|
|
| CineVegas ’06 Interview ('The 4th Dimension' directors Tom Mattera & David Mazzoni) |
by Erik Childress
"The 4th Dimension is a meditative examination into the mind of an introverted genius who obsesses to solve the complexity of time." We get some answers from directors Tom Mattera & David Mazzoni.
Pitch us your movie. Tell us what its about.
DAVE: Throughout the filmmaking process of The 4th Dimension, “What is the movie about,” has been the most difficult question that Tom and I have had to answer. Ultimately, the film is a dark, lonely observation of a character’s (Jack’s) journey of self-realization. Jack, the main character, is an introverted genius who obsesses to solve the complexity of time. He is presented with a broken antique clock, and has a vision of Albert Einstein hiding his journal on The Unified Field Theory inside of it. This leads Jack into a world of theorizing the connection between time, dreams, and reality.
The 4th Dimension is such a layered piece that is open to each individual’s interpretation. The beauty of the film is that each individual’s mindset and past experiences will shape their idea as to what the film is about and what it means to them personally. The themes in the film are universal: love, loss, obsession, and human mortality.
TOM: The 4th Dimension is a meditative examination into the mind of an introverted genius who struggles to solve the complexity of time. It is a film about self discovery. About looking beyond the mundane surface of everyday life and finding beauty in the mysterious. It’s about exploring abandoned environments that tend to be taken for granted. It’s about paying attention to someone who is “different.” It is about loneliness. It’s about remembering moments of the past. It’s about a hope that there could be more to the overall picture than our surface existence on this earth.
Back when you were a little kid, and you were asked that inevitable question, your answer would always be “When I grow up I want to be a …” what?
DAVE: When I was younger I was very interested in athletics. I played sports all year round and aspired to be a professional baseball player. So, if you were to ask me this question 15 years ago, my response would have been, “When I grow up I want to be an outfielder for the Philadelphia Phillies.” How lame, I know. But I think every boy wants to be a professional athlete at some point.
TOM: When I was a little kid, I used to draw all the time. I always wanted to be an artist – draw pictures, maybe paint. Then as I grew older, I went into something that I thought would be more stable…Engineering. So, I went to school for engineering, graduated and started working in that field. Within six months of graduation, I was back to school. This time it was for film. So I guess I’m back to that art thing again.
Not including your backyard and your family Handycam, how did you get your real “start” in filmmaking?
DAVE: For me, this question has a two part answer; and the Handycam certainly contributed to my first “real” start in filmmaking. Tom and I shot a short film about the Russian mafia entitled Mectl, which was unscripted and consisted of a cast of friends and family (basically anyone who would give up their time). Upon completing Mectl, Tom and I heard of a contest, HBO’s Project Greenlight Screenplay Competition. Being that we had more ideas and storylines for Mectl, we decided to write our first feature length script and submit it to Project Greenlight. We sat down over a two-week stretch, taught ourselves how to use screenwriting software (which auto formatted the script for us), and completed our first legitimate script. We made the first round of cuts, being selected as one of the Top 250 screenplays out of 5,500 entries. This was my first “real start” with the screenwriting process.
With regards to physical production, my first real start was gripping on a local independent feature film entitled, What Hides Beneath. Although I was a little green, it was an excellent experience for me. I became familiar with everything that goes into the production of a feature film. Thankfully, it was a very open set which allowed me to ask as many questions as I could think of pertaining to all aspects of filmmaking. It was also where I met and established a relationship with our Director of Photography, Daniel Watchulonis.
TOM: Well, Dave and I have done a lot of Handycam films. We learned a lot from each one. We then wrote our first feature screenplay, Mectl, and submitted it to HBO’s Project Greenlight 2002. We made the top 250 out of about 5,500 entries. That gave us the spark to go to film school. The short version of The 4th Dimension played at some local festivals – which kind of got our feet wet to that side of filmmaking. We did a couple internships in Philly, where we were able to see hands on how to survive in this industry. It seemed to me that in order to get work, you need to pick a trade and specialize in it, work for free for a while, until you know what you are doing, and then you will eventually start to get paying gigs. We chose to write and direct. So instead of working for someone else; we began to work for ourselves. Since we are working for free to get experience – why not do what you want to and enjoy it? We have been making The 4th Dimension for the past 4 years (On nights and weekends – first scheduling around school, and now scheduling around our day jobs). The goal always being that this film will give us our “start” in filmmaking as a full-time gig.
How did you get your film started? How did you go from script to finished product?
