their mark is immediately distinguishable from frame one.

As the Coens’ film career continues to develop, I don’t doubt that we’ll be seeing more commercial work from them as well.  Features take a long time to develop, and shooting a commercial or two is a great way to generate extra income during those fallow in-between years.  That’s not to say the Coens need that extra money– they do seem to be rather selective in regards to what work they take on.  Some may say that commercial work makes sellouts out of respected auteurs, but let’s be honest: anything that enables the Coens to put more work out there for us to enjoy is a good thing.


TRUE GRIT (2010)

Joel and Ethan Coen’s most recent film, 2010’s TRUE GRIT, also happens to be one of their best.  Positioning itself as a second adaption to Charles Portis’ original novel (as opposed to a remake of the 1969 film starring John Wayne), it would go on to become one of the Coens’ best-received films.  The instantaneous acclaim resulted in yet another Best Picture nomination as well as their first box office gross over $100 million.  It is generally regarded as one of the more superior westerns ever made, besting the cinematic original and even the source novel.

But something else happened along the way.  In their execution of TRUE GRIT, the filmmakers left behind two of their most-defining characteristics: subversion of genre expectations and an ironic point of view.  Oddly enough, the absence of such directorial stylings only bolsters the Coens’ craft.  As it stands, TRUE GRIT is an earnest, optimistic story firmly rooted in the traditions of the western genre.

It’s not a deconstruction, but rather an embrace of genre tropes, brilliantly rendered with the same effective minimalism that propelled 2007’s NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN to similar success.

Taking place in the Arkansas territories in the winter of 1880, TRUE GRIT follows the exploits of Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a precocious fourteen year-old girl who has arrived in town to transport her murdered father’s remains back to her family’s homestead.  She also has other, bigger plans– finding Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), the man who killed her father, and bringing him to justice.

She enlists the help of a cantankerous old bounty hunter, Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) as well as a vainglorious Texas Ranger named LeBoeuf (Matt Damon) to act as her guides and accomplices during the hunt.

The cast, comprised of faces both old and new, performs at the top of their game throughout.  Bridges made Oscar history when he was nominated for his performance as Cogburn (it was the first time an actor had been nominated for taking on a role that had earlier earned another Best Actor nomination for its originator, Wayne).

In his second Coen Brothers outing, Bridges completely disappears underneath his scraggly beard and eyepatch, adopting a husky growl of a voice that’s at once both intimidating and endearing.  Damon fully embraces the inherent silliness of his character LeBoeuf by wearing his spurs and strange facial hair with pride.  It’s an involved, dedicated performance that sees Damon bringing a new dimension to his pretty-boy physicality.

But by far, the performance deserving of most acclaim, is that of Steinfeld as Mattie Ross.  A complete unknown beforeTRUE GRIT, Steinfeld was only thirteen years old at the time of filming.  Her Ross is confident and stubborn, with a wit and vocabulary light years beyond her age and small stature.

The story’s events find Ross hardened by the end, but it’s by no means a loss of innocence tale.  Steinfeld came out of left field to deliver one of 2010’s most iconic performances, and her Best Actress nomination was well-earned.  It will be interesting to see what fruit her talents bear as her career unfolds.

Of the supporting cast, only Josh Brolin has had any experience in a Coen Brothers film before (save for a voice cameo by JK Simmons as Mattie’s lawyer).  Having served as the lead in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, Brolin trades in screen time for meatier character work.  As the fugitive at the center of the hunt, Brolin’s Tom Chaney is a grizzled, dirty scoundrel with an unusually high-pitched voice that hints at an undiagnosed psychopathy and dangerousness.

Interestingly enough, he’s not the leader of his particular posse– that honor belongs to Lucky Ned Pepper, played with reckless abandon by Barry Pepper.  Pepper relishes the chance to be a vicious miscreant, barking his lines through a mouth caked in spittle, dirt, and gingivitis.  The sickly-looking Lucky Ned proves to be an even more ruthless antagonist than the surprisingly cowardly Chaney.

Roger Deakins, having been absent for 2009’s A SERIOUS MAN, returns to his rightful place as Director of Photography.  As befitting the genre, the 35mm film image is framed to the panoramic 2.35:1 aspect ratio.  The color palette deals in varying shades of worn brown and desaturated primaries.  Deep shadows stand in stark contrast to the bright, slightly overexposed highlights, which gives a sun-seared patina to the image.

The Coens add a great deal of scale to the picture by framing returning Production Designer Jess Gonchor’s period-authentic details and set dressing with elaborate dolly and crane camera moves.  The Coens are well aware of the sweeping, romantic nature of the western genre, which is reflected in their own work here without the slightest trace of irony.

TRUE GRIT also benefits from the talents of major Hollywood backers like Scott Rudin and Megan Ellison.  Their clout and resources contribute significant production value to the film, and the slightest of cursory looks is all that’s needed to see that all that money is up there on-screen.  The sweeping edit by Roderick Jaynes (aka the Coen Brothers) also adds considerable excitement and substance to the picture.

Carter Burwell returns for scoring duties, crafting one of his most iconic works in the process.  The swelling music, comprised of traditional orchestra instruments, is both rousing and elegiac.  The film’s point of view is that of Mattie’s, twenty five years later as she reflects on how those events shaped who she is today.  As such, there’s an air of melancholy and longing in Burwell’s score– not just for Mattie’s youth, but for the once-open promise of the West as it became settled and incorporated into modern society.

Despite an overtly optimistic and straightforward tone, TRUE GRIT still bears the unmistakeable stamp of the Coen Brothers.  Their love for wry characterization informs a great deal of interactions, giving each actor ample scenery to chew.  The story still begins with a compelling, poetic voiceover.  The violence still packs the same kind of punch as their other films, but the absence of substantial blood and gore allows them to get away with a lot under the film’s PG-13 rating.  The Coens’ mastery of tone allows them to consistently surprise us without breaking any genre rules.

As I mentioned above, TRUE GRIT is the Coen Brothers’ most recent work (as of this writing).  In terms of overall excellence, it’s easily in their top three (the other two being NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and 1996’s FARGO).  While the Coens’ singular voice has stayed the same since BLOOD SIMPLE’s debut in 1984, each successive release has found their craft steadily improving.

The Coen Brothers, as a unified entity, can easily be considered one of our era’s greatest living filmmakers– a notion made all the more impressive considering their truly independent roots.  In their wake, the Coens have inspired countless other filmmakers and liberated them from the notion that drama and comedy are separate conceits.  It turns out, they actually are the same… it just depends on who’s telling the story.


INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS (2013)

Any aspiring artist can tell you the long, sad, often-frustrating story of their attempts to break through in their chosen medium. The pursuit of making art as one’s primary means of income, while incredibly exhilarating and fulfilling in its victories (both small and large), comes with living in a constant state of self-doubt, second-guessing, what-ifs, and seething envy for colleagues more successful than you.

Being an artist means pouring your blood, sweat, and tears into your work, oftentimes for no one else’s benefit but your own, and rarely with any kind of financial reward for your trouble. Being a part of an artistic community, while oftentimes a source of great encouragement and strength, can also be a source of great heartbreak when you’re surrounded by constant reminders that there will always be someone more talented, more connected, or more popular than you.

It takes a very specific kind of courage and character to persevere in such an environment, which the directing team of brothers Joel and Ethan Coen capture so beautifully in INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS (2013), their intimate portrait of Greenwich Village’s burgeoning folk scene circa the early 1960’s.

Like its sister piece O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (2000) before it, INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS springs forth from the rich heritage of American folk music. The Coens have often turned to our distinct musical flavor in finding inspiration throughout their body of work, and with INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS they turn their attention to the folk scene in Greenwich Village at a specific point in history—the moment just before Bob Dylan came around and fundamentally transformed it.

The Coens used folk musician Dave Van Ronk’s life as a jumping-off point, fictionalizing his plight in such a way that it would become our window into this insular, long-forgotten world. To accomplish their vision, the Coens teamed up with Scott Rudin, the super-producer behind their previous film (2010’s TRUE GRIT). At this time, Rudin had been dabbling in independent experimental works from well-known auteurs, like Noah Baumbach and his 2012 feature FRANCES HA, so another round with the Coens seemed only natural.

Despite the runaway success of their previous pairing, INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS floundered around somewhat in securing distribution, and while it received great reviews from the critics, it never found solid footing and support aside from the most hardcore of Coen fanatics (of which, admittedly, there are legion).

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS tells the story of its eponymous protagonist (Oscar Isaac), a struggling folk singer trying to make a dent in Greenwich Village’s crowded music scene in 1961. He is essentially homeless, bouncing around from couch to couch and becoming increasingly reliant on the generosity of like-minded artist within the scene as well as his adoring (and only) fans, a well-to-do older couple. Oftentimes, his inability to get his life in order results in animosity from his closest friends, which the thick-skinned Llewyn seems to be mostly oblivious to.

The film as a whole doesn’t boast much in the way of a traditional plot, opting instead to follow Llewyn during a somewhat eventful week that begins with his contentious friend and fellow folk singer Jean (Carey Mulligan) secretly announcing that she might be pregnant with his child—- a rather shitty development for her considering it might also be her boyfriend Jim’s (Justin Timberlake) baby and she actually would want to keep that one.

While Llewyn scrounges for whatever change he can in order to take care of the situation, he meets with his manager who, in as many words, reminds Llewyn of his depreciated musical value following the suicide of his partner, who jumped off the George Washington Bridge a few years prior.

A little bit later, Llewlyn records a song with Jim and fellow folk singer Al Cody (Adam Driver)—a song of Jim’s own making that Llewyn personally finds distasteful and embarrassing. Assuming this naked attempt to sell out won’t actually result in success, Llewyn accepts the one-time session recording payment without having the foresight to secure any future royalties—an ill-advised decision that hammers home when Llewyn discovers that, ironically, the song is actually going to be quite popular.

And finally, in a last-ditch attempt to secure new management, Llewyn hitches a ride to Chicago. He hopes to audition for a famous manager out there, only to again hit a wall that he can’t quite break through.

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS manages to capture a certain time and place in the calm before the storm… before a groundbreaking voice (Bob Dylan) came along like a megathrust earthquake and fundamentally changed the scene. To hammer this point home, we even see a cameo of a young Dylan sitting down to perform at the famous Gaslight venue, home to the Village’s folk community.

With the film, the Coens paint a portrait of a starving artist that’s utterly heartbreaking in how true it rings for any creative person caught in that hard, agonizing place between obscurity and success. However, the Coens use INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS to argue a heartfelt point—that the best art comes from a place of deprivation and the human condition of wanting and needing something; a fact that Llewyn has to understand and absorb if he’s ever going to take off. His art must be a product of passion and survival.

In his first true headlining performance, Oscar Isaac proves himself every bit a leading man. As the failing singer Llewyn, Isaac assumes a stymied, disorganized and neurotic persona. He’s fed up with the folk scene that seemingly exists only to mock him, along with his inability to rise to the level of success that his friends and colleagues seem to be experiencing. Isaac’s performance here is undeniably his best so far, fashioning a character that is inherently relatable even if he’s not exactly likeable.

Carey Mulligan, in her second collaboration with Isaac after Nicolas Wending Refn’s DRIVE (2011), dyes her hair jet black so she can disappear into the angry and confrontational character of Jean. She absolutely nails the Coens’ biting sense of humor, made all the more hilarious considering her sweet, youthful countenance. Justin Timberlake continues his run of surprisingly well-acted appearances for prestige directors in the character of Jim. He’s handsome, successful and charismatic—basically, he’s a folk version of himself in real life.

The Coens’ supporting cast is equally eclectic, with GIRLS’ stars Adam Driver playing Al Cody— a goofy performer dressed up in cowboy attire— and Alex Karpovsky playing Marty Green, a bookish and put-together departure from his usual “frazzled/neurotic” guy roles. Longtime Coen collaborator John Goodman makes his requisite appearance as Roland Turner—a lethargic, Kentucky-fried bastard and successful jazz musician— again proving himself a master of characterization, despite his limited screen time.

Garrett Hedlund, a much-maligned young actor for reasons I can’t quite comprehend, plays Johnny Five—Roland’s valet and chauffeur. Hedlund pulls off a quiet, intense performance as a James Dean greaser type, possessing an effortless cool that stands in stark contrast to Llewyn’s anxious aggression.

The Coens’ regular cinematographer, Roger Deakins, was unavailable to shoot INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS due to his commitments on Sam Mendes’ SKYFALL (2012), so instead, they turned to French cinematographer Bruce Delbonnel, who had previously worked with the Coens on “TUILIERIES”, their short contribution to the 2006 omnibus film, PARIS J’TAIME.

Delbonnel’s cinematography on INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS was nominated for an Academy Award—the film’s sole nomination, which is interesting given that the Academy usually falls all over itself to throw the Coens as many nominations as they can. Delbonnel and the Coens shot INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS on a 35mm film stock with very low grain; so low, in fact, that one could be mistaken for thinking the film was shot digitally.

As has been a mark of their work since O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU?, the Coens give INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS a unique look via substantial color grading that desaturates primary hues while emphasizing a creamy, teal/grey palette. The look reflects the cold, depressing winter that envelopes the film, but there’s also a hint of romance to it, signified by a hazy, dreamlike soft focus. The Coens use the camera mostly in an observational, minimalist sense, keeping it static and unmoving (save for the occasional dolly glide).

The Coens’ regular production designer, Jess Gonchor, returns with a low-key, lived-in aesthetic that’s accurate to the period in its closer resemblance to the late 1950’s instead of the pyschedelic, go-go 60’s look that the period usually engenders.

In eschewing a traditional score, and by extension, another collaboration with their regular composer Carter Burwell, the Coens must subsequently rely more on their frequent music supervisor, T-Bone Burnett. Burnett’s legendary ear has been responsible for the compilation of several amazing musical soundscapes that give their respective movies and TV shows a distinct aural identity. His collaboration with the Coens reaches back to O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?, and in many ways, the soundtrack to INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS becomes a spiritual successor to that film.

While the film boasts several live performances, a lot of the music was pre-recorded by the cast prior to shooting, who were joined by modern, prominent folk artists like Marcus Mumford of Mumford and Sons (his main contribution being the film’s theme track, “Fare Thee Well”). Burnett and the Coens close out the film with Bob Dylan’s “Farewell”, which serves not only as a comment on Dylan’s profound effect on the folk scene following his debut, but also as wry commentary on how similar it is to Llewyn’s own “Fare Thee Well”.

Make no mistake, this isn’t an oversight on the Coens’ part; it is a deliberate move that highlights the almost-nonexistent dividing line between successful and failed artists. The line itself is not talent, as one would naturally think—it’s luck.

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS possesses a sensibility that places it directly in line with the Coens’ prolific body of work. The story is laced with pitch-black humor and acerbic characterization, treating the Gentile/Anglo culture of folk music with a distinctly Jewish mentality. The placing of INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS’ story in a concrete time period apart from contemporary trappings is a trait shared by the majority of the Coens’ previous work, giving their filmography a truly timeless appeal.

Signified by the bitter, oppressive winter that surrounds the film’s characters, the specter of death looms large in INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS—but not in the sense that the Coens have traditionally applied it in films like FARGO(1996) or NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007), seeing as this is the first Coen Brothers film where nobody dies. Rather, death is equated with obscurity by INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS’ characters. They work tirelessly to succeed as artists, because failure means obscurity—and to them, obscurity is a fate far worse than death.

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS was well-received by critics (as was expected), but wasn’t given enough of a marketing push to enable a healthy box office run. After a long time in post-production with a constantly shifting and unpublicized release date, it was quietly released in time for the 2013/2014 awards season, netting only the aforementioned cinematography nomination at the Oscars.

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS will most likely be remembered as a minor film in the Coens’ canon—but even the most minor Coen work still stands as a sterling example of cinema at its finest. The film is a strong, passionately realized work that competes with the best of 2013’s releases while continuing the Coens’ long tradition of excellence in both craft and storytelling.


HAIL, CAESAR! (2016)

There’s a saying in Hollywood that goes: “you’re only as good as your last movie”, and while we all would like to think that’s really not the case, it’s unfortunately been proven true time and time again in the court of public opinion.  Directing team Joel and Ethan Coen are well acquainted with this sentiment, as well as the erratic career momentum of seesawing from disappointment to triumph– the latest swing resulting in an unbroken string of four well-received prestige pictures in as many years.

The Coens hoped 2013’s INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS— their intimate and tenderly-woven portrait of artistic struggle– would continue this hot streak, but underwhelming box office returns promptly iced those plans.  They kept a low-profile for the next couple years, quietly writing the screenplay for Steven Spielberg’s Cold War drama, BRIDGE OF SPIES (2015), while also developing a long-gestating idea about a troupe of actors in the 1920’s putting on a play about ancient Rome called HAIL, CAESAR! (3)

First pitched to George Clooney in 1999 on the set of O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?HAIL, CAESAR! was officially announced in industry trade journals in 2004, but active development didn’t officially start until 2013 when Clooney aggressively pushed them to make it as their next project.  Nearly two decades in the making, HAIL, CAESAR! finally arrived in 2016, trading in its theatrical origins for a loving, yet bitingly satirical portrait of Hollywood studio system during its Golden Age.

The film, set in and around the bustling studio lots of 1950’s-era Los Angeles, affords the Coens ample opportunity to romp through the various popular genres of the time– pulpy westerns, lavish costume dramas, patriotic musicals, and biblical epics, to name just a few.

 It’s a time of great transition in the movie business: the precisely-tuned machinery of the studio system and the very concept of “celebrity is beginning to break down and reveal its engineered artificiality, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that the studios must divest themselves from owning theater chains, and television is looming on the horizon like a foreboding storm cloud (2).

In response, Hollywood doubles down on money-making escapist fare.  As an omniscient narrator (played by Michael Gambon) sets the stage, the Coens show us the trouble lurking in the wings– namely, a gang of Communist intellectuals who have managed to kidnap Hollywood superstar Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) from the set of his new biblical epic “Hail, Caesar!” and turn him into an agent for their cause.

Their successful heist is only one of the many headaches that Capitol Pictures executive Eddie Mannix has to deal with throughout HAIL, CAESAR!  Played by Josh Brolin in his third appearance for the brothers, Mannix is all business and stubborn persistence in a fictionalized version of the real life MGM producer of the same name (1).  An elite blessed with a working-class attitude, Mannix acts as something of a fixer for the studio, shuttling around the various productions and ensuring his unruly stars fall in with the studio line all while trying to decide whether he wants to move on to a cushy new job at Lockheed Martin.

