CAPTAIN, MY CAPTAIN.

I’m slightly at a loss for words this morning. Which is a problem for a writer. But also a fitting tribute to the scale of this awful news.

I may be at a loss for words, but the world is at a genuine loss with the tragic news of Robin Williams passing. Like him or not, and I would never claim to be the biggest Robin Williams fan, there’s no denying the man was a completely unique talent, and possibly a genius. No one could do what Robin Williams did.

Personally, I loved his serious roles more. There is such beauty in the performances he gave in Dead Poets Society, Good Will Hunting and Awakenings. But my absolute favourite performance of his incredible career was The Fisher King.

Most of all, though. Most of all. He just seemed like a very nice, decent, kind man. And that’s what breaks my heart.

I truly hope that before his untimely exit he knew how much joy he brought to millions, as this is one of those things that just doesn’t seem real.

Bangerang, Mister Williams. You are already sorely missed.

 

HOW DO YOU WRITE ABOUT HOW DO YOU WRITE A JOE SCHERMANN SONG?

PART 2.

And so we arrive at Part 2 of my roundtable interview with the cast and crew of the incredible musical drama HOW DO YOU WRITE A JOE SCHERMANN SONG. Video clips will be included, thanks to writer/director and all-round lovely man GARY KING. As this is part 2, we get into the latter half of the movie, where things are a little more tense.

So expect the themes to bit a more on the nose. And basically what I’m saying is if you’ve not read Part 1, then go read it now. If you haven’t seen the film at all, then get thee to Amazon now! It’s okay, this is the internet, these articles aren’t going anywhere. We’ll wait for you.

You back? Read it? Seen the film? In that case… Enough talk. Let’s go!

IAN: Where were the second act dance numbers shot? And how much time did you have in that space to prep, block and shoot?

JOE SCHERMANN: I really regret not coming to those shooting days. I just wrapped my principal shooting (just under a month) and was about to go back into my food service gig in a few days and I just wanted some days off to drink, smoke and sleep before heading back into the real world. But I should have been there. I wrote the damned music they were dancing to, for Christ’s sake.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Thank goodness for Mark’s connections! He graduated from the college that we shot at. We performed in the beautiful Black Box theatre and were able to use the school’s elaborate lights. We only had two days to wrap on the dance sequences. We knocked it out and I’m very proud of everyone’s work!

MARK DICONZO: Huge shout-out and thanks to the drama/dance department at Hofstra University for this! As Christina mentioned I graduated from Hofstra University but they had yet to finish construction on their beautiful new state-of-the-art Black Box theatre during the time of my enrollment. Returning and shooting in this space was so rewarding for me and nostalgic as I had never returned to the university post-graduation before.

IAN: The coverage on those numbers is insanely good. How many takes did you manage or ask for from the artists, and what was the camera set-up?

MARK DICONZO: What an amazing thing it is when the right team is in place. Something that is said of our journey in many interviews is that there were “many hats worn on set”. That applies HUGELY to the dance sequences in the film. One day Christina is the choreographer working with myself/other dancers, the next day she and I flip and change roles, then we get on set and Christina tag-team directs and I’m a dancer, then it flips again with Gary and I at the wheel… No room for egos and no room for bullshit, we were one hell of a well-oiled machine, especially during these sequences!

CHRISTINA ROSE: Mark and I were very clear on the shots we were going to need before arriving on set and had very specific visions for our pieces. Gary and the other cameramen were amazing at capturing exactly what we needed. Gary was so wonderful at letting us have the creative control and making this part of the film ours. We sat in the editing room with him and actually edited the dance sequences together. I’ll never forget the first time Gary played us one of the finished dance pieces (I think it was the 80’s one) and I cried. It was magic seeing my baby brought to life. Thank you again, Gary, for being a crucial piece of that puzzle!

MARK DICONZO: This is one of the moments in the film where I wish we had a documentary crew following the JSS journey… Our words cannot even put into perspective the amount of teamwork, energy, hard work, and talent that was preset in that theatre and throughout filming. I remember there being three cameras zooming around and snapping multiple angles of each of the dance numbers. At one point Gary was lying on the lighting nets above the stage and taking aerial shots while two other cameras were flying in and around the dancers below. Such a blast!

GARY KING: There was so much talent on the floor I just rolled the cameras and was lucky enough to get some of that credit. But it was all them. Many thanks to the other camera ops that day, Alain Aguilar and Daryl Ray Carliles. They grabbed some amazing shots.

MARK DICONZO: Christina and I showed the camera operators and Gary the dances, and he “choreographed” the cameras while Christina and I directed the dancers. I wish we had more time. Christina and I should have choreographed a press lift with Gary in the air for the blooper reel.

GARY KING: I would’ve worn Christina’s outfit for that.

IAN: When Joe chooses to submit Summer over Evey, as a viewer were any of you angry at Joe, or do you believe he made the right choice creatively for the project? After all, at the same time he sings Evey’s praises but still chooses a stranger over her.

CHRISTINA ROSE: I think he was totally WRONG! Maybe I’m partial… No, I’m kidding, of course. I think this is a tricky situation, and tough for someone in his position. I still think Evey deserved her shot though, and I’m glad she had an opportunity to duke it out.

MARK DICONZO: It’s such a sticky situation all around and unfortunately something that does in fact happen in this business. Personal relationships can definitely influence casting decisions. Recently, for example, I had a director tell me about a very reputable producer who would butt heads over casting because the producer wanted to cast “cute boys”. Needless to say the producer had a terrible eye for talent and the director put his own career/position on the line, called out the producer, and said that he would walk if casting was based on anything like that. The producer sucked it up and listened and in the end the production benefited from it.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: Sometimes in this business you have to choose between a relationship and your career. And in Joe’s situation he chose his career, just as Summer did in the end. So for me, I think Joe made the right decision because the person you love should never make you choose between them and your dreams. There should be some sort of balance.

MARK DICONZO: It’s inevitable in this business that personal relationships can sometimes influence decisions, but it takes someone with a lot of respect and professionalism so see past them and make decisions based on things that truly matter and will benefit a production.

JOE SCHERMANN: I think Joe did the right thing. He saw who he thought was best for the part, and clearly Libby agreed with him, and gave her the role without letting his personal feelings get in the way. Maybe I’m cold, but I think it takes a lot of integrity for him to look past his feelings for Evey and just see who would serve the show better. And it’s not a comment on the quality of Evey’s audition; both she and Summer give great but VERY different auditions. Evey is more Princess Ariel, Summer is more Jessica Rabbit. And it would seem that the show called for Jessica Rabbit. I definitely have had people (including immediate family) tell me that Joe in the film is an asshole, though, which I guess makes Joe in real life a bit of one as well.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Awe, a “Princess Ariel”?! I’ll take it!! Told you I love my Disney.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: I completely agree. Christina is definitely meant to play a Disney Princess and wahoo! I’m Jessica Rabbit! … just a little more flat chested… But thanks, Joe! Haha!

GARY KING: Audiences seem to hate Joe for this, or totally understand his plight. I intended for the situation to feel as realistic as possible and give him the hardest choice to show what he values more in life. It’s a hard pill to swallow for some, but I love that the film doesn’t really follow any conventions and, ideally, isn’t predictable in what he does. To this day I have people taking both sides. The best part for me is that the characters and situation feel so genuine that people passionately debate over it, the Evey vs. Summer part… everyone agrees Joe’s an asshole. Just kidding. I’ve had a ton of musicians tell me that they really feel for Joe and have been in that situation many times.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Team Evey!!!!!! Hahahahahaha

IAN: Is Joe pulling a power play when he “accidentally” runs into Summer? He goes from “I’ve just been hired…” to “Looking for the lead…” Then the first line of the song is “When Arthur met his Guinevere”. Is he intentionally putting himself in a kingly position for her eyes?

JOE SCHERMANN: It is a song he wrote with her voice in mind, and I think it’s important to point out that Joe is, at first, anyway, purely in love with Summer’s voice. It’s versatile, strong, unique, everything a great musical theatre voice should be. You can debate up and down whether Joe’s feelings for Summer become something more later on, but regardless of that his infatuation always revolves around that voice. So I wrote that love song as a love letter to her voice… I think it’s less a power play and more akin to a desperate, geeky kid trying to impress the prom queen.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: Yes! He totally is! And Summer finds herself feeding into it, which is why she tells him she has a boyfriend.

GARY KING: I think Joe’s a stalker.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Agreed.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: I do have to say… If this happened in real life, and in Queens… there might be a right hook to the jaw. I’m just saying… (**coughs**) Stalker!

GARY KING: Joe says all this now, but he did tell me his backup duet with Summer was called ‘Boner Alert’.

JOE SCHERMANN: When Belle and Beast began to dance / Did he feel tightness in his pants…

IAN: The ‘Princess Party’ scene was beautiful, and the kids were brilliant. How was that, trying to capture pure joy shooting in the open, and especially as it begins with a heartbroken Evey forcing on a fake smile?

CHRISTINA ROSE: It was a lot of fun! The kids were wonderful and well-behaved. Thanks, Susie! We really didn’t shoot for that long, got what we needed pretty quickly.

GARY KING: That was fun to shoot. Susie, my wife, helped cast those kids who were all just children (with no acting experience) of her friends. We had BOTH kids and animals in it, so I knew I was only going to get about an hour before it became meltdown city. Thankfully the children were wonderful to work with and we got what we needed in that time. You should ask how the dog got in that scene.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Awwww, Sammy!! My little show dog. Sammy has now done a print ad, commercial, and a feature film! I pretty much try to get him involved in anything that I do, so I asked Gary before we even started filming, “Where can we squeeze Sammy into a scene?”. Somehow this scene magically appeared and Gary said “HERE!”. Thanks, Gar!

IAN: Who would win in a cage match; Summer or Evey? And why wasn’t that a DVD extra?

CHRISTINA ROSE: Sorry, Sum-Sum, you know I love you, but I would kick your booty!!

JOE SCHERMANN: Hmm… Christina’s got the martial arts experience in her corner… But as a good friend of Debbie’s I’ve seen her pissed and I’d hate to be on the wrong end of that… Tough call…

CHRISTINA ROSE: True. My martial arts skills are pretty devastating in a fight. I may have killed a zombie or two in my time. Death of the Dead, anyone?

MARK DICONZO: Depends on whether or not it was a feature fight on Celebrity Death Match and what props were available to them…

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: Although Christina does have some sweet martial arts skills, there’s a difference between a cage fight and doing Tai Chi into a mirror… just ask my ex-boyfriend. A fun fact about me is I also have a lot of kick boxing training and a New York attitude… and that’s without the whiskey. In real life, though, Christina and I would totally be on the same team! So, watch out y’all! Haha.

GARY KING: I’ve got some private footage that I watch over and over again.

CHRISTINA ROSE: And in that footage I win every time, right?!

IAN: The split-screen Evey/Summer/Joe scene is gut wrenching and also divisive. On the one hand Summer hasn’t done anything wrong. On the other Evey is catching them “just singing” a love song that he wrote for Summer, something Evey’s been desperate for Joe to do for her for so long, that she may as well have caught them in bed together.

CHRISTINA ROSE: That is EXACTLY what was going through my mind. This was 1000 times worse than walking in on him having sex with another woman. This was the ultimate betrayal. I love the way Gary edited this scene.

GARY KING: That’s probably my favourite sequence in the film. I’m actually a huge Brian De Palma fan and was looking for a moment to use split-screen and create some suspense, even though we’re a musical. Seeing Christina’s performance while listening to the lovely melody that Joe and Debbie are belting out… It’s just the perfect marriage of melody, visuals and emotions.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: Looking at the situation, I would not say that Summer is doing nothing wrong. She’s feeding off of Joe and she is emotionally driven by his writing and musical talent. Also, the moment she tells Joe she doesn’t really have a boyfriend is when she over steps her boundaries. Plus, the moment she calls Evey “Hunni”, it’s a stab at her while pretending to play nice. If I was Evey, I would’ve wanted to smack Summer haha!

MARK DICONZO: One of my favourite moments in the film, a powerhouse moment where the minds/talents of Gary, Joe, and Ken, combined with Christina’s performance aligned magically.

KENNETH LAMPL: This was my favourite scene in the film!

JOE SCHERMANN: It’s such a strong scene… The audience’s discomfort is always palpable. This is the one instance where I agree, yes, Joe is being an insensitive asshole. You could have rented out a practice room at Ripley Grier for 15 minutes for five fucking bucks, you idiot.

GARY KING: Haha, nice. But then there’s no film. We should actually do a sequel where Joe does rent a rehearsal room and then Evey still walks in on him.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Yes, there is nowhere to hide from Evey. She will find you, Joe Schermann.

JOE SCHERMANN: That’s… Not creepy at all…

IAN: This is an obvious one, but was Evey losing a shoe running down the stairs whilst dressed as a princess a clear reference to the fact that the fairy tale is over now?

GARY KING: I like that.

CHRISTINA ROSE: I remember while we were shooting, walking down the stairs and feeling like Cinderella leaving the ball, and desperately wanting her Prince to chase after her. So in the moment I asked Gary if I could lose a slipper for one of the shots, and he was totally onboard with the idea! The beautiful and heartbreaking thing was that there was no Prince Charming to follow me down the hall and pick up my shoe. I had to do that all on my own.

IAN: And yet I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Disney and SHOWGIRLS reference in the same scene before.

GARY KING: That’s right, baby!

IAN: Along those lines, as she’s still in the dress, is Gunther a take on the classic Disney archetype? The good friend and confidante who may or may not have feelings for her?

GARY KING: Thankfully Christina actually owned that dress from a previous day job. Because she had it I knew it’d be great to have Evey running around in it for a while. I thought the juxtaposition of what it symbolises vs. what she’s feeling would be perfect.

IAN: I have to ask what day job requires a full-on princess outfit!

MARK DICONZO: Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I once wore a dog mask and handed out magnets at Grand Central Station.

IAN: I almost cheered when Gunther turned down Evey’s “Going once” offer. I think if he had accepted it would’ve left a bad taste in my mouth for the rest of the film, and made it less real as he’s so bloody… decent!

GARY KING: I love it. I actually had an audience member come up after and tell me they cried during that scene, It’s such a touching scene, watching Gunther stay strong, even though you can see he cares for her. I’m not sure I would’ve stayed that strong… Actually, there’s at least one take where after I call “cut” Mark joked around and said “Oh fuck it!” and pretended to jump her bones. It was hilarious.

MARK DICONZO: This particular moment in the film receives a lot of comments. We have people who are cheering for Gunther’s decency and others whose strong opposition to Joe say “Screw it and get her done!”. Had things actually happened between Evey and Gunther I think it would have added a relationship dimension that would be distracting to the main drive of the film. However, who knows what happened between them once Evey left Joe, did she roll her suitcases right over to his place, chug all of his wine, and have an all-night naked party? I guess we’ll never know!

IAN: “You have a much better piano at home”. Well, now, that’s just LOADED with subtext, isn’t it?! But I’m sure people pick up on it quite a lot. Such a sublime line though. I hope Debbie wasn’t offended? 😉

MARK DICONZO: It’s right on the nose and it’s meant to be. At the end of the film (fire escape scene) we see Joe say a smug remark to Gunther about waiting for Evey to show up at his door. Clearly Joe is aware of where Evey goes throughout, and also knows how Gunther truly feels about her. This scene was such a great short one to shoot because I took it as Gunther’s threat to Joe, as if to say “stop being a complete idiot or I’m going to have sex with your talented and hot girlfriend, go home and practice!”

GARY KING: Yeah, it’s one of my favourite lines. People seem to agree, you can hear the audience go “Uh huh!” and “Yeah that’s right”… Gunther in the film seemed to emerge as the voice of reason. The majority of audiences seems to side with Gunther’s point of view. Others, of course, side with Evey and Joe.. Yes, we have people who stick up for Joe Schermann.

