SAGIndie

When SAGIndie’s Director, Darrien Gipson, asked me to write about working on the micro-budgeted ANOTHER EARTH, I immediately agreed, partly because she’s not an easy person to refuse, but mostly because she’s a tireless supporter of SAG and independent filmmakers. (It did occur to me, though, that she’d might have been just as happy if I let her use a Wanted-style photo of myself with “$100/day” pasted across my forehead. It wouldn’t have made my reps very happy, but she’d have gotten it a lot sooner than it’s taken me to send her this piece.)

With my customary habit of trying to find the takeaways, here’s my current list from Another Earth:

• Be proactive.
• Question your assumptions.
• Give 100%, especially when it seems unnecessary.
• Choose goals which are under your control.
• Welcome the advantage of limitations.

Nothing too novel there, I know, but they’re particularly helpful to me in the case of AE, because this project was so unusual. If the lessons apply there, they apply almost anywhere. But my lessons are not yours, so take away what you will. Here’s my AE story in three pieces: finding, committing, and shooting.

Finding: To demonstrate just how random my path was, let me start back in 2007. At a reading in LA by New Yorker writer Adam Gopnik, by chance I met a NYC theater and artistic director. I’d been hankering for stage work, so I made an effort to stay in touch and see him back East. Cut to 2009: He was running all Shakespeare programs at the Public Theater, and he asked if I knew anyone who wanted to attend their annual Shakespeare Lab for actors. Uh, yeah: me. So, the summer of 2009 found me in NYC, usually wandering the sidewalks reciting iambic pentameter to myself.

To take full advantage of being there, I sent my manager a list of NYC casting directors whom I hadn’t met, and I asked him to set up some general introduction meetings in early August. At one appointment, in Chelsea, the building was being renovated. The elevator was out, construction was loud and dusty, and the casting directors and I had to meet in an open area they shared with other offices. Light chitchat, twenty-five minutes in and out. It was very inauspicious. Then, two weeks later in Los Angeles, I unexpectedly received a script from them.

Committing: Starting the previous winter, AE’s director, Mike Cahill, and his co-writer, producer and star, Brit Marling, had begun shooting the movie. They just had a script and camera and off they went, long before they had everything in place, e.g., an actor to play opposite Brit. They’d convinced producer Hunter Gray to pony up a small budget —and I mean very, very small — and the two of them began shooting around West Haven, Connecticut, calling in favors and scrounging and scamming as necessary.

They continued shooting what they could through the spring and summer, but they still couldn’t find an actor they liked for my role. Then, in August after the dusty encounter in Chelsea, the casting director asked Mike and Brit about casting me, and they liked the idea (at least that’s the story I’ve heard). The offer and project details were this, basically: “We have a tiny budget, a first-time feature director, an actress so new she’s not even in SAG yet, and we’re going to pay you as little as your union will allow. Interested?”

How could I refuse, right? Shockingly, though, sometimes I have passed on just such an offer. But several things made this one different. First, the script. The story was unusual and interesting. Almost as unusual was that it was well-written, suggesting that I could expect such a level of care and intelligence from the entire project. Second, it was a new character for me. If I was going to take a chance on a new director and actress for no pay, I at least wanted to try something which is difficult to find with higher-budgeted films: an opportunity to step out of the pigeonhole. Third, the casting director sent some assembled footage that Mike and Brit had shot. It didn’t take a genius to see that Mike knew how to shoot and Brit how to act.

Finally, the three of us got along very well right from the start. Because low budgets can magnify personality differences, I asked to meet with them before I committed. My concern was unnecessary. Our brief lunch at Izzy’s Deli lasted until well into the afternoon. It was clear they were bright, fun, optimistic and focused on making the best possible movie. They agreed to spend about a week rehearsing my scenes, and I was on board.

Shooting: One day on the set of Mission: Impossible 2, John Woo explained his options: “In Hong Kong, no money, lots of time. In Hollywood, lots of money, no time.” We didn’t really have much of either one, but the production clock hadn’t started ticking yet.

So, for about a week and a half, the three of us met at my house to rehearse and workshop my scenes. We analyzed, specified, and ran the scenes again and again. Rather than resisting input, they welcomed it. Not to placate me—plenty of my suggestions were kindly put to bed—but because they trusted themselves to recognize a good idea and to disagree with me. And they were secure and smart enough to use a good idea without feeling threatened. Our rehearsal time together was invaluable. By the time we headed back East to shoot, Mike and I had a shorthand, and Brit and I had our characters’ dynamic.