DAVE: The 4th Dimension has been a four-year project for Tom and I. As one of our friends reminds us, “It took one year per dimension.” The film actually started out as a two-minute short film entitled Reciprication, which we shot for HBO’s Project Greenlight’s directing competition. After receiving positive reviews and feedback, we decided that we could definitely elaborate on this character and develop the story. This also occurred as Tom and I were just beginning film school at Temple University. It was at Temple University that Tom and I were able to utilize each film class to enhance and workshop The 4th Dimension. Over our two years at Temple, The 4th Dimension transformed from a 21 minute Mini-DV short, to a 5 minute 16mm short, and finally into a feature length script.
The scriptwriting process consisted of five drafts of the script. Each of the first four drafts seemed to be missing an edge or focusing too strongly on one of the story’s elements (Physics, Time, The Supernatural, Loss). We felt they were too straightforward and conventional. It was the fifth draft (the eventual locked script) that Tom and I really focused on telling the story more indirectly and visually through symbolism and layered contexts. After completing the fifth draft, Tom and I both knew that we had finally attained what we were going for and were ready to bring the film to the screen. It was at this time that we knew, “This is the girl.” (A Mulholland Drive reference for you Lynch fans out there).
Once we had locked the script, Tom, Daniel M. Kalai (our producer), and I hit the streets with an investor package we devised in order to raise money for our budget of $75,000. At one point, we were one month out from production with only $12,000 in our account. Even though we were having trouble acquiring financing (two business loan rejections), we continued to push forward. We purchased the film stock and I remember us saying, “Now we have to make it happen.” This was a very trying time for our budget cautious producer, and he really came through by believing in us and supporting our decisions.
Dan, Tom, and I lived on our cell phones the entire month of January. By the first week of February, we had finally raised enough money to shoot the film. A little over $50,000. This was made possible by taking out personal loans, racking up a ton of charges on our credit cards, and securing financing from some private investors.
From script to screen, The 4th Dimension changed drastically. It was a beautiful process to watch the film unfold in front of us. With amazing performances from our actors, Tom and I watched the piece shift gears during production. The focus of the film drifted from a character engulfed in scientific theory, to a lonely observation of obsessive human behavior. Tom and I welcomed and embraced this process. Our philosophy regarding the script was that it was merely a skeleton of the narrative. It was the actors and the behavior of the camera that would flesh out and complete the narrative.
This same philosophy was also utilized in the editing process. The 4th Dimension as a script is far different from the film. Although we originally cut the film with adherence to how it was written, Tom and I quickly discovered that it was not the best way to tell the story. In fact, the first cut of the film (which followed the structure of the script verbatim) was 121 minutes. In our guts, we both knew that this was not a two-hour piece. Over a four-month span, the film went through four cuts (121 minutes, 95 minutes, 109 minutes, 99 minutes). Finally, with the help of focus groups, and Eugene Martin (Diary of a City Priest, Edge City) we were able to workshop the film into the current 82-minute cut. Once again, as with the scriptwriting process, five was the lucky number.
TOM: Dave, Daniel M. Kalai (our producer), and myself raised a $75,000 budget by developing a business plan. We used this plan to attract investors (mostly family and friends, aside from ourselves) to buy profit points for the film. Of that 75K, 50 of it was needed to actually shoot it. We literally had around 12K in the bank one month out from shooting. We ordered the film stock anyway; and just said, “Don’t stop…we’ll make it happen.” And low and behold, everything fell into place. A lot of trusting people really came through in the clutch. Overall, pre-production took about six months. Every weekend we would take long day trips to find our 14 beautiful locations. We went through many trials to get them, especially Philadelphia State Hospital (Byberry). The 4th Dimension is the only film ever to shoot there. That took us a year of hounding to finally get a contract. We looked at 15 actors to find Louis Morabito for the role of Jack. Diane Heery casted the film for us. We had been working with John Avarese (sound designer/music composer) and Daniel Watchulonis (director of photography) for a year prior to shooting. Production took four and a half weeks. Post took a year. And here we are.
Several filmmakers have brought mind-benders to the festival circuit such as "Donnie Darko", "Pi" and "Primer". Which films in this genre influenced you? And without giving away the ending, what film surprised you the most?
DAVE: In general, all three of the films you mentioned have influenced us. Even if not directly with our subject matter, they have all proven that it is still possible to make an independent Art House film that has mass appeal.