MARK DICONZO: Joe and I are great friends in real life, and though our scene work was minimal on set it was always a blast! Hearing his amazing music and seeing him as the leading man throughout the film is so awesome. We quote the film’s lines sometime in our everyday lives when similar events occur, and it always gives us a smile.

JOE SCHERMANN: “It’s a numbers game…” is probably the most frequent one. That or, “Well, Joe Schermann, you’re officially fucked.” It’s always nice having your friend on film or stage already be a dear friend in real life, it makes the chemistry that much more organic and believable.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: I didn’t feel like it was a poke at Summer herself. I think the line was more of a statement on his fear of confrontation, and Gunther was pointing out that Joe was just copping out instead of taking responsibility for his actions.

IAN: Is it strange that I love so-called “revenge” love songs in musicals? ‘I Hate Summer’ is a glorious, hilarious number that sums up Evey’s frustration and longing in one blast, reminding me of numbers from Wicked or Rent.

JOE SCHERMANN: That one was fun to write. “How many ‘A’ rhymes can I fit into each stanza?” Turns out the answer was seven. I probably spent more time on those lyrics than any other song in the film, except for “30 Days Of Rain.” I agonized over that one.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Fun side-note about the song is that there were no harmonies in the original version. Gary and I were in the editing room one day listening to different vocal takes after our recording session, and he accidentally hit four tracks at once, having numerous Evey’s sing this song at once. It was hilarious at first but then a light bulb went off and we thought – numerous Evey’s!! We hadn’t shot the number yet so Gary came up with this great way to shoot the scene, and I told him we should do harmonies. Soon Joe got right to work writing some brilliant harmonies for the song. A lot of work went into that song on everyone’s end, and it does tend to be an audience favourite. Great work, everyone!

GARY KING: That was a great discovery. I love happy accidents. The “all Evey” harmonies really bring that song to another level.

MARK DICONZO: One of my favourite numbers in the film aside from the finale. Such a GREAT discovery during the process to have Christina overlap and harmonize with herself. Again, another fine example of all of the talent involved to shape that scene, Christina’s performance, Joe’s play on words/music, Ken’s orchestrations, and Gary’s direction being the cherry on top… and the banana. Raw talent!

KENNETH LAMPL: We also have a quote from Bernard Herrmann’s score to PSYCHO when she is cutting the banana.

GARY KING: Right! We were in the score planning session and I asked if that was possible. And you, Ken, nodded and smiled. It’s a brilliant song — and a brilliant performance to match.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: Oddly enough, that song was one of my favourites that Joe wrote for the movie. I love sassy songs for strong women.

JOE SCHERMANN: Thanks, Deb. As a raging feminist (not a joke) I do pride myself on making my female numbers strong and not “poor me” whenever possible.

IAN: Gunther’s “Perfect moment, perfect show, perfect girl” speech is a masterclass in a subtle yet magnetic performance. And the score cue on that is haunting, sad and even a little menacing. Maybe as a thought for what Joe could become on either path at that point. Was that a hard cue to write, and also a hard shot to get in one frame? How many takes did poor Mark do?

MARK DICONZO: Thanks for the compliment. Ken truly is a magician and I’ve had the pleasure of working with him on three films now. Orchestrations are the backbone to a scene and can kill them or help accentuate them in the best ways possible. Ken is a magician and elevates performance with his music. A tough one to write for him, for sure, but he always nails it!

GARY KING: I love that performance. We did around 6 or so takes, sometimes it was just because some city noise from outside interrupted his monologue. But yeah, that was written from the heart as my brother gave me a similar talk when I was grappling with my “career” when I first started out. That was a fun day to shoot (writer’s note: describing Gary’s “career” with those quote marks was Gary’s inflection, not mine. The man is a proper talent).

MARK DICONZO: Like Gary said, we did five or six takes of this scene, mostly because of the goddamn ice cream truck that kept driving by and messing with the shot. I remember one take standing up and storming into the bedroom like a child and cussing like a sailor because we had a great groove/energy going for one of the takes that was messed up. Gary and I have a great understanding of how we both work, and scenes like this I would say are our playground.

KENNETH LAMPL: That was a really tough score cue because it needs to walk the line of being emotional so we can feel Gunther’s pain at Joe’s stupidity, and at the same time not taking away the “ouch” of the biting sarcasm. I had to do many versions before Gary approved this!

JOE SCHERMANN: All I want to say about this one is that Mark DiConzo is one of the finest actors I’ve ever worked with, and every time we shot together he made it insanely easy.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: I completely agree with Joe, Mark is a magnificent actor and that was one of my favourite scenes in the movie.

MARK DICONZO: It’s a great connection we make on set as artists once we find our groove, and I always rely on him to call it once he knows he has the variations needed for a particular scene. It’s about staying present, in the moment/scene, and churning out as many takes needed for coverage. Our next feature, UNNERVED, gave us the opportunity to really rely on our trust and working relationship and it was tested to the max. Really excited for an audience for that in the future!

GARY KING: Yeah, man. Can’t wait for people to see what we’ve got coming next.

IAN: The fade-across/wipe audition battle betwixt Evey and Summer looked damn tricky to do, especially using live vocals, and that’s not even considering the editing. Discuss, my friends.

JOE SCHERMANN: Musically, the trickiest part was getting the meter to match in post. Since all of the singing and piano playing was live, I couldn’t have a click-track keeping me steady throughout filming, and so there were inevitable slight discrepancies in tempo from take to take. It all ended up flowing surprisingly well, but Ken and/or his assistant, Mitchell McCarthy, had to set up a click-track along with the raw audio from filming for our drummer to play over in the studio. So here’s this insanely talented, Broadway-level drummer (Tony Tedesco) having to record multiple takes for this one fucking simple song because I couldn’t be filmed playing the song at the same tempo every damned take. Pretty sure he was ready to throw his sticks at me by the end of that one (he was super nice about it).

MARK DICONZO: The awesome part about this scene for me is that I got to sit behind table as Gunther and watch both Evey and Summer’s performances in real-time. Knowing the audition circuit all too well and actually filming in a popular NYC audition studio set the stage for what I consider to be a standalone moment for the film.

GARY KING: The ‘Moth To The Flame’ number is an absolute favourite. Because at that point, we’re firing on all cylinders in terms of story arcs and character arcs. And the lyrics are so appropriate to what’s happening. I think I was possessed to edit that sequence as what you see on-screen was almost my first pass at it — it took about 3 days to cut, but I just felt it come alive on its own. Having some amazing performances from Debbie and Christina makes all the difference, I probably didn’t have one bad take in the bunch… It was a good problem to have.

CHRISTINA ROSE: (to Gary) Woo Hoo!

GARY KING: That was an amazing day — both filming it and then seeing the musicians scoring it in post. All I could think was “Take that, Les Mis – we recorded live singing too!”.

MARK DICONZO: Oh wait, another film used live vocals before LES MISERABLES? “Not possible!” said a zombie from the midwest who never leaves his house…

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: The fun of this scene was more in the realness. It was closer to a real audition than you would know. We each took turns in the room singing the song while the other waited in the hallway. I think the suspense showed.

IAN: I once saw that scene described as the musical equivalent of the ROCKY or FROST/NIXON finales. I disagree, as both those films pitted an underdog against a champ. The analogy is sound in principle, but I’d say more along the lines of the finale of WARRIOR. Both equally talented, neither of them famous, but both striving to make their mark.

GARY KING: I absolutely love WARRIOR. Thank you, means a lot.

CHRISTINA ROSE: This happens every day in the world of casting. Certain roles call for specific things. You could be the most talented performer in the world and you still won’t be exactly right for the role. You win some, you lose some – but if you keep up that WARRIOR fight you will work again!

MARK DICONZO: Wouldn’t it have been awesome to see an all-out brawl take for this where Evey strangles Summer with her princess glove and Summer slams her face into the piano… all the while Gunther is smacking Joe on the back saying “Get in there, you pussy!”.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: Exactly. In the performance world, you never know what the casting director is looking for. The performances were very different and the style that Summer chose for her audition is what the casting directors were looking for. Both characters had their strengths, and the reference to the movie WARRIOR is perfect. Both characters had something to fight for, and they did that in their own way.

MARK DICONZO: It’s the equivalent of a dance-off or sing-off, but the crazy part is that this is what we do, and sometimes it’s us vs 200 other people.

IAN: The score in the post-audition “knock-out” scene was very sombre despite feeling like somewhat of a reconciliation, almost like something from a Coen or Paul Thomas Anderson film. Was this discussed or just instinctive? (the tone, not the references – those are just my thoughts)

KENNETH LAMPL: Just instinctive. Gary, who normally challenges me to do multiple drafts on the cues, liked my approach on this the first time out of the gate.

IAN: In terms of production design and set decoration I love how the apartments looked. Lived in, not over the top, but not hovels. Certainly not a “Hollywood” view on where struggling artists would live. Were they real apartments, friends’ apartments?

JOE SCHERMANN: Yes, again, Joe’s apartment in the film is Joe’s apartment in real life. I got grandfathered into the lease via sublet and have been there for almost six years now. In reality I live there with one of my brothers and a dear friend who came with the place when I moved in. We were actually very fortunate, just before filming one of my roomies at the time took it upon himself to make the whole place look a lot prettier; painted the walls, covered the furniture, bought some artwork and plants… It looked more like the home of an eccentric writer before that, but I don’t think you would’ve believed that Evey would have been okay with living there before said make-over.

GARY KING: I didn’t know a roomie gave it a makeover. That definitely added the touch the space needed. All I can say is, Joe’s apartment was really his apartment,,, and it was located on the top floor of a walk-up building. It was shot in the summer during a heat wave and he had no air conditioning. I grew to hate shooting there, but the majority of the film takes place there. I guess I should’ve asked if he had A/C before choosing it.

IAN: And then David Tann arrives to save the day! I think we need to see more of him in the future.

GARY KING: I wholly agree. A David Tann adventure as he goes on the run with Summer and Evey.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: Hey, Gary… I’m up for a sequel! I’m thinking a ‘Thelma And Louise’ style film with a mix of ‘Charlie’s Angels’. Ha!

CHRISTINA ROSE: Hey, wait a minute! You always said David Tann would run away with Evey and now he’s choosing Summer too?! Boy, this poor girl just can’t get rid of her. Haha.

JOE SCHERMANN: Yeah, Gary and I really stretched ourselves with our roles… Me playing an anti-social musical theatre composer and him playing an indie film-maker. Give us our statues!

CHRISTINA ROSE: I did get an opportunity to direct Gary as he tried his hand at acting. I guess we wore even more hats than we thought on this film!

IAN: The last number, ‘How Do You Write A Joe Schermann Song’ was almost a little Sondheim-esque, by which I mean moments seeming like chaos that suddenly become perfect, classic melodies. Again, the reference just being my opinion, was it intentional to let this song reflect the story that had gone before? Bold start, then chaos, before resolving the only way it could – into harmony?

KENNETH LAMPL: Sondheim-esque is exactly what we wanted. Joe suggested I study the score to INTO THE WOODS to get the right instrumentation. In fact, each of the songs is a nod to the great songwriters like Cole Porter, Rogers and Hammerstein, Alan Menkin, and that was so fun as an orchestrator.

JOE SCHERMANN: The title tune is actually one of four trunk songs in the film, a song that was written beforehand without its eventual home in mind (the other three are “Plea”, “Thanks To You”, and “Moth to the Flame:). I had started writing the title tune in University as a meta-joke, and it quickly became a deeper examination of why I write and why it’s beautiful and wonderful and terrible and horrific all at once. And the same can be said for what everyone else in the number puts themselves through… Summer and Evey are performers and can’t imagine being anything else despite the shitty choices you inevitably have to make as a part of that vocation. Gunther seems to expend all of his efforts on helping those around him instead of doing something good for himself because that’s what fulfills him now. I’m sure Libby and Danny Boy have heavy shit, too. I’m a huge fan of tent-pole numbers getting chaotic, because that’s fucking life. Sometimes I even opt out of resolving said chaos.

CHRISTINA ROSE: When discussing how this number would play out visually we knew we wanted to tip our hat to West Side Story (which happens to be one of mine and Gary’s all-time FAVOURITE musicals). This does give you a Sondheim-esque feel to the piece. I even begged Gary to have a ‘Maria’ moment in which I sway over the balcony. It’s the first time our entire cast is seen on-screen together in a group number, which is exactly the same as the ‘Quintet’ in West Side Story.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: That song shows what Joe is best at. He’s great at making complex melodies, and like he said in his comment… life is chaotic, so why not sum it up in a song?

GARY KING: It’s a great tune — the one that prompted me to approach Joe about the film and the title. We knew it would be one of the closing numbers, but I never imagined it would sound the way it does when all the other vocalists join in. It’s definitely a top number for me because of how everyone brought themselves into it.

IAN: Playing the “stairwell scene” in silence was brilliant, brave and much more effective. Nothing needed to be said out loud. But in this age of “the audience must be told everything” was there a temptation to include, or even a version that did include, dialogue?

JOE SCHERMANN: Not that I recall. Maybe a word or two ad-libbed in takes, but I remember shooting the scene just being deathly silent.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Gary let us know this entire scene would be done in silence, as he is always challenging himself as a filmmaker to make bold statements. I’m so glad it was done in this way. The scene says so much without saying a word.

GARY KING: Thanks for that. Yeah, we only shot a non-dialogue version. I love a small film called DEAR FRANKIE and it was inspired by a scene from that. As we know in film, a lot of the time less is more and we simply just have to see something to understand what’s going on. We actually shot additional coverage of close-ups for Joe and Evey, but I thought it played better as the one long take.

IAN: Last one, guys! I felt the ending was perfect. It left everyone where they needed, or deserved to be (take from that whichever connotation you wish to use). Was it always the intent to end up with the characters there, or did it evolve? And where do you think they are now?

JOE SCHERMANN: I actually still have an mp3 demo of a bit of a song I had started writing for the original “Evey sticks with Joe” ending. It’s actually very pretty, I need to get that one out of the trunk…

GARY KING: Did you show that one to me? Or was it a work-in-progress and I never asked for it because I knew the ending was going to change?

JOE SCHERMANN: I sent it to you, Gary, and you basically wrote back “Very pretty, Joe, but we’re changing the ending.” Then I hit the sauce.

CHRISTINA ROSE: I’d love to hear that!

IAN: I have!

MARK DICONZO: The finale number always gives me chills when I watch it, and a sense of accomplishment floods me. There were a LOT of moving pieces and people to make JSS come to fruition, from its initial Kickstarter campaign to the final “cut”. It’s another standalone moment in the film and yet the only complete ensemble number in the entire film. I think of Sondheim’s SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE every time I watch this number, and I think of George Seurat struggling to “finish the hat”. It’s a great moment for each character and in one musical number sums up the interrelationships and struggles that they all faced throughout the film. The orchestrations when we snap from Evey to Summer in the harsh green and orange light not only give us a direct look into Joe’s mind in the simplest of ways, but also resonate so vividly for me as an audience member.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: I’m happy with how the movie ended. It gives everyone a fresh start with a world of possibilities. And Joe!… Did you write the “Summer Ends Up With Joe” song? I mean, I did kiss you in one of the takes for the rooftop scene… just saying. Haha!

MARK DICONZO: Also, Joe staring at a blank page at the very end, for me it symbolises “Well, was it all worth it? Because, here we are, back at the beginning”… Better captured by the previous scene with Libby saying something similar to Joe. I think this is a moment, having just come from seeing Evey, he might seriously be kicking himself in the ass. For me it’s a reflection of all the events leading up to this moment and the question still resonating for Joe – what’s more important, relationships or a career? We all have to start somewhere…

GARY KING: Yeah, I love the ending as well, In the script we played with a few different versions and I planned to even film them, but by the end of the shooting schedule I’d felt I knew what the last shot of the film should be. I think the only other option I had was Joe sitting at his keyboard, then looking directly into the camera at us before it cuts to black… but it didn’t feel as strong as seeing that blank page. That shot leaves so many possibilities for both Joe and us, the viewers.

