By Pam Victor
[“Geeking Out with…” is a series of interviews with well-known, highly experienced improvisers. It’s a chance to talk about stuff that might interest hardcore, improv dorkwads like Pam. The series can be found in full frontal geek out version on My Nephew is a Poodle and in pithier version on the Women in Comedy Festival blog. For behind-the-scenes action, ‘like’ the “Geeking Out with…” Facebook page.]
[“Geeking Out with…” is a series of interviews with well-known, highly experienced improvisers. It’s a chance to talk about stuff that might interest hardcore, improv dorkwads like Pam. The series can be found in full frontal geek out version on My Nephew is a Poodle and in pithier version on the Women in Comedy Festival blog. For behind-the-scenes action, ‘like’ the “Geeking Out with…” Facebook page.]
* * *
Can we talk about the be-still-my-heart cast, a
stellar array of improvisers with whom I’ve deeply loved Geeking Out with…
or very much hope to soon?! To name but a few to wet your whistle, the film
features improvised scenes by David Pasquesi (TJ and Dave)
and Holly Laurent (Second City
Mainstage), TJ Jagodowski (TJ and Dave)
and Kate Duffy (iO Theatre, Second City), Susan Messing (Messing with
a Friend) and Jim Carlson (iO, Second City), Jet Eveleth (iO) and
Tim Kazurinsky (Saturday Night Live.)
Noah Gregoropoulos….Ohmygod. I can go on and on, but I have to stop myself for
the sake of time and over-stimulation.
Due to the fact that I’m a shameless improvisation
harlot, I could not resist whetting my appetite a bit with some of the actors
of Close Quarters before getting hardcore geeky with the
film’s director and co-producer, Jack C. Newell. So enjoy a quick succession of
whambamthankyouma’am conversational hors d’oeuvres with Kate Duffy, Susan
Messing, Jet Eveleth, Colleen Doyle and David Pasquesi of Close Quarters before settling into Mr. Newell’s delicious
main course.
* * *
In Close
Quarters, Kate Duffy was paired
with TJ Jagodowski in an intimate scene in which they play two friends forced to confront
difficult realities of their spouses' affair, played in a separate scene by David
Pasquesi and Holly Laurent. While watching the movie, I firmly concluded that
Kate Duffy was the luckiest woman on earth during the filming process. The
scene, her work, and her scene partner are that luscious.
PAM: I found the scene between you and TJ
Jagodowski to be incredibly tender and compelling. I could have watched a whole
movie of your story! Can you tell me about what improvising that scene felt
like from your end?
 |
| Kate Duffy in Close Quarters |
KATE DUFFY:
Well, it was a very interesting process. I didn't know anything about the
scene, my partner, or the movie when I arrived on set. We were given our goal
for the scene when we arrived, and both TJ and I thought it was going to be
really challenging to accomplish it with honesty.
We improvised for about 2-3
hours with two cameras on us. There were not a lot of takes. They just really
let us go and find it, so in that way it felt less like a typical movie shoot
and more like long form that happened to have cameras.
TJ and I have a long and
interesting history together, so it felt easy and comfortable. I felt like we
brought a lot of our friendship to that scene and I'm not sure I could have
done that with anyone else. For me, I was worried that we would not be able to
find the arc of the scene in a truthful way; but once we started, it just
happened naturally. Two hours felt like two minutes, which I find true for any
good show. You lose yourself in it and time seems to stop.
*
 |
| Ms. Messing |
PAM: Congratulations
on your Best Actress win for this movie at the "Best of the Midwest
Awards." You often quip about how you weren't a good actress - guess the
world disagrees! What was your reaction to the nomination and the win?
SUSAN: It
confounded me that I was nominated for it. I thought Pasquesi, Kate, Holly, and
frankly anyone else, did as good if not a better job than I did. And I am not
being modest. I remember when I walked out of the first screening thinking that
I was grateful that I didn't seem to fuck up their movie. Seriously.
It was an ensemble film
start to finish, and I just felt fortunate to participate. So to be
acknowledged was awkward and made me completely reevaluate what
"good" is. As improvisers, we certainly don't look back and view what
we've done and if it's good or not. Rather, we move on and try to capture once
again that great feeling we had from having an awesome time on stage.