Two mind-benders that were directly influential in the filmmaking process for us are Darren Aronofsky’s Pi and Christopher Nolan’s Following. Both films were perfect first features. Tom and I always appreciated how raw and independent the films feel. They are unflinching and uncompromising, forcing viewers to enter into the worlds they created. Aronofsky and Nolan successfully told edgy, thought provoking stories in very unique and unconventional ways. This is evident when listening to their director’s commentaries. The passion that they both put into their projects is intoxicating and certainly reads as you watch the film. I also respect the fact that they both took risks shooting in black and white.
Of the four films mentioned above, Following certainly blew me away the most at the end. The non-linear editing style enhanced the mystery of the narrative and constantly forced me to think and try to put together the pieces as they were revealed. It was such a refreshing experience to be mentally challenged by a film instead of being “spoon fed.”
TOM: I remember watching Pi for the first time. I remember feeling a bit uncomfortable from such a bizarre world, yet so intrigued and moved from such an artistic expression. Pi had a huge impact on me – not so much from the mind-bending aspect, but more so for its raw independent and artistic feel. That really opened me up to film as an art form more so than as a movie. I’ve always been one for mind-benders. After all, I did go to engineering school for 5 years. When you find a 3 page calculus problem to be interesting, you tend to find complicated story structures to be very enticing. These films are more of a slow unraveling to me – meaning I will need a couple of views to figure them out. That’s what I like about them. Now to answer your question about surprise endings, three that jump out immediately are: The Sixth Sense, The Usual Suspects, and Fight Club.
How easy was the decision to go black-and-white?
DAVE: The decision to shoot The 4th Dimension in black-and-white was a no-brainer for Tom and I. Although we were cautioned against it, Tom and I felt that it was the most honest way to tell our story. From its inception, we always saw this as a black-and-white film, and envisioned film noir as the perfect aesthetic for the piece. We wanted to create a timeless world that would allow the audience to disconnect from “reality” and get lost with Jack in his world.
TOM: This film was black and white since its conception. The first image that I ever had for this film was of Jack on a train with a mysterious man watching him from a few rows back. This image came from listening to Aphex Twin’s Gwely Mernans for the first time. The image in my head was black and white. It just felt like it had to be that way. From a strategic standpoint – black and white tends to immediately separate the viewer from reality, creating a dreamlike atmosphere, especially when combined with the proper sound and locations. This was important to put the audience into Jack’s world – and to experience his loneliness and detachment from society.
Name the three directors working today that you most admire.
DAVE: Three directors working today that I most admire are David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino, and Martin Scorsese. Ironically, I admire them all for the same reasons: their love of filmmaking as an art form, and their passion. I love the fact that they are all rooted in independent film. Each of them gained their recognition and acclaim by taking risks and making edgy pictures early in their careers. For instance, David Lynch with Eraserhead, Martin Scorsese with Mean Streets, and Quentin Tarantino with Reservoir Dogs. I also truly admire the distinct filmmaking styles that each of the three directors have been able to create. Their films are so personal to each filmmaker, that you can instantly separate their films from the “rest of the pack.”
On an individual basis, I will highlight my favorite things about each director. I will start with David Lynch. In my opinion, there is no filmmaker that can create a moody, off-beat world more effectively than Lynch. He is also the master of using the frame as a canvass and adding such a level of depth to his images. He is truly an artist.
Does anyone write better dialogue than Quentin Tarantino? Then again, has anyone in the world seen more movies than Quentin Tarantino? Probably not. But this is what I love about his work. In my opinion, he is the master of witty, off base dialogue, which adds such a level of humanity to his characters. This is why I find myself caring about hit men, drug dealers, and bank robbers when I watch his films. There is also no better director at offering tribute to prior films.
Finally, Marty. Perhaps my favorite thing about Scorsese is his use of camera behavior in his films. Does anyone use a steadicam better than him? I think not. Off the top of my head, there are two amazing sequences that always come to mind. The first is in Goodfellas (when Henry walks Karen through the bar) and the second is in Raging Bull (when Jake is walking to the ring). I also love the fact that he will limit coverage of scenes at times to only give the editor what he envisions, but he will also shoot a scene several different ways to give the editor plenty of options.
TOM: David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino, Gus Van Sant
Of all the Muppets, which one do you most relate to?
DAVE: I actually had to look this one up. I wanted to answer Oscar the Grouch, but I was told that he is a puppet, but not a muppet. So, by default, I think I would have to choose Animal. Like Animal, I tend to be the high-strung director. While Tom was always laid back and worry-free, I always found myself worrying about every element of the production. I am also spontaneous and full of energy (what some people call hyper) like Animal. I tend to blink when making decisions rather than analyze every possible outcome. I trust my gut and go with what feels right.