—–

And it’s that blank page that brings us full circle, having put the characters through such turmoil. We start with a blank page of hope, and end on one, albeit a different kind of hope with everyone in a different place. And that’s the trick that JOE SCHERMANN pulls off so well; it never forgets that presenting a story in a musical genre is supposed to be entertaining and leave you feeling good at the end, even if the characters don’t.

Now that’s not in any way to call it light or fluffy. Gary’s writing and the performances are so eloquent and true that along the journey it takes some left turns, has deeper moments. And when those moments come they feel earned and honest, because you believe in these people and care for them.

There’s no denying that musicals have had a resurgence of late, and have crafted their way back into mainstream cinema (I specify cinema because musical theatre has never gone away) to the point where your average flick-goer will happily buy a ticket for one. Of course, there’s the big boys such as CHICAGO, LES MISERABLES or RENT. Hell, even Tim Burton made one with David Bowie… sorry, Johnny Depp! But look deeper and you’ll find smaller, more personal works like ONCE, REEFER MADNESS or even DR HORRIBLE’S SING-A-LONG BLOG.

HOW DO YOU WRITE A JOE SCHERMANN SONG falls beautifully among all these works. Big, show-stopping numbers? Check. Raw, heartbreak and revenge songs? Check. Realistic drama with believable characters? Check. Inventive cinema work? Check. In fact, the only thing this film doesn’t have is robots, aliens or dinosaurs. And in the modern cinema climate of today that can only be a good thing.

Most importantly, it’s fantastic to see films made outside of the system and for a more modest budget doing so well, and getting the recognition and love they deserve. We need movies like this out there, and doing well enough to allow the incredibly talented people behind them to go on and make more.

JOE SCHERMANN is moving, funny, engaging, and will have you laughing, crying, yelling at and singing along with the screen in equal measures. And what else do you want from a film?… Did I mention the songs are bloody catchy?…

HOW DO YOU WRITE A JOE SCHERMANN SONG is available via the official website here, or from Amazon here. So you’ve got no excuse!

@EyunCrabb

HOW DO YOU WRITE ABOUT HOW DO YOU WRITE A JOE SCHERMANN SONG?

PART 1

The name of this article was my conundrum from the very beginning. How do you write about a film that has a similar question in its own title? If a movie is about a musical theatre composer named Joe Schermann, played by a musical theatre composer named Joe Schermann, and asks the question “How Do You Write A Joe Schermann Song?”… Then where do you begin?

Head scratching became an obsession. I soon realised the best way to tackle this problem was to simply ask the question to the film’s creators. And I was fortunate enough that I managed to ensnare a whole lot of ridiculously talented people to help me out. The embarrassment of riches you’re about to hear from include Gary King (writer/producer/director), Joe Schermann (actor/composer/he of the title), Christina Rose (actor/producer/choreographer), Debbie Williams (actor/songstress/Jessica Rabbit soundalike), Mark DiConzo (actor/producer/choreographer) and Kenneth Lampl (composer).

The film world has been awash with musicals lately. They’re certainly order of the day. But this is unlike one you’ve seen before. Real people, real situations. It’s as close to real life a musical can get. I hate cross-referencing, but imagine ONCE having a one night stand with WARRIOR. And you know what? It’s purely magical.

With a group of such exceptionally talented people there was really very little work for me to do. I just asked the questions and let them talk to each other. I was hoping for a “roundtable” kind of feel to this piece, like everyone was just shooting the shit in the same room. Of course, the reality is that I live in a different country and they are all stupidly, and rightfully, so busy. So it was compiled over a few months of emails, with me sending back each new draft so they could read what each other had said, and reply to them directly, not me.

Hopefully I managed to capture the spirit of just a fun chat, and not a formal interview. And I could not have done it without my wonderful cohorts, who were game from the start. So squint a bit, and you might be able to see us all in one room…

IAN: The Overture seems to phase from an almost Disney-esque brightness to a blues-noir feel. Was this to get the audience in the mindset for something a little familiar but ease them into something they hadn’t seen before?

JOE SCHERMANN: Gary and I agreed early on that the score should be rather eclectic; we wanted everyone coming out of the theatre to have a different favourite song from the person next to them. We made this work thematically by assigning different styles to different characters; Evey, who follows her heart and expects/wants the same from Joe, has the Disney-esque, more pop-orientated tunes. While Joe; as heady as one gets, leads the songs that are more contemporary and dissonant. Summer has a classical musical theatre/tin-pan alley type feel, representative of how Joe views her as a musical theatre ideal. Ken, our fabulous orchestrator who also scored all of the incidental music, and I wanted to bring that same eclectic feel to the overture; sort of a “Hey, there’s something here for each of you.” I frankly thought we did a fantastic job making that work without making the song transitions jarring, and a huge part of that success is due to how well Ken orchestrated it.

GARY KING: Was it one of the first recordings we did in the studio? I seem to recall it was… and being blown away from hearing real musicians bring it to life.

JOE SCHERMANN: I think it was the first one we did with the 14 strings and 2 reed players. Pretty surreal moment for all of us.

KENNETH LAMPL: It was more scored like a traditional overture to give the audience the feeling of being in a live Broadway show, not so much a movie. All the themes of the show are presented and juxtaposed in the way it was done in the older Broadway style.

GARY KING: For me, the overture was to accomplish a few different things. First off, I hadn’t seen a feature film musical do this in quite a while — so I wanted to give a nod to the musicals from the past that I loved. I also wanted to give a slight hat tip to ALL THAT JAZZ in how it opens with the lights. And you’re correct in that I wanted to give the audience a taste of the old, while putting a modern spin on it by not having it be just a static image. I felt audiences could be bored sitting watching just one image (possibly saying “Overture”) the whole time, so I worked with my brother Michael, who has a CG background having worked for Pixar, Disney, LucasFilm, on what I wanted and he designed the magic.

IAN: And then it’s an immediate juxtaposition from smooth music cuts to a man sitting at a piano with writer’s block, shot with a handheld camera. I thought this was especially smart as the viewer is almost set up for knowing what to expect and suddenly it’s a very different proposition.

GARY KING: Yup. Just the man and his keyboard. I talked with Joe about opening and closing the film with pretty much the same image. We even put him in the same clothes to suggest to audiences that the film begins where it ends, or vice versa. We don’t really tell you what timeline we’re in as he sings that opening number.

JOE SCHERMANN: Early on in the process I had suggested that the overture simply be one long shot of my hands playing it as a solo on the piano, followed by the camera zooming out on that same take while I started playing “Plea”. Figured that’d save us a lot of money. Then we made our Kickstarter goal and suddenly we had a budget, and I think you’re right, the final version is extraordinarily effective in setting you up with this sweeping, romantic overture then immediately scaling it back and saying, “This is about people. You’re going to get more of the big stuff, but this is about real fucking people.”

IAN: The Joe Schermann in this movie writes like a piano-playing John McLane from DIE HARD – tank top vests, swearing like a trooper. Is that how the real Joe Schermann writes? Are you the musical world’s anti-hero?

JOE SCHERMANN: The tank tops are 100% accurate. These days I have a whole writing station in that same living room (yes, the apartment in the film was and is still my actual apartment) involving that same keyboard, a PC with a wall-mounted monitor (used for scoring/transcribing), and an Apple laptop (for recording demos), but at the time, yeah, the shots of me writing were pretty true to life. Don’t know if I’d go so far as to call myself an “anti-hero”, I’m certainly not typical amongst musical theatre composers, though. I’m straight(ish) for one and I tend to write about sex (both straight and gay) in a manner that’s more explicit and matter-of-fact than people expect to hear in the world of musical theatre. I guess I’d like to be considered the Ernest Hemingway of musical theatre composers, but more than anything else I just want to keep working.

GARY KING: It’s 100% real sweat soaking through those tank tops as well.

IAN: When Evey is asked to hand back her sides after the audition was a heartbreaking moment. You guys know this world far better than me, so is this something that has happened to anyone?

CHRISTINA ROSE: I have booked roles in films and theatre productions and planned my life around the schedule, only to find out later that the entire production has been cancelled. This industry is so unstable, we can never count our eggs before they’ve hatched.

MARK DICONZO: Sometimes we are provided sides in advance if getting appointments through our agents and sometimes not. There are many auditions where sides are actually posted and provided at the audition itself, like Evey’s scene. It’s really up to the producers/directors as to whether or not an actor comes in prepped far in advance or on the spot.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: Yes,  it’s happened to all of us. It doesn’t matter what part of the performing word you are in… It happens. I’ve had both circumstances where it’s happened in musical theatre as well as in the songwriting business. I’ve been through call backs for shows that never happened and most recently, I submitted a song to opportunities for licensing where I was selected as a final pick. I was put on hold for several weeks to find out that I was only a final selection, not actually chosen for the project. It’s a tricky business but you always have to keep your head up and look forward to future opportunities.

MARK DICONZO: Though I’ve never had this personally happen to me the scene speaks such a truth about an actor’s hope and how quickly it can be let down in this business! Rejection is something every actor must come to grips with, but even more so for some, is not to be consumed with hope and just keep hustling and going until the next thing lands.

JOE SCHERMANN: I’ve been called by producers thinking I was getting an offer to compose, but they offered it to someone else and just wanted to know if I’d be able to play auditions. At the time I was just happy to have any kind of work, but that still stung a bit.

GARY KING: Actually, come to think of it, Joe offered to sleep with me for the part in the film… but I digress.

JOE SCHERMANN: Still on the table, Gary. The Mrs need never know.

IAN: I loved the early scenes with (sorry to use the same phrase) a Disney-esque score but set to very mundane, every day life moments; waking up, making breakfast, getting the train, going to work. It’s almost like that score is in these characters heads as that’s how they think.

KENNETH LAMPL: I think it was a really brilliant juxtaposition which sets the tone for the relationship between Joe and Evey in how they both deal with dreams vs the reality of life. Evey’s struggle in the film is the fulfillment of her dream world in the everyday reality of life, whereas Joe lives primarily in a dream world with little ability to deal with the reality of living. Having both characters moving in the opposite direction psychologically is a brilliant move on Gary’s part.

GARY KING: Ken did a great job on that cue.

IAN: “Can’t be good. It has to be great”. Nice foreshadow there to future events. As is “It’s only a matter of time before you find that one person that changes your life”. Obviously the film has been out for a while, and was a success, but I still don’t want to spoil anything. Were those seeds planted intentionally?

GARY KING: I think those are the main things that came about from the script and eventual filming. I relate to the artist’s plight and channeled it into my writing of the story. I shared my initial ideas for the film (which is actually a bit different from what it turned out to be) with both Joe and Mark over some beers one day and they loved it.

MARK DICONZO: Had Evey said “Can’t be good, has to be perfect” then she would have been even more crushed once she learned that Summer beat her out for the role. Evey has such a strong arch in my opinion because she is a realist and the personal impact of Joe’s blossoming relationship with Summer further propels her energy to be “great” at the audition and to put her best foot forward, not just for herself, but also to remind her partner (Joe) of her abilities and strength. Christina’s performance is fantastic and I love watching her journey in the film. She captures beautifully the tough dimensions of struggle between maintaining her career and love life when they drastically overlap. As an audience member I want nothing more than for Evey to succeed in some way being “great”, and it’s a reward at the end to see things turn around for her… A big audience pay-off made possible by Christina’s performances.

CHRISTINA ROSE: In this industry we are presented with opportunities in the most unexpected ways. When those moments present themselves you need to have the talent and quality in your product to kill it. So when I say “It can’t be good. It has to be great!” it’s because, as Evey, I realize this.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: The statement “It can’t be good, it has to be great” installs hope, but with a sense of realism. In about one in a hundred opportunities someone will come along that believes in you and they open that door. At the end of the day it’s about doing your best and never giving up. It only take that one person to make it happen, but that one person could be yourself.

MARK DICONZO: So much of this business (which I am coming to terms with more and more as I grow) has to do with so many things that are just beyond your control. We as performers cannot change our height, our eye colour, or how we fit into the puzzle that is all the other roles being cast in a film or stage production. All we have control over is how prepared we are for an audition. Personally, I over prepare for auditions so that I have the material nailed and can deviate/make on-the-spot choices that may seperate me from the herds of others being seen for the role. In the end, as long as I know I was prepared and executed a piece of material as rehearsed I can leave an audition with my head held high. No one and nothing is perfect, and all talent, like art is subjective. I’ve seen people who I would say have far less talent than others book major roles and make it to the top. All we can do ar artists is our best to be great and be proud of ourselves for putting out talents out there… and one person from time to time comes along whose subjective palate likes all of the things you as an actor can and can’t control. It’s a tough business, and all we can do is strive to be great at everything we control.

IAN: Given the nature of the project, and that the cast comes across as such a close, friendly group, I have to assume there was the odd sing-off or dance-off. At the very least karaoke contests. Come on, who’s the karaoke champ here?

JOE SCHERMANN: I’m fucking terrible at karaoke. I need to be wickedly drunk for it, and I just don’t get that way very often. I actually didn’t get to hang with people during filming because i was simultaneously orchestrating someone’s one-woman show at the time, and my deadline for that was right at the end of filming.

MARK DICONZO: JSS was all business and with such a tight schedule there was very little recreational time, although I know Gary LOVES karaoke and an ideal fun night on the town with him would undoubtedly begin or conclude with karaoke of some kind. I’d be willing to put money on Debbie in a throw-down however. Her music talents are uncanny, have you heard any of her upcoming original solo album material?

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: We never had a contest, so to say, but Gary LOVES karaoke! Also, because of his name… I think he is “King” of karaoke. I do love to rock out to some Fleetwood Mac and Sugarland songs myself though.

CHRISTINA ROSE: I’m shocked you haven’t answered this one yet, Gary! Gary happens to be the Karaoke King and right next to him I stand as the Karaoke Queen! Haha! Not really, but we do love a solid musical theatre duet! West Side Story or Avenue Q, anyone?!

GARY KING: Okay, I do have a few songs in my repertoire that I pull out from time to time — I’m much better with my usual duet partner Christina. She makes anyone sound better.

IAN: Can Joe and Ken talk about what arrangement and equipment was used for the score and the compositions? Traditional instruments or a more digital side? I ask because it holds up against the best I’ve heard and aspiring musicians out there may want to know how to get it sounding so good.

JOE SCHERMANN: Ken is definitely the one to talk to here, particularly with the underscoring. I sent him demos I made off of GarageBand along with reduced scores of the songs and he made them sound fucking boss. We mostly discussed things over the phone as he lives in Jersey (writer’s note: that’s New Jersey, people from UK, not the place here you get the amazing potatoes from) and I’m a Brooklynite, and I remember the first meeting we had just thinking, ” God, I think he really gets everything I’m saying,” which is not something I’m used to. And I was clearly right, because, again, fucking boss.

GARY KING: Ken, does this film hold the record for the amount of cue revisions before I said “lock and load”?

KENNETH LAMPL: The songs were either recorded on camera or in the studio before I got them to orchestrate. I then orchestrated, which is more than just assigning instruments, but creating counter melodies and textures which support each of the songs. Each song has its own unique world to it. All the songs are fully scored for live orchestra. whereas the score cues are a mixture of both midi and live performance.

IAN: I have to ask about the Omelette Scene in the first act. Nice intimate moment, making dinner together etc… It looks like the worst omelette ever made! 😉

JOE SCHERMANN: That was one of if not the last scenes Christina and I filmed together. Completely improvised. And I’d never made an omelette before in my life. So, yes, it was rather awful. But a lot of fun to film.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Yes, that was indeed our last scene together that we filmed. I always love any opportunity to use improv.