PAM: Your scene with Jim Carlson seemed
particularly challenging since you were basically improvising into the camera
rather than playing against him. During the shooting, were you in the same room
or really improvising virtually? How was that experience for you?
SUSAN: It was absolutely painless on
my end. It's the poor editor that I worried about. (Ask Jack, but I think that
there was over 500 hours of stuff to sift through and decide what to put in.
Yikes. Almost insurmountable!!)
My part was easy - no more than a little over an hour. Jim was seated across
from me, and we both had computer screens in front of us. I think that the only
weird part was making sure to look at the screen and not at him. Jack gave us
some simple direction of basic plot points and then just let us rip. Staying
within the context of what he wanted was pretty easy since I assume if we went
way out of bounds Jack would have reined us in. Both Jim and I left the
experience saying that it was one of the easiest and most fun scenes we've ever
done. Like I said before, I assume the horror was in the editing.
I was happy to have had the
experience and simply wish that my hair looked nicer.
*
 |
| Jet Eveleth |
PAM: First of all, I have to say that your
scene with Tim Kazurinsky was one of my favorites. It was so tender and
authentic. You two seemed to develop a real connection in the scene, which I
found especially intriguing given that so many of the other improvisers were
working with people they've improvised with many, many times. Did you know Tim
before the movie? Had you ever worked together before?
 |
| Tim Kazurinsky in Close Quarters |
PAM: Given that you were improvising in
front of a camera, you two did an impressive job making the
"discovery" aspect of improv look natural and authentic. Can you tell
me about that part of the process for you?
JET: We
were given character descriptions and the basic arc of the scene, but overall
Jack really trusted us to find the moments through improvisation. I loved this
process of creation and I hope this is the beginning of a larger movement in
film.
PAM: They gave you a juicy challenge to
play a very depressed person in comic movie, which I think you did successfully
without seeming kooky or over the top. Can you tell me about how you approached
the character?
JET: My
material was dark, and lucky for me I don't see comedy as only the light side
of life. I've always been attracted to tragic clowns like Chaplin and Ball and
to the dark comedy in a show like Deadwood.
I view comedy as a unique entrance on the full spectrum the human experience.
*
 |
| Colleen Doyle |
PAM: What was your experience of
improvising from a plot outline as opposed to the usual purely improvised work
you do on stage?
COLLEEN DOYLE: The scene had a very loose outline. We truly just had a conversation. It was
incredibly easy to do. The other actors were so funny and their points of view
were so interesting that it was easy to just react. We riffed on each other's
honest opinions and experiences.
PAM: Can you tell me how you approached
your improv for this movie?
COLLEEN:
The basic tenets of good improv: listening, agreement, having a point of view,
and making choices all helped to make it work.
*
 |
| David Pasquesi |
PAM: Bringing improvisation to the screen
is particularly challenging for many reasons. Your movie with TJ Jagodowski, Trust Us, This
is All Made Up, successfully captures
the magic of an improv set, in my opinion. Now that you've had the experience
of shooting two improvised movies, what elements do you suggest filmmakers
incorporate in order to be most successful in bringing improv to the screen?
DAVID PASQUESI: I have had some experience in improvising on camera. Trust Us was really just us doing our
show for an audience, and the camera was not the primary observer. I did a show
with/for Mitch Rouse and a couple other guys called Factory. It was a six episode comedy
series for Spike. All dialogue was improvised, very much like Close Quarters. We had a rough outline
of the story points that needed to be addressed. In Close Quarters, I found it easier because Jack was there, watching
and guiding both the story and emotional tone.
As to suggestions for
directors for improvised films, Be good to your actors. Like Jack.
PAM: Did you engage different improv
"muscles" in your approach to performing for the screen rather than
on stage?
DAVID: I
do not think of there being much of a difference between improvising on stage
and film. You do a little less for a camera, but I don't do a whole lot on
stage either - at least I try not to.
In Close Quarters, I was only responsible for my part of the scene -
very freeing. Also, I had the confidence to try stuff because I trusted Jack
wasn't going to use the humiliating shit. Only the better things. And trusted
that Holly would be game for anything. We had a good time, I think.