This being a Coen picture, however, HAIL, CAESAR! isn’t necessarily concerned with Mannix’s emotional trajectory.  Like so many Coen protagonists before him, Mannix is, rather, the steady rock that grounds a surrounding ensemble of oddballs, misfits, and all-around idiots.  The title of King Idiot goes (naturally) to Clooney in his fourth character within the brother’s so-called “idiot trilogy” (which just goes to show that idiots never know when to stop).

As the dense and impressionable movie star Baird Whitlock, Clooney leans into his natural, old-fashioned charm to project an appropriate “Hollywood Golden Age” essence.  Alden Ehrenreich plays Hobie Doyle, a heroic hayseed whose folksy swagger and plucky persistence lends him just as well to uncovering Baird’s whereabouts as it does to performing in swashbuckling western pictures.

Ralph Fiennes mixes the essence of Laurence Olivier with his M. Gustave character from Wes Anderson’s THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2014) in his performance as Laurence Laurentz, a stuffy and pretentious film director who delivers obtuse stage directions with a put-upon aristocratic accent.

Scarlett Johansson, who hasn’t been seen in a Coen picture since she was a young girl in 2001’s THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE, shows she’s emerged into full-fledged womanhood in her role as DeeAnna Moran, a feisty silver screen diva with an abrasive Transatlantic accent and a history of poor impulse control.  Tilda Swinton pulls double duty in her second performance for the Coens after 2008’s BURN AFTER READING, playing identical sisters Thora and Thessalay Thacker.

The Thacker Sisters are flip sides of the same increasingly-competitive coin: one fancies herself a serious journalist while the other is a bubbly vulture for celebrity gossip.  The aforementioned gang of Communist intellectuals consists of familiar faces like A SERIOUS MAN’s Fred Melamed and INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS’ Alex Karpovsky, as well as Coen newbies like Dave Krumholtz and Wayne Knight.  As Burt Gurney, a star of fleet-footed patriotic musicals and the secret leader of the Communists, Channing Tatum turns in an expectedly charismatic performance.

The script provides ample opportunity for Tatum to exercise his natural flair for dance and old-fashioned showmanship– indeed, his tap dancing ability seems so natural that it’s hard to believe he had to learn it for the film.  Jonah Hill and Jack Huston turn in brief, yet memorable cameos as a bookish fall-guy kept on studio retainer and the star of Laurentz’ Merrily We Dance melodrama, respectively.  Finally, longtime Coen repertory player (and Joel’s wife) Frances McDormand tops off HAIL, CAESAR!’s eclectic ensemble with a small role as a dowdy, chainsmoking editor under Mannix’s employ.

After his brief absence from the Coen fold for INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS, cinematographer Roger Deakins returns to his rightful place at their side.  During press interviews for that film, the brother signaled their suspicion that it might be their last shot on actual celluloid, but HAIL, CAESAR! delays that transition for another day, owing to their belief that film was the format to best evoke their intended period vibe.

Once again shooting on 35mm film in their usual 1.85:1 aspect ratio, the Coens and Deakins infuse HAIL, CAESAR! with warm, golden tones that project a certain nostalgia for Hollywood’s Golden Age, as well as bright saturated colors reminiscent of the early days of Technicolor.  Unlike the somber observationalism of INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS, HAIL, CAESAR! possesses an exaggerated theatrically apropos of its subject matter, sweeping over returning production designer Jess Gonchor’s sets with classical dolly and crane-based camera movements.

The Coens show a particular stylistic zeal in their treatment of the various movies within the movie, effortlessly weaving in and out of “edited” movie sequences and actual narrative while changing their lighting setups, pacing, and even their aspect ratios to reflect the current genre they find themselves in.

These sequences are where the brothers’ heartfelt love of Old Hollywood and the visual grammar of midcentury American cinema are most realized, balancing their biting satire of film as a commercial product with an ode to the art form’s natural magic and effervescence– a miraculous medium that’s closer to the realm of dreamscape than business.

Assembled together under the guise of their editing pseudonym, Roderick Jaynes, these moments are held together with a musical cohesion that harkens back to the big-band orchestral scores of yesteryear thanks to the sprawling range of its faithful composer, Carter Burwell.

The various technical and thematic Coen hallmarks contained within HAIL, CAESAR! makes for an effortless addition to their existing canon.  Their trademark gallows humor alternates wildly between witty character interactions and moments of exaggerated slapstick, yet never leans too heavily to one side or loses control of its fragile tone.  Their love for the history and traditions of American music can be seen through the story’s inherent musicality, especially in the freewheeling “No Dames” number.

Their longtime subversion of genre expectations– especially within the boundaries of the “caper”– also continues here, with the Coens orchestrating a complicated and convoluted plot that ultimately amounts to little more than a hill of beans.  The visual image of a briefcase full of money slipping away from its owner is a common one in the Coens’ filmography, popping up in FARGO, THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and even NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

Now, it re-appears in HAIL, CAESAR!, taking the form of a gift from the Communist intellectuals meant for their hopeful Soviet overlords that ultimately succumbs to the sea thanks to a bungled handoff.  While HAIL, CAESAR! finds the brothers once again working in their anti-genre wheelhouse, it also finds them embracing the visual conceits of genre more fully than ever.  Indeed, they figuratively rampage through midcentury cinema’s marquee genres, scratching every stylistic itch they might have ever had along the way.

Further connecting itself to the disparate strands of the Coens’ filmography is the notion that HAIL, CAESAR!’s Capitol Pictures is in fact the very same studio featured in BARTON FINK, albeit much more bustling and vibrant than the stagnating pre-war environment we had previously seen.

There must have been a regime change following Jack Lipnick’s deployment to the front, or a switching of gears away from high-minded prestige cinema in favor of candy-coated escapist entertainment– perhaps a sly critique coming from the Coens in regards to the similar collapse of the specialty prestige sector in the late aughts that gave rise to the deluge of interconnected comic book franchises?

The territory of aggressive studio brass, pretentious directors, and dim-witted movie stars proves a fertile landscape for the brothers to color in new shades to their career-long portrait of the wealthy and the elite as absurd and out of touch.  In the Coen universe, this conceit can also apply to academics and intellectuals, evidenced in HAIL, CAESAR! with the group of Communist conspirators.

Also like BARTON FINK’s eponymous protagonist, these intellectuals frequently wax poetic about the plight of the Common Man but never actually make much of an effort to connect with them, let alone actually do something.  The Coens bestow them with none of the dignity or grace that marks their working-class characters; instead, they are inept and ineffectual, devoting themselves entirely to thought where characters like Mannix are devoted to action.

HAIL, CAESAR! also contains a notable degree of the religious humor that gave A SERIOUS MAN its comic bite, seen here through the prism of Mannix’s Christianity.  Sequences like the one in which Mannix consults with leading officials of the various major faiths over the cinematic portrayal of God and Jesus illustrate how religion fundamentally shapes the irreverent character of the Coens’ films without being overtly religious or preachy.

Hail, Casar!

The release of HAIL, CAESAR! provided some small degree of relief for the Coens after the disappointing box office reception of INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS, scoring $30 million in domestic receipts against a budget of $22 million.  The warm praise lavished upon the film, however, was not matched by most audiences save for the most die-hard of Coen fanatics.  The film’s lukewarm reception (combined with its distant February release date) does not bode well for its chances as a contender in the 2016 awards season– an arena in which the Coens are a perennial presence.

If the aftermarket life of their other underappreciated work is any indication, however, HAIL, CAESAR! is bound to grow in stature over time.  It may be a satire that purports to prize the supremacy of commerce over art, yet it never loses sight of that particular essence of the artistic spirit that drives the industry.  The film pays service to the idea of Hollywood as a “dream factory”, with the Coens showing us the complicated and oftentimes absurd machinery behind the veil of the silver screen.  Yet, they are dreams nonetheless, and HAIL, CAESAR! shows that, even after all these years, the Coen themselves are still gripped in thrall to the awesome magic of cinema.


MERCEDES: “EASY DRIVER” COMMERCIAL (2017)

In 2017, directors Joel and Ethan Coen returned to the commercial fold for a high-profile Super Bowl spot.  Titled “EASY DRIVER”, the spot for Mercedes-Benz pays winking tribute to the lasting influence of Dennis Hopper’s pioneering independent film, EASY RIDER (1969), depicting a gang of goofball bikers blasting Steppenwolf’s “Born To Be Wild” in a bar tucked away out in the desert.  Someone rushes in and announces that their bikes are blocked in by a fancy Mercedes parked out front, so they rush out, ready to rumble.

Imagine their surprise when the owner of that Mercedes is none other than EASY RIDER’s Peter Fonda, who espouses the same cool nonchalance he had back then as he greets them and hits the open road once more.

The Coens embrace the screwball side of their aesthetic in executing the spot, framing the bikers in medium closeups at off-kilter angles to better highlight their exaggerated absurdity.  The desert setting evokes similar imagery from their back catalog, most immediately NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007).

 While the rest of their artistic signatures are fairly downplayed here, the Coens’ hiring is nonetheless apt, serving as a humble nod from a pair of independent cinema’s most prominent voices to the seminal work that paved the way for their own careers.


THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS (2018)

Like the recording industry before it, the film industry has sustained a seismic shift over the past decade and change— both in small movements made gradually and in giant, abrupt leaps. While experts and armchair analysts alike feared that the advent of home video in the 1970’s and 80’s would result in the collapse of movie theaters, they should have saved their concern for the streaming age ushered in by the likes of Netflix and Amazon Prime. Though cinemas are still making out okay (or barely scraping by, depending on who you ask), the economics of the industry — the inscrutable alchemy of ego, inspiration and financial calculus behind every “greenlight” — have profoundly, and perhaps permanently, shifted. Filmmakers of every stripe have had to adapt, the question of their futures rooted in an inherent compromise: do they sacrifice creative control for a large canvas, or do they choose artistic liberty at the expense of a wide theatrical release?

The directing duo of brothers Joel and Ethan Coen have proven themselves to be a major force in American cinema, responsible for several unimpeachable classics, but even they are not immune to the will of the marketplace. The middling performance of their last film, 2016’s HAIL, CAESAR!, reinforced the flagging viability of theatrical for filmmakers uninterested in big budget franchises. As Marvel and other four-quadrant franchises have come to dominate the megaplex, the studios have become increasingly uninterested in making the smaller, adult-oriented films that the Coens specialize in. They could see the writing on the wall, and streamers like Netflix or Amazon Prime — where conventional success metrics like box office receipts no longer applied — offered to transform a future of compromise into one of opportunity.

Their latest project seemed like an ideal fit, being an unconventional anthology of short Western stories titled THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS. They had developed the stories in private over a span of twenty years (actor Tim Blake Nelson had a draft of the titular story in hand as early as 2002 (1)), so the Coens were understandably hesitant about producing them under such unconventional circumstances. Despite their initial misgivings, they reasoned that they owed their very careers to home video (2), having carried around their proof of concept trailer for 1984’s BLOOD SIMPLE to show to prospective investors in their own homes. A jump to Netflix, then, was only a logical extension of the same approach— only this time it was a finished product; an innovative display of the distinct quality of auteur storytelling that the streaming model is capable of when it’s not trying to emulate studio programming.

The longest film that the Coens have made to date, THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS compiles six original stories that, in the aggregate, paint a fairly comprehensive portrait of the Old West and its mythical place in pop culture, as well as the brothers’ own existing filmography. Each story gets its own title, self-contained cast, and distinct visual style, allowing Joel & Ethan to stretch out into all corners of their wide artistic range. They use the image of a hardcover book — an anthology collection of stories, complete with illustrated color plates — as a framing device and transitory element between each segment. The titular episode is up first, starring Tim Blake Nelson as a singing, fourth-wall breaking raconteur and gunslinger who stumbles into a series of violent mishaps rendered in a manic screwball style similar to RAISING ARIZONA or INTOLERABLE CRUELTY. The next piece, “Near Algodones”, was shot in New Mexico alongside “The Ballad Of Buster Scruggs” and stars James Franco as a stoic cowboy caught in a loop of grim absurdities that evoke the existential irony of films like A SERIOUS MAN and THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE. “Meal Ticket”, filmed amidst the rugged landscape of Colorado, stars Liam Neeson and Harry Melling as a pair of traveling entertainers — the latter a quadruple amputee delivering historical speeches and famous stories, and the former his quiet handler. Like INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS before it, “Meal Ticket” strips back narrative flourish to create an austere meditation on the myriad cruelties of pursuing art in a capitalistic society, where a man can be dispassionately replaced by a chicken if that means more tickets will be sold to the show.

The back half of stories allows the Coens to indulge themselves even further with their unique brand of mythical storytelling. “All Gold Canyon”, an adaptation of a story by Jack London, stars the iconic musician Tom Waits as a crotchety old prospector who stumbles across gold in a lush valley outside Telluride, Colorado (3)— a veritable paradise that’s quickly spoiled by the inherent evil of mankind, manifest in the guise of a bandit who plans to get rich quick off the prospector’s labor. Zoe Kazan, who previously featured in another Oregon Trail film — Kelly Reichardt’s MEEK’S CUTOFF (2010) — headlines the fifth story, “The Gal Who Got Rattled”. Playing a timid would-be settler named Alicia Longabaugh, Kazan’s delicate naïveté in the face of harsh vistas brings to mind similar imagery from TRUE GRIT, while the somber irony of its ending evokes the bleak, yet poignant austerity of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Inspired by the writings of Steward Edward White and shot on the vast plains of the Nebraska Panhandle, “The Gal Who Got Rattled” puts a particularly Coen-esque twist on the archetypical Oregon Trail story, using the plot device of a small, endlessly-yapping dog whose mere presence seems to invite cruel twists of fate.

THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS closes out with “The Mortal Remains”, easily the most inscrutable of the six stories. Comprised mostly of morbid conversation between Brendan Gleeson, Jonjo O’Neill and other character actors inside a traveling stagecoach before arriving under cover of moonlight at a desolate hotel in the middle of nowhere, “The Mortal Remains” differs from the preceding stories in that it was shot entirely on a soundstage. No effort is made to hide its artificiality, especially where the facades of the hotel and surrounding town are concerned. Like BARTON FINK, the apparent theatricality of the piece suggests that “The Mortal Remains” should be ingested on more of a metaphysical level than its relatively-straightforward cousins. The story is consumed by the specter of death, with its characters displaying a deep-seated anxiety towards the great Hereafter. There’s a strong, perhaps even obvious, case to be made that they are already dead, and are in the process of being ferried over into the afterlife. Notice that the stagecoach drops them off at the hotel without unloading their bags, bringing to mind the ultimate triviality of our earthly possessions. “You can’t take it with you”, the old saying goes. The characters’ anxiety towards death is also reflected in their reluctance to enter the hotel, which is presented as an empty, purgatorial lobby with a grand staircase that leads up towards a blinding white light. Though the gothic, quasi-Victorian vibe of “The Mortal Remains” might seem at odds with the Old West aesthetic of the other stories, it nevertheless fills in a fuller picture of our Western myths by channeling the superstitions and paranoias of the nineteenth-century societies that produced them.

THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS also serves as something of a stylistic departure for the Coens, being their first feature film to utilize the digital format. Though their previous features had been shot on photochemical film, there was very little to suggest that they shared the purist sentiment to celluloid evidenced by others like Quentin Tarantino or Christopher Nolan. Indeed, the quantity of low-light and visual effects shots required by the script would suggest a prime opportunity to embrace the now-dominant digital format (4). Working with their INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel, the Coens capture THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS on a mix of Arri Alexa and Studio XT cameras in the 2.8K Arriraw format. Presented in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, the image was captured with a collection of Fujinon Alura and Zeiss Master Prime lenses. Along with a classical approach to its camerawork, the predominant use of the 27mm lens in particular works towards a unified aesthetic overall, even as each segment fashions its own distinct look. The titular story takes on a dusty, desaturated look awash in slightly overexposed brightness, so as to highlight its screwball affectations. “Near Algodones” takes on a kind of sepia-toned, tobacco cast while “Meal Ticket” favors a somewhat-sickly blue/green hue. “All Gold Canyon” emphasizes the staggering beauty of its surroundings with bright sunlight and lush greens. “The Gal Who Got Rattled” leans into the fading warmth of golden sunsets, and finally, “The Mortal Remains” reinforces its preoccupation with death via strong, pale blue tones.

Though THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGS’ cinematography readily embraces Western iconography like TRUE GRIT and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN before it, the film’s particular approach to production design and music distinguishes it as an altogether different animal. Working again under their editing pseudonym, Roderick Jaynes, the Coens inject a distinctly postmodern edge through the entire course of proceedings. This is reflected in returning production designer Jess Gonchor’s abstracted landscapes. Even in completely natural environments, the contents of the frame emphasize a degree of exaggeration; for instance, the film opens in Monument Valley, with its infamous towers of rock that have served as a veritable studio backlot to so many westerns before it. “Near Algodones” juxtaposes singular structures — like a tree or a bank facade — against the flat horizon line to create a slightly expressionistic atmosphere. “All Gold Canyon” finds a fertile valley outside Telluride that’s so insanely picturesque it couldn’t possibly exist in the real world; all the better to convey its allusions to the Garden of Eden.

The Coens’ frequent composer Carter Burwell strikes a middle ground between the earnest heroism of TRUE GRIT’s score and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN’s spare, near-absent approach. The music of THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS adjusts its subdued orchestral character accordingly with each segment, becoming most pronounced in “All Gold Canyon” and “The Gal Who Got Rattled”. That the score was recorded at the iconic Abbey Road Studios in London is indicative of the sweeping disruptions brought on by the rise of streamers— though they make filmed entertainment on the same scale and budget as the studios do, they take advantage of new media agreements to skirt around the full cost of working with the various unions. IATSE’s recent threatening of a nationwide strike is a direct result of this cost-cutting approach, which has inadvertently caused already-exhausted crews to work longer hours at lower pay. In the recording world, Netflix’s refusal to become a signatory to the composers union would mean that it had to conduct that activity outside of the US; the practice has contributed to the hollowing out of the business in traditional locales like New York (5). That the Coens’ move to Netflix could benefit them personally while negatively impacting the craftsmen and women who make their vision possible demonstrates just how complicated and ethically-tangled the streaming age is, even as it simplifies the movie watching experience and makes it more accessible than ever.