GARY KING: Did it taste good? That reminds me of the time we had Christina cook some TV dinner that we threw in the pan, then Joe had to eat it while it was actually still cold.

JOE SCHERMANN: The omelette wasn’t pretty but it was a helluva lot tastier than the still-frozen dinner. At least I was already supposed to look uncomfortable in that particular scene, it would have been a task if I had to look like I was enjoying myself.

CHRISTINA ROSE: I am NOT a cook, so putting me in a situation where I need to cook anything legitimately on set is never a good idea.

GARY KING: Haha, yeah that scene wasn’t in the script — but after filming for almost a month I felt we didn’t have enough scenes of Joe and Evey being a loving couple before their rift begins. So we shot that one of the last shooting days — all improv. I had Christina teach Joe how to make an omelette… Either she’s not a very good teacher or he isn’t a very good student.

CHRISTINA ROSE: I am a great teacher though, Gary. But maybe not when it comes to cooking.

IAN: Mark and Christina, the choreography looks so fantastic. How long did it take to put together in total, from prep to shooting, especially on a lower budget film where time is key?

MARK DICONZO:  I had a blast correlating and working with Joe on this. At the time I was choreographing I was also performing, playing the Engineer in MISS SAIGON in Arizona. For the “Fosse” style piece I set up a metronome on my phone and choreographed in the living room of my friends’ place that I was house sitting for at the time. I distinctly there being two cats that would sit on the couch inquisitively watching and wondering what the hell was going on.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Thank you so much for your kind words! I’m glad you enjoyed our work. Mark and I choreographed different dance numbers and each worked separately on our pieces. I was juggling producing, starring in, and choreographing the film so I had to divide my time wisely. I had days where I would specifically focus on choreography and nothing else. We held a casting call in New York City for our beautiful, talented dancers that you now see in the film.

MARK DICONZO: For the “Fosse” style piece I choreographed to a specific tempo emphasising various key phrases in the movement. I then sent the entire dance to Joe in sections with each movement emphasis described and on what specific count it landed. I’m sure it would have looked very strange to anyone else, seeing a bald guy dancing and performing to a bunch of cats to a metronome.

CHRISTINA ROSE: We knew we would only have one day of rehearsal with them so Mark and I had to choreograph each of our pieces knowing only the number of dancers we would have, and with a temp track of just piano accompaniment. The orchestral sounds you hear in the film were added in post-production. As a choreographer, I generally love to know the exact music I’m working with because I hear things in various beats that inspire me and help me visualize the work in my head before I even bring it to physical dance steps. But that’s showbiz and you need to work with what you’ve got! So, I would settle up in my tiny New York apartment and dance around my little living room with various sheets of paper for formations, and wearing tap shoes that most likely annoyed every neighbor in my building.

MARK DICONZO: Joe then did his thing and wrote the music around the video I sent. It’s a bit of a reverse in terms of Christina’s and typical technique, where the music is created first, but  a process that seemed to work very well for Joe and I, and a fun process as it proposed a different way of writing for Joe and choreographing for myself.

As for my tap piece “In your Face” it was all done a cappella. At the time I was choreographing this one I was also mid-contract performing in Florida and had access to a great rehearsal dance studio. This piece was a lot of fun to choreograph as I had to create an assortment of different rhythm sections that would later be combined together once we had all of the dancers together.

JOE SCHERMANN: I’ve never again been asked to write music to accompany already existing choreography. I’d like to; it brought great synergy to that piece between the choreography and the music (when music directing now I often add little pops and flairs to the arrangement to compliment the choreographer’s work). I also think it’s a great excercise for choreographers to create dances without music so they can free themselves from the typical X counts of 8 they tend to be confined to.

CHRISTINA ROSE: We had one day of rehearsal with the dancers and only two days to shoot out every single dance number. Our dancers were troopers and I’m so proud of every single one of them. Watching the vision come to life on the big screen at our film premiere was so exhilarating. I loved every second!

GARY KING: We actually had two days of rehearsal, but I was only privy to the second day to see what they had come up with. I was floored that the dancers had picked up every routine so quickly. There’s no way I could have done that. It made me really respect the level of talent and professionalism we had.

MARK DICONZO: With regard to lighting/staging and working on a crunched schedule, I plotted out and storylined the exact lighting I would like for each piece. The jazz piece I sectioned off into three different sections as to make sure that Gary would be able to get a variety of angles for each section. Also, based on the combination formations I knew that certain elements would need to be highlighted, namely the lift sequence for Gunther and Evey at the end. Dividing the number into sections not only allowed for quicker and more variety of shot angles but also made it easier on the dancers working under such a short timeline to nail the choreography and keep their energy up.

One of my most memorable moments on the JSS shoot was designing the lighting/staging/ and set up with our lighting designer and Gary on these dance sequences. It was so rewarding to see what could be accomplished with such a stellar team in place. We rehearsed with the dancers in the city over two days. Christina’s pieces and mine on two different days. We then shot the dance sequences over a FAST two-day period in the state-of-the-art Black Box theatre space at Hofstra University where I attended college.

GARY KING: We actually filmed the dance scenes for three days at the very end of the shoot. I still can’t believe Mark hooked up that space — it was state of the art. I had a blast being 100 feet above everyone, shooting from that grid pointing straight down. It was fun to let Mark and Christina take the lead. I told them “I’m just your DP for these sequences, you’re the director.”

IAN: When we get to Evey’s play where Joe is in the audience, and the male actor onstage grabs her hand for the bow, you can almost see her channeling that she wishes it was Joe doing that, as if to say “You’re the one, just be with me”. Was that a way to hint at a disconnect of some kind between them?

GARY KING: Yup, I actually wrote that scene to foreshadow Joe and Evey’s last scene in the film. However, the play is the ideal… the fantasy of how Evey would like Joe to say and act — to fight for her. And in reality, we see he’s not like that. And a side not, the play within the film is based on a movie called FOR LOVE OF THE GAME, which is a guilty pleasure for me.

CHRISTINA ROSE: I’m so glad as an audience member you were able to feel that through my performance. I do think that both men and women in similar relationships can relate to what Evey is going through at that moment.

IAN: The “Transformers” line was genius! Not something you’d typically expect to hear at a theatre after-party (although I’m sure stage actors love their popcorn flicks too). Improvised? Thoughts on the Transformers films? (be vicious if you wish)

GARY KING: Yeah that party scene was 100% improv. Occasionally I’d feed the actors some lines to say that would start conversations and then I’d film them talking for a few minutes. I gave the actor that line to open the chat and he said it so earnestly that I had to keep it in. It was the film at the time where I thought was the total opposite of the type of film we were making.

IAN: I love the way that the film can transition from real relationship fights – love scene ending in a spat – to almost dream-like numbers such as ‘Write Me A Love Song’ without being jarring because you’re invested in the characters. Was that number intended to be a dream, a single dream for one character, or a double dream for them both?

GARY KING: In the script I’d written the number (the storyline, not the music) to be in Evey’s head, where she was even battling Joe in her dreams to get him to write for her. There was even more visual interplay, but due to time we had to cut it down. It was Joe and Christina who helped shape the number to be more Disney-esque in melody and visuals. They helped shape their characters a lot.

CHRISTINA ROSE: When Gary and I discussed the scene he told me that it was a vision in side Evey’s head. We even used my actual handwriting for all the CG words! That was really neat. Mike King is a talented mofo! Joe, Gary and I discussed that Evey’s vocals would always feel more ‘Disney’ as well, so we decided to have the whole sequence have that BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS feel to it. I love Disney so much and it’s my dream to one day voice a Disney Princess so I’m glad I had an opportunity to have this “Disney-esque moment” early on in my film career.

JOE SCHERMANN: I always interpreted it as Evey’s dream… Though a lot of people I’ve watched it with think it’s a double-dream. Those people also tend to hate Joe because they see him as not learning from the dream.

KENNETH LAMPL: I’ve actually had this fight before….

JOE SCHERMANN: I had the fight with a post-JSS girlfriend. We… don’t talk anymore.

IAN: This may be my lamest question, but what the hell. Is the film a comment, a musical about making musicals? And as such would ‘Write Me A Love Song’ be a comment on writing musical love songs?

GARY KING: The film is whatever you think it’s about. I can tell you that my original vision that I pitched to Mark and Joe is not what made it to screen. I think it came out the way it’s supposed to, though, so my other idea might find its way into another musical film someday.

KENNETH LAMPL: I don’t think it’s as much a musical about making musicals as much as it is about bringing the best of filmmaking to enhance the emotional content of the musical. Musicals are one-dimensional visually, it all takes place from your seat to the stage and that’s all you see. The genius of film cinematography means you get multiple perspectives of the close-up and perspective (foreground/background) and imagery which can never happen in live theatre.

GARY KING: Yeah, I have to say one of the things I liked playing with was split-screens. I love how Brian De Palma uses them so effectively to show more story from various perspectives. That’d be harder to do on stage.

MARK DICONZO: Had it been a “musical about making musicals” Gary would have written an entire section devoted solely to the development, rehearsals, and progression of the musical which Joe was hired to write and in which Summer was cast as the lead. Sure, it would have made for some great creative exploration in terms of filming and introducing new characters but it would have turned into a 5-hour movie! Gary has such a gift with writing and then directing a character’s journey throughout a piece. The intimacy the audience experiences with each of these characters and their journey would have been overshadowed by making it a “musical about making musicals”. Instead we are treated to an even more intimate and unexplored part of our business with JSS, and these characters thanks to Gary’s writing, amazing direction, and the performances on set.

JOE SCHERMANN: It’s more about the composer not getting in his or her way when writing the song. A lot of us (self VERY much included, though I’m getting better) get caught up in wanting to be clever, wanting to show off our musical theory and technique, and the songs can get buried underneath that pretentiousness, especially if it doesn’t serve the content of the show. There’s nothing wrong with writing a simple, hokey love song when it’s appropriate, or even if you just bloody well feel like it. That’s what Evey wants Joe to realize. Too bad he’s asleep. Luckily I wasn’t asleep when Gary told me to get out of my own way with some of these songs, and both the film and myself were better served for it.

IAN: To back myself up in case the last question was stupid, is it a musical about making musicals? Or just a heightened-reality love drama? For example, they break into songs because that is their world. I liken it to Edgar Wright’s SCOTT PILGRIM, where in his world when the emotion gets too much to handle they break into fights instead of song, and no one comments on it afterwards.

GARY KING: To me it’s a musical about the struggle of artists, regardless of what avenue you’re in, whether it be singing, acting, dancing… and we’re in the head of some people for sure, particularly Evey’s imagination. Most of the songs I tried to keep in the real world with some reasoning of why they’re breaking out into song. But in the end, audiences know they’re watching a musical so there are certain conventions we can play with and be forgiven.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: I also looked at it as a struggle of artists. For people who are not in the business they may not understand the reason for breaking into song, but sometimes as an artist, it’s easier to connect to something musically than to have an everyday conversation. Music is poetry.

IAN: “Stop over thinking it, it doesn’t have to be perfect”. Is that directly relating to the song Joe is trying to write, or their relationship as a whole? Just wants a commitment, not perfection. It also ties into a great moment from Gunther later in the film.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Artists always strive for perfection subconsciously. The truth is that there’s no such thing as perfection. If every artist in the world could learn this very thing – “Don’t over think it, we don’t need perfection”, then maybe we’d all be more fearless and bold in each of our endeavours.

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: To be honest everyone in this world always strives for perfection. We all just have to learn to live in the moment, or as I like to say… “live in the NOW.” That’s what Evey is telling Joe to do.

MARK DICONZO: Like so many other moments in the film, the musical numbers appear as the story unfolds and we are given a cool and deeper look at the characters and their opinions/emotions through song.Another great thing about Gary’s writing with JSS is that he opens the door to many variations of how a lyric could be perceived during an actor’s performance. Is Evey just commenting on the song she wants Joe to write for her, or is she commenting on the relationship as well? Who knows! If an audience member is paying attention/invested and actually gives a shit they will find many moments where a lyric or line can be perceived in a variety of ways. Also, I think Gunther is a pussy, he should get a bionic leg and just DANCE!

GARY KING: Yup, that’s a great theme in the film… so many times people are their own worst enemy. They hold themselves back in fear of rejection, criticism and what not. Part of the message coming from Evey and Gunther is to just do it. Fuck the people who will stand on the sidelines and nay-say. You’re not doing it for them.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Well said, Gary!

MARK DICONZO: Gary summed that up nicely!

IAN: I’d LOVE to know where I can find a copy of David Tann’s BLACK FRIDAY!

GARY KING: It’s on my desk. And yes, there’s actually a finished script called BLACK FRIDAY, which later evolved into my first feature NEW YORK LATELY. However, the one in the film was just the cover and the script itself was SCHERMANN SONG.

IAN: I found Libby saying “We leave our masks at the door” so ironic as in that room she seems to be the one mostly putting on an act. It’s a ridiculously funny scene. Can meetings like that really happen, with that level of pretence? If so can anyone elaborate on an experience? (No names need be given unless you want to)

GARY KING: Thanks – Yeah, most people love that scene and laugh uncontrollably. I’ve been in meetings with people like Libby. They’re definitely out there.

JOE SCHERMANN: Yes. They happen. There is literally no way for me to elaborate on this without potentially shooting myself in the foot on a professional level, so… next question please.

MARK DICONZO: In any walk of life there are those ass clowns that put on such “an act” that it’s just painful and awkward to watch… but, sometime you just have to stomach it and laugh about it later. I mean, during our initial meeting Joe asked if we could take body shots out of his belly button and only then would he commit to the piece…

DEBBIE WILLIAMS: Yes, the Libby’s of this world do exist, and it’s hard for me to maintain a straight face in those situations without giving away my thoughts because of my blunt personality. We learn to deal with it, laugh it off, and move on. I often walk away from those situations saying “Yup! That was real! I might play that character one day.”

—–

Part 2 of this piece will follow next week, and contains some very juicy stuff. HOW DO YOU WRITE A JOE SCHERMANN SONG is available via the official website here, or on Amazon here.

See you next week!

@EyunCrabb

FAVOR

Every so often a film comes along that grabs your attention. Takes you by the lapels and screams in your face “Look at me!”. And it’s even more impressive when that movie is a small budget labour of love that was made simply because the film makers knew it was a story that just HAD to be told, budget be damned.

FAVOR is one such film. The brainchild of writer/director Paul Osborne (OFFICIAL REJECTION, TEN ‘TIL NOON), FAVOR tells the story of Kip and Marvin, two childhood friends now in the throes of adulthood. Except one has succeeded and the other is flailing. Kip is married, doing well in his career, albeit a career that relies on a certain amount of manipulation. Marvin is unemployed, struggling to find his place, but a sweet-natured and loyal soul. Despite these differences they remain friends.

Then one night a tragic event happens and calls the friendship and, more importantly, the status dynamic into question and onto the rails. As the tag line says, “A friend helps you move, A good friend helps you move a body”. What transpires becomes a cat and mouse game of psychological proportions.

With twists and turns and a haunting story, FAVOR boasts an amazing cast including Blayne Weaver (WEATHER GIRL, 6 MONTH RULE), Patrick Day (WAITING FOR OPHELIA), Christina Rose (HOW DO YOU WRITE A JOE SCHERMANN SONG, upcoming ELEVEN ELEVEN), Cheryl Nichols (REVOLVER, upcoming THE PERFECT 46), and also producer/actress Leslie Wimmer Osborne and the composing talents of Joe Kraemer (THE WAY OF THE GUN, JACK REACHER).

All these folks were lovely enough to spare some time to answer some questions and share some thoughts with me about the wonderful film that is FAVOR, and they couldn’t have been nicer. I will present these interviews in full, although be aware that some answers have been edited or omitted for spoiler reasons (if you want the spoilers I will sell them to you for exactly twice the cost of buying the film).

PAUL OSBORNE (writer/director) aka “The Daddy”

IAN: The premise of FAVOR is brilliant, disturbing and truly original. How did the idea form? And please tell me it wasn’t autobiographical?

PAUL OSBORNE: It wasn’t autobiographical to be sure. The whole idea really started with the casting. I was friends with both Blayne and Patrick, was a fan of their work, and had it on my career to-do list to write something for each of them. At some point it struck me that I could kill two birds by writing a single script for them to be in, creating characters that I thought would not only suit them but would also play to the chemistry I imagined they would have together, then concocted a situation to put them through. The screenplay grew out of that.

IAN: Casting Blayne and Patrick was a great move. They both give such incredible, subtle performances. How did you first become aware of their work and meet them?

PAUL OSBORNE: I met Blayne when I was shooting my film festival documentary OFFICIAL REJECTION. We became friends and at some point he invited me to a play he was doing. When I saw him on stage it suddenly struck me that I was sitting on top of this powder keg of an actor. He was terrific and I experienced a true “holy shit” moment. With Patrick Day it was sort of a similar situation. I knew him through my wife, Leslie, and somewhere along the line was invited to a private screening of a little indie he was in called WAITING FOR OPHELIA. His performance just knocked me through the back wall of the theatre, and I resolved that night to create a project for him.

IAN: What was it that made you realise how well Blayne and Patrick would play opposite each other?

PAUL OSBORNE: It was completely an educated guess. I didn’t know them from the same circle of people, so as far as I knew they’d never met. Their energies are very different – almost opposites – but somehow I felt they’d compliment each other. Fortunately my instincts about how they’d mesh, both onscreen and off, were correct. I could have been totally wrong, and the film wouldn’t have worked.

IAN: Funding for independent films must be a difficult and stressful ordeal, especially in this age of tent pole or nothing. How did the financing come about for you?

PAUL OSBORNE: We raised the production budget on Kickstarter. Whenever anyone tells me that social media is a waste of time, I always remind them that I did just use it to finance a film. It can’t be all bad.

IAN: How was it  directing a fellow writer/director?

PAUL OSBORNE: Directing an actor who makes their own films is actually much easier than directing one that doesn’t. They’ve already walked a mile in your shoes, so they don’t waste time, come prepared, and they’re less in their own head. If I want an actor to walk closer to camera during a key line because it’ll look cool, I usually have to come up with a character-based reason in order for them to do it convincingly. But with Blayne, I can just tell him it’ll look cool. He gets it from my side.

IAN: Let’s talk about the reception the film has had at festivals. Official selections include:

• Phoenix Film Festival
• Waterfront Film Festival
• Deadcenter Film Festival
• Dances With Film
• Flyway Film Festival
• Sonoma International Film Festival
• Austin Film Festival
• Napa Valley Film Festival
• Tallgrass Film Festival
• Omaha Film Festival
• Daytona Beach Film Festival
• Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival

That’s quite an impressive list. How have the reactions been? Crowds must lap up a film like this.

PAUL OSBORNE: The response has been really positive. A good sign is that we keep almost everyone for our Q&A’s – if people were ambivalent about the movie, why would they stay and talk to us? What’s surprised me, though, is how visceral the reaction has been. I always felt this was a talky drama and would be a more cerebral experience, but people really jump and gasp and get into it. I’ve never seen an audience watch it quietly.There’s also been a lot of talk in the Q&A’s and reviews about the humour in the film, which really surprises me. It’s not something we ever really intentionally pushed.

IAN: Obviously budget plays a huge part of what sort of story you can tell, or does it? Should it really matter? For example, did you write a script you then had to reign in for budgetary reasons, or was it always meant to be a smaller story?

PAUL OSBORNE: I definitely wrote it as something that could be made on a smaller budget, but once it was written there were very few elements that had to be curbed back because of the money. The bank scene was a little more elaborate in the script and actually had Kip going inside and speaking with a teller. For the most part, though, we found a way to shoot what was on the page.

(WRITER’S NOTE: The next questions are specific to the story but NO SPOILERS)

IAN: Can you explain the “FBI” t-shirt Marvin wears? A nod to Jackie Brown, a character choice, or something more deep?

PAUL OSBORNE: A lot of Marvin’s clothes have military of police elements to them – in addition to his FBI shirt he also wears an old army jacket and has camouflage pyjama bottoms. This was something that came out of discussions about the character between Patrick and I. We both grew up with guys who fancied themselves “in-the-know” about military things, police procedures. I remember this one lunatic who told me he’d gone to the FBI convention downtown so he could “really show them how it’s done, you know?”. Those types of guys tended to fit the Marvin profile; loners who were always sort of ready to jump into a situation where they might get to do something clandestine. It helped justify his willingness to agree to help Kip, and we bore it out through the costume design.

IAN: Although the film had a low budget it looked fantastic. Can you say which cameras and lenses you used? It looks like a digital format but the lighting, lens choices and composition give it a real cinematic feel.

PAUL OSBORNE: Thanks! We shot the film with the Panasonic AF100, and I only had two lenses – an Olympus zoom and a wide-angle pancake. We used almost all exclusively available and source lighting, and only had one small lighting kit. I wanted to shoot quickly and simply, and I’ve found that the fewer toys you have the quicker you can move.

But the real heroic step in creating the look was in post-production. I wanted a rough, documentary-like 16mm look, so we desaturated the colours and added a lot of film grain. When you see it projected it really seems like something done on an old reversal stock.

IAN: Casting Blayne as kind of a shit was an interesting choice as he naturally has such a warm persona on-screen. He’s so likeable, yet in this film you find yourself desperately wanting to like him but it just doesn’t feel right to.

PAUL OSBORNE: I know Blayne quite well in civilian life, and yes, hes naturally very affable, but he’s also a lot darker than people think. That hasn’t really been shown much on-screen before, so I wanted to create a role where he sort of keeps one hand on the likeable romantic lead that he’s know for, and the other on something new and sinister.

Blayne’s got a tremendous amount of range as an actor but there haven’t been a lot of opportunities for him to demonstrate that. He and I just wrote a crime thriller called CLIP JOINT that we’re hoping to get into production next year (writer’s note: this interview was late 2013), and the character Blayne will be taking on is the villain. It’s a massive leap from his character Tyler in 6 MONTH RULE, but at the same time he’s pitch-perfect for it.

IAN: Kip’s ties in the film intrigued me. I’m not referring to existential and interpersonal relationship ties, I mean the actual physical neckties he wears with suits. And so, before this sounds like the lamest question in the world, let me elaborate: For example, his green tie that he wears in front of his green door, or the white tie worn in front of the white shades. Was that intentional; green meaning naive early on, and white putting on an air of innocence later, or am I reading too much into it?

PAUL OSBORNE: There really wasn’t any secret meaning in the ties. (writer’s note: So, confirmed. Lame question) Honestly, Kip’s wardrobe, was one of the most expensive, so to save a buck we mostly used ties that either belonged to Blayne or I. Both the green and white ones are actually mine. Blayne was wearing the green tie when Jeffrey Combs arrived on set. Jeff immediately pointed at it and said “Reanimator green? Is that for me?!”

IAN: FAVOR is by no means a violent film, more a psychological cat-and-mouse game, but one or two scenes do pull the violence to the forefront, making it shocking when it happens. How aware were you of just how far you wanted to push these scenes in that direction? I know it shocked me.

PAUL OSBORNE: I was always aware of how I wanted to do them. I felt they should happen suddenly and feel very, very real. The way I decided to achieve this was to present them very simply – no advance music, no build-up, no fanfare. Just all of a sudden – boom – it’s on. The advance context of story and character was certainly intended to add to shock, of course.

IAN: The “Desert Scene” is one such example. Brutal, unexpected, heartbreaking, and in one step completely changed the course of the story and characters. In a way it was almost a catharsis for the character in question, letting them expel all the pent-up frustration but bringing on new disgust at their actions. A new lease on life but not knowing what path it would lead them down. Was that preordained or was it found on the day through performance?

PAUL OSBORNE: It definitely started on the page. The script called for the character in question to cry and break down. I wasn’t sure how far the actor would let me take it, but we were able to take it very, very far. I always wanted the audience to feel worse for the character who isn’t being victimized in the desert scene. So much of FAVOR is about lopsided dynamics, and this is a perfect example.

IAN: I have to ask about the ending, without really asking about the ending. What’s wrong with you?

PAUL OSBORNE: Well, it’s clear I have some problems. But I say it’s much more socially acceptable, and legally wise, to write about doing terrible things than to actually do them.

———-

Now to pull off a story that is both as intimate and daring as this you don’t just need good actors, but actors that can draw you in, make you believe. Special effects can transport you to outer space, or bring monsters to life, but to captivate you when the story relies on people talking to each other and creating moments, and in such doing maybe bring your its monsters to life? For that you need a special cast. Luckily Paul surrounded himself with such folk. Which brings us to…

BLAYNE WEAVER (actor – “Kip”) aka “Mr Smooth”

Blayne knows his stuff, as a writer, producer, actor and director in his own right. I’ve long since been a fan of his work, and was very excited to see him take on a role such as Kip. Plus, his hair is amazing!

IAN: How would you rate your hair today, from 1 to 10? If it’s less than an 8 I’ll be disappointed.

BLAYNE WEAVER: Hate to disappoint you but the hair is a little off today. I give it a 7. A solid 7, but still a 7.

IAN: Your character in FAVOR is a real departure from some of your previous film work. How would you describe Kip from an outsiders perspective?

BLAYNE WEAVER: Kip is smart, slick and selfish.

IAN: You’ve played shallow and/or selfish characters before, but more often for comedic effect (OUTSIDE SALES) or romantic parts (6 MONTH RULE), but Kip is a different beast. He’s selfish and shallow for other, more complicated reasons (is that fair to say?). Would you say he’s almost the hero of the film, or at least regards himself as such?

BLAYNE WEAVER: I think the answer to that question is complicated and that is a testament to Paul’s inventive script. FAVOR’s audience goes on a journey of constantly changing allegiances between Kip and Marv. Morally ambiguous characters always appeal to me. The hero is not usually very interesting. I enjoy getting to play characters that are a little more flawed.

IAN: There’s no denying that Kip treats Marvin’s character badly at times. Is Kip a born user, to help him get to his goals? It’s certainly helped him in his career, so may be second nature. Or is it the events of the story that make him act that way?

BLAYNE WEAVER: I think he’s born that way. He uses everyone but doesn’t feel there’s anything wrong with it. I think Kip genuinely believes he’s smarter than everyone else and the rules shouldn’t apply to him.

IAN: As much pressure as he’s put under, Kip is clearly very smart and calculating. Do you think he always knew what he was doing or was it simply a necessity of the situation?

BLAYNE WEAVER: A truly smart person is capable of improvisation; or pivoting when the moment demands it. Kip is a very smart person.

IAN: You and Patrick have such great chemistry. We really buy you as best friends, but with one getting the golden ticket, albeit one he worked for, and the other struggling but looking at the stars with green-eyed goggles. How was it developing that dynamic with Patrick?

BLAYNE WEAVER: Paul had written the two parts of Kip and Marvin specifically for myself and Patrick Day. Paul had no idea that we had known each other as kids. Patrick and I first met when we were both in our late teens. We took acting class together at The Young Actor’s Space in Los Angeles. It was at least fifteen years before we met again, and that was to discuss FAVOR. Because we had known each other before we feel into it very easily. He’s a tremendous actor and a hell of a guy. Working with him on FAVOR was an incredibly gratifying experience.

———-

For a cat-and-mouse game you need both the cat and the… well, you know where I’m going with that. But which is which? For that you need an ally or foe of equal standing.

PATRICK DAY (actor – “Marvin”) aka “The Smile”

IAN: When did you first become aware of Paul’s FAVOR project?

PATRICK DAY: Paul approached me about a year prior to the Kickstarter campaign.

IAN: Had you worked with either Paul or Blayne before?

PATRICK DAY: I had not worked with Paul prior to FAVOR. I was a fan of Paul’s work, and Blayne and I were in classes together years ago at the acting school I now own called The Young Actor’s Space (www.youngactorsspace.com).

IAN: Marvin is such a brilliantly confusing and original character. How did you feel when you first read the part, and did you have any input into creating him?

PATRICK DAY: Yes. Paul and I had discussed early on trying to somehow make Marv likeable. That was something that was very important to me. Neither one of these characters are really likeable on paper. As I was doing the early rehearsal process I kept trying to find moments to make Marvin not only real but sweet and kind. That was a particular challenge because when I first read it I wasn’t sure how Marvin would be able to keep the viewers interest. I tried to make the audience want to fight for Marvin, or at least step into his shoes and understand his plight.

IAN: Marvin is almost an anti-hero. Without revealing spoilers he’s almost the most sympathetic and relatable (of the male characters), as scary as that is. How did you approach this?

PATRICK DAY: I think Marvin’s love for Kip and his idea of ‘being there’ for a best friend, no matter what, is an extremely endearing part of Marvin. Marvin is very loyal… to a fault. The timing is key to this story as well. Although things in his life are not going well when we meet him, Kip visits and asks a favor of Marvin that really gives him a sense of re-birth, purpose and he feels needed. There is a lot of my dad in Marvin. And a lot of me. And a lot of different buddies of mine who shall remain nameless 😉

IAN: How was working so closely with Blayne? Kip and Marvin seem joined at the hip, at least in their early days of friendship, although it’s slightly one-sided. It feels so real there must have been discussion between you guys and Paul on the history and how far you could push it.

PATRICK DAY: The history was very important to us. Blayne and Paul and I worked on the relationship a lot in our early rehearsal process. Plus, Blayne is such a cool dude, it was easy to play his best friend.

IAN: Without spoilers, what was your reaction to reading/acting the ending? I know it truly shocked me!

PATRICK DAY: I’m a big Coen Brothers fan, and a lot of Stanley Kubrick and some of Sam Peckinpah’s. So the end of the film and the journey to it excited me. Glad to hear it shocked you. That’s what we were trying to do.

———-

FAVOR boasts strong and affecting performances by its two male leads. But a story this intimate, dealing with what it does, also relies heavily on the sublime talents of the ladies involved in telling this tale. This is no boys club. No performance is one without the other. A good chemistry between your male leads is nothing without a believability in their counterparts, be it at home or professionally. Paul Osborne struck gold here too.

CHERYL NICHOLS (actor – “Claire”) aka “The Conscience”

IAN: How did you come to the project of FAVOR? Had you worked with Paul or others before?

CHERYL NICHOLS: I got the job on FAVOR by audition. I’d known Blayne for a while, and I think he was the one to suggest me to Paul. Blayne’s very nice. He tells people I am talented, but only because I pay him a very small monthly amount to do so. Anyway, I auditioned for Paul and he gave me the job. I hadn’t worked with him before. He had to trust Blayne.

IAN: You worked very closely with Blayne on this film, and had great onscreen charm together, I have to wonder was much improv involved? Claire and Kip have such a bond, sold totally by your performances and Paul’s direction. Did you stick to the script, or sometimes make up your own dialogue?

CHERYL NICHOLS: Blayne is very difficult to work with, and ony by sheer will and determination, not to mention my classical theatre training, was I able to make it through those scenes with him. Jokes.

Blayne is pretty damn easy to work with. He’s open to trying stuff out and a great listener. Also, we’ve been friends for a while, so we just sat in our trailer (Paul’s daughter’s bedroom) gabbing and laughing until Paul called us to set. I’m not so sure there was very much “improv” in the sense that we created our own dialogue, but I think we approached every take with a new sense of play. Every take felt different.

IAN: Claire is a key linchpin in the story. What were your first reactions upon reading the script?

CHERYL NICHOLS: Honestly, my first impression reading the script was a little anger and confusion that this *SPOILER DELETED* gets away with *SPOILER DELETED*. But that’s the point, is it not? Can I say that? Spoiler alert!

(WRITER’S NOTE: Huge apologies to Ms. Nichols. I hated censoring that answer, as it was just on the cusp of tantalising and spoiling. But it was so passionately put, and really funny, I had to include it. Flowers on the way, Cheryl)

IAN: What I thought Paul did brilliantly was write female characters that, despite maybe not having the most screen time, effected the story so powerfully, much more so than the humdrum “wife/girlfriend” role in a huge blockbuster. Did you talk about this aspect with Paul?

CHERYL NICHOLS: Paul and I didn’t talk too much about the female companion archetypal resonance in this film. I think I just made that phrase up. I remember a lot of Christopher Walken impressions peppered by discussions about how we were going to tell this story without making Claire too unlikable. (Writer’s note: nice parallel there with Patrick’s answer about Marvin, which is ironic considering the two characters in question)

I think maybe that’s the beauty of Paul’s writing there. We don’t need to talk about making Claire a fuller character, or a more necessary character. We have to focus on making her likeable, despite the fact that she is OBVIOUSLY the only person in the story who has their head screwed on the right way. I think that says a lot about the writing of the anti-hero, Kip. I believe Claire’s purpose is to be the conscience of the film, and I think that’s simple and fantastic.

IAN: The moment when Kip tells her he’s going to lend Marvin money, you can easily see she’s upset and annoyed (both emotions for different reasons), or at the very least strongly disagrees, but she still concedes to his choice. Was the intent to play this angry or reticent, and how much (sorry to beat a dead horse) was improvised?

CHERYL NICHOLS: I think it’s pretty easy to imagine how you would get upset with your husband loaning his weirdo friend $5,000. I just meditated on that. And that kind of “dancing around the truth” thing Paul writes. None of it was improvised. Blayne just ran with the direction.

IAN: Without spoilers, Claire is integral to the resolution of the film. How did you feel when you read that, and also when you filmed it?

CHERYL NICHOLS: Filming those kinds of scenes requires intense focus because on indie films you usually only have one or two takes. I had one. So I just went for it. I have to say, I was excited about that scene when I read it. But on set, it was just about the focus and the work.

———-

And what can I say about Kimber without asking the lady herself…

CHRISTINA ROSE (actor – “Kimber”) aka “The Glue”

(Writer’s note: I apologise that certain questions – not all, I’m not that out of juice – may be repeated here, but as these characters come from different places it felt warranted to get all views and aspects)

IAN: How did you come onboard FAVOR? Had you worked with Paul before? If not, what did he have on you to make you say yes?

CHRISTINA ROSE: No, I hadn’t worked with Paul before, but he and Blayne came to one of our test screenings for HOW DO YOU WRITE A JOE SCHERMANN SONG. Paul must’ve liked my performance because afterwards he showered me with flattery and approached me about the role. When he sent me the script I was immediately impressed with the specificity of his writing and storytelling. It was a no-brainer. I jumped at the opportunity to work with Paul.

IAN: What was the set like to work on? Being a lower budget production with less money to work with, does that make for trying to get it right as quickly as possible or free the actors up to try different approaches?

CHRISTINA ROSE: Paul was definitely running a lean and efficient operation. I was only on set for a few days, since I was from out of town, so we had a lot to accomplish in a little amount of time. But Paul had a strong vision. We did play around a little, but he knew what he wanted so it was more about accomplishing that than figuring things out.

IAN: Was there much improv done during scenes, or did you guys mostly stick to Paul’s script as gospel? I mainly ask as I feel like you and Blayne may have done about a thousand versions of Kip and Kimber’s chats.

CHRISTINA ROSE: That’s a fantastic compliment. Every actor wants their work to come across as improvisational and that the dialogue is happening for the very first time. With that said, we stuck to the script, word for word. Paul wrote an incredible script and there was no need to stray from it.

IAN: Now, let’s get to the bones of this. Kimber. What a great part. Before you think I’m being facetious, as it’s not the biggest role, I promise I believe that and I’ll explain why in a later question. What did you think of Kimber when you read it?

CHRISTINA ROSE: I immediately saw she played an integral part in the plot and was excited to play her. I take every role seriously and no matter how much screen time you have, it’s the job of the actor to give that character depth and layers. It always makes me smile when people take notice of my performance as Kimber because I actually worked very hard on the role.

IAN: Kimber is almost the glue of the film, and this is going to be tough to explain. As an audience member we spend most of our time with Kip and Marv, watching them do despicable things, with the lines of who’s wrong or right getting more blurred. Kimber offers a breath of release as she’s seeing all this, coping with ridiculous situations and not knowing what to think. A lot like Claire, but in the work environment. That’s the audience. Was that a conscious choice, because it works brilliantly.

CHRISTINA ROSE: Thank you. As an actor you want to bring as much truth as possible to your role. Kimber had no clue what was happening outside of the office with Kip and Marvin, but as things unfold she definitely recognises something is wrong. The only thought that made sense was to be confused and get caught up in the chaos. I’m glad that it came across as authentic.

IAN: The scene where Marvin just shows up out of the blue for the job interview is a big turning point in the film, and I think a big part of that is Kimber, who up until that point had dealt with Marvin professionally (if begrudgingly). But in that scene Kimber acts truly unnerved. She KNOWS something is not right, and that’s the first real warning for the viewer. It’s such a subtle moment, performance wise, and makes Marvin more of a threat. I’d love to know what talks you had with Paul about how to play that.

CHRISTINA ROSE: I love that Paul had written such a strong script. It gives us actors a lot to work with. He had such brilliant conflicts that a lot of these subtle performances you talk of were just natural reactions to these crafted situations. After we had done the work developing these characters there was no other way Kimber could react.

IAN: When Marvin asks Kip if Kimber would be interested in a date and Kip laughs at him before backtracking, did you feel bad for Marvin or grateful Kip had bailed you out? After all, on the surface Marv is a very sweet man. Do you think Kimber would’ve been interested, if the question had reached her, or was Kip keeping her for himself as a possession?

CHRISTINA ROSE: I made a choice that Kimber not only looked up to Kip but was also enamoured by him. He was what she wanted to be and who she wanted to be with. I think her infatuation with Kip made it impossible to even consider Marvin 🙂

IAN: The women in this film may not have as much screen time but really make an impact when onscreen. Paul seems to have a knack for making short, sporadic scenes mean and say more than a by-the-numbers role in a big budget film. Did you get to talk much with Cheryl, Rosalie and Alison about your roles?

(Writer’s note: Alas, I wasn’t able to get interviews with Rosalie Ward or Alison Martin)

CHRISTINA ROSE: I wish I could have! Since I was only on set for the two days I didn’t have a chance to meet any of the actors that weren’t in my scenes. I do think they all carried out beautiful performances and our characters all impacted the way the story unfolded.

IAN: Now… The ending. Without revealing spoilers, what did you think when you first read what happened? Do you think Paul Osborne needs professional help?

CHRISTINA ROSE: I love the twist in the end. It’s so… unexpected. I would have it no other way. If you know Paul, he is a sweet and caring family man, and I think the film going that way is more about him being an imaginative and brilliant artist.

IAN: Where can people learn more about you and what upcoming projects you have in the pipeline?

CHRISTINA ROSE: Thank you so much for sharing the word about FAVOR and me. I encourage people to support another wonderful indie film I’m starring in called HOW DO YOU WRITE A JOE SCHERMANN SONG, a movie musical that received the “Film Of The Festival” Award at Raindance and currently on iTunes and DVD/Blu-Ray.

———-

The next interview was a wonderful addition to the piece, and one that quite frankly I didn’t think I would get. This lady is an actress, producer, executive, and mother of three, so I honestly thought she’d be far too busy for lil’ old me. Luckily, Paul suggested it and she agreed in no time. As Claire’s friend, Mindy, in FAVOR she is the only character who agrees to go on a date with the lonely and needy Marvin. Leslie’s performance added a touch of warmth and a sense of hope for Marvin. Not only that, she ran the show and is a sharp, very funny lady.

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE (producer/actress – “Mindy”) – aka “The Boss”

IAN: May I call you Leslie? The polite Brit in me feels wrong to ask so.

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: You may.

IAN: You produced and acted in a film shot in your own house. How was that? Must have been fun with three children?

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: My two step-children are older and more self-sufficient, so they actually helped out on set. Dealing with a six-month old, on the other hand, while working 50+ hours a week at my studio job, and having a mysto hubby who was out all night shooting for two weeks straight, was EXHAUSTING.

IAN: Paul and myself have talked about our mutual dislike for Michael Bay. Now I feel awkward, as you’re an executive for Paramount.

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: I’ll let you continue to feel awkward…

IAN: I think Mindy needs a spin-off film!

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: Agreed! But I think it needs to have a completely different tone. It should be a comedy about Mindy’s dating mishaps in a long line of unsuccesful relationships.

IAN: A comedy of dating errors would be great for her, but wouldn’t it be fantastic if it was a prequel/sequel and one of those mishaps happened to be the scene in FAVOR? Just drop her into that movie, a hard drama, then follow her home and carry on with our light-hearted comedy of Mindy?

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: Hmmm… interesting concept. I like it.

IAN: Mindy was, essentially, a small role but a crucial one. Did you ever, as an actor, have pity for Patrick as Marvin? It’s one of the most heartbreaking moments in the film as he tries so hard.

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: Yes, I feel there’s a moment during the dinner when Mindy is willing to set aside her first impression of Marvin (plus let’s face it – she’s had some wine by that point) to see if perhaps there’s a good, stable guy under there. But when Marvin admits to further shortcomings, that solidifies her disinterest.

IAN: The dinner scene, which was sponsored by Roche wine, seemed like a lot of fun to play, especially with Blayne insisting on everyone drinking real wine. Was there some stomach aches by the end with so many takes?

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: There was indeed much laughter amidst the many takes. No stomach aches but considering the scene finally wrapped around 3am and I had to get up and work the next day, it was gruelling.

IAN: So, after talking with your husband, I hear your daughter was used as a body double. That was all Paul, right?

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: All Paul! And the lack of budget for a body double.

IAN: How was it having a film crew in your house? Did you ever have to tell the director off?

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: Having the crew in our house was fun although Liam (the six-month old at the time) and I had to stay in a hotel a couple of nights to allow filming throughout the night. But it felt rather collegial having that creative energy about. As a producer, it’s my job to facilitate the director’s vision so I didn’t ever tell him off… as much as he might have deserved it…

IAN: As an exective at a major studio, you must be constantly fighting to get films you work on noticed or good word-of-mouth, so how gratifying is it that the little micro-budget film your husband made has been getting so much love from audiences? Of course, I loved it to pieces, which is why I invaded Paul’s time so much, but I mean the love cinema goers have given it. As I said to Paul I consider FAVOR to be cinema. Not a movie, but cinema.

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: Ahahah… well, yes, it’s nice to have a passion project on the side. But honestly, the whole “movie/film/cinema” differentiation isn’t something I think about. It’s ALL movies, or film, or cinema – it’s just symantics to me. You say tomato; I say to-mah-toh. If something speaks to me on some level, then I support it. And it can be high-brow drama or a good old-fashioned popcorn flick. I just want my entertainment to be good. And that goes for television as well.

IAN: As a follow-up, how annoying is it for people like me to constantly bug your husband about his film, and take up your precious free time together?

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: What is this “free time” about which you speak?

IAN: Cannot thank you enough for your time and what I genuinely thought was an outstanding performance, in a great scene, in a film I loved.

LESLIE WIMMER OSBORNE: Awww… very sweet of you to say. Much appreciated, Ian.

———-

A film like FAVOR lives or dies not only on story and performances, but also the mood it creates. This is something the filmmaker no doubt has in his head since writing page one, but not something that can always be conveyed on set when shooting. A small character piece, especially, needs a musical guide, someone to build you up or leave you in silence. Too often the music in a low-budget film will either try too hard to compensate, or hold off to evoke atmosphere when there is none. It’s a hard trick to know which is right for the moment. Not bombard you, or step off the gas completely.

I was nearly shaking when I interviewed this man (I didn’t get to meet him, but just typing the questions had the same effect). I’m a HUGE fan of film scores, and the compositions in FAVOR blew me away. So when I heard from Paul that this man had agreed to let me ask him about it… I panicked, and then insulted him.

I didn’t mean to, of course, but I was trying too hard and came across like a dick. Luckily, he’s an incredibly sweet man and then I found my balls and we resolved it. I give you…

JOE KRAEMER (composer) aka “The Soul”

IAN: I need to get this out in the open. For a recent article I wrote about Blayne Weaver’s 6 MONTH RULE I may have said something along the lines of “it’s better than Jack Reacher” (Writer’s note: This was because a certain download site had the two films on the same page). I was trying to sound smart in a throwaway manner, and hadn’t seen Reacher at that point. It was a dick move. Now I’ve seen it I stand by my thoughts on the film, but regret saying it, especially regarding the score. So, to sum up… good job!

JOE KRAEMER: But you didn’t like the movie? Fair enough if you didn’t, just wondering… For what it’s worth, we all did the best we could and if we didn’t hit it out of the park for everyone, it wasn’t for lack of trying…

IAN: I have to congratulate you on your work for THE WAY OF THE GUN. It’s such an underrated gem and criminally overlooked for all involved.

JOE KRAEMER: Well, thank you! It’s so long ago now. I’m starting to forget aspects of working on it. It’s another movie that, like Reacher, was pretty savagely attacked on its release, but over the years has grown in its esteem as a bit of  cult classic, which is immensely gratifying.

IAN: FAVOR is, in my eyes, a wonder of low-budget film making. Original, thought-provoking, controversial and proof that a good story and cast can outdo budget constraints any time. How did you tackle going from a mega-budget Tom Cruise vehicle to a micro-budget indie? Is there a difference, and is one easier than the other?

JOE KRAEMER: Just to clarify, I wouldn’t characterise REACHER as a mega-budget Tom Cruise vehicle – even though that’s exactly how it WAS characterised by the press, the publicity campaign (trailers, etc) and audiences. It was very modestly budgeted for a major studio film with such a big star, and the big star in question was not playing the sort of character he might usually be associated with. It was (director) Chris McQuarrie’s hope that this film would be perceived as the first film in a new phase of Tom’s career as a 50-year old. Tome was older in REACHER than Paul Newman was in THE STING or TOWERING INFERNO.

But Tom is so well-known as the young, gung-ho sort of Top Gun character that, I think, maybe audiences weren’t ready to see him as the weathered, cynical drifter. On top of that was the controversy among fans of the books that Tom was not a physical twin for the literary version of Reacher, which in hindsight maybe should have been addressed more directly, perhaps the way it was handled when he was cast as Lestat for INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE.

But enough about REACHER – We’re here to talk about FAVOR!

Of course, relatively speaking, REACHER was mega-budget in comparison to FAVOR. And there is certainly a difference tackling one versus the other – namely, it was pretty much certain that FAVOR was not going to be able to be scored with a 90-piece orchestra as REACHER was. FAVOR’s score was going to need to be created on a more modest budget, just from a production standpoint. But outside of that, it doesn’t impact my take on the material in a dramatic sense – in any project, I’m still writing music that helps create a mood, a sense of drama, perhaps urgency where needed, or to speak for a character that isn’t onscreen at the moment. Things like that.

Some movies CAN BE easier than others, but not for any consistent reason – that is, comedy isn’t inherently easier than drama or action. Now, I’ve done a LOT of scores that sort of live in the darker depths of our psyches, such as FEMME FATALES and even going back to one of my first feature scores, BURN. FAVOR is one of those films as well. So when I have a piece that takes place in that neighbourhood, dramatically speaking, I’m definitely working with a musical vocabulary I’ve had a lot of experience in.

IAN: You’re a rarity in the world of film composing, in that you’re not afraid to leave moments devoid of any music. I find this can make some moments play out more dramatically. Is there a nervousness on your part doing that, as essentially it’s up to you to provide the film’s music and tone? Or is it more important to know when not to put music in?

JOE KRAEMER: This is a two-sided issue. One side relating to the dramatic needs of the film, and the other side relating to the modern sensibility and second-guessing that goes on, especially at the studio level, when it comes to music in movies. On the dramatic side, it can be highly effective to use music as sparingly as possible in a film – for example, the movie PATTON has about 30 minutes of score for a three-hour movie. I don’t think anyone feels like PATTON suffers as a result, certainly the Academy didn’t when it awarded the film seven Oscars and three additional nominations, including Best Score. I personally believe that wall-to-wall music numbs the audience to the effectiveness of music. Using music in moderation increases its presence when it’s there.

This, to me, runs counter to the prevailing instinct in contemporary film, at least at the studio level. Most films seem to be heavily scored, and the films that use less music are few and far between (CAST AWAY was one such film, and it was a rarity). I think mainstream movies in general are released in such a competitive atmosphere that very little is left to chance. It is believed that the audience MUST know how to feel at all times. They must know who the characters are the instant they appear onscreen, the story must be clear and character motivations must be identifiable.

Television is where we see many of the ideals of 1970’s filmmaking coming to fruition, not only in terms of the use of score, but also the development of characters, and ambiguity in their nature.

This may seem like I’ve gone off on a tangent, but it comes back to music in this way: In the modern cinematic landscape, we (the audience) must always know who the hero is, we must always have a safety net of the score telling us exactly what emotion the film makers are trying to inspire. We must not ever be torn between liking and hating our protagonist. So music is used heavily to act almost as a commentary track on the film to keep us on-the-rails, so to speak. Now, sometimes, that is done not with score but the placement of songs, but overall modern mainstream films rarely go very long without SOME sort of music playing.

All that being said, in a perfect world these secondary reasons for including music would not exist, and we would only use score or songs where they are absolutely necessary. I think it is very important to be able to sense when music is gilding the lily, one might say, and that its absence would be more effective.

IAN: Regarding FAVOR, Paul and his crew have created something that the music is equally responsible for – something rather special. How and when did your working relationship with Paul Osborne begin?

JOE KRAEMER: My first experience with Paul was in 2004 on the film TEN ‘TIL NOON, which he wrote for director Scott Storm (the first filmmaker I ever worked with, when I was 15). During the following months and years, as TTN made the festival circuit, Paul shot a documentary about film festivals called OFFICIAL REJECTION, which he asked me to write the music for as well. Now, almost ten years since we met, we’ve finally worked together on Paul’s first narrative film as director – FAVOR.

IAN: Scoring a film like FAVOR must have been tricky as neither of the two leads, Kip and Marvin, are especially likeable but the story makes you start to root for one or the other, despite yourself. How difficult is it to write for unlikable characters, or characters we’re lead to think are unlikable? Or do you keep it intentionally neutral to let the audience decide?

JOE KRAEMER: I approached the scoring on two levels: For the score in general, I felt the music could keep us from losing sight of the real victim in the film, who is *SPOILER DELETED*. So the somewhat sad piano theme is really their theme, even though it never really underscores any of their scenes. I also chose a distinctive sound to act as a sort of aural asterisk to bring in like the shark theme in JAWS. Something short, immediately identifiable, but also to misdirect the audience or bring the danger into a scene when it wasn’t literally present.

The second level of scoring was the moment-to-moment music, which came from a very dark place, as it usually accompanied scenes of discomfort, unrest, gruesome conversations, or worse. In that capacity, I was not concerned about how likeable the characters were or even being neutral in any way. Instead, I simply tried writing music that was appropriate for the things we were seeing on-screen.

As a composer, I usually first approach a scene from the point of view of the audience. That is, “How is this scene making me feel?”… Then I endeavour to compose music that doesn’t conflict with that feeling, music that instead is in sync with that emotion. Sometimes, after taking that approach, I go back and change things. Perhaps score the scene “against type”, you might say. For example, maybe two lovers are arguing and the first instinct is to underplay their anger with each other. But upon further reflection I realise the music would be more effective if it played the underlying love between the couple rather than the superficial bitterness they are feeling.

That being said, there is definitely a reluctance in mainstream films to get too emotional with music, which is why we’ve seen an abundance of drone-y scores that give a scene some feeling of importance without defining in any way what exactly that feeling is. When I first saw that approach, possibly in AMERICAN BEAUTY, I found it very effective, but now it’s become so overused I find it infuriating. Most composers I speak to agree, but film makers like it, and we all want to please our producers and directors, so we go along with it.

IAN: Can you describe the equipment and/or orchestra you used for FAVOR?

JOE KRAEMER: This score was realised in my home studio using a PC-based system running Sonar, Gigastudio, Kontakt and Spectrasonics’ Omnispheres virtual instrument. I prefer the Vienna Symphonic Library for my woodwinds and strings, and I amplify their bass and percussion with Project Sam libraries. I also use Pro-Tools for video playback and final delivery.

IAN: The audience reaction to FAVOR at festivals has, thus far, been immense. It must be great to be part of a smaller production that’s really hit a nerve with people.

JOE KRAEMER: Truly, it is. Of course, when you make a small film, you’re hopeful it will be seen by ANYBODY, so when it does hit the screen and then people react positively to it, it’s extremely gratifying.

IAN: Thank you for being so generous with your time, and your brilliant work on FAVOR. What’s next for you? Dare I guess a “Mission” that must be accepted?

JOE KRAEMER: In the year since I wrote the score for FAVOR, I’ve composed music for DAWN PATROL, a film which reunited me with director Dan Petrie Jr, who I worked with in 2001 on FRAMED for TNT. Right now I’m knee-deep in the composition for Ken Kilkin’s new movie, currently titled BLOOD MOON. Ken Produced THE WAY OF THE GUN and THE USUAL SUSPECTS and this is his feature debut as a director.

No missions have been formally offered to me, but I would imagine if one were, I would choose to accept it.

———-

What Paul and his cast and crew have accomplished with FAVOR is to make a film that I truly believe will engross people, and quite possibly divide them. Morality tales are nothing new in the cinema world, or storytelling in general, but more often than not they get too caught up in the morality aspect; to focus on what I’m sure learned scholars would call the “oh shit” moment, and let the character work and story leading up to that moment fall by the wayside.

This is where FAVOR is such a breath of fresh air. It may not have the budget others do, but Paul Osborne has turned this into a huge benefit for the film. When you don’t have the option to reach beyond your budget and possibly cloud what made the idea seem great in the first place, you focus on what you DO have. Characters. Story. Performance. Anyone can put an alien or dinosaur on the screen if you have the money. Not everyone can make you care about two people talking in a room. That, to me, is simply better film making.

Since writing this article I was able to have a one-on-one chat with Paul, and I can absolutely vouch for everything I assumed about him before. He is an extremely open and honest guy, incredibly funny and articulate, and OH BOY does he know his movies. In fact, the guy is just a blast to talk to. What was intended as a 10 or 15 minute chat quickly became just shy of an hour, and by the end had quickly descended from serious questions to two geeks comparing our DVD and Blu-ray collections. Basically this is a person who LOVES what’s he’s doing and works damn hard at it. Oh, and if you see him, buy him a burrito.

Now, of course I’m a fan of the film, and an ardent advocate for audiences to see it, but I stress that I only became so after watching it. I have no affiliations with the production, and it was just blind luck and the generosity of these people that I managed to put this piece together in the hope that, like me, you’re itching to see an original, well crafted, thought-provoking piece of cinema.

FAVOR will be available to all of your eager, film-hungry eyes on iTunes and VOD from TUESDAY 22nd APRIL!!! Now stop reading my inanity and go do yourself a FAVOR!

www.favormovie.com

Super Indie Man; Blayne Weaver’s Secret Identity.

Blayne Weaver is a man. A super man. In his case quite literally. And by that I simply mean the first time I saw him he was in the blue and red, the tights, the cape, the kiss curl and the big red “S”. Now that’s the jokey intro out of the way, let’s get down to it.

As someone that has been through the hell of trying to make an indie film, I know how disheartening, how soul crushing, and ultimately how rewarding it can be. But make no bones, it’s a slog. And you simply can’t do it unless you absolutely believe that you need to do it. The first time I saw Blayne’s work he was dressed as Superman in an online short film called “Losing Lois Lane”, a brilliant original that depicted Supes as super-depressed after Lois dumped him, was becoming an annoying roommate to Jimmy Olsen and couldn’t be bothered with saving the world. It was an astoundingly smart and precise piece of work, given the budget.

Since then, Blayne has upped his game on every project, still working in the confounds of indie budgets but adding to his actor repairtoire the likes of Jane Lynch (“Glee”), Dave Foley (“The Kids In The Hall”, “News Radio”), and Martin Starr (“Freaks & Geeks”, “Party Down”, anything good on TV).

From “Lois” to his next films “Outside Sales” and “Weather Girl”, Blayne Weaver has proved time and again that a low budget shouldn’t hinder the quality of a movie. That part sits solely on the shoulders of the writer and director. In this case, Blayne Weaver is both. And with each succesive film he raises the bar and ups his game. As well as this he has worked with fine cast after fine cast and always brought the best out of them.

Nothing is better proof of this than “6 Month Rule”, his most recent film and an absolute triumph for him and all involved. In recent years, I personally feel the rom-com genre has suffered from too much gross-out humour and convoluted situations. “6 Month Rule” is a charming, genuinely romantic and funny film, but above all it feels real. With real people. Doing what real people would do.

Blayne Weaver is a wonderfully charming and insightful man who was gracious enough to spend some time to answer some questions for me. I have presented the interview in full.

Interview with Blayne Weaver:

Ian: As you’re someone that clearly loves film, which is apparent to anyone that’s seen your work; the character work, the immersion in stories, the humour in life’s everyday, what was the first film you remember seeing that made you think “I want to do that”. Is there just one?

Blayne Weaver: There are so many films that made me want to make movies but the first one would have to be “The Empire Strikes Back”.  I was SUPER young but when I was six years old I wrote my first movie… kind of.  I had one of those old school tape recorders and I recorded a movie playing all the parts and had my mom write it out for me.  It was called “The Star Team” (This is before I understood copyright infringement) and it was about… well, it was “Star Wars”.  BUT I WROTE IT AT SIX!  I still have that script and it’s terrible but I do have to say it was the beginning of me knowing I wanted to make movies.

Ian: This is kind of a bad question, but what film do you revisit more than others just to inspire you? Like that book that you must read each year (6 Month Rule in-joke). For me, that doesn’t always equate to my favourite film (I mean The Apartment is my favourite film, but Shawshank and Jaws are what I dig out for inspiration).

BW: I honestly feel that “Casablanca” is the best film I’ve ever seen.  Everything works, the structure is great, the dialogue is perfect and the performances break my heart.  I watch it over and over because it both inspires and comforts me.  I love films that make me want to raise the bar for my work like “Pulp Fiction”, “Back To The Future”, “The Godfather”, “Raising Arizona”, “Broadcast News”, “Bull Durham” and “Taxi Driver”.  These films make me yearn to get back on set.

Ian: Losing Lois Lane was an inspiring short film, your first work that I saw, and a big influence on me. It showed a genuine love (and more importantly, a real understanding) of the superhero genre, an absolutely new take on how people perceive them, and a ridiculously impressive cast. How did this film come to be?

BW: My first screenwriting credit was a film called “Manic” which I wrote with Michael Bacall (“21 Jump Street”, “Scott Pilgrim VS. The World”).  I’m very proud of how that film turned out but I had a very difficult time dealing with the director.  That experience made me want to take control of my own projects.  My business partner in Secret Identity Productions and childhood friend Brandon Barrera thought he had a lead on financing so we wrote this fun Superman spoof.

I’ve always loved Superman and the entire DC universe so the idea of Clark Kent getting dumped and being too depressed to go out and save people made us laugh.  As we got closer, the financier backed out but, by this point, Brandon and I were excited about the film so we financed it ourselves.

We made it with friends and it was a crazy fun experience that, I believe, made a really cool little movie.

Ian: Moving on from Lois, your next projects as a writer/director were Outside Sales and Weather Girl. Both of which saw production values grow and also you expand your rep company of actors impressively, but still keeping your key actors. As a growing director is it important to you to keep the core people that you started with whilst also branching out?

BW: I think it’s important to remember where you came from.  The best jobs I’ve had have come from friends who know I can do it and give me that shot.  I love being that person for other talented people.  Also, there is something so great about having a short hand with people you’re working with.  You trust them, they trust you and everything just moves a lot smoother with that.

Ian: Now let’s talk about 6 Month Rule. Easily the best romantic comedy drama (rom com dram?) I’ve seen in years. How did this project come to fruition, and what was the genesis of it on what was obviously the biggest budget you’ve had to date, but also the biggest ideas and maturity of the execution?

BW: “6 Month Rule” has been a project I’ve been trying to get made for several years.  I was raising money for it in 2007 when financing came through for “Weather Girl”.  “Weather Girl” then did well and made some money so that opened the door for me to raise a bigger budget for 6MR.

What I really like about the film is that it’s not easy.  The audience has to work a bit.  The main character Tyler has teeth and behaves badly at certain points but ultimately, the film is about him becoming a better man.

(Warning: next questions involve spoilers)

Ian: Natalie is a revelation in her performance. Not many writer/directors manage the trick of writing a fantastic and realistic female character, and then directing them to such a point where you may or may not agree with her, but you believe her. Can you talk about writing her part and casting her?

BW: A couple years ago I did a guest star on a television show called “The Middleman”.  I played an alien and my face was buried under all these prosthetics.  When I showed up on set I met the star of the show Natalie Morales.  She was funny and charming and lovely and then I acted in a scene with her and I thought “This girl is going to be a star”.

Cut to about three weeks before shooting.  I was on location driving to work wracking my brain about casting and I thought of Natalie.  She didn’t remember me (because of all the prosthetics) but I remembered her and she turned in a beautiful performance.   I credit myself with a moment of genius that afternoon.

Ian: Although at its core it seems like a traditional love story between a man and a woman, some might say the real love story is between your character and Martin Starr, without ever delving into clichés. Was that intentional, and how close did you work with Martin on finding that unique aspect?

BW: Absolutely intentional.  The friendship between Tyler and Alan is the most important relationship in the film.  Martin Starr is a tremendous talent.  He is kind of a comedic genius but then can give such a subtle and real performance.  We discussed the friendship dynamic extensively.  Even though these two men are drastically different and sometimes don’t treat each other the best, that underlying love for one another has to exist and I really think you get that from the film.

(This next two are definitely a spoiler)

Ian: The ending of 6 Month Rule may be seen as controversial for a film billed as a romantic comedy, but I felt it had a more real feeling to it, and in a way incredibly uplifting. Was this the intent, and were you worried?

BW: At the end, I think, Tyler is a better man but that’s not always enough and that’s the reality. The reconcilliation between Alan and Tyler hopefully is uplifting.

The key to 6MR is the reality.  All the characters and scenarios need to seem familiar.  If it’s not real then the realistic ending doesn’t work.  A romantic comedy is normally the fairy tale version of love with very little realism.  There is nothing wacky about this world.  “6 Month Rule” is a relationship drama about people who happen to be funny.

Ian: Do you think the point of Tyler’s journey was not so much getting the girl, but getting to the point where he realised he could get to the point of putting away childish things and knowing he was ready to grow up?

BW: Absolutely.  This film is a coming of age story for a man in his mid-thirties.

(spoilers end)

Ian: And what’s next for you and Secret Indentity? Still keeping the trusty cast members?

BW: I’m actually acting in a film that is about to have it’s festival release. “Favor” from writer/director Paul Osborne is a psychological thriller about what happens when my character asks his childhood best friend to help him move a body (http://www.favormovie.com).  It premieres at the Phoenix Film Festival in April.

Up next for Secret Identity is a heist film called “Clip Joint” about three friends who knock over a bar run by a mob boss.  Really excited to be trying out a new genre and having a little more action.

And yes, it will be a collaboration with the people I’ve been luck enough to work with in the past. For instance, I’m writing the script with Paul Osborne who I just worked with on “Favor” and, if I’m lucky, I will get to use some of my cast from previous films… We’ll see.

UPDATE!

To celebrate the DVD release of 6 Month Rule on May 28th (my birthday) I’m reposting this interview but with ADDED BONUS DVD FEATURES! You’ll find lots of these on the 6 Month Rule DVD, but Blayne was lovely enough to chat with me on Skype a few days after the initial interview and answer a few more (admittedly silly) questions. So think of this as an extra gem. And of course you’re welcome. Reward yourself by getting a copy of 6 Month Rule TODAY!!!!

NEW QUESTIONS!

Ian: Is there a dream project you have lined up or in mind for the future, as either writer or director?

BW: (first email) Writing or directing the upcoming Justice League movie. Not going to happen, I’m afraid, but I would kill that shit!

BW: (second email, 3 mins later) And a James Bond movie. Okay. That’s it.

BW: (third email, 2 mins later) Or a Batman movie. Okay. That’s it.

Personally I could see any of those being a success!

The work Blayne has put out there is both inspiring and an unbelievable joy. It doesn’t really matter whether you know his work or not. The thing is you SHOULD know his work. “Losing Lois Lane” is a really fun, but incredibly smart short. “Outside Sales” and “Weather Girl” both mark a huge leap forward in his craft.

And “6 Month Rule” is the crux of a man on the cusp of hitting the big time. But if his past record is anything to go by he’ll do it his way and it’ll be all the better for it.

http://www.6monthrulemovie.com

“6 Month Rule” premieres on DVD on May 28!  Pre-Order DVDs here:  http://www.amazon.com/6-Month-Rule-Blayne-Weaver/dp/B00BCJR9OS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid63046826&sr=8-2&keywords=6+month+rule

Follow him on Twitter: @blayneweaver

The Podcasting Couch

The Podcasting Couch.

By Ian Crabb.

As a consumer of new technology for over ten years, I’ve seen trends come and go. I’ve endeavoured with some of them, and held on to those that mattered. A good example is the podcast. I remember trying to explain to my mother what a podcast was. “You know those TV chat shows you like? It’s like that, without pictures, but better”.

So we’re clear, and so you can all snuggle under the same audio blanket as me, here’s the podcasts I shall be discussing:

Pop My Culture (@pmcpodcast)
Fuzzy Typewriter (@fuzzytypewriter)

There’s a huge amount of podcasts out there. In fact the market has become quite saturated in the last couple of years, so it’s hard to find or discern the good from the bad. Here’s the thing about GOOD podcasts; Regardless of the subject, they make you feel welcome. They make you feel like you’re in a room with the participants and part of the conversation. This is a hard trick to pull off, as being able to relate to and, more than anything else, LIKE your hosts is the seed from which listeners are born.

You don’t need an angle, necessarily, or a gimmick. The trick is to be inviting. Whether your show is about advanced mathematics or the latest Batman rumour, if you don’t give your audience an “in” then you’re basically audio wanking. Luckily, more than most get it right, especially the lovely folks who agreed to answer my questions about podcasting for this piece.

Pop My Culture is hosted by Cole Stratton and Vanessa Ragland. Every show has a guest, from people you may have heard of to people you hadn’t yet but will love by the end. It’s a light and breezy affair with great chemistry, but it’s a clever way to ease the guests in and make them comfortable before talking more in depth. And the guests always have a great time. If nothing else it will start you playing your own “You’ve angered a wizard” game. And to say it’s laugh out loud funny is an understatement, as Cole and Vanessa are a joy to listen to.

Fuzzy Typewriter is from the stupidly clever mind brain of Paul Montgomery, a gentle soul with exquisite taste and a ridiculous memory. He and equally brilliant co-host Dave Accampo talk everything from books to comics to Game Of Thrones to movies with such welcoming insight and knowledge that you literally finish each episode feeling smarter (their Alien franchise deconstruction was monumental).

Both these podcasts have inspired me, entertained me and made me want to talk about them so more people can do the same. Luckily for me, Cole & Vanessa and Paul were kind enough to answer some questions for me about how they got started and podcasting in general. Hold on to your butts, it’s a doozy of an interview…

Interview with Cole Stratton & Vanessa Ragland (Pop My Culture) and Paul Montgomery (Fuzzy Typewriter):

Ian: How are you?

Vanessa: Well. Up too early, but I just re-read The Little Prince.
Cole: On the final swing of a vacay in Maui. Tough life.
Paul: Balmy. Can a person be balmy? If not, humid and overcast.

Ian: What inspired you to start a podcast, and which podcasts, if any, were you listening to prior and/or prompted you to start your own?

Paul: I got my first Mac for film school and somewhere around that time the little purple “i” icon popped up iTunes. I was taken with the idea of self produced commentary and radio programming as free entertainment.
Vanessa: Cole and I had been improvising together for some time on a team called Bruce at Westside Comedy, so we knew we got along and had a blast together. Cole had the idea of doing a show, and I was super excited.
Cole: We had a bunch of podcasts at SF Sketchfest, the comedy fest I run with my partners David Owen and Janet Varney. This was about two years ago and I thought “Well, I know too much disposable pop culture nonsense. I should do something with that”.
Paul: In the lead-up to a tonsillectomy I got it into my head that people recovering typically ate ice cream, watched cartoons and read comic books. Wanting to embrace that I started listening to iFanboy’s Pick Of The Week podcast to know what to read.
Cole: I immediately thought of Vanessa. We just wanted it to be loose, goofy and fun, and good natured.
Vanessa: I listened to some podcasts but didn’t devotedly follow any – WTF, a bunch of NPR content, and then just shows where the guests were people I was interested in.
Paul: I’d do little audio sketches with Windows WAV and a cheap Gateway mic. Impressions of teachers and renditions of Bee Gees songs in chicken clucks. At the same time I’d probably name Pump Up The Volume as my favourite film. I remember being a little bitter I was born too late for the days of HAM radio and radio dramas. It’s all magic to me, what you can do with sound and storytelling.

Ian: Talk me through a typical podcast day. Locations, equipment. How much setting up time is needed? Do you edit afterwards or post the entire talk as it is?

Paul: Very little time for my show, certainly. Originally I bought a podcasting kit and a bunch of books not worth listing. Even a handheld field recorder with the romantic notion of capturing on-the-fly interviews to edit into my show. But my format hasn’t really gotten that complex. I sold the recorder to a friend.
Vanessa: Typically, a podcast day starts with obsessive vacuuming because we record at my house and I have the killer combo of dogs and carpet. Then I move on to the glamorous stuff – doing the dishes and cleaning the toilet. Thirty minutes before the guest arrives Cole comes over. Usually at this point I’m realising I need to get dressed.
Cole: What V said. Thirty minutes of set up once I get there. Vanessa and I review our notes before our guest arrives and then we let the “magic” happen! Magic is in quotes in case you don’t like our show.
Vanessa: Our set up is pretty simple; a board and four mics. John (my husband/our producer) sets that up and we record onto both mine and Cole’s Macs – “JICSHHAWPTWBALTWP” as we say in the biz (“just in case something horrible happens and we push the wrong button and lose the whole podcast”).
Paul: These days I’m using a Blue Yeti USB mic and a pair of Bose headphones. It’s overkill but it’s clean and it works. Just plug in and fire up Skype. I’d say 95% of the time, on my own show at least, I don’t edit the conversation at all. Not unless anyone makes a huge gaffe that would ruin them and all they love (it happens). Mostly it’s just to make me look smarter.
Vanessa: We rarely edit much content out, but sometimes there are lags that we snip or me running to the bathroom (usually left in), or if anyone says something they regret about a past lover.

Ian: As none of your podcasts are monetized, apart from the odd sponsor, how much does running a continual podcast cost you personally? (exact figures not necessary, or feel free to disregard the entire question).

Vanessa: Good question! Think the initial cost for equipment was in the $200 range. Our hosting fees used to be quite low but as our listener base grew we had to upgrade – now around $50 a month? Usually John works the boards “for free” (except for the emotional blackmail) but occasionally we have to pay for a sound engineer.
Paul: It’s a labour of love. It runs me about 20 clams a month. There have been months where I paid for extra upload space but I realised I was encoding at a stupidly high bit rate and could scale back to keep under the usual monthly cap without a problem.
Cole: We have Internet hosting fees, as well as occasional purchases like DVDs to be signed by our guests to give away to listeners. It’s more of a time issue, but we love doing it so it’s worth the effort.
Vanessa: The biggest investment (cue corny music) is our time. Scheduling guests, researching them, episode editing and getting it up takes some effort (Writers note: snigger!). That said, I think podcasting is still one of the easiest/most accessible mediums and is wonderful in terms of satisfaction and ability to produce something simply with a quick turnaround.

Ian: As a fan of your podcasts, and someone that respects you, I can say how much I enjoy your work but how much do you enjoy podcasting? Do you ever worry it’ll start to feel like a job, and if it does would it make you think twice about continuing?

Vanessa: Thanks for being sweet! I think as long as people are willing to come and talk to us, we’ll enjoy it.
Paul: This is the second or third iteration of my podcast. It’s also the longest continuous run. I stopped the first “seasons” of the show after a handful of episodes because I was editing the bejesus out of it and intent on keeping it to a regular release schedule. I was putting unnecessary pressure on myself, especially for a hobby. This time I sat down with my co-host (David Accampo) and we agreed we’d only do it so long as it was fun.
Cole: It rarely ever feels like a job. Sometimes we have a hard time getting a guest lined up and we start to panic, because we don’t want it to release too late, but we don’t want to scramble. So that’s probably when it feels like work the most. Otherwise, it’s a ton of fun.
Vanessa: We really love chatting and laughing with all these people we respect! I feel so lucky to get to have all these conversations and I don’t think that will ever change.
Paul: It should never feel like a chore. It should never get in the way of life. It hasn’t and we’ve been more productive and produced better content because of it.

Ian: How easy/difficult is it to book guests? Any horror stories? (names need not be mentioned, unless you want to shame them)

Paul: Booking isn’t difficult as all our guests are friends, even the creative professionals. So I can’t speak to booking nightmares. I will say it’s difficult to schedule a recording with participants in LA, Philly and Glasgow. That’s a huge time difference!
Vanessa: It certainly has gotten easier as we’ve grown. It’s a bit sporadic – sometimes we’ll have people or their management call us, sometimes we’ll get someone magically (like via Twitter) and sometimes we’re in a pinch. No horror stories at all, we’ve been very lucky!
Cole: There was that one murderer we booked, but the police caught him before he killed Vanessa. Our guest sound engineer wasn’t so lucky. The hardest part is just getting the schedules to align.
Paul: It’s not nearly as hard as it should be if you really think about it. To chat up friends on various continents at the same time with negligible lag, for free? The future is amazing. But today’s pretty great too.

Ian: With podcasts increasing in popularity, and so many around now, how hard is it to break through and get yours heard?

Cole: I think our timing was really good – We got in about a year and a half ago, when podcasts were growing in popularity but the marketplace wasn’t as crowded as it is now. We found a “hook” for the show, and made sure we booked good, known guests to get ears to it. Then it just happens in stages.
Vanessa: I think Nerdist has really helped us get listened to, plus the calibre of our guests, and we were lucky enough to get some love from blogs. We’re not number one on the charts but we’re not buried either.
Paul: I don’t worry too much about breaking through any sound barriers. I’m grateful and a little astonished we have the listeners we do, from so many different parts of the world.
Cole: The Rolling Stone article came out and our listenership tripled. Then Nerdist happened and it tripled again. The hope is that they come for, say, Felicia Day, but then they stay for us going forward.
Vanessa: We started with a “disadvantage” in that neither Cole nor I were superstars, so I think a good step to breaking through would be getting really famous FIRST and then doing a podcast. Like, if Angelina Jolie started a podcast, I think she might get top 50 in iTunes. IF SHE IS LUCKY AND CONSISTENT! THIS ISN’T EASY, ANGIE. YOU CAN’T JUST JET-SET WHEN YOU HAVE A GUEST WAITING IN YOUR LIVING ROOM!

Ian: What’s the one podcast you can’t live without? (your answer may be your own show)

Cole: Well, yeah, Pop My Culture. It’s my favourite thing to do. Never Not Funny was inspirational for me, so I’d probably say that one.
Vanessa: GOD? (JK?) (Writers note: Honest to goodness I don’t know what V’s on about here).
Paul: Right now I’d say NPR’s Fresh Air and Bookrageous.

Ian: Dream guest and topic of discussion? (Vanessa was banned from choosing either an Olsen twin or Zac Efron – listen to their show and you’ll understand why)

Vanessa: That’s a stupid rule! I choose Mary-Kate and Ashley AND Zac Efron. And Carol Burnett. She’s my real choice.
Paul: I’ve talked to them individually, but I’d love to have comic and prose writers Scott Snyder and Greg Rucka on the same show talking about craft and whatever media they’re currently enjoying. A lot of my shoot-for-the-moon ideas involve getting two or more storytellers I really admire and putting them together, even if it’s to talk shop about a movie or TV show we all enjoy. Another pairing in that mode: Crime writers Megan Abbot and Gillian Flynn.
Cole: Albert Brooks. Although I would be completely tongue tied. He’s my comedy hero.

Ian: Finally, would you ever charge for your podcast, and where do you think the future of podcasting is going?

Vanessa: I would charge a million dollars if someone wanted to pay that much, BUT NO LESS! As it stands, since we are free, I like to think of our show like love and credit cards – “priceless”. Seriously, I doubt we’d ever charge. We love providing free fun content, and it also makes us feel better when we make an episode someone doesn’t like. At least they didn’t have to pay to hate us!
Cole: I don’t think we’d charge for it. I feel bad enough when sometimes we have sponsor ads to read in the show and people complain. Then I remind myself we’re giving them an hour plus of free content and all they have to do is listen (or forward through) a minute of sponsorship ads, the money from which goes directly back into the costs associated with doing the show. It’s not like we’re Scrooge McDuck diving into swimming pools of gold coins.
Paul: I can’t imagine justifying charging for Fuzzy Typewriter. The nature of our show, I don’t look at our listeners that way. That’s not our relationship. This is friends talking. Believe me, I love money. I am fortunate enough to make my money through artistic endeavour. I’d like to make more money through more artistic endeavour. But this isn’t the vehicle for that.
Vanessa: Podcasting is a pretty over saturated ocean, but I think as long as people are talking about things that interest them, with interesting people, they’ll find a fan base. We live in a world of niches just waiting to be filled. We’re also a generation who connect with the world in a unique way, often through screens. I think the intimacy of podcasting – a medium where you get to hear people relating and discussing things – is quite appealing to those of us who spend most of our days alone – with the Internet, you’re never alone! SOMEONE IS WATCHING YOU RIGHT NOW.

As a suitably creepy way to end there (thank you, Vanessa), I’ll just quickly wrap up. A podcast is a nice conversation you can hear any time you want, and even take it with you. And these guys do it so well. I urge you to listen to their shows. My most sincere and humble thanks to the lovely Vanessa, Cole and Paul for indulging me with their time and thoughts.

Pop My Culture can be found at popmyculturepodcast.com and on iTunes. Follow on twitter with @pmcpodcast and the hosts @colestratton and @vanessaragland.

Fuzzy Typewriter can be found at fuzzytypewriter.com and also on iTunes. You can follow Paul the man himself on twitter @fuzzytypewriter and his excellent and lovely co-host Dave @daccampo.

Next time: Porn!

… (that was a joke… or was it?… yeah it was)