At least I did.
PAM: Your particular scene with Holly
Laurent was the most intimate and intense of the movie. I understand it was
shot in a small bathroom with no breaks allowed. Aside from "hot and
smelly," can you tell me what that experience was like for you?
DAVID: I
did not know that breaks were not allowed, only that we didn't take any because
we didn’t seem to need to. Had I known that breaks were not allowed, I would
have insisted we take one. Or two.
I liked the tiny space. It
kind of does some of the work for you. We were right up in each other’s
business…literally and figuratively.
* * *
 |
| Jack C. Newell |
PAM VICTOR: What was
your impetus for making cinematic order from improvisational chaos?
JACK C. NEWELL: That's a good question and is probably more of an involved answer than Close Quarters because I've been trying
to do it since I went to improv classes at Second City and iO.
The simple answer is that
with improvisation you get a fearlessness in the performance that I have not
seen any one match in more "traditional" approaches to working with
actors. I find most acting in most movies pretty bad because I want it to be
more out of control, and improvisation gives you the fear in the eyes of "This is really happening" that
happens in real life.
PAM: You were going for a feeling of
authenticity.
JACK: That
is the much simpler way to say what I just said.
PAM: It is HARD to capture the magic of
improv on the screen, I find. And half the time, the dang audience doesn't
appreciate that it was made up on the spot.
JACK: I am
less interested in that. Charlie Chaplin didn't let any photos or anything leak
about how he did anything on set, and I like that idea of maintaining the
illusion of film. There's some magic there still.
PAM: Tell
me about your improv training. Did you go through all the levels at iO and
Second City?
JACK: Yep.
I performed but never got onto a team. Wasn't that good, ;-)
PAM: It takes a long time to get good. But
it sounds like you got the bug. You became addicted to improv?
JACK: Addicted
has a different spin on it than I would say. I really found that what it was
trying to teach was good for me. Improv has way more applications than getting
on stage or making a movie. It's a way of life. It made me a better director
and actor and writer.
PAM: What shows were you watching at iO and
Second City that made you think, "I need to make an improvised
movie." (I'm sure the words in your head were different...and probably not
in my voice.)
JACK: When
I was a student at Second City Training Center, you could get into shows for
free, so I went to Mainstage all the time. The show was Red Scare, and I must have seen it 30 times. And then stayed for
the improv sets. The cast was Brian
Gallivan, Mary Beth Monroe...I'm blanking on the other folks, which makes me a
dick, but you can Google that. [The cast
was Brian Boland, Brian Gallivan, Antoine McKay, Maribeth Monroe, Claudia
Wallace and Jean Villepique, and the director was none other than Mr. Mick
Napier, founder of Annoyance Theatre.]
I started actually to put
together a feature film then, completely improvised based off a scenario-driven
script I had written. It was an outline. We started rehearsing and all that. Then
we lost our funding, and the movie catastrophically fell apart like a gigantic
clusterfuck. And I had a good cast too:
Mary Beth was in it, so was Molly Erdman, Joe Canale, Brian Galivan, Bob Kulhan.
It was an ensemble piece, but was just way too much. And when we lost our money, everything else fell apart with it.
I really liked the Second
City experience because they are working towards improv to a scene, right? Filmmakers
are control freaks, so the idea that I could take improv, and then write
something that was controlled was very appealing.
PAM: The cast of Close Quarters!
(Dreamily sigh.) Dude, you scored some of the best and brightest of the Chicago
improv world. How did you know who to ask? And how did you get them to say yes?
(I suspect the answer to the second question simply was to ask. Improvisers are
game for almost anything.)
JACK: I've
been doing a lot of short film and short film work and that kept me in the
world. I directed a couple years with MPZ (Maximum Party Zone) with Bill
Arnett, Bobby Mort, and Danny Mora. We made a lot (A LOT) of videos - all on
YouTube [Check ‘em out.] People saw that, and saw that we were
doing funny work.