Production kicked off in early October with a car accident scene, shot overnight in West Haven, where Mike had finagled a free closing of the coastal road. The next day the whole production (all, what, twelve of us?) drove to mid-state New York, near Delhi. We stayed in a small motel, and the set (my character’s house) was owned by a friend of Mike and Brit.

Without fail, the focus from everyone was on making the movie as good as it could be. We shot digital (a Sony EX3), which in many ways is an actor’s dream. Less time spent lighting allowed Brit and me to keep up our emotional momentum, and it also meant we had time for more takes. In fact, at one point a scene wasn’t working, and we just stopped shooting for almost an hour to figure it out.

Every morning the associate producer cooked the crew breakfast in our picture kitchen, and every afternoon Brit cleaned it up for the camera. The crew could’ve fit in a station wagon, and sometimes did, and our tireless, ingenious production team spent the very chilly days about thirty yards from the house, in an unheated, dangerously rickety barn.

Mike was director, DP and camera operator, and Brit was both acting and producing. Our production designer handled wardrobe, and our 1st AD was the script supervisor. The producers were just as likely as anyone else to be moving furniture and making meal runs. The changing rooms for Brit and me doubled as storage for furniture and lighting equipment. The house had one bathroom, shared by all. I had cell service…if Iwent up to the gravel road and stood on the bank of the creek.

All of which is to say, the conditions were not luxurious. Money and scheduling were tight, and we were all underfoot of someone else. But the script, the planning, and the atmosphere among the crew were all strong. The result? I’ve seldom had a more fun and satisfying shoot. Everything else—the movie’s quality, Sundance, Searchlight, good reviews, a nationwide release—is icing.

———

William Mapother is an actor, writer and entrepreneur. His company, Slated.com, will soon be in beta as the first online marketplace for film finance. He stars in ANOTHER EARTH, which was bought at Sundance by Fox Searchlight, and last weekend played in over 90 domestic markets. His website is williammapother.com.

What do movies like Swingers, Napoleon Dynamite, and Boys Don’t Cry have in common? They are financially successful, critically acclaimed films which feature star making performances by members of the Screen Actors Guild. And they are all independent films shot under one of the Screen Actors Guild Low Budget Agreements.

SAGIndie, the outreach program for independent filmmakers, which promotes these Low Budget Agreements turns 10 in January 2007, and so we’d like to mark this anniversary by looking back at history of the low budget agreements and SAGIndie, as well as looking ahead to plans for the future.

“Birth of the Indie Nation”

The late 1960′s were a turbulent time for the nation, and no less so for Hollywood. With the major studios continuing to lose relevance due to lowered artistic standards and stiff competition from television, the future of American cinema seemed bleak. As is often the case, however, adversity breeds opportunity, and a generation of new, independent minded producers, writers, and directors stepped into the void created by the major studio’s moment of weakness.

New names began to appear over the titles of films in American movie theaters: John Cassavetes, Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks, Francis Ford Coppola, and Robert Altman, to name just a few, filmmakers who bravely explored facets of American culture that the studios had been ignoring. Audiences responded. The Hollywood Renaissance had begun.

It was in this atmosphere of change that the Screen Actors Guild, sensing the growing importance of independent film, and eager to become creative collaborators with the new vanguard of American film, presciently created the first Low Budget Agreement on July 10, 1969. This contract made it possible for filmmakers whose budgets would otherwise make it difficult (if not impossible) for them to avail themselves of the deep Screen Actors Guild talent pool to become contract signatories. It also brought low budget films under the Guild’s oversight, guaranteeing safe working conditions, P&H contributions, and residuals for SAG members working on these films. The Low Budget Agreement, like the various new agreements which would follow, laid out a framework of mutually beneficial cooperation between independent filmmakers and the Screen Actors Guild.

“Taking the Word to the People”

From the inception of the Low Budget Agreements to the 1990′s, the contracts would periodically be revised to reflect the ever-changing landscape of independent film-making. However, with wunderkind Quentin Tarantino and the rapidly growing Sundance Film Festival thrusting indie film into the spotlight, and digital film technology making it cheaper than ever to produce independent films, the Guild decided an aggressive outreach approach was needed to ensure that the coming wave of new filmmakers were aware of the real benefits of becoming contract signatories.