It is interesting that Tom and I work so well together because our personalities are completely different. He is the direct opposite of me, but when it comes to the creative elements of filmmaking we are always on the same page.
TOM: The Muppets always made me feel very uncomfortable. I really can’t think of any that I relate to. I always thought Beaker was a trip! But I don’t think I relate to him.
How have things changed for you since your film started playing on the festival circuit? If this is your first acceptance into a film festival, describe what that's like and your thoughts about CineVegas. What are you looking forward to most during your CineVegas experience?
DAVE: I am really looking forward to the film hitting the festival circuit in order to gain the valuable exposure. I know there is a market out there for our film and screening at festivals throughout the world will allow us the opportunity to present the piece to its audience.
We did have a few special screenings of the film (a work in progress at the time) in the regional section of the Philadelphia Film Festival. It was an excellent experience and it was very refreshing to see so many people attend our screenings. We sold out three shows and sold the most tickets out of any film at the festival. It was also great to hear people’s reactions to the film (both positive and negative) and to share our views and experiences with the audience during Q & A sessions.
Our acceptance to CineVegas is our first acceptance to a major industry film festival. When I received the call from Mike Plante, it was a surreal experience. It was a very exciting/gratifying experience on many levels. It was a great feeling to know that one of the top regional festivals watched our film, believed in it, and was going to give us an amazing opportunity. It also made me so happy for my cast and crew to know that we were going to be gaining much more exposure for the film. Everyone who was a part of the process worked so hard, and I am so glad that it is paying off.
When I was researching festivals and came across CineVegas, I instantly fell in love with the festival. Besides the fact that it is in Sin City and is chaired by Dennis Hopper, I admired the fact that they prided themselves on taking chances on different films. I honestly felt that we would be a perfect fit for “The most dangerous film festival.” I was drawn to the “Area 52” section that they have, which is dedicated to cult and underground films. Needless to say, I was very excited about submitting our film.
Tom and I are honored to World Premiere The 4th Dimension this year at the CineVegas Film Festival. We are really looking forward to screening the film on the west coast and seeing how the audience receives it. CineVegas is going to be an amazing opportunity for us to network and make some very useful connections. I am also looking forward to viewing as many films participating in the festival as possible, and hitting those happy hour parties too.
The only downside to my trip to CineVegas is that I am leaving before Dennis Hopper’s 70th birthday party.
TOM: We had a special screening in our hometown at the Philadelphia Film Festival. CineVegas will be our World Premiere. So we are just getting started with the festival run. Philly was great! We sold out 3 shows, and we also sold the most tickets in the festival – over 1,000. We hit the streets hard with straight up guerilla marketing. Being from Philly, we were able to hit all the TLA video stores and Ritz theaters (box office and hosts for the festival) every couple of days to flood them with our 4th D postcards and flyers. We were literally stuffing them inside the free festival guides and local City Papers right out of the newspaper stands. It was a blast! We plan on doing the same thing in Vegas. We will be giving out 4th D souvenir bags at the parties and will of course be flooding everywhere we can with postcards. It’s great because we arrive for the opening night on Friday and we don’t screen until Monday. So we will have the entire weekend to spread the infection of the 4th. We are super excited about CineVegas. It seems to be an amazing festival – everyone involved with the festival has been extremely supportive. I really look forward to meeting the CineVegas crew. We feel very fortunate to have the opportunity to screen there, especially since they only selected about 30 feature films. I am most excited to get the film out there - number one to the West Coast - but more importantly, throughout the industry. CineVegas gets a lot of coverage and attracts a lot of industry. I think this is a huge opportunity for us to secure distribution for the 4th and also to get the next job - or at least get closer to it. So, how have things changed for us in this festival stage? It has elevated to a different kind of chaos. It reminds me of pre-production. That was absolute chaos. In the writing stage we were able to take our time and let the ideas develop. Walk away from it and then come back. Production was the smoothest and most relaxing. All the prep was crazy – but once we were on set – it just fell into place – it was really amazing. We also took our time with editing for the most part – but that also got chaotic at times. We were trying to hit some festival deadlines a bit prematurely. This stage – festival applications, shipping the film off all over the world, having meetings with our lawyer, marketing strategies…this is chaos – there are deadlines everywhere! But it is so exciting. There is this buzz of positive energy associated with it all that we feed off of because the opportunities feel like they are just around the corner. I am having a lot of fun with all of this right now. But I have to admit – I am itching to dive head deep into the next project. Dave and I are finding time for that in the midst of all this.