For Close Quarters, I knew
and worked with most of them before. I had worked with Tim Kazurinsky on a
short film in March of 2010 [Typing,] and he and Dave Pasquesi are
friends. When I knew I wanted Tim in, we also wanted Dave, and he put us in
touch. And then Dave got us TJ.
Dave and TJ are in my next film too. We are filming now.
PAM: I love love love TJ and Dave.
JACK: Everyone
does.
PAM: But I like to think that I love them a
little more.
JACK: I
bet there's someone out there who hates them.
PAM: I am shuddering at the thought.
JACK: I am
excited for the work Dave and TJ are doing in my next film. We wrapped Dave’s
scenes earlier this week, and he brought some stuff I have not seen him bring in
any other performances.
PAM: I just watched TJ's other movie, No Sleep Til Madison.
JACK: How
is that? I haven't seen it.
PAM: TJ calls it “No Need to See It.” I enjoyed it. It was like looking at his baby photos.
 |
| TJ and his face |
JACK: A
lot of people say that.
PAM: Really? That's interesting.
JACK: Oh
yeah. I don't know if it's a compliment or complaint.
PAM: Haha!
JACK: The
movie elicits a lot of different reactions, which I like. The idea going in was
if we can score on one of these improvised scenarios, then we've really done
something. I think we hit it pretty well on a number of them. Then we hit it
out of the park with TJ and Kate. So I am pleased. If Close Quarters is an experiment, it was successful.
PAM: Well, one of my questions was a
suggestion to make a movie of TJ and someone else or a few other people. He's
very compelling. His vulnerability makes him likeable and his face is very, very
funny.
JACK: So
wait. You question was a suggestion? I'm...not seeing the question. You want
me to make a movie with TJ? That sounds like a demand.
PAM: You're not the only control freak,
Jack.
JACK: Ha!
Unpack that. You want a
movie of TJ? Or his character from Close
Quarters? Or what?
PAM: If I could take a moment to add, I am
a solid improviser who transmits very well on film.
JACK: Duly
noted.
PAM: [after
pitching a few movie ideas that basically amount to improv porn for a very
patient Jack] Back to your cast, did you audition anybody, or go to shows and
cast from the audience?
 |
| Baristas in Close Quarters played by Erica Unger and Seth Unger |
PAM: I’m very interested in the process of
developing and capturing the improvisation in Close Quarters. I know the actors
were given a general plot outline for their scenes, and then you let them
improvise off that in ten-minute increments, in between which you’d offer
direction. Making order from the typical messiness of creation involved in
improvisation is a quite a challenge. What part of the process surprised you
most? What worked best? What would you change if you make another improvised
movie?
JACK: This
next one is similar in that there is improvisation in it done is the same way,
where I wrote the scenario and they play with in that. The biggest things I
want to change for the next film are do more with camera to tell story. For Close Quarters, we set up cameras and
that shot is what we got. And, for me, it becomes a little stagnant, so, how
do I use improvisation to get the best performances AND use camera more
deliberately to make a better FILM? It's a tightrope because film and improv,
in a lot of ways, are diametrically opposed, even when working with the best.
PAM: Talk more about how film and improv are diametrically
opposed.
JACK: Film
is manual labor. It's obsessive and repetitive and heavy on the details that
just take time to pull off. Improvisation is also about details, trying to
capture them, but you can miss a moment because of the issues with film, like
focus, lighting, camera moves, etc.
PAM: Plus film is forever. The magical part
about improv is that it is momentary and not meant to be saved.
How did your original plot and vision change once the
improvisers got a hold of the story?
JACK: Not
much. For TJ and Kate’s scene, I knew when they came in their characters were
friends, had little crushes on each other they never acted on. And they thought
their significant others were cheating on them, but didn't know for sure. That's
what I told them.
What I didn't tell them, but
directed them towards, was the discoveries that make up the beats, and that at
the end I knew they leave the coffee shop "in love.” What I didn't know,
and what I wanted to use improvisation for, was the color of those beats and
arc. We have the skeleton, now please fill it in with details, character, etc.
So plot was known. HOW was not.
There’s a thing for
directors, at least film directors, the script tells you when, where, why, who,
and your only job is to fill in HOW. The big thing here, my HOW, was to really
just find out on set…which is scary for producers and planners, etc. because if
HOW had turned out SHITTY, then that'd be a problem.
PAM: The parallel in improv is that the
only part the audience is really interested in is the "how." How
people feel about each other. Relationship. Emotion.
JACK: Yeah.
HOW is character.
PAM: So you got lucky that the “how” didn't
turn out shitty?
JACK: Let's
say we did all of what I just typed out, and the improv was shit. That's why it
could have been scary.
PAM: Definitely. Though you stacked the deck
with the cast. Did you know the personal history between TJ and Holly, who used
to be a real life couple, when you cast her as his presumably soon-to-be
estranged wife?
JACK: I
think I knew, but it was deep in the back of my brain, and I did not do it
because of that. And once cast was in place, it came up, but they are all pros,
so it wasn't an issue. Plus they never share a scene together, so whatever.
PAM: Other couples with personal histories
– Noah and Linda as spouses, TJ and Dave as close friends – parallel the
characters of the movie. I assume that was intentional?
JACK: Noah
is insanely good…and Linda brings such a fucking awesome approach to character.
The funny thing about that scene was we had actually filmed that scene once
before with five improvisers on the first day of filming. It wasn't shit, but
it was too blue…They did a great job, but it was tonally incorrect for the rest
of the film. It was raucous. So we
reshot that scene and couldn't get everyone back, so Noah was actually added in
then because he couldn't make it the first time. And it just so happened they
were married. It wasn’t intentional really.
For TJ and Dave, the idea
was that more people know "TJ and Dave" than know TJ or Dave, and I
find that really uninteresting for my movie. I don't want people watching to be
like, "It's a TJ and Dave
show" in the middle of my movie. That’s not to say that I wouldn't put
them in scenes together, but you know what I mean?
PAM: I think it's a more interesting choice
to use their real life relationship as subtext.
Visually, the “picture frame” seemed to be a thematic element
in this movie. For instance, the baristas serve through a frame. There are
empty picture frames on the wall. The computer screens literally enclose the
actors in that scene, Jim Carlson and Susan Messing. As the movie progresses,
many of the actors are released from their frames. Can you talk to me about the
picture frame as symbolism in Close
Quarters?
JACK: Frames
are one. Mirrors are another. And lenses/prisms too.
PAM: Hey! I had a mirror question! Now I
can't use it and look like a smartypants.
JACK: Sorry.
PAM: I forgive you.
JACK: The plot of the movie is a romantic comedy, and romantic comedies at their heart
are really about seeing someone in a new way, right? They hate each other and
then they see them in a new way, and then they fall in love. So the idea for
the movie was, how do we present that idea and make it more visual? Frames,
mirrors, and prisms all change context and are metaphorical for reflection and
understanding yourself and others. Each scenario has one or more of those
working based on what I thought they were doing to the main barista plot.
All of the scenarios are
essentially RIFFS off of what's happening with the barista, so if the baristas
fight, then we build that with improv scenes, (i.e., Jim and Susan in therapy.)
PAM: In a related question, I am interested
in your choice to utilize frequent double-frame shots. (I’m not sure what the
technical movie term is for those side-by-side shots?) To me, it seemed to
simulate the effect of sitting in a theater audience and being able to look
where we want rather than being restricted to the one point of view given to us
by the movie director. The mirrors serve that same purpose since often they
allow the audience to see multiple angles, as they wish to change their focus.
Is that close to what you were thinking or am I seeing it strangely? (Your
answer could be “Both.”)
JACK:
Yeah. Both.
There are a couple of
answers. The split screen gives you two frames within the film frame, so it’s
more on that. I use split screen a lot. I just like it. This split screen stuff
makes the audience a more active participant in the movie and is more like the
theater experience.
JACK: Oh,
yeah. The baristas are voyeurs. And so are we.
PAM: I read that what started as a 40-page
script expanded into a 500-page script once the improvisers were left to have
their ways with it, resulting in forty hours of footage. Did you know how much
of a bitch the movie would be to edit when you set out about the project?
JACK: No,
I didn't really realize the scope until decisions were already made. It was
like we shot a documentary. But that 500 page script is a bit of a misnomer. It
was transcripts, like you do for docs, and from that we turned it into a paper
edit. But the 40 hours of footage is right. And Jill, my editor, and myself had
to go through all of it.
PAM: Brutal. That's intense.
Jet and
Tim seemed to be the only ones where you used an over-the-shoulder shot. They
seem, for the most part, un-framed. Ironically, they are the most optimistic
relationship. Is there a connection there?
JACK:
Yeah. The idea of them sharing frame is to tell the audience they are
connecting. They have the car lights and glass behind them. Theirs is more
complicated then the rest. It's "nuanced."
PAM: I found myself very charmed by Jet and
Tim’s scene. The connection that evolved in front of the camera felt very
authentic and genuine. Ironically, it was the most hopeful scene. Can you tell
me about the development of that scene?
JACK: That
came the furthest from the first edit of the film to what's in there now. The
first passes on that scene just didn't work. The scenario is pretty wild and it
just felt odd and not dramatic enough (which is weird because she was going to
kill herself.) And his backstory is that he was also going to kill himself that
night. And they met. It's a very movie-conceit idea.
PAM: Oooh. I didn't pick that up.
JACK: He
actually dropped that in the improv, so it's not there. And I am glad and
didn't push him to do it because what they DID do was sweet and touching and
different.
PAM: But I got that there was something
"off" in him that made him able to empathize with Jet's character.
JACK: Oh,
yes. He's a mess.
PAM: But so sweet. They had a very nice
connection. That scene was a lot about relationship, which I found delightful
from an improviser's point of view.
JACK: And
by the casting, you remove a sexual angle from it. (No offense to either of
them.) But it's more about humans having a moment.
PAM: Interestingly also, they had never
worked together.
JACK: That
was the 'riskiest' casting because Tim is known for a certain style of play, "The
Police Academy Effect,” and he's really good at it. But he's a director, a real
REAL actor, a fantastic writer. He’s a renaissance man, so I wanted to do
something different with him.
And Jet is also known for a
very physical and weird (can I say weird?) style of play, and I wanted to see her do something
different. I have worked with Jet a bunch and think she's the bee's knees.
PAM: She is the bee's knees.
JACK: You
can put that in your article. BEEs KNEEs.
PAM: Very funny.
On a very different note, let’s talk about the
process of shooting in the bathroom that very intimate and intense scene with
David Pasquesi and Holly Laurent.
JACK: It
was hot. NEXT QUESTION.
PAM: Ha! I hope you mean sexually, but I
assume you mean physically.
 |
| Holly Laurent in Close Quarters |
PAM: Why?
JACK: Well, we shot for an hour and a half.
PAM: Would it be fair to say you wouldn't
allow them out of the room until the shoot was finished? That's what I told
Dave, so I may have lied to Mr. Pasquesi.
JACK: That's
right. I didn't want them leaving because
i wanted it to be a pressure cooker. But remember, it's them in the room, then
me and Stephanie (the DP) each operating a camera. And two lights. And the
bathroom is small.
So we closed the door, and an
hour and a half later walked out and it just got very dark and very negative. I mean, in the film it goes dark for the last
30 minutes, but we only go back to them a couple of times. So it’s like four
minutes or so of them being assholes to each other. We were in that negative
space for a long time.
 |
| David Pasquesi in Close Quarters |
JACK: Yeah,
I think it's real what he does. I think it reveals character.
PAM: It's the dirty underside of a romantic
comedy.
JACK: It's
not clean because it never is. But the direction for me in that scene is,
"Be meaner, cut deeper." And then about three-quarters of the way in,
Dave was like, "I don't think we can go any meaner." And then I kept rolling. And they did. That's
where we got those last lines for them in the movie.
Interestingly, they were the
only two improvisors we let read the script. No one else was allowed to know
anything at all - they all agreed to do it, without seeing anything. Then on
set, I told them only what they knew coming into the shop, and then directed as
went.
PAM: I wouldn't want to play against Dave being a dick. I give Holly
a lot of credit. That had to have been tough.