This isn’t to say that the decision to record at Abbey Road was particularly cheap; it’s one of the most iconic recording studios in the world, and its use for THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS appropriately reflects the importance of music in the Coens’ artistic profile. Over the course of their filmography, the Coens have explored music — particularly, American musical ideas, conventions, and traditions — as a storytelling tool. Their repeated use of folk songs throughout THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS and prior works, both in diegetic and non-diegetic contexts, is used as a worldbuilding device in the same manner as production design. It’s right there in the title— a celebration of music as a form of oral storytelling and American mythmaking. What’s made the Coens so distinctive against other myth-minded filmmakers is their divergence from the traditional focus on heroes & villains; the various misfits that populate THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS join a long list of Coen oddballs, given generous heaps of sympathy due to the brothers’ supernatural ability to cast outstanding character faces and tunnel deep down into the truth of their humanity. We get the distinct sense that there are larger fates at play, conspiring to manipulate their situations into increasingly-absurd ironies. It would be a rather large stretch to describe the Coens as “religious” filmmakers, but watching THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS and their previous work, one gets the distinct impression of an all-seeing deity with a sick sense of humor, lording over the creations he’s placed into a world that solely exists for his own entertainment.

Keeping in line with Netflix’s prestigious ambitions, THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS received a splashy premiere at the Venice Film Festival and a limited theatrical release in order to qualify for awards consideration. The strategy was modestly successful, yielding three Oscar nominations in categories like Adapted Screenplay, Costume Design, and Original Song. For Netflix, THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS was an undeniable success, satisfactorily advancing their unrelenting push towards Hollywood dominance. For the Coens, the outcome was more mixed. Despite a swath of positive reviews and major award nominations, THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS didn’t perform well at the box office. Being a subscriber-based service, theatrical receipts are and never have been an important factor in Netflix’s revenue strategy, and the Coens don’t exactly have a reputation for making gobs of money with their films. Maybe it was lack of audience interest, or conversely, a wellspring of interest that simply preferred the ease of streaming at home instead of trekking out to the theater; either way, IndieWire would later analyze, THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS would be the lowest-grossing movie of their career had it followed a traditional release model (6). It may also be the last Coen Brothers film as we’ve come to know the term— amidst rumors that he was simply tired of making movies, Ethan would sit out the production of Joel’s subsequent project, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH. Though Joel had been credited as the sole director in their early films, it’s commonly understood that Ethan was serving in an equal creative capacity. THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH, then, would be the first true instance of Joel working solo, and all signs seemingly point to this being the case going forward.

If THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS is to be the final film where the brothers are working as a pair, then its legacy as an unwitting capstone to their collaboration is fitting enough. Its continual subversion of genre tropes and wry, sometimes-fatalistic sense of humor is quintessential Coen— a sublime distillation of the multifaceted voice they’ve developed together over the decades, forged from a fundamental understanding of the inherent absurdities of American myth. Their stories are ours, reflected and refracted through the prisms of satire and irony, and yet, always rooted in genuine affection. While positive reviews for THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH portend a continuity of quality post-split, a new era of unpredictability awaits Joel and Ethan in their respective pursuits. We as an audience stand only to benefit, as we’ll gain ever-deeper insights into the individual world views and idiosyncrasies that, when combined, have gifted us with an unforgettable body of work with no equal.


Author Cameron Beyl is the creator of The Directors Series and an award-winning filmmaker of narrative features, shorts, and music videos.  His work has screened at numerous film festivals and museums, in addition to being featured on tastemaking online media platforms like Vice Creators Project, Slate, Popular Mechanics and Indiewire. To see more of Cameron’s work – go to directorsseries.net.

THE DIRECTORS SERIES is an educational collection of video and text essays by filmmaker Cameron Beyl exploring the works of contemporary and classic film directors. ——>Watch the Directors Series Here <———

IFH 600: How to Direct Nail-Biting Action Films with Con Air’s Simon West

We made it to 600 Episodes! Thank you all for the support over the years. Here’s to 600 more! Today’s guest is action director Simon West.

Simon West is a British film director and producer. His films include “CON AIR” starring Nicholas Cage, “THE GENERAL’S DAUGHTER” starring John Travolta and “LARA CROFT: TOMB RAIDER” starring Angelina Jolie. West is the only live action director ever whose first three 3 films all grossed over $100m at the US box office. West also served as an executive producer on the Oscar nominated “BLACK HAWK DOWN”.

His television company has produced 6 TV pilots for US TV including acclaimed series such as Fox’s “KEEN EDDIE”, the CBS series “CLOSE TO HOME”, Fox’s “HUMAN TARGET” and the NBC series “THE CAPE”.

West directed the action packed remake of “THE MECHANIC” starring Jason Statham and Ben Foster and “THE EXPENDABLES 2” starring almost every action star in the movie world. This film grossed over $300m in worldwide box office.

West’s film titled “SKYFIRE” was one of the largest films ever made in China and opened number one at the box office there in 2019. His latest film “LEGEND HUNTERS” will be released in May 2021. Recently, West served as a judge for the 2019 Beijing International Film Festival and was a guest speaker at the 22nd Shanghai International Film Festival to advise the Chinese film industry on standardization.

West is currently in post-production on “Boundless – Sin Limites”, which marks the 500th anniversary of the first circumnavigation of the globe by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastian Elcano. The Amazon project was shot in Spain and The Dominican Republic.

Right-click here to download the MP3

Simon West 0:00
Because all those incredible things you do, you're so busy stressing at the time and trying to do it. Sometimes it's hard to step back and go, Wow, what we're doing is really cool here. And this is, so I think there's try and enjoy it along the way.

Alex Ferrari 0:14
Today's show is sponsored by Enigma Elements. As filmmakers, we're always looking for ways to level up production value of our projects, and speed up our workflow. This is why I created Enigma Elements. Your one stop shop for film grains, color grading luts vintage analog textures like VHS and CRT images, smoke fog, textures, DaVinci, resolve presets, and much more. After working as an editor, colorist post and VFX supervisor for almost 30 years, I know what film creatives need to level up their projects, check out and enigmaelements.com and use the coupon code IFH10. To get 10% off your order. I'll be adding new elements all the time. Again, that's enigmaelements.com. I'd like to welcome to the show Simon West, how you doing?

Simon West 1:08
I'm very well how are you?

Alex Ferrari 1:10
I'm doing great, my friend. Thank you so much for coming on the show. As I was telling you earlier, I've been a huge fan of your work from the beginning of your feature world. And I actually see some of your music videos and commercials as well growing up. But, you know, there's very few action directors to do action like you do. So I'm excited to get into the weeds of your journey and of your process. So first question, my friend I have to ask you is why in God's green earth did you want to get into this insanity that is called the film industry?

Simon West 1:43
Well, I never really had any other idea of anything else I wanted to do. And you know, from about 12 years old, it was quite serious. But I have to say, I was really fascinated by film from like three or four years old, because my dad had an old Super Eight, camera and projector and it's one of my earliest memories of him putting the screen up in our kitchen and projecting, you know, home movies, and just the fascination of seeing the moving image on this screen in a dark room. You know, with them, the dust melting on the bulb and the smell of it and the smell of the screen and I still have that screen. And every time I open it, it's the same old smell takes me back to like being you know, four years old and seeing the whole movies. And so it stuck with me. So when I hit 12, and I was sort of, you know, could do something about it, I got you know, paper around and saved up my money and bought a little Super Eight film camera. And then it was all about saving up money for the film stock. Because in those days, you know, one roll of film, that was two and a half minutes long cost about the same as two music albums. So it was really expensive. So I never had a music collection growing up because all my friends you know, would have albums and collect vinyl. And I never did because every penny I'd saved went on movie film, you know, to make my little films and so I still don't really have a musical action. I mean, I've just about started to do, you know, Spotify, playlists and everything. But I've never owned physically a music collection. And I guess nobody does know everything is virtual. So but yeah, so as is one of my earliest memories. It's the only thing I ever wanted to do. I sort of started earnestly making stuff at 12. And then when I got to 16, I joined a I heard about a film club in the next city to me, which was Oxford. And they had 16 millimeter film equipment. And they were mostly, you know, graduates or postgraduates. And, you know, I went along as this sort of gawky, 16 year old kid, and they told me to use the 60 mil equipment. And so I started just shooting that myself and I went out on the streets of London and into the, you know, the subway and shot things down there. And I started shooting musicians who just played on the street, you know, busking for money, and I sort of combined music and film quite early on in that way. And then I was sort of interested in the musicians, but I was also interested in the way music played with film and it was always very, you know, evocative to me. So even though I never had a musical action, I always associated, you know, music and film the imagery together, and I managed the 18th to talk my way into the BBC, in their film department, and at that time, they weren't really there was one film school in in England, the National Film School and it was really hard to get into you had to be a graduate or postgraduate or you had to have been a journalist or you had to go on on a expedition through the jungle you had to offer them something quite accept shouldn't have to get in. And they only took 25 people a year, you know, which was a tiny amount. So there's, I didn't think there was any chance of getting into that. But luckily, the BBC took a, you know, there was one guy that I think that sort of saw a bit of himself in me that was a sort of precocious film, brat who knew everything about fit or thought they knew everything about film. And I certainly knew a lot technically, about how it worked. And, you know, I could talk endlessly about film. And, you know, I've been watching Truffaut films on, you know, my little black and white portable in my bedroom from you know, 12 years old. So I knew about, you know, different sorts of cinema out there and American cinema, French cinema, English cinema, and, but I also knew technically how to do it. So they kind of, you know, one of the questions was like, we don't usually take people your age, you know, you have to usually be in your 20s, at least to get in mid 20s. I said, Well, what are you going to do, if you don't get in, I said, Well, I'll just apply again, I'll just keep applying until you let me in. So they just obviously didn't want to be stalked, or 10 years. So they let me in and they train me. So I got this training by the BBC, in every department that was great at that time, they taught you film editing, photography, and everything about the lenses, everything about the lighting, how the sound was recorded, how the sounds mixed, everything technically, and then they send you to every department. So I started in documentaries, then I went to drama, and then arts documentaries, and news and current affairs, and they just rotate you around. And then when you find an area that you'd like, you can, you know, apply to stay there. And I ended up in drama, obviously, because that's what I wanted to do. And I worked with some great directors under them. But when I was there was like Mike Lee was, was there at the time, and in the film, who does very improvised drama. So I kind of, you know, tapped into that and realized how you can work with actors to get so much out of an actor. Rather than just sitting in your room, you know, bashing out the script yourself, if you actually get a group of actors together, you're going to come up with something really cool. So he told me a lot of that. And then also, there was the traditional BBC dramas, which you know, Sherlock Holmes, or Pride and Prejudice, or, you know, anything to do with Dickens or Emma, you know, Emily Bronte, or that sort of costume drama, which are very traditional. And then on the other hand, this sort of improvised drama, from Mike Lee, and, but also, I learned a lot from working in documentaries, and new current affairs, because documentaries taught me to make a story out of what you actually ended up with, not what you hope to get. Because often any sort of you plan a movie or film and, and you've, it's going to be perfect, and you're going to get all these great sequences, but what you actually end up with is sort of if you're lucky, it's you know, 50% of what you set out to get, and then you've got to make the best story you can out of what you actually ended up with. And documentaries is like that you turn up, you shoot, whatever happens. And then you look at this pile of stuff, and you go, okay, how can we make a story out of this material. So I use that a lot in my filmmaking, you know, that that sense of, don't, don't stress too much about what you were hoping to get. Just try and make the best of what you did actually get in some of it's better than you planned, you know. And then the other thing I did was, was in current affairs, I mean, I worked on a news program called news night, which is still running, that went out at 11 o'clock at night, and you'd sit around all morning, waiting for stories to come in. And then the afternoon, the story would come in, and you'd be editing all afternoon. And then you'd still be mixing the sound and everything as the show started. So quite often, you know, you were running down the corridor with the film on your arm as the anchor was announcing the film, and they were throwing on the machine and pressing go and it just made it and that taught me not to panic. Because, again, when you're shooting, things go wrong, you know, and some sometimes you're under a huge stress. I've been in situations with gigantic stunts. You know, some pretty famous ones on you know, in films like Khan era and everything where I've had 200 stuntman, a full size aeroplane, a full size building, it's supposed to collapse, and it's all supposed to happen in one go, I've had 17 cameras running, and it's something has gone wrong, and you just can't panic and you can't, you know, crumble and yeah, that sort of broadcast news, as it were, that I worked on taught me how to you know, how to how to keep a steady head in the situation like that.

Alex Ferrari 9:59
So it's so it's fascinating hearing your story is that you, it looks like you went through almost a bootcamp early on very early on and covered almost every aspect of the tool sets, you picked up so many tools that you put in your toolbox, that your directors toolbox, by the time you started to actually direct, you would have been doing it in a sense for a long time, the skills like the broadcast news, which, which doesn't specifically, you know, translate to cinema, but yes, it does translate the cinema. So it kind of you were kind of being groomed, you know, by the universe, if you will, to, to do the kind of films that you are doing have been doing throughout your career.

Simon West 10:42
Yeah, you know, I was very lucky in that sense that I did end up. And it wasn't just then it was later when I went through music videos for a little bit, and then commercials, particularly, which then gave me another set of skill sets and experience and it's flying hours, you know, there's that old adage, you know, to be an expert, you have to do something for 10,000 hours. And so if you can arrive on set, you know, with 1020 30 50,000 hours of flying time, you're going to be in a much better position. I mean, I started in editing, which is particularly lucky, because that is definitely a great learning for directors, how to construct the story, and how what you actually need and how you can cheat and how you can, you know, give yourself some slack and not have to shoot every single thing you think you need. Because, you know, in editing, you can, you can help. And so editing was definitely a great start. And then, you know, when I went, as I said those, those various, you know, BBC situations, was that one set of experience, but then when I went into commercials, you know, that's working at a very high level, all over the world. So I'd be up a mountain, you know, one day, then I'd be underwater the next I'd be, you know, hanging out of a helicopter or racing cars or, and then I sort of move towards, I guess what it was I particularly look, how do I get into feature films it's like, so I looked for role models. And so in England, all the big directors went through commercials. So as Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, who has an Adrienne line, Alan Parker, all these guys who ended up making films in in England, and then Hollywood, had gone through commercials. And so I deliberately targeted commercials, because it was a very high end kind of training. And in, especially in England, a very kind of big budget glossy, very well made often better made than the shows in between them, you know, and that's, you know, TV was very cheap and cheerful in those days in the UK, but the commercials were very high end. You know, it's caught up. Now, of course, you know, TV is as good as movies, if not better sometimes. But so I targeted those type of people and that type of thing. So I ended up making a test commercial I shot, I deliberately shot a music video for a band, and I put in, I put in a little story in it. So I had to do the typical playing the instruments, and I was never, you know, a big music video director was really, you know, a way of paying the bills while I got into commercials, and then and then into movies. But so I deliberately made this little story in the in the music video. And then after I'd done that, I took it out, and I cut it down into a test commercial. And I had this, you know, test commercial that I sort of took with me when I got on the plane to the states. And the company I was working with in London had a la office and they said, Do you want to try and work out to the LA office because there was no work in the UK that time was absolutely dead. So I went over with sort of $400 in my pocket and this fake commercial and started you know, touting it round, and it sort of started to get interest. And by sheer coincidence, it was sort of comedic. It was a funny, it was a fake comedy beer commercial. And so then I started just getting offered comedy, which was very convenient, in a way because it was it was the commercials that had actors dialogue. It wasn't just cars driving through pretty forest amount into models on the beach. It was you know, it was a little story in itself so I could attract his my, my art and so I just started doing comedy commercials and they got you know, bigger and bigger and then ended up sort of doing Super Bowl commercials for you know, the Budweiser is. So like Budweiser frogs and then the Pepsi commercials and they started to get a lot more attention and you know, this was You know, the big budget, you know, there was spending about as much as in an independent little independent film on these 32nd commercials. So again, you know, I got used to having the big toys as it were, but it still wasn't a movie, you know, it's still only 30 seconds, it's still not a movie. So I'm still desperate and hungry to get into the, you know, legitimate filmmaking. And, of course, with the with the high profile Superbowl commercials, I started getting calls in the studios. And so, I got the call from Columbia offering me a romantic comedy, because they obviously thought, Oh, well, he does comedy. So we'll do that. And then I got a spy thriller from a UK company. And then I got the call from Jerry Bruckheimer, who said, you know, I've seen your commercials are really impressed and come in for a meeting. And let's, you know, talk about possibly making a film together. And so, of course, I, you know, rushed into that and had the big meeting with Jerry, you know, on the giant desk, you know, and that, you know, in some ways, the rest is history, but it was, it was a, you know, it was an awesome meeting. And I had to, he basically had a wall of scripts behind, it was in the days when scripts are printed on paper, and every producer would have a stack of them in their office with the titles. But Jerry didn't have just a pile, he had a wall of them, you know, there's probably a couple of 1000 scripts, and he turned around, he pulled three off which it looked like it was random, but I'm sure he knew exactly which one. And he threw them across the desk and said, Look, read those this weekend, and tell me which one of the one you want to make as a movie. And two of them were they were all action films, basically. Because that's what Jerry did. You know, he did, he did those seven films, two of them are pretty straight forward, you know, felt, you know, a bit cliched kind of action moves. But the third one was, was a film called Khan air. And I read this and it was quite a small film, it was like a character driven film, but the characters were so good. And even the names of the characters were cool, like Sally can't dance and Cyrus the virus and you know, that it just hooked me right, just for reading that I would have done it just for the name of the characters basically. And so I went back and I turned down the romantic comedy, I turned down the spy thriller, and I said to Jerry, out of these three I want to make on air. And he said, Well, it's, you know, it's very small film. And we need a summer blockbuster. So you got to go away, and turn this small character film, because we've written by Scott Rosenberg, who did, you know, things to do in Denver, when you're dead and beautiful girls, which are fantastic, but very small, you know, beautifully made, you know, character based films. And this was the same thing. And Jerry wanted a summer blockbuster. So I had to go away and sort of invent all these big events and sort of blow them up and make them you know, larger than life. And just, every couple of weeks, I'd go in, he said, Yeah, we've got to make it bigger, make it bigger. And so I just, you know, had a field day, just going in and sort of say, okay, how can we make this thing even bigger and more ridiculous than it was before? And, and that's, that's what you ended up with? That's why kinda looks like that.