During production did you ever find yourself thinking ahead to film festivals, paying customers, good & bad reviews, etc?
DAVE: I would say yes and no. I think that we may have looked ahead more in pre-production and in post-production than when we were in physical production of the film. During the process of hiring crew members, casting, and raising the budget, we certainly set goals that included screening at major film festivals and getting distribution. Similarly, while editing the film, we wanted to make sure that our film was not too ambiguous or “out there.” We focused on making a film that could be followed by a mainstream audience (paying customers) or film festival programmer, while not compromising our original vision.
TOM: During actual production (while shooting on set – we were in a zone – and were really just serving the project – doing what felt right). But yes, over the past 4 years – during the whole process – we always had the end results in mind. From day one we set out to make a film and take it all the way. It wasn’t like we made the film and then said, “Hey, we should do something with this.” We also consciously set out to make an art house film. We knew from the start that there are going to be great reviews and there are also going to be bad ones. With this type of film, you’re going to get reactions. Usually they are extreme. Those who like it – they really appreciate it, talk about it for days, find there own meanings to it, they really make it personal, and they usually can’t wait to see it again. Those who dislike it – they really don’t like it; they get really angry about it. It’s kind of like one of those hologram pictures with the hidden image in it that if you stare at it long enough while crossing your eyes, you will see the hidden image. Some people get it, some people don’t.
Have you been turned down by other festivals? If so, which ones and what do you think could be improved with festivals in general.
DAVE: Tom and I made one of the biggest mistakes with regards to the process of filmmaking. We rushed the editing process to try to meet the “big” festival deadlines. As a result, we sent a work in progress (which was only half scored/sound designed) to Sundance, Slamdance, Berlin, and Rotterdam. Needless to say, we were rejected from these festivals. We finally realized that we should not submit to any festivals until picture was locked and the score/sound design was fully mixed. I only wish we would have bought Chris Gore’s Ultimate Film Festival Survival Guide sooner!
I would love to see the film festivals focus on the “real” independent films out there. The films with no A list actors, minimal budgets, and that were made because of filmmaker’s personal sacrifices and passion. It is frustrating to see films (which already have distribution) take up screening slots at these festivals. Film festivals use to truly benefit indie filmmakers and give them a forum to showcase their work and gain recognition by the industry. Those were the good old days.
TOM: Yes, I had been posting our rejection letters on my tack board at my day job for a while. Then I was moved to a new cubicle, so I never bothered to put them back up. I haven’t had the desire to put them up again since things are starting to pick up now. We started sending the film out to festivals prematurely in order to make the deadlines. We went through four cuts of the film in order to get it to its final version. It went from 121 minutes, to 95 minutes, to 109 minutes, to 99 minutes, and finally came in at 82 minutes. Most of the longer cuts went out to the first round of festivals. We were rejected from Sundance, Slamdance, Berlin, Rotterdam, Hong Kong, New Directors, LA, and Newport. I’d say it was a mistake to send the film out before the final cut, but it actually worked out for us in a strange way. The programmers at CineVegas, happen to also be programmers at Sundance. They saw the 121 minute version of the 4th when we submitted to Sundance and turned it down. When they saw it come into CineVegas at 82 minutes, they remembered it and watched it right away. We are now world premiering there! Getting turned down builds character. I would feed off of the rejections and be even more motivated to keep pushing forward. I really don’t know enough about festivals yet to suggest what could be improved about them. After some more experience in them, perhaps I will have some suggestions.
Have you seen any independent films recently on the festival circuit, in theaters or on video that influenced you? Or anything that you would just like to give a shout-out to that audiences should be seeing (or given a chance to see?)
DAVE: I am ashamed to say that I have not seen many independent films over the past couple years. Tom and I have been putting so many hours into The 4th that I haven’t been able to focus enough of my time to getting out to see new films. However, I would love to give a shout out to many of the films that have influenced me throughout our filmmaking process.
The list: Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal, Pi, Following, Memento, The Machinist, A Beautiful Mind, The Sixth Sense, Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Mulholland Drive, and Spider.
TOM: How about I name some films that influenced us for the 4th. I’m not sure if they are all independent, since that line is really blurred nowadays: Pi, Eraserhead, Following, Spider, Memento, Elephant, Gerry, The Sixth Sense, Session 9, The Machinist, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, Blue, American Beauty, and The Seventh Seal.
If you could share one massive lesson that you learned while making this movie, what would it be?