JACK: Yeah,
she's great. I love how she played it. Some people have told me they think
she's not active enough, but I think her inactivity and 'stuck in the
middle-ness' works. Their scene breaks my heart.
PAM: It's real. It's one of those moments
in life when you think back on and wish you had said or done this or that. And
you beat yourself up for being such a pussy.
JACK: Totally.
I love it when she says, "This was just a regular night." And it's
silent for a moment. Because we all have that, when we have a moment of
perspective and you see for a moment over the clouds, and you say, "How
did I put myself in this position? This mess?" Their scene is purgatory.
They are in limbo, stuck between choices.
Holly
is great. Love her. She and Jet have been in a bunch of my movies.
PAM: Oh yeah? That's cool. I love them
together. The Reckoning. Amazing group.
That leads to this question....Some of the scenes,
like the two couples after the funeral and the three bitchy girls, are “slices of life” scenes.
Others, like TJ/Kate and Dave/Holly’s, are “Today’s the day” scenes. In improv,
we sometimes evaluate each scene by asking, “Why are we here today? Why are we
in this moment now?” Holly even says in the movie, “Everything changes from now
on.” Did you use that idea in the development of the story lines?
JACK: I
think of Close Quarters as a meal. We are trying for the perfect meal in every
movie. You have your cuisine choice, French or Italian (baristas,) and the
improvised scenes are the food of the meal. Kate and TJ, Dave and Holly are the
meat. Potatoes are the mourners. Your broccoli is Jet and Tim, and then for
garnishes and sauces you have the bitchy girls and the old guys. So cutting the
film is like eating your way around your plate. “I want to eat a piece of meat
with some potato. Now what does it taste like with just a garnish? Now some
broccoli.”
PAM: I'm hungry now.
JACK: I am
too!
PAM: Your movie is a pu-pu platter. I get
it.
JACK: The
less flowery answer is that some of the storylines were meatier and it was
obvious. We expected them to be as such in how we filmed them. The bridesmaids are a one trick pony
scene. The trick is to just do that one thing really well with them.
PAM: They play the "game" of the scene, which
is being bitchier and bitchier.
JACK:
Yeah, their job in the film is to allow laughter release for all the heaviness
of the other scenes.
PAM: (I swear, my heart is still hurting
from remember the Dave and Holly scene. Can you please make a behind-the-scenes
cut when they love each other?)
On a brighter note, I loved Bill Arnett in this
movie. Did you write his lines or was that his invention?
JACK: Hah! I have thought about a sequel: Bill
Arnett is the male character. He has zero lines.
PAM: LOL. It would be a hit. He could pull
it off.
JACK: In
the script, the character is given some lines, but not enough. So I said,
"He should either speak or not." Similarly, it'd be weird if Harpo
Marx talked in some scenes but not others.
PAM: Yeah. There is a show like that at iO
West. It's called Middle
Seat. It takes place in a three-person row of an airplane. The people on
the end seats know each other. The guy in the middle, who is always played by
the same improviser, never says anything. It's fantastic.
Back to the movie, the online therapy element – where
Bill Arnett is playing a therapist giving online marriage counseling to two
people (played by Susan Messing and Jim Carlson) who are seen on their own
individual screens. This dynamic is an interesting structure to lie on top of
the coffee shop set up. Why not have the three of them meeting in person? It feels like you
laid the premise of online therapy on top of the structure of a coffee shop
longform structure.
JACK: The
idea is that the coffee shop is this weird private/public space, and what's
more private than therapy? (Well, sex - but we got that too.) It’s a sight gag
too, for him to pull out one computer, then another. That always gets such an
unexpected laugh. It's just a different way of doing it that allowed us to push
their characters further because it's in the context of this weird therapy session.
PAM: Susan Messing told me she came
downstairs the other day to find her husband watching the movie again. [Susan
is newly married to iO improviser/teacher Michael Clayton McCarthy.] He said
it’s like a time capsule of the people who came to their wedding. That's sweet
and ultimately very complimentary to you and her.
JACK: Yeah,
she is in my new movie and told me that, and I was like, "That's really
weird."
PAM: Shut. Up. Susan is in your new movie
too? You get all the best players!
JACK: Why
bother doing it if you don't get the best?
PAM: Please make sure her hair is nice in
this movie. That's her request, not
mine.
JACK: Hah.
It’s actually not. It's kind of all over the place.
PAM: Good, because I think she is wicked
sexy when she looks like she just rolled out of bed.
The
soundtrack is adorable, featuring songs by lesser-known artists, like
Branches and Em and Them. How did you go about collecting these songs?
JACK: I
wanted to have it be in real time, an hour and a half almost in real time. Coffee
shops play songs start to finish, so we had to get 25 songs or something like
that. My sound designer, Marina Bacci is in the music scene here, and she and I
worked together on a playlist. We just picked songs we liked, and then narrowed
it down to let the songs over all vibe match or play against what was happening
on screen. It was actually very improvisationally placed for the music. We just
threw it in and a lot of the times. Where things line up is total accident.
PAM: What is the wide release plan for
Close Quarters? How will regular, non-festival-goer people be able to see it?
Will it eventually be on Netflix?
JACK: Great
question.
PAM: Thank you.
JACK: Right
now, you can see it on the Chicago
Comedy Film Festival website for $2.99. But we haven't gotten anything
locked in for Netflix or iTunes. I don't own the film, so it’s out of my hands
a bit.
PAM: I hope it comes out on Netflix soon.
JACK: Shit,
girl. Me too. I have not figured out how to make that happen yet, even with
good festival screenings and nice words.
PAM: What's the name of your next movie
with TJ and Dave? And when can I get to feast on it with my hungry eyes?
JACK: The
next film is called Open Tables. I am
writing and directing. I am hoping to submit to festivals in July/August, 2013.
[Jack and I start wrapping up the interview.]
PAM: Thank you!
JACK: I
hope I was able to help you to geek out. I have another minute. Do you have any
other questions? Don't hesitate.
PAM: Oh great. I do my closer and then you
ask for an encore...
JACK: I
just want to make sure you are getting what you need/want from me. For your
mission.
PAM: Hahaha! Did someone tell you that I
view my geek out sessions as good sex? Because
you're being very accommodating.
JACK: I
view everything as good sex. Milkshakes. Raccoons.
PAM: Ha! ESPECIALLY raccoons.
JACK: Don't
tell the raccoon.
PAM: I think I got everything I needed. I
am very satisfied. Thank you, Jack C. Newell.
* * *
To
watch Close Quarters
for
the well-worth-it price of only $2.99,
go
to the Chicago
Comedy Festival website.
The
bargain of the century.
To
own your very own copy, send a $25
check payable to
NEFARIOUS
PRODUCTIONS to:
Nefarious
Productions
6435
West Jefferson Blvd #130
Fort Wayne, IN 46804
(Include
"ship to" address.)
Check
out more about Jack C. Newell’s
next
improvisationally inspired film, Open Tables
featuring Kate Duffy, TJ Jagodowski, Colleen Doyle, David Pasquesi, Joel Murray
and so many more tasty improvisators:
https://www.facebook.com/OpenTablesMovie
or www.opentablesmovie.com.featuring Kate Duffy, TJ Jagodowski, Colleen Doyle, David Pasquesi, Joel Murray
and so many more tasty improvisators:
https://www.facebook.com/OpenTablesMovie
* * *
Read Geeking Out with...Susan Messing
in which Susan says,
"I am not for the faint of heart,
but if you can handle the messenger
you'll definitely get the message."
...David Razowsky of iO West
…with Joe Bill of BASSPROV
...Jet Eveleth of The Reckoning
...TJ Jagodowski of TJ and Dave
and many more!
And "like" the "Geeking Out with..." FACEBOOK PAGE please.
Pam Victor is the founding member of The Ha-Ha’s, and she produces The Happier Valley Comedy Show in western Massachusetts. Pam directs, produces and performs in the comic soap opera web series "Silent H, Deadly H". Pam also writes mostly humorous, mostly true essays and reviews of books, movies, and tea on her blog, "My Nephew is a Poodle." If you want to stay abreast of all the geek out action, like the “Geeking Out with…” Facebook page! And get it all at www.pamvictor.com.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment