Past Filmmakers

Richard Wiebe & Andrew Lund
Snapshot

1. How did you come up with the idea for the film?
This film, unlike my previous films which emerged from character, really began with my desire to explore an idea, the textured and complex relationship between photographer and subject (and while I chose to focus on a photographer, you can substitute any other creative person who uses his environment as an inspiration for his work – like filmmaker, for instance); I coupled this with a “what if” – what would you do if you were frozen forever in a famous photograph and how would you make the photographer understand what it feels like?

I attended a retrospective of the photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson’s work in Paris. As I viewed a succession of breathtaking photos, I found myself embracing a contradictory notion: that it was important for these photos to exist, yet I would never want to be the subject of one of them. Many of the pictures were clearly taken without the knowledge of the subject; often that’s an aesthetically preferable approach since the presence of a camera can unduly influence the subject and therefore the content of the photo itself (the presence of the camera inadvertently taints the very image it seeks to truthfully record). Paris boasts picturesque book stalls along the Seine, many of which sell reproductions of photos of picturesque Paris; some of these images were so ubiquitous, that it pushed my idea further – what happens when the picture taken without your permission becomes not only an iconic image, but also a commercial one, used to sell postcards, calendars and coffee table books?
 
2. How long did the production process take?
Principal photography lasted five days, with the bulk of that taking place in one interior location. I wrote the script with the ease of production in mind – most of the story consists of two guys in a room. So the challenge shifts from production issues to creative ones: how do you keep one location visually interesting while cinematically varying the scenes so that they don’t lose impact and feel repetitive. When we went into production, we were not sure how much we could get done in five days (we couldn’t run longer, because we would lose most of our crew and equipment). The last sequence in the script, several scenes that take place outside the main location, were on our wish list. These scenes had in fact helped attract both lead actors to the project, but I thought that the film could work without this coda. Ultimately, we didn’t have enough time or film stock to shoot the sequence. We talked about possibly grabbing those scenes at a later date, but we never seriously pursued that idea.
On our next film, which was also shot in Wilmington with mostly the same crew, we had the opposite situation: that film is almost entirely composed of exterior scenes. We loved having the freedom to move the camera around freely (particularly to place it at a distance from the characters not possible when shooting interiors), to capitalize on the natural production value of the areas beaches, and to explore a variety of locations – but the crew missed the ease of Snapshot’s one location shoot. Snapshot was edited over the course of a year in North Carolina. During that time, it screened as a work-in-progress at several film festivals, including Cucalorus in Wilmington. While we shot on film, we decided early on to finish on video. This saved us money and allowed us to go back after these screenings and make adjustments. If we had paid for a film print, these adjustments would have been prohibitive. So, digital technology makes it easier to keep working on your film and to use festivals as test screenings, but it makes it more difficult to definitively picture lock (because there is no financial penalty for endless tweaking.
 
3. What challenges did you experience in the creation of the film?
Every film shares some of the same challenges, like finding locations, securing equipment, assembling a crew, and keeping everyone well-fed, and each film also presents unique tests of a filmmaker’s patience, creativity and resourcefulness. One challenge was finding the right cast. Rather than holding auditions, I wanted to take a more community oriented approach, in-line with Wilmington’s strengths as a film friendly area. My hope was that if we showed the script to the right people, they would do the same, until we had the perfect actors; we knew that Wilmington was home to a group of talented actors with extensive film and television experience, we just needed to tap into this resource. Ultimately, that’s exactly what happened. But we didn’t cast Marcello (played by Henry Darrow) until a week before filming began, and there were definitely some nerve-racking moments when we wondered whether we’d be able to proceed.

A particular challenge we faced was creating the photos to be used in the film as examples of Marcello’s work. Whenever people read the script, they always asked where we were going to get the photos. Ultimately, we selected a series of photos I took in Paris and Venice, along with photos that Eric Patterson took in Australia, and scanned those in. The reaction to the photos has been overwhelmingly positive; people who would never look at my photos before are suddenly singing their praises. So, you want to get people to pay more attention to your photographs? Just build a film around them. An important reason the photos work results from the visual strategy that the editors Dave Monahan and Richard Wiebe developed for integrating them into the film: using the photos as a representation of Marcello’s state of mind, as a memory device, and as a rhythmic editing device.

However, there was one photo that we needed to create for the film: the photo at the core of the story. This picture needs to feature David Andrews, the talented actor playing Nathan, in a recognizable form (so the audience can tell it’s the same person as the character in the film). This photo also needs to withstand greater audience scrutiny because it will be featured more prominently than any other photo. Plus, it has to pass muster as an image that would be at home on posters and calendars. I’ve taken many candid photographs, and I can attest to the advantage of capturing a moment on film when your presence isn’t known. Trying to stage a candid photograph that met all our criteria proved a monumental challenge. I directed the action and Eric Patterson shot it, using multiple cameras and lenses. We shot hundreds of photos trying with varying degrees of success to approximate real life and steer clear of a photo-shoot look. In the end, it proved just as difficult to choose between the five or so photos that worked; ultimately, we picked the image that most clearly communicated Nathan’s key action – checking out the cleavage of a woman at the next table. I have a poster of that image up in my office, and people who haven’t seen the film think it’s exactly what we meant it to be – a charming photograph of a man at a café caught in a slightly compromising position.
 
4. What is your favorite memory from creating the film?
When we started shooting, I was thrilled just to be on a set again, making another movie, this time in the friendly North Carolina environs. Because of scheduling issues, we began the shoot outside the “museum’s” side entrance. We had originally wanted to film this at night; I was very concerned about the believability of a museum opening that takes place during daylight. But a night shoot would have wreaked havoc on our schedule. So we compromised and went for the dusk look that we shot near dawn. Despite my concerns, no one has ever asked why this scene occurs during daylight (although they have asked about numerous issues that I wasn’t as worried about during pre-production). The climax of this scene is when Nathan whacks Marcello on the head with a camera. We understood the importance of selling the authenticity of this moment to the audience, and we had carefully choreographed the shot to make it look as realistic as possible. Our shot list had us starting with this moment, and I thought it would be great to get it out of the way. On the first take, disaster nearly struck. David Andrews was so realistic in his attack that he actually smashed the camera down on Henry Darrow’s shoulder. When Henry slumped to the ground screaming in agony, there was no acting involved. I saw my film’s future flash before my eyes. Without Henry, there would be no film, and I didn’t think it would be easy for anyone (let alone someone Henry’s age) to quickly bounce back from such a blow. But Henry did rise again, and we continued shooting, albeit with a caution that undercut the scene’s requisite intensity. In the subsequent takes, David played it safe and missed Henry by a wide-margin with each swing of the camera. I knew we’d have to use the first take. And if anyone criticized it as not looking genuine, I had the perfect defense – it was all too real. Just surviving that first scene made me feel lucky.
I also really enjoyed filming the party montage scene, when several of his photographic subjects confront Marcello. Some of these interactions were scripted, while others were improvised based on an outline that I provided. Talented writers played several of these characters, and I relished the opportunity to let them do their thing. I also forced several colleagues, friends and crewmembers to join in. One after another, these mostly non-professional actors would step up to the identical mark and start speaking. Because we used one setup for all of them, this was actually a relatively easy sequence to shoot. So the crew sat back and enjoyed the material, a major relief from high pressure, elaborate sequences we’d shot earlier that day. Dave Monahan, the editor, and Dan Turek, an AC, had everyone rolling with laughter – I think it’s the most I’ve ever laughed on a film set (unfortunately, Dave managed to cut out his entire hysterical performance).
 
5. When someone has finished watching the film, what do you hope they take away from the experience?
As the son of artists, and as a creative person who draws on life for inspiration, I didn’t want to create a one-dimensional portrait of the artist as a thief and manipulator. I was concerned that if I chose a photo with a serious content that hugged the line of propriety it would be too easy to label the photo as exploitation and dismiss the photographer. Instead, I chose an innocuous, somewhat humorous situation as the subject for the photo, one that most viewers initially react to as “no big deal”. Hopefully as the film unfolds, the viewer recognizes that even a harmless photo can become upsetting with time and repetition. I want the viewer to understand the viewpoints of both Marcello, the photographer, and Nathan, the subject, even if they would not adopt the same actions as the characters. Ideally, Snapshot will prompt the audience to look beyond the pictures they see everywhere and consider the person behind the image. I’d also want the viewers to accept that we’re all capitulators in the exploitation, as consumers of images, and as voyeurs. In the last shot of the film, Marcello turns his camera on the audience and takes our picture even as his image freezes on the screen – we are at once the perpetrator and the victim.
 
6. What type of reaction has your film received from viewers?
The film has provoked extensive discussion about the responsibility, if any, the photographer owes to his subjects. I’ve had viewers try using legal arguments with me, not knowing that I’m actually a lawyer with extensive entertainment experience; they say that it’s legal, or it’s not legal, but legality entirely misses the point. Some viewers have connected with Marcello’s epiphany at the end, acknowledging the common humanity of all his subjects; by stepping into the group photograph, Marcello acknowledges that he’s just like them, no better no worse. I really wanted to imbue a seemingly innocuous photo (in contrast to the meaningful photos that Marcello strives to take) with significance that only the viewer would understand – what seems like a normal group photo, posed and pedestrian, is really a bizarre gathering of photographer and subjects, in the aftermath of a pseudo-kidnapping. Many viewers have echoed these intentions in their reaction to the film.
The “kidnapping” aspect is also something that has provoked comment. Some people think that under no circumstances after being held against his will, would Marcello stay for the “party”. These viewers tend to focus on the violence of Nathan’s acts (whereas other viewers don’t seem to think that Nathan did anything so bad), and they opine that Marcello should have extracted revenge (the police, etc.). In the original script, I wrote additional scenes that give Marcello the “last word”. But, on a practical level we didn’t have the time or the money to shoot this ending. And from a narrative perspective, we worried that emphasizing Marcello’s revenge would undercut the lesson, if any, he learned from this experience; we opted in favor of character evolution, with Nathan forcing Marcello to look at things a bit differently (even if it doesn’t prevent him from continuing to snap candid photos).

I think their comments say more about how individual viewers would react in similar circumstances. I’m convinced that Marcello would stay at that party for several reasons. First, he’s spent years managing his image (reputedly not letting anyone photograph him), and he doesn’t want Nathan going public with the humiliating photos he took of Marcello during his captivity. Second, he’s never had the opportunity to meet a group of people from his photos; I think curiosity alone would keep him there. Marcello understands that whatever physical threat Nathan may have posed, it’s been defused. Marcello regains a semblance of control once he knows Nathan’s end game, and this enables him to safely choose to give Nathan what he wants (after all, Marcello has indirectly benefited at Nathan’s expense).
 
7. What advice would you give to aspiring young filmmakers?
Make something you would be interested in seeing. Focus on the rewards of the creative process itself and not for some best-case-scenario result. Cultivate your voice, a distillation of your unique experiences, perspectives, attitudes and beliefs. Judge yourself according to your own aspirations (and limitations) and not by external standards. Applaud your work for what it is rather than torture yourself over what it isn’t. An imperfect film is better than no film at all.

Watch lots of films. Not just at the multiplex but at film festivals. You’ll probably start out making shorts so see as many shorts as possible. After each film, take some time to think about what you liked and why. Push yourself to analyze what cinematic factors contributed to your reaction. Also think about the things that didn’t work so well – we can learn as much from failure as we can from success. Write down your impressions of these films. Taking notes helps us process our reactions and insures that we’ll remember our insights (and it forces you to actually do the work). Take advantage of the resources in your community – the specific people, places and stories that you won’t find anywhere else. These can be just as valuable as film stock, equipment and money. Remember, the most important thing you take away from a film is your relationship with your collaborators. Nurture those relationships and they will help sustain you through the difficulties of the filmmaking process.

A film’s running time is usually determined by the shortest time needed to tell a chosen story. Why not approach duration from the opposite perspective? Start out with the goal in mind: e.g. to make a five-minute film. Then find or tailor your story to fit within the confines of your chosen running time. Deciding what category of short you want to make helps you choose, mold and shepard the appropriate project (which will improve your chances of achieving your goals for it). Make limitations work for you by incorporating strict guidelines into your creative process.

Ultimately, the most important advice I ever got was to keep making movies. Why? Not because it’s practical. Not because it’s easy. Not because it will pay off. Not because it will advance your career. Not because it will make you rich and famous. But just because that is what filmmakers do.
 
8. Please tell us about your next film or project.
We are in post-production on Finders Keepers another short film shot in Wilmington with the same creative team that made Snapshot, comprised almost exclusively of North Carolina filmmakers. Finders Keepers has screened as a work-in-progress at the Cucalorus Film Festival in Wilmington and the Avignon/New York Film Festival. Unlike Snapshot that was written for and occurs in an unnamed city, Finders Keepers was specifically designed to take advantage of the cinematic opportunities in New Hanover County. In particular, we wanted to showcase the beauty of the region’s beaches, and we shot in Kure Beach, Carolina Beach, Wrightsville Beach and downtown Wilmington. The film also features local actors (Peter Jurasik, Peter Tarrantino, Nina Repeta, and Shannon Andrews). This spring and summer, we hope to shoot two new projects in Wilmington, Walking Distance a mockumentary and Special Features a narrative short, both of which were also written with Wilmington and North Carolina specifically in mind.
 
9. What are your thoughts on the film industry in North Carolina?
Making films in North Carolina, and specifically the New Hanover County/Wilmington area has been a delight. So much that is a struggle elsewhere is simplified there. North Carolina’s film friendly atmosphere makes it easier to secure locations, obtain permits and gather production information. And North Carolina offers a vast and diverse location pool, that provides superlative narrative and cinematic opportunities. A supportive network of those in the industry, those interested in the film business and other creative individuals and entities makes it possible to forge connections and create partnerships of a kind that often prove elusive in bigger cities. The equipment and crew base in Wilmington easily provided for all our needs. My only concern relates to film processing. With so much shooting happening in state, does it really make sense to Fed Ex film to Atlanta or New York for processing? It would be an added convenience if North Carolina both had its own film lab and more sources for film stock.