DAVE: The massive lesson that I learned while making this film is that nothing can be rushed. As I mentioned before, the biggest mistake we made was trying to rush the editing process in order to meet the deadlines of the big festivals. Filmmaking is a process. I learned that you can not speed it up, or slow it down. You have to let everything happen naturally. It is very rewarding when your film finds its way and surfaces on its own merit. It is a battle of trial and error, but when you have it, you will feel it and know that it is complete.
TOM: Don’t rush it. Originally we tried to rush the writing stage because we wanted to shoot the film by a certain time. We finally stopped and said, “Why are we rushing things…this is our thing…let’s allow it to come naturally.” That goes the same for editing the film. You have to find it. A very surprising element of filmmaking for us was how much the piece changes from script to screen. As far as the look and feel goes – we were pretty dead on with that. It came through exactly as we originally saw it. But what really evolved were the story and the actors’/actresses’ performances. The themes developed. Certain themes came through much stronger than the ones that we anticipated. This came from working in a free and creative environment. Dave and I approached the project by looking at the script as a skeleton. We were very selective with whom we brought on board because we had to be able to trust them. We wanted to make the 4th personal to every individual that worked on it. We would do this by giving them the creative freedom to bring their own ideas to the table. Our job was to make sure that they felt involved – and to allow them to have fun with it. We were there of course make sure that everything was flowing and to make suggestions where we felt necessary. I noticed that we did more work before shooting by visiting locations with cast and crew and more so talking about the script rather than rehearsing. All of the prep work was done before we stepped on set. And then it just flowed while shooting. I learned to find the film as you go. I also learned a ton from the actors and crew on set. We worked with a lot of extremely talented individuals who have a lot more experience than I do, and are truly experts at there craft. I was like a sponge on set – learning, developing, and then applying on the go.
If a studio said ‘we love this, we love you, you can remake anything in our back catalogue for $40m’ – what film, if any, would you want to remake?
DAVE: Oh no. Tough question. Honestly, I have no desire to do a remake of any Hollywood picture. In fact, it is something that I constantly call out as a pet peeve of mine. It frustrates me to see remakes come out while there are talented filmmakers with fresh ideas who just aren’t getting a shot. However, if I were approached to remake a picture, I would hope to be granted the freedom to simply base it on the original, but let is progress naturally on set. I can’t think of any films in particular that would interest me, but I would certainly lean toward remaking a film in the horror genre.
TOM: Tough question. I don’t really have much interest in re-making films. It kind of goes along with that whole find the film as you go thing. I find the whole mystery of finding the film as you make it to be the thrill. It’s like an adventure to the unknown. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I would turn down an offer to do a $40 million dollar picture. I would find an interesting way to do it. If I was to do a re-make, I would like to do a film that I have never seen. That way, I would not be influenced by the original. Or if I was to do one, I would not do it exactly as the original was done. I would take a different approach and let that take its natural course.
Two parter – name an actor you'd KILL to work with, and then name an actor in your own film that you really think is destined for great things.
DAVE: Well, since there are two of us (Tom and I), I am going to select two actors that I would KILL to work with. Gary Oldman and John Malkovich. I think that they are two of the most underrated actors in the business. Their screen presence is truly amazing. They bring such a level of intensity and authenticity to every character they portray. I feel that their performances always “steal the show”, regardless if they are a bit character, in a supporting role, or headlining the piece.
In our next film, Mectl, a Russian organized crime film, Tom and I feel they would be perfect to portray the two feuding mob bosses. In fact, as we wrote the script, we based the character’s mannerisms and appearance in accordance with Oldman and Malkovich.
With regards to our cast, I feel that everyone did an amazing job. Our actors each brought a unique element to their characters and added great layers of depth to them. It was a truly collaborative process, and I am very proud to have worked with each actor.
Above all, I was truly mesmerized by Louis Morabito’s portrayal of our main character, Jack Emitni. He was a pleasure to work with and his preparation and technique allowed me to learn so much as a director. His ability to become Jack was truly remarkable. His use of method acting truly enabled him to embody and embrace both Jack’s physical and mental state.
Our film was shot 100% on location in the middle of winter. Tom and I made this aesthetic choice because the world that Jack lives in is a stark, lonely place. These brutal conditions played an important role in bringing out organic performances from the actors. Louis was the primary example of this scenario. He refused the use of heaters to stay true to the cold, dark world in which Jack exists. He insisted that the bitter cold weather and its effects on his behavior added a level of authenticity and validity to the character.
Tom and I look forward to working with Louis again in the future, hopefully working in between Gary Oldman and John Malkovich in Mectl.
TOM: Let me set this up. Currently, Mectl is our next project. Mectl is about a no-name thug who gets caught up in the middle of two feuding Russian organized crime lords. It is comprised of a complex structure with off the wall characters and designed to keep the audience guessing as to who’s behind all the mayhem. The ultimate lineup would be Gary Oldman (to play “Sir Ivan,” the lunatic ex-KGB assassin who now runs the Philadelphia sector of the Mikaelian Organization) playing opposite of John Malkovich (to play, “Gabriel Himself,” the stone cold, smooth as ice leader of the New York sector of the Mikaelian Organization). And then we will throw “our boy,” Louis Morabito in the middle of the two of them, to play “Vadeem,” the no-name thug looking to make a name for himself on the streets. I really feel strongly about everyone who participated in the 4th. I would work with any one of them again and recommend them to anyone. Miles Williams played Young Jack. At only seven and a half years old, he was simply amazing. The content that we threw at him would be difficult for an adult to swallow. He was talking about Einstein’s theory of relativity and he nailed it. He is a very talented young man and he is gaining a great deal of experience at such a young age. Louis Morabito simply floored us day in and day out. He brought so much to Jack that Dave and I never even thought of. He really developed the true arc of the character in a way that Dave and I could not have written. It was a beautiful thing to watch – and at times it literally brought tears to my eyes – on set. I could go on about each person, but that would take forever. And I hate to single anyone out – but we spent the most time with Louis and Miles as the central character of the film, “Jack,” so I wanted to point them out.
At what point will you be able to say, "Yes! I've made it!"
DAVE: For me, I feel that I will be able to say I’ve made it when The 4th Dimension has been distributed, I am being paid to work on our next feature, and I can quit my day job at NFL Films!
TOM: When I can quit my day job and make enough money to comfortably survive while making films full time. There are so many ideas to develop, but not enough time to get to all of them. In a way, I can say that I’ve made it already, because I’m doing it – no matter what. Even though I have a day job that has nothing to do with film, I am making the 4th anyway. So as long as I have the drive to do this and continue to do it – at all costs – in essence, I am already there. And the more obstacles that we have to go through to “make it,” the sweeter it feels when it all comes together. It makes you feel unstoppable.
Honestly, how important are film critics nowadays?
DAVE: Honestly, I think that critics are a necessary evil in the film industry. Personally, a critic is not going to influence me to see a film, nor deter me from seeing a film. However, I do enjoy reading multiple reviews and hearing different interpretations of films from the critics. That is what I think is most beneficial about having film critics. They may be able to open your eyes to elements that you may have missed while watching a film, or allow you to think of a film in a totally different context than you originally did.
TOM: As far as I am concerned, each person has their own opinion. I have read horrible reviews on films that I absolutely love - and vice versa. So, I will go to see a film if it looks enticing to me regardless of reviews – good or bad. However, my philosophy is not realized by everyone. So, are critics important? Hell yeah! I think a lot of people can be influenced by them. It also shows the different ways that different people respond to the piece. It helps us as filmmakers to sometimes learn things about the film that might be coming across in different ways than originally intended – whether it’s coming across in a good way, a bad way, or just a different way. It’s all beneficial. So I think it is important to get a good amount of reviews, that way there is a mixture of good and bad - and try to focus on the good ones for marketing purposes.
If a studio bought your film and then decided not to show it to critics, what would your reaction be?
DAVE: At this point, if a studio purchased our film, Tom and I would be so excited that we wouldn’t care what they did or didn’t do with it! On a serious note, I would be a little disappointed if they sheltered it from the critics. The saying goes, any press is good press. A review is an opinion. Opinions are neither right nor wrong. Besides, I have seen negative reviews used as excellent marketing tools. David Lynch’s Lost Highway got a horrible write up and he used it on a poster stating, “Another reason to go see Lost Highway.”
TOM: I really don’t know enough about the market to know exactly what their reasons would be. I’m guessing that because it is a love or hate type of film; they would be weary of receiving some bad reviews. The way I see it, if there are extreme reactions – good and bad – I think that gets people talking – so I would disagree with not releasing it to critics. But I would have to hear their strategy first before I can really answer this question.
You’re contractually obligated to deliver an R-rated film to your producers. The MPAA says you have to delete something that’s absolutely integral to the film or you’re getting an NC-17. How do you handle it?