And so, in 1997, SAGIndie was born. Funded by a grant from the Industry Advancement Cooperative Fund (IACF), with oversight by the Screen Actors Guild, SAGIndie was created to market SAG to a whole new generation of independent filmmakers. By taking the news about the Low Budget Agreements to indie producers, the hope was that these new filmmakers, many who had never worked with the Guild before, and some of whom were openly hostile to the Guild, would come into the union fold, entering into a partnership with their actors in which both sides could benefit.

Through ubiquitous and creative marketing of the Low Budget Agreements, sponsorship of film festivals and other indie film events, a monthly signatory workshop, and a strong presence on the internet, SAGIndie and the Screen Actors Guild began to make headway. In the early years of the Sundance Film Festival, before SAGIndie was launched, the number of SAG films at the festival hovered around 25% of entrants. 10 years later, that number is consistently over 90%.

“Doing it for Ourselves”

These numbers suggest that independent producers have gotten the word that SAG is willing to work with them. But, interestingly enough, the Low Budget Agreements have also helped an unexpected group of filmmakers: the growing number of SAG members who want to take their career into their own hands by making films themselves.

“I’m not a religious man, but thank God for the SAG low budget agreement,” says Adam Goldberg, who has worked on projects ranging from “Joey” to Saving Private Ryan, and who has recently been working on the other side of the camera, making his own films, including festival hit I Love Your Work.

His take on the Low Budget Agreements is straightforward and to the point: Without these contracts, “I would not have been able to direct either of my movies nor would any of us actors have an opportunity to do what sometimes we are only afforded to do on such budgets: Act.”

“Growing and Changing”

In 2005, the Screen Actors Guild completely overhauled the Low Budget Agreements, which were drawn up for a different era, and no longer reflected the realities of the modern indie film business. The old Experimental Contract, source of many a headache for SAG members, staff, and producers, was retired. The Guild replaced it with two new contracts: the Short Film Agreement and the Ultra Low Budget agreement, contracts designed to cover the very lowest end of low budget productions.

These new contracts have helped to ensure that even micro-budget and no-budget films are produced under the auspices of the Guild’s work rules. They have also dramatically increased paying jobs for union members.
Says SAGIndie Director Paul Bales: “One of the things we’re most proud of is the opportunity to help Screen Actors Guild respond to the constant changes in the industry by revising and updating the Low Budget Agreements. This flexibility has allowed the Guild to support films that otherwise might not be made. And the results have benefited everyone. The most recent changes to the agreements have created a fifty percent increase in the number of paying jobs for actors.”

As the Guild closely monitors the growth of alternative distribution systems such as mobisodes, Internet streaming, and download on demand, the Low Budget Agreements are sure to be adapted again to reflect the challenges presented by this new, dynamic technology, all while retaining a steadfast commitment to protecting performer’s rights and pay.

“Coming Soon”

These successes are heartening, but SAGIndie and the Guild are pressing ahead with plans to capitalize on their momentum. Year 10 will see a complete overhaul of the SAGIndie website, a redesign which includes plans for moving more of the Low Budget signatory process online in order to make it more user friendly.
SAGIndie will also continue their renewed push to increase work opportunities for protected groups, by promoting the Diversity In Casting incentives at film festivals, online, and through their newly launched Diversity Screening Series.

The challenges of the future are many, but as in the 1960’s and 1990’s, the opportunities are great. As the industry inexorably moves into the digital age of cinema, SAGIndie and the Screen Actors Guild will continue to look forward to anticipate and respond to these challenges and opportunities.

“Through the work of SAGIndie, actors and filmmakers are finally true partners in the cinematic art form,” says Bales. “We look forward to moving SAGIndie into the next decade by continuing to grow and adapt with the ever-changing independent film industry.”

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

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

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

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

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

How did you become interested in filmmaking?

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

What was your first filmmaking experience?

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

What drew you to the guerilla filmmaking ethos?

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

What is important about guerilla filmmaking?

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

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

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

What made you decide to develop the IGFdb website?

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

What kind of response has the site gotten?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has the response been to Craving Heart?

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

What’s next for you?

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

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

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

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

The IGFdb is at www.igfdb.com.

Diversity Spotlight:

“Red Doors” Are Open

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

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

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

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

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

Can you talk about how the project was conceived?

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

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

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

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

What was it like producing and acting in this film?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s next for you guys?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you hoping for bigger things for the DVD?

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

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