Alex Ferrari 18:23
No, it's fascinating on air is one of those films that it's just one of those movies that sticks, it sticks with you for I mean, especially with that generation, when it came out. I saw it in the theater and, and it's, it's, you know, it's built a life up on its own over the years. And, you know, there's, there's so many legendary stories I hear, I heard, I heard Danny Trejo, I was watching a duck, recent documentary with him. And there was a story of him being on set with Con Air. And there was, obviously a lot of testosterone on that set. A lot of testosterone and all the actors are trying to, you know, I'm super tough, and I'm super tough, and I'm super tough. And Danny was quiet in the corner. And Nicolas Cage came up to the group because it was all of them sitting around trying to one up each other and how tough they are, and how scary they were in real life. And Nicolas Cage came up with this, the only one I'm scared of, is Danny, and Danny hadn't said a word. And it is like, what I do what I do, because it was that look that he had.

Simon West 19:25
But ironically, Danny was like the sweetest of the whole group to deal with, you know, it was like an inverse proportion. The tougher you were the nicer you were, you know, and it was, it was it was all the guys had never been near a prison. Were the ones that were or even a fight for that matter. Yeah, I mean anything but you know, but you can imagine Yes, there were 400 men in the desert for like three months. And I think there were like, at that time, there was only two women on the crew and it you know, so it did go a bit crazy because Have you get full 100 guys in the desert? Nothing to do in the sun beating down on you? Everyone did go a little bit Apocalypse Now.

Alex Ferrari 20:07
And now how did you how and how do you, you know, on a film like that, you know, it's your first big Hollywood production. You're working with Jerry Bruckheimer. This is your dream shot. So I'm assuming there's some pressure on you. Yeah, you've got, you've got 50,000 hours, you got 50,000 hours of airtime? There's no question. But you're at the show. This is the show at this point in your career. And if this fails, yeah, it's over. It's over?

Simon West 20:30
Absolutely. Well, I mean, I, I had done 50,000 hours, but short hops, you know, local local flights that were, you know, the longest shoot I'd been doing was, you know, two days, three days. This was 100 day shoot. And so by day, 30, I was, you know, down and out, I'd hit the wall, I was like, 30 days, because it was a giant production. And, you know, I was naive, I went in thinking, Oh, this is this is completely doable. And it was around day 30, that I just went, I don't sure if I can make it to the end. But you know, after a while, you sort of buckled down and it becomes a day job. And you and you start to think this is this will never end anyway, I'm just going to do this every day for the rest of my life, it's so long, there's so much work to do that, it's very odd when it finishes, because you you suddenly takes you by surprise. But yeah, there was a lot of pressure, I didn't realize that, because I was naive to you know, move, you know, the Hollywood films that they have, the studio has a list of your replacements already drawn up before, when you start filming. So if in the first two weeks, you completely screw it up, they already know who they're going to go to replace you with? Really, yeah. Afterwards, but, you know, I would be, I would have felt even more pressure than that. But I mean, you know, they, they protect you from that. So they don't want to, you know, completely crush you. So, you know, but it was tough getting people to take you seriously with the first film of that size. Because some crew members I had worked with, in commercials, you know, so they knew that I sort of knew what I was doing. But a lot of them, you know, was like, Who is this guy, they've given this massive film to on the first thing. So a lot of people I did have to, you know, come up against and go, you know, well, this is what's happening. And, you know, this is my first film, but you have, you basically have to follow the orders, because they've given me this responsibility. And we are doing this. And so let's say you know, 50% of people were very supportive. And then 50%, were a little tougher.

Alex Ferrari 22:34
Really, and that's, and that's something that a lot of directors don't understand when they first get on set is that when you know, I remember being the youngest guy on set as a director, and you know, the DP is 20 years older than me or the grips, or 20 years older than me or the production. And then they all have this experience. And they test you and they and a lot of them. They just feel like, oh, this kid doesn't deserve this shot, things like that. So I can only imagine at your level, the kind of I mean, this was a lottery ticket, someone literally handed you Jerry Lee handed you a lottery ticket. And I'm sure you had to deal with it. How do you overcome those egos on set those, that kind of those kind of barriers when you're working with crew members, maybe even keys, you know, like your DP or like your productions or, you know, keys who are fighting against your vision as a director, how do you handle that?

Simon West 23:26
Well, luckily, I mean, I didn't have that situation, because I, you know, I brought my own DP, my own production designer. And so my core crew were people I knew and trusted and supported me. And it was, it's more the peripherals that were, you know, you'd come up against, but all I could do was do a professional job and also don't, don't have any ego because, you know, I think that's what gets people's backup as if they sense that what you're doing or what your your decisions are based on ego rather than what's best for the film. Basically, everybody there is a passionate filmmaker, and wants the best film possible. And, you know, that's why people go into the film business is because they're really interested in it. And I was I loved the idea when I did a big complicated crane shot, you know, and it took a while to get that I'd run over to the monitor to see how it went. But and I'd look around and there'd be 20 people looking over my shoulder because you know, the grips wanted to see if they did a good job the camera focus wanted to see if he did a good job and and everybody you know, actors came in to see what they done. So everybody basically wants to do a really good job. So if if they sense that you're the same, and you're just there to make the best film, then they forget whether you've done five films or no films and and it's only if it's if a director brings his ego on set and is trying to demand respect through you know, position or you know, and it's just flexing muscles and usually Uh, you know, it's a, it's a cover for insecurity, I think, you know, they, they're panicking and they don't know what they're doing. And it comes out as ego. And it's the same with difficult actors. Usually, I found that actors are that are really talented. And luckily, you know, I came in at a very high level. So I'm dealing with, you know, people that have won Oscars, and I've got 30 years of experience, and I've done and these people are very talented and operating a very high level in their field. And when people are good at something, they're usually very secure in it. And, and so they're not, you know, they don't, they're not difficult, it's, it's usually when someone's very insecure, and what they do and think they're faking it, or they think they're not very good that they end up being a problem, because they're sort of diverting attention from what they think is their failings. So I haven't, you know, out a problem like that with, with all those big guys, you know, whether it's Nick Cage, or John Malkovich, or John tussock, all those guys didn't have a problem at all, because they were very good at what they did. And so they were very comfortable in playing in that world. And also, we created a really, you know, it was a fun, it was a fun film to make, because, you know, you get to see those great lines. And all these actors, which basically independent film, they, you know, they're used to doing costume dramas, or little Indies in motel rooms. And suddenly, they're on this giant film set. And Malkovich has got a pump action shotgun in his hand, and is shouting, you know, crazy lines. And they're having the time of their life. So why would you be and also they're being paid four times more than they've ever been paid. Because, you know, Jerry's got the massive checkbook. So that's how I ended up with such a great cast is because Jerry just said, just pick all your favorite actors. And when you've got that huge, you know, big brother of him and the studio behind you, you can, no one can say no, really, because it's a really fun, you know, enterprise, it's great script. And they're being paid handsomely, that everybody is there, you know, for a very good reason. They're having a really good time. So, it wasn't as bad as people think. Like, suddenly you've got 20 big actors, they're all going to be complete pain in the ass. You know, occasionally one person has a bad day or something, I'm sure, like we all do. But generally speaking, you know that everyone was enjoying it. And you know, I mean, it's the waiting around. To be honest, the work is never the problem. Set up the way sometimes, that's when people get oh, do I have to wait another, you know, for this lighting or this set or the stump to be set up? The actual acting they love to do so as long as you can give them a thing to do. They're, they're happy.

Alex Ferrari 27:39
So I have to ask you, there's one scene this gun in Canada that I there's many but there's one that I really have to ask you. This is a stunt. And I think I know it's practical. But I have to ask how the hell you did it? Which is the plane dragging the Corvette in the air and smashing into the tower? Yes, well that was that's practical right.

Simon West 28:27
Yes, it mostly because the thing is that, you know, kinda remember when it was made, there was CG around but it was very expensive. And it was a you know, it was it was only Jurassic Park or and people that could afford it. And, or to make it look good. And I was always, you know, a devotee of doing it for real and in front of the camera and seeing it. And so there's almost no CGI in a con. It's all done in front of the camera, the full scale. Well, we did do quite old school miniatures. So yeah, a lot of fun. So, you know, we did we flew a real plane over Vegas with smoke pouring out the back of it. And there were endless phone calls to the police of people saying there's a plane crashing over Vegas. And it's, you know, smoke pouring out of it. So, you know, we did things like that for real. And then we actually did for the you know, hitting the hard rock that was a massive model. So it was beautiful scale model that was probably 30 feet across this plane into a you know, 3050 foot version of the hard rock guitar. And we built the whole Vegas strip in miniature on Van Nuys Airport. So, you know, we had all the buildings with miniature neons and they're all about you know, 12 feet high. And we had radio controlled cars going up and down the strip and then fine Oh, I mean, it was absolute, you know, right for for, you know, kid in the sandbox kind of feel And then a lot of Israel, we had a plane that actually drove down Vegas Strip, it had a bus in it, they gutted out a real plane, put a bus in it, and they could actually drive it down the Vegas Strip without any wings on it and hit cars and things like that. And then the final one, the final one was another play, we had about three real planes. And the final one was the one that crashed into the Sands Hotel, which, you know, it's kind of a well known story, but Sands was going to be blown up. And, you know, I originally was going to, I wanted to hit the casino opposite the one with the volcano. And because I wanted, because it had a big lake, and I wanted to crash the plane into the lake, I had, and then it go underwater, I had a whole underwater sequence worked out, and then it would hit the volcano and the volcano would explode. And it was all going to happen. And then Steve Wynn who, who ran that, that hotel showed me around, and I saw how the volcano worked. And I show how the water pumps work. So every aspect of we planted all that. And then he said, Just send me the script, you know, and for the final sign off, so I sent him the script, and then I get a call back saying, Oh, we you can't crash into our, you know, this script is to, you know, don't we're a family organization, because at that time, Vegas was trying to portray itself as you know, as a family resort. And so they didn't, you know, with a bunch of criminals crashing into the thing was not what their image wanted to be at that time. So sorry, but you know, you could go and do it's bad for image. So suddenly, I had no location, but then I was reading the LA Times on a Sunday, and I saw they were blowing up the Sands Hotel. And in a few weeks, so call them up. Last night, I said, Look, can you delay blowing up the hotel for a couple of weeks while we build a whole set in front of it and put a huge plane on a ram and send it into into your casino and they agreed. So you know, there was a mad rush to build this rig wear for size plane was rushed down a ramp into the Sands Hotel. And as we were building it, they were slowly nibbling away at the back of the casino, knocking more and more of it down until it was just you know, the front part left. And we finally got it done in time. And it was a one shot. That was one of those classic Hollywood, you know, I couldn't shoot it in parts like you would normally do with an action film, because it was one plane and it was one casino. And once that plane was moving, there was nothing going to stop it. So that's when I had the 17 cameras, all hidden in bushes and inside the plane and inside the casino. And, you know, we and, you know, the night came and they closed off the strip and 5000 people lined up to watch it. And they pressed the button. You know, as the sun was coming up, and this thing went down the this 50 ton plane went down the ramp and the cable that was pulling it snapped at the last minute. And it just stopped on the edge of the ramp on the ramp and it was teetering. And if it went over, it would smash itself to bits and that we couldn't even those that buy another aeroplane, certainly not in that time or anything. But luckily it just sort of stopped and teetered on the edge and didn't go over. So we had to sort of D rig D ring all the cameras and come back the next night and set it all up again. And but you know most of those things were done in camera that the the Corvette hitting the everything in that sequence is real. Apart from the the wide shot of it being dragged through the air, because that was kind of aerodynamically impossible, it would have just hung down. And I was wondering about that probably crashed the plane or something. So that's the only CG shot in the whole thing. Everything else is either real, you know, full size real or miniatures.

Alex Ferrari 34:01
That's insane. That's absolutely insane. So I have to ask you, I mean, as directors, you know, we always there's always that one day on set, that the entire world is coming crashing down around us. And we feel like we're never gonna make it. It sounds like every day was like that for you on Khan air or in many of your movies. Is there any any day that stood out its situation where you're like, Oh my God, I don't think we're gonna make it through this day. And what was that thing? And how did you get over and it could be on Connor or any of your films.

Simon West 34:29
Yeah. Well, I mean, apart from that one thing that it was, was probably I guess it was, I mean, it did happen a lot. You know, because we were doing complicated, fiddly stuff that was in camera. We couldn't fix it with CGI or painting out I think it had to work. And then there was another incident I'm gonna guess which was the fire truck sequence at the end. There was supposed to be in Vegas, but I think Vegas was so sick of us by that time because we were moving from street to street and blowing stuff up and crashing and they said, Look, you know, they, they sort of stopped us giving us permits, basically. And so we had to sort of scuttle back to LA. And, and I had to sort of do the sequences, firetruck scenes where you had to hide that it wasn't Vegas, and I couldn't, as I said, Now, you would just paint a CGI city behind it. So I thought, how can I hide that I'm in LA. So I thought, well, we'll do it in the tunnel. So I went to the like the third or fourth Street Tunnel, which number is but in downtown LA. And of course, there's no tunnel in Vegas at that time. But you know, we've we fudge that we say, Okay, this is this is a tunnel. And, and so we'll have the fire truck, you know, race through this. And then in the city said, Okay, you can have from 10pm to midnight? Because, in fact no, I think it was it was 5pm to 10pm because of the noise and all that something. And so it's basically at five hours to shoot this one big stunt which was basically diamond dog on the motorbike getting dragged into the that was standing on the back of firetruck, and Nick cages on a police motorbike, and he writes into the back of the fire truck jumps on the fire truck, and the motorbike explodes on the back of the fire truck taking out being Rames as diamond dog. And it was all set up. And and the idea was that by this time, we were sort of down from the usual 17 cameras only had seven cameras for this get to the end of the shoot and you're starting to run out of money and and it's slightly smaller stuff. But it still was a one off thing. And it was the fire truck going into the tunnel, the the motorbike being dragged into the back of it on a rig and then the explosion happening and had seven cameras set up. And of course the cameras get set up, you know, nice and quickly. They're all in position. But the rig the complicated rig to do this, we can't start rigging until five o'clock. So and we have to be off the street by 10. So the special effects guys are building the rig they're putting the cables in, they're putting the explosions in the explosives in there. They're rigging the bike, they're rigging the fire truck, the stunt men are practicing and and it's going it's going five o'clock, six o'clock, seven o'clock, eight o'clock, nine o'clock, and we've got to be off by 10 Every hour, I'm going to the especially Are you ready? Are you ready? And there's nearly nearly really, and I swear to God, no kidding. Five to 10. And we're supposed to be off at 10. He said, Okay, we're ready. And, but and so then all hell breaks loose. So the camera guys are all over by the coffee truck. Because they've been standing there, you know, for you know, four and a half hours doing nothing. So they're all eating, you know, doughnuts and coffee, they're not next to their cameras. And the guy, that guy the stunt guy in the fire truck has fallen asleep. Because you know, he's been sitting in that truck waiting to go for five hours. And so the ad the first assistant director picks up the radio and says down the radio because we got five minutes to do this to the radio to the guy, the standby shouts on the radio, are you ready to go. And the stung Oh hit all he hears is go. He waited up, pushed his foot on the accelerator and heads off down. And this thing is all automatic. So once that fire trucks rolling, it's also dragging the motorbike that is rigged to explode when it hits that there's no stopping it once it's going. So the so I rush over to the monitors and shout to the camera guys, you know, it's rolling as running, you know, go go go. So they all start running from dropping their coffee cups everywhere running to the cameras. And out of the seven cam out the seven cameras.

Some of them, like one gets an operator gets there but no focus puller, then another one gets the operator and a focus puller. Then there's three cameras that are rigged on the actual truck and the motorbike that are all rigged to one button and an assistant runs over presses that button. And those three cameras go so I go okay, I've got three automatic cameras. I can see those running on my monitor. I've got one camera on a crane. There's that slightly out of focus because there's no camera. There's no focus pull on that one. And I've got another guy that has a operator and a focus. So I've got, I've got as for good angles, this is going to be Oh, I'm supposed to have seven but I'll settle for four. And this thing is racing down the road. And that that moment the first assistant runs down the road, trying to stop the firetruck go stop, stop, stop. So there's the assistant camera on the three cameras that were on one button hears the word stop and presses the stop button on the three cameras. So I went for Four and a half cameras to now I'm down to one and a half cameras running. And just as he does that, it happens the the motorbike hits the fire truck explodes, boom, I've got I've got one shot, and and one slightly out of focus shot. And that's what's in the movie. You know, that's what you have to do you have to go,

Alex Ferrari 40:21
You gotta roll, you gotta roll with it. It's so it I love hearing stories like this, because so many, you know, so many young filmmakers coming up, they just like think, oh, you know, it's Hollywood, there's a big budget movie, everything's running like a well oiled machine. Shit happens at every level all the time, because filmmaking is one of the most complicated situations.

Simon West 40:44
And everything you do is the first time it's been done in that particular configuration. Yeah, we've all done stunts and shots a bit like that. But it's never been done on that street with that amount of equipment, isn't that right? And so it's a sort of handmade, everything's handmade each time? You know, and, you know, and it's, it's difficult. It's so it goes wrong, you know.

Alex Ferrari 41:06
So let me ask you, you've I mean, you've directed so many amazing action movies and action sequences throughout your career. What makes a good action sequence? Like when you're conceding the the construction of an action sequence? What is what are some key things that you constantly are looking for when you're building it?

Simon West 41:26
Well, yeah, I get asked that a lot by, you know, young filmmakers coming up and want to know, because they watch a lot of action films now. And it's hard to dice, you know, discern what is better about some than others, in some ways? Or, you know, is it the bigger explosion is it the, you know, the, you know, the more hits in the fight, but to me, I was telling you that basically, with an actress he was you got to tell a story. That is that's within its the works within itself. So, you have a whole film that you, you're telling your story, you're beginning, your milling, middle and your end, but you should do that with every action sequences, as well. So make sure the audience understands what's supposed to happen in the action sequence, because I think sometimes, we will think just like, if we shake the camera a lot, if we have a lot of chaos, and it just goes on and on and it's really loud, then that will be satisfying. And that, to me is not a satisfying action sequence, you want to have a lot of cause and effect, because you're going to understand, like, your hero needs to get from here to there. And these are the obstacles in the way. And, you know, this is the first obstacle that hits him, you know, have you shot this in a way that your audience understands what that obstacle is? And then he is clever, or physically, you know, has enough prowess to get past that obstacle. But there's another one coming in at the end, you know, do you have three to five depending you know, what kind of sequences but that to me the clever, the clever, those obstacles and the clever the way that he overcomes them, the more satisfying it is, but you got to understand it as the thing you've got, the audience has to understand, oh, he, he was victorious in that moment. But okay, but he's not going to be in this because I can see why this is difficult. And, you know, I think one of the good ones I think, I would say for students to watch is, is Terminator two. There's some great, great constructive, because, you know, James Cameron is like me is a bit nerdy on the technical stuff and likes, you know, likes how the physics works of an action sequence and how the practical sides like what would happen if a if a truck flipped on its side like this? How far would it slide? If it slid? And then it it one end of it hits something? How would it spin? And how would you know, what's a cool way to get out of the way of that thing spinning? And so you, you can, if you're a bit nerdy about physics, action sequences are great, because they're all about cause and effect. And you have the sort of emotional journey of how does the hero overcome it, but you can also have, for me, it's more like, you know, the mechanics as well as the MacGyver of it, you know, it's like, set up a problem, how do you fix it? But I think, you know, if you watch something like, you know, the sequences in Terminator two, that's a really good lesson, and you understand every single thing that happens in it, nothing's too, you know, obscure or too fast, or you don't understand what happened or it happens for no reason, just like there's an arbitrary, something arbitrarily explodes for no reason. There's something only explodes if explains how that thing, you know, fired into it, and why did it catch fire? And then when it caught fire, what did it then do? So to me, if you took out an action sequence, that of an action film, you should be able to understand everything that goes on in it, and it could it could play as a short film, you know, you should be able to take the action sequence and go, Oh, here's my, here's my two minutes short film. And, you know, what do you think of the story and you should understand it.

Alex Ferrari 44:52
Now, you also worked on another another film called Expendables. To which man when I I heard you were on board for the sequels like this make this makes sense. This makes sense. Because no slide did the first one. And, you know, and I mean, so there's just a lot a legend and you know, as a writer, as a director, I mean, he's Yeah, he's a walking legend. How was it? I went, this is the thought that went through my head when I heard you were on and I'm like, Okay, this makes sense. They need someone like Simon to deal with the testosterone that's on that set. It didn't. I mean, you're talking about Vaughn, Dom and Lungren and Stuart Snagger, and Willis and in state and all these guys, how did you approach directing? That kind of, I mean, some of those guys are absolutely legends. And some of them are just just really big action heroes. How did you approach because it's just seems like so massive, and an undertaking just dealing with that. And then also trying to tell the story, and also trying to one up the action of the first one, and so on and so forth.

Simon West 45:55
Yeah, well, I mean, the first thing was sort of, you know, getting past the sly of it all. Because, because I, you know, I, I met sly, you know, and had, you know, had lunch with them. And I said, Look, you know, are you okay, with me taking over this, because, obviously, you know, what you're doing, you know, and, but I think the first one nearly killed him. So, you know, when he, you know, if you're writing it, directing it, starring in it, and, you know, it's just a lot to do. And, you know, and he's throwing himself at it. I think he just didn't want to go through that again. And he said, No, no, you know, it's your film, you do what you want. And he, you know, so he said, I'm just an actor on this. And so, you know, and I said, Look, I don't want to screw up your franchise, you know, I don't want to, you know, you set it up the first one, and I come in, and, you know, put it, you know, in the trash can. So, you know, it's probably more pressure, then, you know, a normal studio hire, because, you know, the guy that started it is on the on set every day, but he was really supportive, you know, and he would come on set and go, Wow, this is great, this is the set, this is better than the first one is this. And I think he was so relieved not to have to solve all the problems and not have to, you know, do the hours, and he enjoyed being an actor on it, you know, and so he gave a very relaxed to the funny performance because he was in enjoying it. And, and I think we know, in terms of all the others, you know, there's definitely a pyramid on set with sly at the top of it. So, you know, I used that sort of the slight, you know, power to it. So it was never a problem. Because if sly was happy, everyone was happy, because, you know, they all look up to him. He is the Godfather, you know, of that world. And so he got, he gets a lot of respect for them. And so they, they were as good as gold. They were, they were like, very well behaved. And because because it's like,

Alex Ferrari 47:48
slap, slap, slap, slap, em around.

Simon West 47:52
They never had to but, you know, the, the inference was, you know, if anybody stepped out of line, they weren't gonna get the slice slap, but you know, and then you're gonna have you know, Rambo, you know, screaming in your face. And, you know, all these other characters, Rocky, Rocky, yeah, you want me? Do you want Rocky and Rambo shouting at you and your face? So no, they weren't, they were good. And also, they were, you know, like, a lot of like, like music bands that, you know, bands that were big in the 80s and 90s, they were coming back touring. And now they're happy to be back, because they probably didn't enjoy it as much as they should have the first time around, because they're so busy trying to be successful and trying to deal with a new, what's it like being a movie star and all that stuff, that they get a second chance to come back, and they're gonna really enjoy it and appreciate it, because they went through all that once. But the fact to be able to do it again, you know, not many people get to do that in their, you know, later years, the thing that was they did in their youth that was there, you know, define them. So, they I think, you know, they were having, you know, a really good time just to be doing it again. And so it was it was fun for them.

Alex Ferrari 48:59
So yeah, so you'd ever had an issue because I mean, I've heard of other directors who work on sets with directors who they're directing. And just as alone, let alone the person created everything around it, and also a legend and also all this other stuff. So it sounds like you've never had any slight slight was just like I don't want to deal with it. Just I just want to do what I do. And you have fun. And as long as I'm good.

Simon West 49:23
And hopefully hopefully it was I was doing a good job. And that was mainly hopefully it was he was, you know, why he was you know, kind and respectful was because he could see that it was going well. I mean, I think if I'd been like, you know you're up, I would have heard about it very quickly. But yeah, and and also I have found I've directed a few directors and producers in the past and I found actually, they're actually very easy because they know the pain you're going through. They're empathetic. They go like You know, I'm not gonna give this guy a hard time because I, I know what it's like when an actor gives you a hard time. And I know he's got 50 Other things on his brain this morning, and he's got, you know, budget problems. And he's got, he hasn't slept for two months. And so I've found people that have been behind the camera actually treating much better than people who have no idea and I've done it the same myself when I've gotten in front of the camera for like little cameos or something for other people's films or mine, and I'm, and I've looked at the camera, and I've looked at the lights, and I go, Oh, my God, how did these actors do it? This is really hard. Oh, you know, and we get, you get, you know, suddenly you you cut them a lot more slack because you realize how confusing it is to be on the other side of the camera staring at 200 People in lights and you know, and you have no idea who's standing behind you or next year or it's very confusing. So I think it goes both ways. But I actually, I direct in generals daughter, John Frankenheimer. And, you know who was a hero of mine. And he, it was by sheer chance that he when I was shooting, that film on the Paramount lot. We were doing a night, we built a giant tank, that the Paramount lock their whole parking lot is a tank. So what they do is they everyone did not park there anymore. And they have a skydrop ride and you can actually flood the whole parking lot. And we were a night shoots. We built a giant tent over the parking lot and put our, you know, Savannah set in this swamp that we built in there. And John Travolta is in there having a big fight, you know, and doing water work. And because it was everybody that visited the Paramount lot for a couple of weeks, they see this giant black tent where they used to park. So all they would do they would come up to 10. And they poked their heads through to see what was going on. So every day, there would be different people poking and you know, like Robert De Niro's head pokes through, then, you know, like, all you know, famous actors, producers, everybody wants to know what the hell's going on in this black 10. So we've got, I wish I'd taken a camera, you know, set up a time lapse of everybody's coming through this hole. And anyway, one day was John Frankenheimer, and he knew most neufeldt The producer, so he came in and had a chat. And I was looking at him and he was and we were at I needed this one part that was a, a Jet A senior general in the army, but it was only at one scene, it was only you know, one and a half page scene, but the guy had to appear very important and a lot of weight and, and it's the sort of thing you do want to call in a favor. You know, if your powers with Robert De Niro Al Pacino, you go, like, can you come and do me a favor and do one scene because I need your gravitas. And but I was looking at John Frank and I'm and this statuesque guy was like six foot five or something. And he was very authoritative. And he's one of those old school Hollywood directors a huge shelter and a big, you know, guy, and he's done all these amazing films. And I thought, Well, I wonder if he would do it. And so I asked him, and he said, Yeah, he, you know, he hasn't really done any acting or much acting, I don't think but he agreed to do it. And he, he came on set. And he got in the uniform and you know, had the hair and makeup done. He said, you know, how do you want to shoot this this page and a half of dialogue, this long speech? And I said, I really want to just do all in one shot. So no cut. And he said, What? No cutting? Oh my god, you know, I've got to learn the whole thing. City. Yeah, if you don't mind, I don't really want to cut, you know, it's really important to be like one shot and said, Oh, my God, I gotta go and learn this. And I said to him, I said, Look, I you know, I hope you You okay with me directing you because, you know, this is only my second. Yeah. And you've you know, we're winning Oscars before I was born. And, you know, so. And he said, No, no, no, it's his greatest, you know, it's your film is your film. And, and again, on the set as I was directing, when I said, I said, Look, I hope you don't mind me saying, but could you just, you know, move over here and do this? He said, Yes, yes, yes, no problem. And he said, Gosh, it's really weird. He said, you know, all I want to do is please you, I've never been in that position before, you know, because he's a huge director that everybody wants to please Him. And he'd never been in the position where he wanted to please someone else. So it was really sweet. And, you know, great performance as well. Great.

Alex Ferrari 54:10
That's, that's remarkable. Is there anything that you wish someone would have told you at the beginning of your career that could have helped you? You know, that that one little bit of information like, oh, man, I wish I would have known this?

Simon West 54:22
Um, you know, I mean, it's no secret, you know, magic. I think it's, it's like with all, you know, exciting worlds, whether you're, you know, a rock star or a secret agent, or, you know, making movies as I think, is to try and appreciate it at the time, because all those incredible things you do, you're so busy stressing at the time and trying to do it. Sometimes it's hard to step back and go, Wow, what we're doing is really cool here and this is so I think there's to try and enjoy it along the way. Because you're so busy being hard on yourself. And I didn't know maybe maybe that's not possible, maybe everything would turn out terrible if you did relax and try and enjoy it. But that's what I would have told myself is, you know, you it's probably going to be okay. So why not relax a bit and enjoy it rather than, you know, beating yourself up and you got to work harder and harder. And you know, and it's, but I haven't, you know, you can't do the experiment the other way and go back and say, like, if you did just kick back a bit and enjoy it, would it? Would everything have turned out the same way? I don't know.

Alex Ferrari 55:29
Well, that's it. I mean, you were saying that with, you know, like Schwarzenegger and Willis and all these kinds of Chuck Norris and all these kind of guys that came back on, on Expendables to where they just, they probably had a ball, because they weren't probably not stressed. I'm like, I'm not the star of this lies dealing with that. I'm just here to have a good time and shoot some things, say some cool lines and hang out with my friends, you know, smoke some cigars?

Simon West 55:51
Yeah. And I mean, I have to say, I enjoy directing much more now than I did when I started. Because, because I do, you know, you have less to prove, I suppose that as you go on, right. And, and also, it's like, you've been through all those sticky situations, and you usually get out of it somehow. And so there's, you get a lot more confidence with age and experience. And so I definitely enjoy it now. Rather, before it was like, a task that had to be achieved and to win the fight and get it done. Now you I can actually enjoy the process. And, you know, so, you know, it comes with experience and doing it and you know, for a while, I suppose?

Alex Ferrari 56:31
Well, I mean, you've got more than 50,000 hours now, I think?

Simon West 56:36
The trick is not that, you know, not to fall out of love with it. I do know some people that, you know, fallen out of love with it, and really miserable, you know, and miserable to be around on the set, because they don't like it anymore. And but you know, they're sort of wedded to it. But I think if you don't like it anymore, you should definitely stop doing it. But because you're making everybody's life misery. But I you know, I definitely like it more more I do it. So it's you know, and I've been to

Alex Ferrari 57:04
And it shows, it shows in your work that you you know, the movies that you've stayed consistent, since Con Air. I mean, you've been working every you know, you pop out your your output is, is pretty good. It's not like you do one movie, you're not a Kubrick, you don't do one movie every eight or nine years. I mean, you're you're constantly working, whether in television, or in this, you're always working. So that's you can tell that you love what you're doing.

Simon West 57:27
Yeah, well, that would be really frustrating. I mean, I'm a huge Kubrick fan. And but it would be really frustrating for me to know that I was only going to do a film once every 5 6 7 8 years, that would be you know, heartbreaking, because there's only so many films you can make in a lifetime. And, you know, sometimes obviously, you know, some are better than others, because whatever reason, but you learn something on every one. And, you know, I think making any film is better than staying at home.

Alex Ferrari 57:58
You know, you're absolutely right. Now I'm gonna ask you a few questions to ask all of my guests I'm in what advice would you give a filmmaker trying to break into the business today?

Simon West 58:07
Don't turn any opportunity down, you know, don't be too like, I have to make this kind of film I have to because I you know, I as I said, I went through all these different types of filmmaking from current affairs, two documentaries, that drama to you know, everything. Music videos, commercials, and I would say, just try and shoot as much as you can on anything, whether it's on your iPhone, or, you know, with friends on and any opportunity, a friend says, oh, you know, I want to be an actor. And but I need someone to shoot me doing something, go and do it don't go out. He's not very good. Or, you know, I haven't got time or I'd rather do that. Any opportunity do it because any connection you make with someone else who's also in that world, can leapfrog to another connection. And every anything you shoot gives you a little bit more experience. And a little bit more like Oh, I know, you know, like, I really want to do sci fi. Well, I want to do a sci fi I'm gonna shoot and then someone says, can you come and shoot this little comedy short film for me and you shoot the comedy you're actually I really enjoyed that comedy. Maybe I'll maybe I'll do some comedy. So I would just say shoot as much and as often as you can and don't be too precious don't sit around for the perfect situation. And you know and and working on films in any way you can I mean, I you know worked in props and art department and sound and camera systems on other people's films for a day here a day there. And it's kind of fun. You get to learn other people's jobs you meet other people and and work for free. So they'll have you you know, so they'll have you back or you know, they'll there's a reason to hire you is because you're free. And just work as much as you can and take every opportunity shoot anything you can.

Alex Ferrari 59:53
What is the lesson that what what did you learn from your biggest failure?

Simon West 59:58
What I guess what I learned And is no failure is total, you know, what I mean? Is that is that every every disappointment or failure, if you want to call it can be corrected to a certain extent in some way. I mean, that's the beautiful thing about filmmaking like a sequence, you know, one angle doesn't work you cut to another angle, one, you know, an actor doesn't isn't great, you know, in a performance, you can make the performance better through editing. If there's, there's always always I don't think any failure is total. And also, you know, there's a whole theory that, you know, you obviously, you don't learn anything until you fail at something, you know, and so you shouldn't look at the any kind of failure as a failure. It's more like a, you know, a learning experience. But also, none of that item for me, I don't know, it's lucky or whatever, but I never treat any failure as a total failure, it's always can be, you know, dragged back into be a 10% failure, rather than 100% failure, because you can, you can do something to fix most things, you know, situations from

Alex Ferrari 1:01:07
Now, what is the lesson that took you the longest to learn whether in the film industry or in life?

Simon West 1:01:12
I think he's pacing himself, he's like, not rushing. You know, the hardest thing in filmmaking and people don't realize, is time management, because you can make a fantastic film with unlimited time. And it's time, it's not even resources. I mean, if you've got a camera, that's basically what you need in a way of recording the sound. But if you had unlimited time, you can make the world's greatest film, if you've got the talent, but you know, every film you're on is a time pressure, it's like you're constantly doing a deal with yourself, if I if I take longer on the scene, I gotta take time off that scene. If I you know, if I rush to this scene, it's not going to be makes sense for the story. So I got to allocate my time in every minute of a film, you know, a professional film is accounted for, you know, you're supposed to do a certain amount of work per day, you know, per hour. And you have to stick to that plan. And that scheduling, that's very hard in an artistic endeavor to be so dictated to by time management. And that's the, that's the hardest thing is this is to get, okay, the discipline of saying, I've got it as good as enough, because I've got to get on and get all these other things. When really, you know, it's very rare that a director is in a position where he just can keep going, keep going, keep going until he absolutely satisfied because that's not a real world situation. And you know, that that's hard, but I mean, yeah, but the opposite is like, don't be panicking about time on Sunday. So I would, is, I think I've learned those not to rush and take time, because, you know, you can make a bad decision. If you rush. If you just take a couple more beads, you can make a better decision. And but it's it's that balance of don't rush, but you're still going to hit those time. deadlines.

Alex Ferrari 1:03:03
So you've never heard the term you've never heard the sentence ever uttered to you, Simon, all you have is time and money. How fun?

Simon West 1:03:10
Yeah, that would be. I mean, yeah, but I, you know, I have I do have questions, you know, like that. But do you? So you know, when they're scheduling with a sailor, well, how long would it take you to shoot the scene? And I go, Well, how long will you give me? Because I could shoot it in two minutes, the length of the dialogue, I could spend two weeks shooting the most incredible version of this scene with, you know, every conceivable angle and like beautiful lighting and tech and waiting for the sun to be in the right spot. I mean, how much will you give me I just need as much time as you're willing to give me you know,

Alex Ferrari 1:03:40
And I'll make it work with what you got to a certain extent. And last question, three of your favorite terms of all time?

Simon West 1:03:49
Oh, well, I mean, I there's so many I hate that question. Because it's three is hard to pin down. But I mean, I do love, you know, films that I grew up with and films at different times of my life. So, you know, sort of in my sort of teens there's a film called Withnail and I, with Richard II grant and Paul McGann it's a small comedy about to struggling actors in England and not many people in America know it because when I do mention it, people go on I haven't seen that. But in in the UK, it's a kind of a cult. You know, I've been on I've been on sets in UK and the camera crew will recite lines from the film to you because it's a cult. So but yeah, so I try encourage all Americans to see this film because it seems to be very well known in England but not in the States but school with nail and I and then films you know, at different stages in my life. And these are not necessarily you know, great classics. I mean, I love all the big classics, you know the David Lean movies and everything like that, but you know, everybody does but films that meant a lot to me. You know, a different parts of my life were things like you know, when I was very young, we'd be Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Bang. The fantasy of that to me as a you know, magical, magical a six or seven year old with me of that would have thought that was the most magical thing ever. And that would that was the sort of thing would get me into filmmaking is the fantasy because to me filmmaking is taking it to another world. And I, you know, because I have to confess I don't make very realistic films. They are, you know, they are quite fantasy and larger than life and operatic because I kind of want to be taken to another place I you know, I don't necessarily, I mean, I, you know, I watch other people's very, you know, great realistic films and love them, but my world is a bit more ridiculous in a way. But, you know, so and then, you know, and then that was, you know, my five or six year old, me getting into film. And then the 12 13 year old me was a film called swauk Melody, another English film that was written by Alan Parker and directed by walrus Hussain, produced by David Puttnam. And it's a it's a net gain. It's a small film set in a school in London in a kind of a rough part of London. And, and it's all sort of actors, there were 11 and 12. And it was just my life, you know, so it's the first time I went to the movies, and didn't see James Bond, you know, jumping off a cliff for, you know, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs doing something, you know, this was my life, it was kids at school, but very realistically shot and they're getting up to all sorts of mischief. And they're really, you know, rude to adults. And they're kind of like, but it's very sweet. And so this is the sweetest soundtrack by the BGS, which is not the strongest point, not the strongest point, but the PG is less than every PG, so great. Yeah, they're great. You know, Saturday Night Fever and all that stuff. Yes, but not in this world. But the rest of the film is great. So I'd have to say like three films, they're not, you know, as I said, the big epics, but they meant something to me at different ages. My life, you know, and so that's where they were importantly, so when I say favorite, I'm not gonna go now I'm talking about I'm gonna watch them again now. Because

Alex Ferrari 1:07:09
I mean, you go, I mean, as you were talking, I'm like, what was the film, like, when I was coming up, like 8 9 10 years old, and the obvious one, Star Wars, et all those kinds of things. But there's something like Never Ending Story by Wolf. But Wolfgang, you look at that, and you're like, at that moment. You know, that was a very powerful movie. You know, to me and those kinds of things. It's, you know, I've heard I've heard the greatest, you know, some people like, Oh, I'd loved under the dragon. And I'm like, I loved under the dragon too. But is that on your top three is like it is it meant a lot to me when I saw it when I was 12, things like that. So it doesn't all have to be godfather.

Simon West 1:07:45
Exactly. I mean, I've watched Godfather, you know, how many 1000s I got it on every format ever made, you know, and I still watch it on TV with the commercials when it comes on, you know,

Alex Ferrari 1:07:56
Because we're ridiculous. Why do we do that when we could literally just get up, grab our blu ray. And that's happened to me multiple times. And I'm like, why am I just too lazy to get.

Simon West 1:08:08
But it's such a good film. You don't want to waste that 30 seconds of it. So those those epics are fantastic. But I think a film that means something to and also that probably led, you know, people like you and me into the business. You know, it needs even more because it's, you know, it's what we ended up doing. So,

Alex Ferrari 1:08:27
Simon, it has been an absolute pleasure and honor talking to you, my friend. I know I can talk to you for at least another five or six hours. But I appreciate your time. And thank you so much for coming on the show and sharing your knowledge and your experiences with the tribe today and continued success my friend. I can't wait to see your next one. So thank you so much my friend.

Simon West 1:08:45
You're welcome. Lovely to talk to you.

LINKS

SPONSORS

  1. Need Distribution for Your Film? – Check This Out!
  2. Bulletproof Script Coverage– Get Your Screenplay Read by Hollywood Professionals
  3. Enigma Elements – Cinematic Tools & Assets for Serious Filmmakers
  4. Audible – Get a Free Filmmaking or Screenwriting Audiobook

IFH 599: How to Acquire Original IP for Your Projects with David Kessler

Originally from Philadelphia, David attended that city’s “Fame” high school, Creative And Performing Arts, where his classmates included QuestLove and Boyz II Men. He then graduated from Parsons School of Design in New York, and worked as a graphic designer for ad agencies, designed book covers, movie posters, and indie film titles.

He impulsively moved to Los Angeles in 2000 and became a stand-up comic for a while, performing at The Improv, The Vancouver Comedy Festival, and in sketches on “The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson” and “The Showbiz Show with David Spade”. But he tired of comedy clubs after a few years and focused on writing instead. In 2006, his “Will & Grace” spec made it to the semi-finals of the Warner Bros. Comedy Workshop.

Switching to drama, he optioned the book “Minamata” (and the life rights of the author), about the experiences of journalist W. Eugene Smith photographing mercury poisoning victims in Japan. He wrote the screenplay in six weeks, and it got him a literary manager. Then Johnny Depp’s company came on board to produce with Depp himself as the star. Filming on MINAMATA completed in the Spring of ’19, with an expected release in Fall 2021. “Minamata” premiered at the Berlin Film Festival in 2020 and has since been picked up by Samuel Goldwyn Films for domestic distribution. It also stars Bill Nighy, Hiroyuki Sanada, Tadanobu Asano, and the singer Katherine Jenkins.

His follow up, DREAMERS (based on the book John Lennon Vs. The US), is about John Lennon’s immigration battle with the Nixon administration which legally set the stage (many years later) for DACA/The Dream Act. 

David was recently hired by the director of “Minamata”, Andrew Levitas, to rewrite a script about the two brothers who owned Adidas and Puma and who battled each other for decades. That project, “Adidas V Puma”, is currently out to actors and mentioned in “The Hollywood Reporter” in early March 2021.

Right-click here to download the MP3

David Kessler 0:00
Depp put a lot of them himself into the part and into the production of the movie. You know the movie was made I think the budget was $11 million. Maybe it was.

Alex Ferrari 0:12
It looks a lot more expensive than that.

David Kessler 0:14
It looks amazing.

Alex Ferrari 0:15
This episode is brought to you by bulletproof script coverage, where screenwriters go to get their scripts read by Top Hollywood Professionals. Learn more at covermyscreenplay.com I'd like to welcome to the show, David Kessler, how're you doing, David?

David Kessler 0:29
Great.

Alex Ferrari 0:30
Thank you so much for being on the show. Man. I think I appreciate you reaching out to me, man, I get reached out by as you can imagine a lot of people want to come on the show. And very blessed with that. But when I saw your story, and I saw the films you worked on, and I just found it interesting to see your perspective on on the craft on the business and so on. So first question, man, how did you get into this insanity that is the business?

David Kessler 0:57
That's a this is this is my fourth career. So I have to have to make this one stick. I went to art school and went to Parsons School of Design. But I was always I was always I was trained to be a designer, but I was always writing on the side. met again many years ago, I wrote a short story for an NYU film application. And a friend gave it to a woman who came into her Cafe she was a waitress. And then it turned out that she then this woman wrote me a letter so I got a letter in the corner to Janklow and Nesbit Oh no, I'm getting sued. I'm gonna have to leave my apartment or something. You know? Like, it turns out Marchenko is an attorney and the logo looks very much like a law firm. But it turns out there they are, like the biggest literary agency in New York, they represent the represented Michael Creighton, they represented Richard Price who was my favorite author at the time. So yeah, my, my, my, my journey goes goes goes way back. So you know, that was sort of an inkling that maybe I had something that you know,

Alex Ferrari 2:11
Started yet someone's yet some some of the juice some of the magic

David Kessler 2:15
I had some of the juice. Yeah, I don't even think I don't even think I think I was still 21 I just graduated college. But yeah, I got I got rejected by NYU. I don't even know I don't even know how I could have afforded it. But

Alex Ferrari 2:29
So it might have been the best thing for you not to go to NYU because you might be still be carrying around an obscene amount of debt.

David Kessler 2:35
Probably Probably. But actually, I got to know a lot of NYU. People from that time. I was doing film titles for NYU students. So I put like fliers all over NYU like hey, I'll do your film titles for $99 or whatever it was. And I got to know some really interesting people. One of the people I got to know the first film title it was a guy named Randy Pearlstein Pearlstein he and his roommate, Eli Roth does later did Cabin Fever

Alex Ferrari 3:09
Wow, very cool. Now is it true that you also went to the same high school?

David Kessler 3:15
I went to the Philly version of the same high school

Alex Ferrari 3:18
So you went to the same high school the the Philly version? Yeah, but while you were there some of your your your co your students that you went to school with is a tree went to school with Boys to Men and quest love. Yes, yes. Yes. What was that like? Dude? How were they back then?

David Kessler 3:37
I think I was bullied by boys to men's like associates, freshman year. I remember somebody pushing me down on the roof. We had our we had our playground on the roof because it was in a city. I didn't and then yeah Questlove was a year below me. He was a mere Thompson then I didn't wait they were on a different floor. So they you know, they had they you know they had a music floor and then they had like, you know, rehearsal spaces in the basement you know that were soundproof so but yeah, I mean, I knew sort of a mirror in passing but I don't think he'd remember me.

Alex Ferrari 4:17
That's funny man as funny now from what I understand you also became a stand up as well. Yes. And you did some stand up work now I've had decades of experience with stand up so I know the creature very well.

David Kessler 4:32
It is. It is a beast. It is.

Alex Ferrari 4:36
A stand up the standup it is it is the comedian the stand up comedian is their own species. I you know the sad clown is very, very true in many in many cases. What drew you to stand up and because look, I was shooting a special once I was shooting a stand up special directing it and I just got up on the on the stage. age with nobody in the audience just to set up for the camera. They're like, Okay, I'll stand in. And I freaked out, just standing there in front of nobody in front of and I just I'm like, Oh no, I can never like it. It's it takes such a level of, I don't know, courage or insanity to try to go up there and entertain people with a mic for an hour. So what drew you to that insanity that's even more insane in the film business.

David Kessler 5:29
Indirectly, a therapist, Kaiser permanency drove drove me to it. I had just gotten to LA, I had moved to LA because I moved. I moved here because I met a woman on the World Wide Web, which is what we called it done. Yeah, and that that relationship crashed, like, I think on the fifth day, or the fourth day I was here. So I was here for about a year and a year and a half, two years. And I just was like, depressed, I couldn't get out of bed, and I went to Kaiser and the therapist was like, you know, what, you have no support system? No, you, you're kind of moved on a whim, you know, you need you, I need you to come back next week with a list of classes that you want to take. So you can you know, find some friends and you know, you know, build the community. So I think two minutes before the next session, I was like, stand up cooking class, acting class, writing class, dance class. And yeah, stand up was was the first thing and she goes, I think that might be good for you. And then like, probably a week and a half later, I was on the stand of class.

Alex Ferrari 6:37
Oh, my God. And then you went out and they started, you started doing stand up. Now you had some success and stand up a little bit and got some work in writing comedy and so on. Right?

David Kessler 6:47
Yeah, I got a manager. Probably within 20 months of the class. I was I was signed with Messina Baker they represented Tim L and Drew Carey. At the time. Yeah. So the representative, Tim Allen, Andrew Carey, and then there was like a bunch of people. Like, you know, there's the a list and then there were so like the E list I was I was sort of in the E list. There was no there was no mid there was no mid talent at the time.

Alex Ferrari 7:22
So when you were working in stand up in working in comedy writing, how did that help you in your dramatic writing that will that's where you are currently today?

David Kessler 7:31
Yeah, I It's hard to say I actually the first script I ever wrote was a biopic which is now my thing. But I wrote a biopic in the mid 90s, about Frankie Lymon and the teenagers. Frankie Lymon was the kid who sang Why do fools fall in love? So that was my first script. So I wrote that in the mid to late 90s. Yeah. And then I was doing standup in the early 2000s, mid 2000s. I don't know, for some reason, the comedy thing. I stopped doing stand up. But I was still writing romantic comedies and comedy scripts. And just it just wasn't sticking. I just I just, you know, there were some nibbles and some bites and, and then all of a sudden, I just made this. I think I think I stopped. Yeah, I stopped. I stopped all entertainment. I was in the laundry business for a long time, which is, which is career number two, career number three, you know, I was like, because I was in my early to mid 30s. And I was like, Okay, I need to grow up. Like, you know, I, you know, I need to get serious about, you know, trying to stay alive. And yeah, and then I just I did a hard pivot to drama and true stories. And that was the thing that was the thing that stuck.

Alex Ferrari 8:47
But you and you were you've been drawn to true stories pretty much ever since it's kind of like you're you've kind of niched yourself in that space.

David Kessler 8:53
Yeah, yeah. I've gotten sort of a semi reputation as the, you know, the doctor of broken biopics. So yeah, there was there was like, I gotten a couple or two or three freelance jobs where producers had come come to me with with a piece of IP or a book or an idea or a true story. And they're like, we've had other people work on this and we have this script and you know, Can Can you try and fix it?

Alex Ferrari 9:20
So, so your script doctored a bunch as well?

David Kessler 9:23
Yeah, in fact, the director of Minamata hired me to rewrite a script he had called the data is V Puma, which was about the two brothers who own those companies who are at war with one another for 30 years.

Alex Ferrari 9:38
So Adidas and Puma had, they were brothers, the owners of this company,

David Kessler 9:42
Yeah, one guy, his name was Adi Dassler. It does it does it this got it? And the other guy was Rudolph, Rudy Dassler there with the Dotzler brothers. And then he founded Puma so they they so yeah, they they had they had a shoe company in the 20s and 30s called the docile shoe company. And then world war two kind of split them apart. And then yeah, one, one.

Alex Ferrari 10:13
That's an interesting story.

David Kessler 10:15
I did a page one rewrite on that spirit. Yeah.

Alex Ferrari 10:18
Oh, that must I can't I hope it gets made one day. That'd be a fantastic

David Kessler 10:22
My manager called me about a month ago. And she goes, Oh, yeah, the script you wrote has come back to the agency because they represent directors and and they had it. It's sort of like went out in the world. And it came right back for another client.

Alex Ferrari 10:39
It's interesting how that works is like is a writer, you write something or you're hired to write something and you've no idea what's going to happen to you kind of, you know, you pray to the Hollywood gods, that someone's going to produce it. And I've said this on the show so many times that there's I know writers who might have one, one really popular movie on their on their resume, or are actually produced one or two things. And they're like, oh, they haven't done anything in 10 years. I'm like, No, they've been working nonstop. They've probably written 10 or 15. Paid been paid to write 10 or 15 scripts that just haven't been produced, let alone Script doctoring.

David Kessler 11:15
Right, right. Yeah, I had. I called I call the company that owns the manage the estates of rock bands. And I got a guy on the phone. And I said, Yeah, I've done the Johnny Depp movie, Minamata. Yatta, yatta yatta. And he goes, what else have you done? And I go, Well, you know, being my first movie starring and produced Johnny Depp, I don't think that's too bad. But he was very quick to dismiss that I only had one, right. Oh, but I made that one. But you know, to start with,

Alex Ferrari 11:48
It's not a bad it's not a bad hit to come out with. So let's talk a little bit about Minamata. You are the producer of that, as well as the writer of it, one of the writers of it as well, and one of the most of it. So you're the one who started, you're the one that went out and optioned the book. All that how did you decide to option the book? How did you option the book? And can you explain to the audience of screenwriters out there and filmmakers who might want to Option A book what the process is like?

David Kessler 12:19
It was just it was just a few years of crawling over broken glass. That's all it was. That's it really was really overnight. Really, it was really easy. I had known of the photograph, there's a very famous photograph of this Japanese woman bathing her severely disabled and deformed daughter. I knew that photograph when I was at Parsons, because that was in like, every the best photo journalism book, The Best of, you know, time life. It was it's a haunting picture. I don't know if you've seen the

Alex Ferrari 12:55
No, I've seen. I've seen the picture.

David Kessler 12:57
Yeah, it's and yeah, so that was taken by Jean Eugene Smith. And I didn't, I thought it was in Hiroshima, because it was from black and white. And, you know, it just felt like it was from long ago. But it was only taken, you know, a decade and a half or two decades before I was in college. So then, you know, I discovered the story behind the photograph and the story behind Jean Smith. And then I actually got the Minamata book out of the Los Angeles Public Library. Luckily, it's still in circulation because some books you you can only get at the downtown library, you know, the reference, you know, so that I have to travel, travel, you know, 15 miles and find parking in downtown LA, which I really loads. But yeah, so then I tracked Mrs. Smith down, Mrs. Smith had a, a website where she, you know, answered questions about photographs, or if people wanted to license to photographs. So I reached out to her. January of 2011 never wrote me back. I tried a full year later, just January 12. I was like, I'm just gonna send the same email. And then she wrote me back a few days later. And that this was a big leap of faith for her because I'm not Steven Spielberg. I'm not Bob Zemeckis. I'm not Eric Roth. I don't you know, I don't have Munich behind me. I don't have Schindler's List behind me. I was a guy who did stand up and wrote romantic comedies so and had never made a movie before. So it was a huge, huge I owe Mrs. Smith a huge gratitude, and a debt for trusting me with her story and her husband's story and the story of the community that they lived in. But yeah, it took two years. It was two years of she lives in Japan. She's half Japanese. So it took two years of emails and Skype. phone calls at midnight and letters back and forth. And sometimes she would, you know, decide, um, you know, maybe this isn't a good idea, maybe this is not something I want to revisit, and it brings up too many bad memories and, and then I'd have to reel her back. You know, I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good it would be a good thing for the world to be reminded. Yeah, so it took it was a year and a half of convincing her. And then it was six months of legal wrangling. So yeah, it was it was it was 23 months before she signed on the dotted line.

Alex Ferrari 15:33
So you, you were like a dog with a bone for a year and a half, essentially, and didn't give up. I did not give up on this process, which is a very important lesson for everyone listening. It doesn't happen overnight. Yeah, how? How much are you willing to endure? Because most people would have given up after six months after a couple months there would have given this this lady just doesn't want to do it. It's not for me. What? Who am I? How did you I want to ask you, I'm assuming during that year and a half of you trying to convince this lady to give you the rights or husband's amazing story and book

David Kessler 16:08
And her story.

Alex Ferrari 16:09
Yeah. And her story as well. There had to be moments that you said to yourself, in the quiet of the night, who do you think you are? How dare you think you could even attempt to do something like that? There have been some negative talks and impostor syndrome flying around? How did you overcome that?

David Kessler 16:27
I have a little have a little like sticky on my, my computer, you know, the digital sticky, you know, yeah. And it says, Don't give up on something that you think about every day. So that that that that little digital Mac sticky kind of kept me going on? Because I do you know, I did think about it every day. And I did think it was an important story. And I was just like, You know what, I'm just, I'm just gonna give

Alex Ferrari 16:57
You just kept going, you know, no matter what did you write the script before you had the rights? Or as even as an exercise? Or did you wait,

David Kessler 17:08
I waited, I waited that I had written the Frankie Lymon script on spec, but I hadn't had the rights. And then as soon as I finished that there was an announcement that Gregory Nava was going to do what it was fall in love. And then I had 120 pages of garbage. So I didn't want to make the same mistake of putting all this time and effort and creativity into something that that could go, but I did in my head. I did have like, Okay, this could be the first act, this could be the second act. This is the theme. These are the things I want to talk about, you know, these are the scenes I want to have. So I did I did have it cooking. And I might have written you know, a one page.

Alex Ferrari 17:48
Maybe something something just to like, I don't want to lose this that stuff. Yeah, there was like, Oh, that would be a good scene.

David Kessler 17:54
And then I would maybe write it down. But I didn't. I didn't like I didn't hit fade in and start start writing. I didn't do that.

Alex Ferrari 18:00
So Alright, so now you've got the signature, you've got the rights. Yeah. You've never produced a movie before. You've never made a movie before. That's right. What is the next step? Like? How did you get this thing off the ground? Because you're now one of 1000? If not 10,000? guys running around Hollywood with life rights or book rights or things like that? What made you able to what, how did you get it off the ground? What made you stand above everybody else, at least just to get this thing going?

David Kessler 18:34
You know, I shook the trees of use of you know, friends of friends, co workers. And I remember talking to a woman who worked at participant films, because this seemed like it was up their alley because it had a social environmental component. And she was very blunt and impatient, and she was kind of like, you got rights, that's great. But it's not a script. You know, like, it's not a commodity, you know, like, it's something but it's not something anything. She was basically say, like, turn those rights into a script, you know, or find a writer. So then I wrote the script and six weeks.

Alex Ferrari 19:22
You wrote the whole script and six weeks. I mean, but you've been cooking on it for two years.

David Kessler 19:25
It was it was it was cooking. It was cooking. Yeah.

Alex Ferrari 19:28
So you were cooking it for two years, but you actually wrote the draft that went out in six weeks.

David Kessler 19:34
First Draft six weeks, maybe I wrote a bunch of revisions, but it wasn't that different than the first draft.

Alex Ferrari 19:42
So you're the bulk of what you the bulk of what the script was, was written in those six weeks. Yeah. Yeah. That's That's crazy. All right. So now that you have the script now, you're now you're a guy, a screenwriter who has a script who has life rights, again. 9000 of those.

David Kessler 19:58
Right, right, right. Ah, right now, now I'm just one of 50,000 people with a script, but I have the life rights what's actually, you know, meant something that actually had, it had some currency that, you know, there's IP, you know, it was, it was a book, you know. And then I own the rights, you know, so like it gave me it sprinkled a little, little magic dust on on it that, you know, I have the Moxie and I have the entrepreneurship of, you know, getting the rights. You know, like,

Alex Ferrari 20:36
As soon as a writer though, and I want that's one of the reasons I wanted you on the show, because I wanted writers to understand the importance of what you've done with this with this project, specifically, because you did, what basically 1% of 1% of all screenwriters do, which is take control of their of their career, and give themselves a better shot by going out and becoming a producer and or entrepreneur, and going after life rights going after IP going after something that makes you stand out of the crowd. And that's, that's why I'm kind of really examining your process and really, hopefully inspiring somebody listening.

David Kessler 21:20
That was one of the smarter things I've done in the last few decades was, was was was Yeah, being being an entrepreneur, slash producer, in terms of of getting the rights.

Alex Ferrari 21:35
So you've got the rights and that you're running around town. How did how did you? what point did someone say, hey, let's, let's make this

David Kessler 21:45
Well, I have the script and I have the rights. And then I had a friend who I met actually, this is one of the reasons you know, it's great to take classes and you know, meet you know, find comrades and collaborators. I met when I hit I after the Scanner class, I took a sketch class sketch comedy class within beats, who actually passed quite recently, and she was one of the original female writers of SNL. The original SNL the original 75 Yeah. 70 to 80. So she wrote the NoGi sketch, you know the, with Bill Murray and, and Gilda Radner. She had previously written for the Lampoon the National Lampoon. So I took, I took a sketch class, and in that sketch class, a woman had taken the sketch house before me. We had stayed friends. And, you know, now this is 15 13 15 years later, she had a manager. And so I gave her Minamata. She gave it to her manager, she nagged her manager to read it. Her manager had once worked for a photographic photography magazine, in the 70s, in New York City. So there was this kind of like, Oh, I know who, you know, Jean Smith was I, you know, I worked at this magazine, you know. And then finally she read it, and then she loved it. And then and then I got signed by her. And then she was sending out the script.

Alex Ferrari 23:24
And then how did Johnny Depp get involved?

David Kessler 23:27
She sent it to Johnny Depp's company. This is kind of a funny story. She said, she sent it out. And she's ended the journey of the company. And they passed. Past. Simple, simple pass, you know, they might have said they liked the writing, I don't remember. But then nine months later, or 10, eight, eight to eight to eight to 12 months later, I think it was under a year. She calls me on a Friday and says you're not gonna believe this. But Johnny Depp's company has called maybe somebody new RedHat. She says, they think you can win an Academy Award and they and they want us to come in on Monday happened.

So we had, like we were there on a Monday and there was a guy, you know, we have a meeting in a conference room. Now I've since found out what had happened. I have now pieced together the these little threads. So what happened? It turned out he had read it months earlier. He had loved it. He brought it to his boss, his boss, passed for whatever reasons. And then I think he had gotten a promotion, you know, eight months net 10 months later. And then he was told that you know, I hoped apologies to Jason I hope I'm getting the story the story correct. But he was told that you know, he could I'm spearhead a project. And he said, You know, I can't stop thinking about the Minamata script, which is goes to, you know, the earlier thing, if you can't stop thinking about it, maybe it's something you should, you should, you know, you know, go after with with with, with all the love in your heart. And then she goes, Well, if you can't stop thinking about it, maybe, you know, take the lead. And then he called, he called me and told me and then we were in the office on Monday.

Alex Ferrari 25:32
And what point did Johnny read it?

David Kessler 25:35
That's a good question. I don't know, I'm gonna have to go back and piece together the puzzle on that. But maybe for a year and a half to two years, it was never talked about that he would star. They just they just did it was they were just developing it as a production company. Now. It's possible. This was being groomed to be a project for Johnny. But I wasn't privy to those conversations. And it was never mentioned to me.

Alex Ferrari 26:12
So So I want I want, again, people listening just I think there's a lesson here to be to be pointed out. So nine months after they said, No, swing back and say we think this could win an Oscar, you come in on Monday. That's right. That is something that you can't plan for. No, can't prepare for. There is such an element of luck in this industry, that after talking to so many people over the years, who have been at high levels in the industry, luck plays such a big part. But with that said, you had a script, you had life rights, you had you had done a lot of the legwork to get you to that place. So in other words, that phone call would have never come unless you have gone through those two years of over the glass trying to get the rights and all this time and effort trying to get this thing made. But because you did all that work at one point or another, literally luck. Just opened that door.

David Kessler 27:15
Yeah, a lot of things needed to fall into place at just the right time. I mean, I'm not going to discount the amazing luck that has befallen me and Kismet you know, because I took this sketch class, but this this, this woman, Moira, she was in the sketch class, not this guy. She was in the sketch house before my sketch class, but happened to go to our performance, who I met after the show. So the serendipity of her coming to my class, even though she wasn't, you know, coming to the show, even though she wasn't in my class. And then us, you know, staying in touch, and remaining friends for 15 years.

Alex Ferrari 27:53
So long con, it's a long con.

David Kessler 27:56
I was I was inadvertently playing the long game. And so then yeah, so then, you know, she gets a manager, the manager worked at of photography magazine in the 1970s had a personal interest in the subject matter. Read the script, you know, gave it knew the person who ran Johnny Depp's company gave it to Johnny Depp's company. And then and then there's other things that I found out much later was, you know, Johnny Depp had come in the office because he was, you know, off making pirate movies. As soon as someone dies, he's not in the office every day. So he came in the office, and then you know, they have a they have these meetings of, you know, what's going on, you know, what are we developing? What are we looking at? What are we producing? What are we thinking about? You know, and they said, well, well, Johnny, you know, we have this script. It's based on a book. It's called Minamata. It's it's about the journey of this photographer named Eugene Smith. And apparently depth goes I know that Jane Smith is I mean, he didn't say that the be a jerk. He was just saying, like, you know, I'm a, I'm a fan. You don't explain it to me. So it turned out Depp had been a fan of Jean Smith. I, he he had known. You know, he'd been a fan of the photography. He'd been a, you know, sort of aware of Jean Smith's reputation. Jean Smith was a was an eccentric. He was a tortured artist who drank a lot and did drugs and, you know, burn bridges. I think it was in the pantheon of people that DEP admires you know, your Hunter Thompson. Say, you know, your your Keith Richards you know, he just

Alex Ferrari 29:36
You're Jack Sparrow, if you will.

David Kessler 29:38
Jackson Pollock, you know, he just fell into into the boat that kind of self destructive, you know, tortured artist. And, in addition, he had been depth had been friends with a woman named melee Mary Ellen Mark, who was a documentarian, who made a document who made a A doc document documentary about street kids in Seattle in the late 70s, early 80s. She later made it into a feature with Jeff Bridges. Do you remember this movie? Jeff, I forget what the movie was called Jeff Bridges is in it. Edward Furlong plays his sons. And then it was loosely based upon the documentary, I remember that that she had made. So yes, she was. She had taken classes from Eugene Smith in the late 60s, early 70s, at the New School for Social Research, where he had gone to college where I had gone to college. And she had told depth these stories about Jean Smith, you know,

Alex Ferrari 30:37
So it's kind of like the universe was like, building up this, this, this, this, this a maximum point, this turning point where all of these things would just come to a head and you just, yeah, there's no time.

David Kessler 30:49
This was a 50. This was a 52 years, it was a decade long, long game.

Alex Ferrari 30:54
That's what this this was you you had no idea you were part of it till later on.

David Kessler 30:58
I didn't.

Alex Ferrari 31:01
Alright, so I have to ask you. So you know, there's been a lot of talk. There's been over the years have done a lot of talk about Johnny, and how he works with his, his crew and how you worked with writing. What was it like producing a movie with Johnny Depp? Especially something like this? How involved is he in the script is the scripting process? Because I mean, he does take a character and this is obviously based on someone real, but he does take a character and kind of go with it. I mean, I mean, he made the Pirates of the Caribbean without Johnny Depp, there is no Pirates of the Caribbean. I don't care what they do after now that they're not going to have him back or anything. There is no parser therapy without Johnny Depp. So without Jack Sparrow, so how, how did he approach this process with you?

David Kessler 31:43
Yep. That was really that put a lot of himself into the part and into the production of the movie. You know, the movie was made? I think the budget was $11 million. Maybe it was it was looks, it looks a lot more expensive than that. It looks amazing. I mean, it looks amazing. The cinematographers may Andrew did an amazing job. Stunning. Richie Sakamoto did the music. I mean, like, if you've made a list of like, who should do the music, like Ricci Sakamoto would be like, top of that list

Alex Ferrari 32:21
Yeah. Bill Nye and you have

David Kessler 32:22
Oh, yeah. Bill Nye. So yeah. Deb. You know, again, Deb had this personal connection, you know, to Jean Smith, as an artist as a person. So you know, I mean, I mean, I don't want to say he did the movie for scale. But he did the movie for just a fraction of what he used to get to be a pirate.

Alex Ferrari 32:44
Basically, a bunch of lunch money lunch money for Jack Sparrow.

David Kessler 32:48
Yeah, we shot in Serbia and Montenegro. You know, we couldn't even afford to shoot it in Japan, unfortunately. I think although they did shoot some plates in Japan. So yeah, I mean, this was a personal this was a this was something personal for for Johnny. So yeah, I was I was on set. I'm in a minute scene in the movie. There's a scene in Life Magazine, you might have seen the clip, where he's like, kind of walking around this conference table and lecture lecturing us. Yeah, I'm at the table. But if you sneeze or blink, if you do one of those two things, you will miss me. But yeah, I mean, he, he looks, he looks like Jean Smith, you know, with a beard, and he's got his age spots. And he's, he was the same age as as Smith was at the time. You know, there's this world weariness that Smith had, but Johnny just sort of has, you know, being who Johnny is. Yeah, of course, at the age that Johnny is. And you know, he just he just embodied the part and then on onset, he was called gene. He was called, on the call sheet says, like, you know, Gene Smith as Gene Smith. He just took it really, really seriously.

Alex Ferrari 34:13
So you so you're there watching him? I'm assuming you were there almost every day on set, or were you on set a lot.

David Kessler 34:18
I was there for a week. I was I was just there for a week in Serbia. So I only saw some some scenes.

Alex Ferrari 34:24
Okay, so when you're on the set and watching Johnny work, what did I mean? You know, he's our he's arguably one of the better actors of his generation. Without question, what's it like seeing him work and also bringing your words to life?

David Kessler 34:41
It's, it was the latter part of your question. It's sort of an out of body experience. Like, I like I like I don't know how I've gotten to this point. You know, I mean, things were not going well for me and my laundry business until the end. I had $50.12 in the bank before they wired in the money or the movie. You know, like I was going to have to move back to my parents house in Philadelphia like things were not you know, my pivot into the laundry industry was was ended up not not being a good one. So

Alex Ferrari 35:19
I thought my pivot into the olive oil and vinegar business was rough.

David Kessler 35:24
Yeah, my my last gamble was making a movie. I like it. Like, it's weird that this this, this worked out the way you did. But but to your earlier point, Johnny Depp's is amazing. That one scene took about eight and a half hours to shoot the scene in the Life Magazine. I'm sitting at the table. I'm sitting at the table the entire day, just watching him work. Essentially. I'm sitting next to Bill Nye. He is He is to my right. Katherine Jenkins, the opera singer and performer who's the director's wife is sitting across from me. And debt, that's the depot supposed to walk around the table and lecture us all. And, you know, when we start, you know, 830 in the morning, and depth is, you know, Okay, I gotta say this when I hit this mark, okay, okay, you know, and he's, he's got a long monologue, maybe it's a three and a half minute monologue, I don't remember. But he's got a lot to say, in a short amount of time. And again, he's got a hit, you know, Mark's gonna hit the marks, and you know, the camera, people are following him around and, you know, boom, people. So in the beginning, you know, it's like, oh, no, you know, is is, you know, it's he's kind of kind of rough going, you know, the first first, you know, 30 minutes or hour, you know, and if you're, what's the line? Okay. Okay. But then, the course of the day, I am watching. Like, it's a masterclass, I am watching Johnny Depp, like, find the meaning in the words, you know, like, find the meaning behind the meaning, like, I'm watching him, connect with Bill Nye, you know, who he knows? Yeah, he's here with Bill Nye, who he's known for 20 years. But in the movie, Jean Smith obviously knows the the editor of Life magazine for probably as long. So like, there's these kind of mirroring, like, parallel relationships that are happening, you know, so he's, you know, he's, you know, playing this bitter photographer who's angry at the life. Like, I was just like, minutes before we shot. I don't know, Bill gave Johnny or bill or Johnny gave bill, a book was like a nonfiction book, I thought you would really enjoy this. So good to have this relationship. Then I'm watching this relationship play out with my words and the words of the script. And I'm like, This is amazing. You know, like, there's, there's history there. Like, there's real life history that they are sort of pinging back, you know, they're, they're mining from it was kind of extraordinary.

Alex Ferrari 38:08
That's amazing. No, it was, it was amazing. So let me ask you, do you have any advice for people who are adapting screenwriters who are adapting a true story? What advice you wish you would have known when you started adapting these kind of things? That's a different art form than writing something from scratch.

David Kessler 38:27
Yeah, it's funny. Just this weekend, I taught a one to one day workshop, a three hour workshop called The Art of adaptation. And I had about two and a half hours of it advice. And I think the first chunk of it was like, you know how to win over people who own the IP.

Alex Ferrari 38:49
That's, that's a class in itself. It is.

David Kessler 38:52
It is. It's not easy. It's really not easy. You know, it's, I mean, it's easier now for me, you know, oh, I made this movie with Johnny Depp. And

Alex Ferrari 39:03
Oh, yeah, the doors open a little bit wider. Yeah. Like, like, Hi, I'm Steven Spielberg. And that's what you need to say.

David Kessler 39:08
Well, it was even a little tougher. You know, when like, the movie hadn't been made yet. So it was just kind of theoretical. It was just like, movie Johnny Depp Minamata. You know, people really couldn't like they could watch it. They could see it. Sure. No, it wasn't, it wasn't tangible. But now I can say oh, you can look at it on iTunes and, you know, amaz Amazon Prime and, and whatnot. Yeah, so part of it is, I think the first part of the class was, yeah, adeno identifying IP, where you could find it. It's everywhere. I mean, like, oh, there's

Alex Ferrari 39:40
1000s 10s Hundreds 1000s of bugs, comics and gate. There's just so much

David Kessler 39:45
There's, there's 400,000 recordings that you could put you could you know, you could write a movie based on a song and use the actual song. So there's almost half a million songs that you can use the actual recordings of anything before 1926 In America, but interestingly, you can't the UK and Canada have different public domain rules, which I found out about that's like, it's like, the death. It's like the life of the author plus 50 or 70 years. You know, which is which is different than the US. So it's like you whatever was published in Canada or the UK, that might you know, that stuff might be available 10 years before it's available. Domestic.

Alex Ferrari 40:41
So how does that work, though? So like, I'll go over the Canada by the rights of Canada. And can you play it out here? You can't do that?

David Kessler 40:46
I don't I don't know. Yeah, that's yeah, that's what I do know this. I have I have a friend who's a Broadway producer. And he's, he's doing a musical of the Little Prince. Yeah. But he's only doing it in like Europe, because the rights are available. Yeah. Like, you couldn't do it here. And you could I like, I think, even think he's doing it in Hungary or Poland or something. There's like

Alex Ferrari 41:16
Some place that's like, so specific that you can't get out of that. Nobody.

David Kessler 41:19
It's like, he's got a full production. And he can do it. And he can perform the shows on that IP, because he's, you know, he's found the loopholes of the countries that you can. So yeah, there's all these like, you know, very interesting. There's all these like, very interesting, like, little like, you know, loopholes that you can sort of like slide through. Even in my research, you know, about the Steven Spielberg, Stephen King, Dollar Baby thing,

Alex Ferrari 41:52
Ofcourse, yeah. Let everybody know. But yeah, that short film thing. Yeah, I've heard that forever. But go ahead.

David Kessler 41:56
He still does it. I thought, Well, he did like the middle does it.

Alex Ferrari 42:01
So for everybody listening, Stephen King will allow you to license a short film that is not licensed by a major company or a short short story, a short story, excuse me of his of his that can be turned into a short film. And you can't make money on it. You can't sell it. But the only prerequisite is you could send it but not the festival, show it off as yourself. But he needs to get a copy of it. So you can watch it. That's right. And there was a couple guys who got their starts like that fair, Frank Darabont. I think yeah, I think Frank Darabont Frank Darabont started his whole journey with that that's how he was able to license Shawshank Redemption not for $1 Obviously because but he had a relationship already with Stephen King and then that then went on to the Green Mile and and then missed in all these other things.

David Kessler 42:47
The missed the Miss gave me nightmares.

Alex Ferrari 42:52
Dude, I just had Thomas Jane on. Oh, wow. You can listen to that episode. It's so awesome. Like,

David Kessler 42:57
Yeah, so you can you can go to Stephen King John says last dollar, baby. And then all the rules right there. Yeah. So there's, there's, there's there is IP there is and then, you know, in my, in my class, I was breaking down, like all the things that are inspired. But you know, like, there's so many things that are Frankenstein, like, Oh, my God, Ex Machina. Frankenstein. Like, you know, Shakespeare. Oh my God, there's so many ships. Oh, you know, they did the hip hop a fellow, you know, 1010 Things I Hate About You. And then they did the meta Shakespeare, they did a Shakespeare play about a Shakespeare play

Alex Ferrari 43:42
Taming the shrewd. It's, there's so much IP out there that if you are a new writer wanting to get into the business, if you can come up with a new unique twist on a obviously successful IP, like a Shakespeare play, but just turn it and flip it around in a way that makes sense for you. It makes sense that's something new and fresh, which is hard to do and those kinds of IPs. But that's just an example. You can get the ball rolling on it, you can get your career off the ground, you can create a writing sample based on the structure of some of the greatest writers of all time.

David Kessler 44:18
You cannot you can take a Lovecraft story and Dickens, Edgar Allan Poe, I mean, there there are lists. And I sent this out to my class. And actually, I'll forward it to you that are just like, they're the websites that just keep track of like what's fresh in the public domain? Oh, that's nice. You know, like Eugene O'Neill stories, and the way novels like there's just all this stuff that is just just like what is alien, except it's a haunted house story in space, right? Like Outland is a Western in space. Like just take something and put it in Space.

Alex Ferrari 45:01
Well, and it's a little bit more expensive to shoot stuff in space, but generally speaking, yes. Or you could just be a desolate. Poke post apocalyptic, post apocalyptic.

David Kessler 45:11
I mean, look, the abyss is a haunted house story in the water

Alex Ferrari 45:16
Again, again very difficult to shoot. But But yes, no without without question and all those. There's always I mean, look at and I've said this before and I'm not the first to say this. The Fast and Furious is point break. And it was based on an article, right so but the Fast and Furious No, no, no, no, but the Fast and Furious. Yeah, the Fast and Furious first movie was based on an article, but the structure of the movie is point break.

David Kessler 45:44
Oh, okay. Right.

Alex Ferrari 45:45
I mean, just look at it. Just look at it undercover cop the girl extreme infiltrating secret. It's point break point for point beat for beat, you just go through it. There's videos on it on YouTube. It's just point break. It's all it is, is Point Break, and you're just like, me Can't believe now. It's like some sort of James Bond Frankenstein that they turned it into.

David Kessler 46:11
But to your point, it's like IP of IP, you know,

Alex Ferrari 46:14
I mean, it was they used to structure but they use the structure of another movie. And completely, I don't know how they got away with it, to be honest with you. But, but things like that. There's always stories out there. And if you can attach and in the world we live in today, IP is king. Everybody just wants IP, everyone wants a best selling book. Everybody wants something that they can hold their hat, they could do that get the give an executive and out if all goes wrong. So in other words, hey, I we put this movie into production is based on a Shakespeare play. Who knew? You know, they have to have something to escape hatch? If not, they don't take risks on original IP as much anymore. Because if they fail, they're gone.

David Kessler 46:59
I mean, what is AI? If it's not Pinocchio with robots, you know, but, I mean, there's even a Blue Fairy in it. I mean, and Jude Law is like a handsome robot Jiminy Cricket. I mean, you know, but um, yeah, I just read somebody's hard script. It was it took place in a single location, I found on the blacklist website. And then I got the guy on the phone. And I said, Hey, you know, what's, what inspired this? And he goes, Well, this this serial, the serial serial killer did this, like one thing? You know, like, I don't know, if he put people in the basement. First, I forget what it was. It was something benign. I mean, not benign, but not something, not something like, Oh, my God, that's horrible. And I can't I don't want to think about it. But it was just like, you know, maybe it was the van. I don't know. It was something small, right? It was something small and not pedestrian. But you know, and I said, Listen, I'm gonna, I'm gonna raise the value of your spec with four words. Okay, open up final draft or Highlander, whatever it is. Okay, right under your name. You're doing this inspired by a true story. Oh, yeah, that's, yeah, it's not wrong. It was inspired by this one little thing that this terrible person did, you know, one or one or two times, and I was like, Dude, that's the inspiration for your script. And, you know, people will be interested. It's got some magic dust on it, you know, inspired by a true story.

Alex Ferrari 48:27
It's so it's so true. And now you see that everywhere now is everything's inspired by a true story inspired by true story. I look, again, one of the reasons I wanted to have you on the show is to talk to you about IP about how to get IP. And it's so important in today's world, because you need something make you stand out as a writer and as a filmmaker. And if something as simple as the Stephen King Dollar, baby thing. I mean, if you're coming up as a filmmaker, and you're like, I don't have anything, I don't have a story to tell him I go read one of the best authors of his generation of the 20th century 21st century Stephen King. And he's how many stories short stories.

David Kessler 49:03
Yeah, hundreds and and you can make it on your you can make it on your phone,

Alex Ferrari 49:07
Which, which I've seen by the way, I've seen him by the way I get I've get pitched Stephen King projects all the time. Like those short bit like I just made a Stephen King short film, and they're using Stephen King's name to try to open some doors. Oh, they're like, Oh, it's a noose, a new short film by Stephen King that he wrote it. And I'm like, Yeah, I'm hip to the game already brought it I think.

David Kessler 49:28
I think that violates the dollar maybe rules, because he's got specific rules that you like, you can't you can't you can't like, oh, Stephen King authorized this or something like yeah,

Alex Ferrari 49:38
No, no, yeah. But nowadays, everybody knows about this. I mean, everybody in the business kind of knows about it, but it still opens. If you want to be a director and want to show off what you can do. Why not on a Stephen King movie. I mean, it works with Frank Darabont back in the 80s. I saw his his his Stephen King adaptation

David Kessler 49:54
It was was it was a chore. Or was it something

Alex Ferrari 49:56
Oh, no, no, it wasn't Shawshank. It was a think it was the one it was called the boogeyman, I think was the book, The boogeyman, the boogeyman, I remember I wanted to make that back in the day I wanted to make the book and I was How was his short? Is it the ad? So is it you know, the technology wasn't that it was shot on 35. I think he shot on 60. And one of the two, it was good, it was well crafted. It was, you know, he was a writer wanted to be a director. And then he put he pulled this obscure short film, which was the Rita Davis, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, which nobody in there, who's gonna make a movie out of that short film. And then Frank actually filled it out and build out a feature based on that short film. And then Steven was so excited ecstatic about it, then he's like, Hey, I'm writing this thing called the Green Mile. And he was giving him the Green Mile episodes before anybody. So he was already he's like, Steven, I need to I need I need to make this. So it was that was why it was right. After Shawshank. He went right back to the prison and made Green Mile, which is still is one of my favorite movies of all time as well. And then he went back with the mist and, and so on. It's just, it's fascinating. But that's, that's one of those success stories of someone using IP. And God bless Stephen King for doing it.

David Kessler 51:15
Yeah, I'm glad you brought up short stories short stories are, they're, they're a great, they're a great place to mine from because, you know, they're not on everybody's mind. You know, I mean, they might be in a collection that's out of print. Right? Oh, like, you know, who reads short story collections anymore? I mean, I remember the last time I read one, but you know, Stephen King, son, Joe Hill, they're making a movie. I think it's called fun. Oh, my God, that was an amazing short story. I went back and I read the short story, but short stories, you know, it's not it's not on top of mind, right? You could get a famous author to, like Stephen King to maybe license the, you know, allow you to, you know, you know, option, their short story, an author of a short story might feel less. They might be less, you know, yeah, less precious. That's I was gonna say proprietary, but less precious about like, wow, like, you know, it's only 15 pages or 20 pages short.

Alex Ferrari 52:15
It's a short film, what are you going to do with it, you want to make a short film, knock yourself out,

David Kessler 52:19
You know, but love versus like, oh, I spent 10 years writing this novel, I don't want you to change a word. You know, they and then that way, you have more you have more I can flesh it out. It can it can be more of your own, you know, you can add stuff to it. Yeah. So you know, I mean, if I had more time and more inclination, I would probably go into your short story. collections.

Alex Ferrari 52:40
So what are you working next man? What are you working on next?

David Kessler 52:44
I have a Kubrick I mentioned this. Before we got on the air. I have a Kubrick themed script. What else am I working on? They're all they tend to be true stories. I'm reading some nonfiction books, ones ones ones about has to deal with UFOs. Awesome I'm working on. Oh, yeah, I have reached I reached out there, there are some big properties that I am like I'm swinging for the fences for one's a rock band. One's a rock band. Who has already had, you know an adaptation of one of their things made. There's there's another rock artists of the 60s and 70s and 80s. I just want to make a movie of a chapter of his biography, you know, just just just one of the chapters, you know, not the whole thing. You know, because that has a beginning and a middle and end. That's that's another thing I love about true stories and IP is that structures laid out for you. But yeah,

Alex Ferrari 54:04
We had somebody who came on the show who wrote The Motley Crue biopic for Netflix. Oh, wow. Yeah. And he but he'd been on it for 15 years, somewhere that like it took forever to get Yeah.

David Kessler 54:18
I had the the rock stars people bid for just a moment. There was a moment where like, all the conduits between me and the rock star, you know, we're all like, Oh, he's interested. And now now now. Now now now, I don't know it just it just it just kind of, kind of like they say in the dating parlance kind of I feel like I've gotten ghosted, right but but now that Minamata is going to come out on DVD, I'm literally buying like, you know, 20 copies of it and I'm just gonna mail it to the people that I want to get the IP from gone. There's a movie for you to watch it If you'd like it, let's talk.

Alex Ferrari 55:01
Yeah, that's a that's a Yeah. Well, I mean, you've got a heck of a calling card. Now, that's a really Heck of a calling card to rock it out. But man, listen, your story has been so inspiring man. You know, it doesn't happen very often. Your first first movie out of the gate is of such magnitude, such quality and, and working with one of the biggest movie stars in the world. It's a pretty amazing story. I'm going to ask you a few questions asked all my guests. What advice would you give a screenwriter trying to break into the business today?

David Kessler 55:30
Find some IP not not just for the, you know, magic dust that that you know, having, you know, some, some some intellectual property, you know, it eases the writing, you know, it eases the pulling your hair out and trying to figure out how God what's gonna happen now, what's my character's motivation? You know, who's the bad guy? A lot of it is already laid out, you know, in the

Alex Ferrari 55:59
Oh, yeah, a lot of the heavy lifting has been done if you're picking up somebody else's IP. I mean, it's a lot of heavy lifting has been done, you just now have to, as opposed to trying to build something you're trying to now you're taking things away, which is a lot easier. You're editing versus creating scenes, like I have 400 scenes to choose from, but I really only got 27 I can actually put in the movie.

David Kessler 56:18
Unless you unless you're adapting a short story then it's a different edition novels are about or, or about subtraction, right? And, and often nonfiction is about addition, there are a lot of stuff I had to add Minamata the book is basically it's almost like a travelogue. It's and then it's you know, it has it's kind of a photo essay.

Alex Ferrari 56:44
The meat is there. You're just seasoning there.

David Kessler 56:46
Were there were some I mean, there's some scenes and stuff, but I relied on, you know, Eileen, you know, gave me a lot of stories. And I relied on there's, you know, an 800 page, Jean Smith biography. But there was a lot of filling in ahead of it. So yeah, so So yeah, find find some some IP and again, anything before 1926 Depending on your country.

Alex Ferrari 57:11
Don't make a movie about Mickey Mouse. No, that's, that's not going to work.

David Kessler 57:15
I mean, I don't know if you're aware, but Steamboat Willie is up, is is almost in the public domain.

Alex Ferrari 57:23
It's almost it's almost in the public domain. And I promise you best of luck putting it out. I don't know why. I don't know. I don't know how the mouse is gonna

David Kessler 57:34
I'm not I'm not advocating that I'm just I'm just being informative about the, the copyright deadline.

Alex Ferrari 57:43
It's coming, they'll probably extend it somehow, again, I'm sure. Like, yeah, it should have been issued a public domain 20 years ago. But there's that. Now what is the lesson that took you the longest to learn whether in the film business or in life?

David Kessler 57:59
It does also include romantically

Alex Ferrari 58:01
Whatever in life life for, or the film business, don't move to LA chasing a woman, that's probably a good one.

David Kessler 58:09
Moving moving to LA is not a bad thing that I will never regret that, that, that that was that was the impetus for this entire journey. I mean, I would still be living in my rent stabilized, you know, apartment, you know, on a fifth floor walk up, you know, just, you know, decomposing. And if, if, if I hadn't hit, you know, that button on that dating website, you know, in 2000 What advice is, um, you know, I'm learning now is just, like, you know, I'm older, and there was a period, until quite recently, I was looking for a full time job. And that's not gonna happen. Like, like, you know, I'm building the plane in midair. I see that. And, and sometimes you just have to, you know, just like, trust your gut, like, Oh, that's not for me. Like, I don't fit. Like, that's not gonna work. Another No. So like, only a few months ago, I was like, Oh, this is it. This is my life. Like I'm like, every day I am you know, hustling to make movies and you know, get rights and you know, charm charm, the IP holders. It's like, and there's there's only you only have one lunch.

Alex Ferrari 59:35
This is it. This is it.

David Kessler 59:37
I mean, I'm not saying you know, you know, leave your wife and leave your kid and you know, go out for a pack of cigarettes and never come back. I mean, you have to be responsible. But, you know, you just have to carve your own carve your own path.

Alex Ferrari 59:53
Very good advice. Now, what are three of your favorite films of all time?

David Kessler 59:57
It sounds trite. But I don't mean it to be Meet the Parents is what is in my, in my in my top three, the pan i i I talk about it in my, my I teach for the script anatomy. I break it there I have to go back because they videotape the classes for people have missed it. I have to go back because I expound I go deep, like you've got that Kubrick book I, like I have talked about Meet the Parents in such granular like, deep in that there's so many things going on in that movie, you know, in terms of theme in terms of like, the theme behind the theme. Like and it's it's so like, deceptively simple, like, you know, like I once had a meeting with a producer who made a lot of big movies in the 80s. And every time I pitched something he would be like, execution dependent. All right, okay. But like, Is it everything? Like was it like, yeah, what isn't? You know, like, you know, alien, okay, it's an alien and a thing. And you know, there's this woman and she's trying to fight the execution dependent. I'm like, I'm sure it would have to be like, you know, on what the alien look like. And you know, if you know, HR Giger is making the alien. But, like, meet the parents is so deceptively simple, like, a guy goes home to impress his girlfriend's parents. Like, like, if you pitch that to me, you get thrown out.

Alex Ferrari 1:01:42
Right, then no, you're absolutely right, that it's deceivingly simple, and yet complex.

David Kessler 1:01:48
I also have like this, like, it's not a conspiracy theory, because, like, it's also a movie about a Jewish person, like trying to marry into a wasp family. That's also like one of the themes behind the themes. And again, it's not like a conspiracy theory that I've liked thought of, and, you know, in the dark hours, like, it kind of comes up a few times in the movie. Oh, more than a few times more than a few times. Oh, it's this what you guys call a Hapa. Like, you know, well,

Alex Ferrari 1:02:22
I have I have Nicolas Greg, can you milk me?

David Kessler 1:02:26
Even in that scene, you know, he gets asked to say the prayer over the me like, well do Jews pray over meals, don't they? Like, again? It's it's, it's more than subtext is text.

Alex Ferrari 1:02:39
So what are the other tip?

David Kessler 1:02:43
haven't watched it in a long time, but Raging Bull Raging Bull really knocked me out? When I was in my 20s. And when I was in college, that's a hell of a movie.

Alex Ferrari 1:02:54
Of course it is.

David Kessler 1:02:56
Social Network.

Alex Ferrari 1:02:58
Oh, god, that's a masterpiece. So it's Quinn, Tarantino say that was his favorite movie of the 2000s. So far, between 2010

David Kessler 1:03:07
Oh, I guess I would say Pulp Fiction too. Well, yeah, me, not me. Well, one of my prized possessions is I got to, I worked at Miramax for probably 72 hours. Okay, like, at a time when they still pasted things up, like on art boards, you know, and I befriended the art director, we were still friends. This is like 25 years later, maybe longer. I was able to get the original poster for Reservoir Dogs. Wow. Written like the original like, like off the press for the first, you know, run of it. And also, he sent me a Pulp Fiction poster. Again, like off the press for the first, you know, when they first like, you know, first, and I'm sure there's some code or some number, maybe on the back that says, you know,

Alex Ferrari 1:04:04
So things don't work out eBay.

David Kessler 1:04:07
I do have a poster tube of posters that you know in case of emergency brake.

Alex Ferrari 1:04:16
It has been a pleasure talking to you, man. It's been a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you so much for coming on the show brother and continued success and I appreciate you, hopefully inspiring some screenwriters out there some filmmakers out there to go out there and get some IP and make their dreams come true. So I appreciate you my friend.

David Kessler 1:04:31
Super let's keep in touch!

LINKS

SPONSORS

  1. Jambox.io – Royalty Free Music for Indie Films – 20% OFF (Coupon Code: HUSTLE20)
  2. Bulletproof Script Coverage– Get Your Screenplay Read by Hollywood Professionals
  3. Enigma Elements – Cinematic Tools & Assets for Serious Filmmakers
  4. Audible – Get a Free Filmmaking or Screenwriting Audiobook

Stanley Kubrick’s Short Film: The Flying Padre

Flying Padre is a 1951 short subject black-and-white documentary film. It is the second film directed by Stanley Kubrick. The film is nine minutes long and was completed shortly after Kubrick had completed his first film for RKO, the short subject Day of the Fight.

Download Stanley Kubrick’s Screenplay Collection in PDF

SHORTCODE - SHORTS

Want to watch more short films by legendary filmmakers?

Our collection has short films by Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, Steven Spielberg & more.