DAVE: Tough question. I would certainly ask the producer’s to go to bat on our behalf, if they hadn’t already. It would be very difficult to compromise a scene that Tom and I felt was integral to our film. If the producers were unsuccessful in convincing the MPAA, I would try to cut other scenes that may not be as pertinent to the narrative in an effort to get the R rating. If that didn’t work, I would push for the opportunity to reshoot the scene in another way.
TOM: I’d fight really hard for it. Unfortunately, there are many factors involved with filmmaking – one of them being the business end of it. With that comes compromise. There is a lot of compromising that sometimes has to happen when making a film. Bottom line is we would find a way to meet in the middle. I guess there’s always the “Director’s Cut.”
What’s your take on the whole “a film by DIRECTOR” issue? Do you feel it’s tacky, because hundreds (or at least dozens) of people collaborate to make a film – or do you think it’s cool, because ultimately the director is the final word on pretty much everything?
DAVE: I can see “a film by DIRECTOR” being deflating to a crew who worked on a film if it is taken in a literal sense. After all, every member of a film crew is integral to the production. Whether it is the Director, the D.P., the grips, or the P.A.’s, each member has a key role in ensuing that the production runs smoothly. The filmmaking process itself is such a collaborative effort that it is impossible for a director not to use input and suggestions from either the actors or other members of the crew.
However, I feel that the “a film by DIRECTOR” is often used to generate buzz as a marketing pitch by the studios. I don’t feel that there is a director in the industry who would say that they were the only reason for a film being completed. In fact, most directors immediately acknowledge their crew and actors.
TOM: Dave and I chose not to use this title. Our approach to filmmaking is a truly organic and open creative process. We encourage all involved to bring everything they got to the project. When the Title of the film comes up, “The 4th Dimension,” - that to me says, “a film by us” – as a family. Dave and I are basically there to steer the ship – but we are not the only ones that are making it move. I’m not in any way knocking anyone who uses this title. And I am not making assumptions of their reasons for using this title. On a side note - just so I don’t sound like a hypocrite - in case someone comes across one of our complimentary 4th D soundtracks that we are giving out at festivals – it does say a film by Tom Mattera & Dave Mazzoni on the back. We never really gave it any thought during the design phase of the CD cases. We were facing a deadline and just applied the credits as a formula the way they were done on most soundtrack cases. When we put the credits to the actual film – that’s when we stopped to think about it, and we decided not to use the film by director thing. It still does remain on the CD cases only because we do not have the money to make the printing change. Now, I am going to also take a guess at this film by director thing and say that I would not be surprised if it is used as nothing more than a marketing tool in some cases to attract fans of certain directors – as it is easily placed on movie posters. And I have to be honest, if I am walking down the hallway in the theater and see a poster that says, “A Film By David Lynch,” – I’m sold!
In your film, a broken clock plays a pivotal role. Take a momentary trip into the Twilight Zone where you are given a stopwatch capable of freezing time. What's the first thing you do and what do you do if you break it freezing time forever?
DAVE: If I were in the Twilight Zone, I am sure that I would run into Jack (our main character). I would give him the watch. Once he found a way to travel through time back to his childhood, he could break it and be stuck there forever…where he is happiest.
TOM: To me, a camera is like a stopwatch capable of freezing time. I’m all about freezing time. To make a film is to capture moments of time forever. That is a beautiful thing to me. I hope to break many stopwatches.
In closing, we ask you to convince the average movie-watcher to choose your film instead of the trillion other options they have. How do you do it?
DAVE: Our film is certainly not a mainstream film. Therefore, attracting the average movie-watcher is certainly a challenge. However, I feel that if someone approaches our film with an open mind and is on board for the ride, they will enjoy it. It certainly goes against the mainstream grain, but the story and themes are universal. Tom and I just chose an unconventional approach and created a world that celebrates many of the things that people take for granted. We hope that this film can open people’s eyes to the beauty that is hidden in the places where they would least expect to find it.
TOM: I really do feel that we have made a film that is truly different. It’s refreshing. It does not fit into the standard mold of a movie. I sometimes feel that a lot of movies come off an assembly line. This one was not made in the factory. It was made by the homeless living outside the factory – who have nothing to offer but their heart – and they gave ALL OF IT.
The 4th Dimension, directed by Tom Mattera & David Mazzoni, will screen at the 2006 CineVegas Film Festival on Monday, June 12 (1:30 PM) and Wednesday, June 14 (8:30 PM). Click here for film & festival information.
link directly to this feature at http://www.efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=1836
originally posted: 05/30/06 02:04:47
last updated: 06/10/06 09:23:53
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
 |
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed
