by Pam Victor
[“Geeking Out with…” is a series of super improv-geeky interviews
with well-known, highly experienced improvisers.
If
you like good food, romance set in Paris and Chicago, and improvisation, Open
Tables will make all your juicy parts
say, “Mmmmm.” Written, directed, and produced by Jack C. Newell, with whom I
previously geeked out about Close Quarters, the first improv-chocked film he directed, Open Tables explores the idea that “every table has a
story.” In this case, the story-rich table is surrounded by a pu pu platter of
delicious improvisers and stage/screen actors - TJ Jagodowski, Colleen Doyle,
Kate Duffy, Keith Kupferer, Caroline Neff, Desmin Borges, and Jack C. Newell
himself – who play three couples sitting down together to a centerpiece meal
from which radiates a banquet of stories about love lost and found, and lost
and found again. This films also features Joel Murray (who manages to eat
throughout the movie even though all his scenes take place in a doctor’s
office), Linda Orr (who is a familiar face from the stages of Annoyance and iO
theaters in Chicago,) Gwendolyn Gourvenec and William Prünck (who are both
French actors and thus very, very sexy,) Beth Lacke (who has the good/bad luck
to fall in love with an amnesiac,) and David Pasquesi (who plays the
aforementioned amnesiac lover.)
Plus, improvisers will enjoy cameos by beloved Chicago gurus Susan
Messing and Bill Arnett.
A
picturesque, romantic movie, Open Tables
makes eye-love to viewers with its appetizing meals and settings. This movie
left me both sated and hungry for good food, travel, and love. It’s no
coincidence that Jack Newell first discovered the kernel of the story while he
was falling in love with his now-wife during their trip to Paris. (Let that be
a lesson to you: Choose wisely with whom you travel to Paris.) Open Tables riffs on the idea that we also would do
well to choose wisely with whom we share a meal. As Jack Newell writes, “Once
you've eaten a meal with someone you can’t call that someone a stranger. The
act of eating is, by definition, an ephemeral experience, but the memory of a
great meal stays with us forever.”
Love.
Great meals shared together. Chicago. Paris. Improvisation. Open Tables satisfies all our tastes. (Or at least
mine. As they say in France, “À chacun son goût.”)
I
had the good fortune of sitting down with Jack Newell for this cinematic Geeking
Out with… Additional commentary by some
of the stars of the movie can be found in the Special Features track.
No.
Wait. Blogs don’t have different tracks. Ummm…. Ok …Let’s pretend little text
boxes are Special Features. (Wheee! I’m in a movie! I’m gonna IMDB this shit.)
PAM:
Of course, I'm most curious about how you utilized improvisation in the making
of this film. I get the impression that you used it in a more structured way
than in your previous film.
JACK C. NEWELL: That is correct. If
Close Quarters was 90% improvised, which I think is safe to say it is,
I would say Open Tables is 50%
improvised. Though this conversation gets tricky when you use the word
“improvised.” In the shooting draft, I had sections that are 100% scripted, 50%
scripted, and 0% scripted. So different parts of the film are dealt with differently,
and it's hard to say one way of how I approached it.
PAM:
What was the process of making this movie?
JACK: I wrote the script for this
one. (I did not write Close Quarters.)
It started as an idea while my girlfriend (at the time - wife now) and I were
in Paris. When we got home from our vacation there, I wrote the script in two
weeks. And then rewrote it over the next nine months.
PAM: How did making this movie differ from
the process of making Close Quarters?
COLLEEN
DOYLE ("Dana"): Open Tables was a very
different experience than Close Quarters.
Jack gave us a lot more structure in Open
Tables; the story was laid out and there were beats we knew we'd hit. The
film was fleshed out from the beginning, but the dialogue was still improvised
and there was room for discovery there. Jack loves improv and it's always so
fun to have someone who’s excited about what you're bringing to the table and
willing and eager to let it help shape the piece. I also got to work with
different and wonderful people over the course of several weeks while not
eating in Chicago's best restaurants.
PAM:
In this film, you use well-known and highly respected improvisers, such as TJ
Jagodowski, David Pasquesi, Colleen Doyle, Kate Duffy, and Linda Orr, but many of your actors
seemed to come from the stage. They aren't at all regular improvisers, if at
all. And of course the main character is played by you, a "normal" as
Susan Messing calls non-improvisers.
JACK:
As well as Caroline Neff, and the French couple - Gwendolyn Gourvenec and
William Prünck - all "normal" people.
PAM:
Yup. They're "real" actors, right? Not improvisers. That leads me to
believe you were looking for something different from the actors in this movie. Perhaps
something different than the typical improviser's approach?
JACK: I would say like "on the
ground" that I was less concerned with the labels. Not to discount your
point.
PAM:
Go ahead. Discount my point. The night is young.
JACK: Hahaha! My interest in improv is
the fear in the eyes of the unknown, which is almost impossible to replicate.
PAM:
And very difficult to capture on film.
JACK: I think one thing that sets
my films apart is a level of performance that is very "real" or
"believable." Improvisation, if used right, can do this very well;
actually, better than anything else outside of real life. My tolerance for
unbelievable or fake moments is incredibly low. I can't stand it. It turns me
off immediately. That's not to say it has to be REAL as in POSSIBLE, but REAL
as in BELIEVABLE.
Case in point, Pasquesi: Ridiculous
story line. Totally believable.
PAM:
Dave Pasquesi plays a man named Dean who has a sort of amnesia. And Hannah (played
beautifully by Beth Lacke) falls in love with him.
JACK: If you breakdown Hannah and Dean's story, it's ridiculous. But in the
end is believable and reveals something true about human nature.
PAM:
Hannah is an interesting character.
JACK: Yeah! I love Hannah.
PAM: Me too. And Beth Lacke is pretty wonderful
too.
PAM: What is about Dave Pasquesi's character, or at
least his situation, that makes your character fall in love with him?
BETH
LACKE ("Hannah"): I believe that with him she's given an opportunity every day to open up
more and more at a pace that feels safer than her past relationships. It would
take a man who wakes up every morning, looking at her as if she did nothing
wrong the day before, to generate the (in this case, false) feeling of
unconditional love that would make her feel safe enough to feel worthy of love.
Which, for me, was the underlying reason she was burning through men faster
than a California wildfire before he entered her life.
PAM: Why do you think Beth's character
falls in love with your character?
DAVID
PASQUESI ("Dean"): I am fucking irresistible. Did you not see the movie?!
PAM: What's it like to share a bed with
David Pasquesi?
BETH
LACKE: I can say that for the brief time we shared a bed, it was just as
delightful a time as one would assume if you'd spent any time outside of one
with him.
PAM: Very diplomatic.
PAM:
Can you tell me about-
 |
| David Pasquesi and Beth Lacke in "Open Tables" |
JACK: Can I ask a question first?
PAM:
Of course.
JACK: Is Hannah's storyline
scripted or improvised?
PAM:
Hmmm … I think it's scripted. It is set apart from the other stories, and I
think you were trying to make a point about a certain type of relationship. A
commentary on how women approach romance. The general story is scripted. Her
exact words seem to be improvised.
JACK: Good, good.
PAM: You are about to tell me I'm wrong, I
assume.
JACK: No, you're very close. The
only alteration is that it's 100% scripted. There are some ad libs, but nothing
improvised. She's a great actor.
PAM:
Ah! She really is a great actor.
JACK: As is Dave.
PAM:
Yeah, he’s okay.
JACK: Hannah's character and situation are something I observe in my friends and people I know, who bounce from
relationship to relationship. And you see them for coffee or a dinner or
something, and they're telling the same story over and over and over, but the
characters change.
PAM:
But there seems to be something specific to that story. It's more than just “we
broken real humans re-living the same tired storylines in our real broken human
lives.” Number one, the situation with Dave's character changes the pattern, in
a way. Number two, I think the story is about this woman approaching men in a
stereotypically male way.
JACK: That's interesting. I hadn't
thought about that. That's the first time anyone's said that to me. It's a good
point, and I don't want to discount that. I think your analysis of Hannah is
great and valid.
PAM:
Aha! We're 1 to 1. A discount tie.
PAM: How do you view the character you play?
BETH
LACKE: I see Hannah as completely lost, but like most ‘self-actualized’ women,
who live by the idea, “I've come up with a set of rules to live by that define
who I am and nothing will shake me from my rock solid sense of myself and what
I want out of life," she has set herself up for quite a shaking up when
life sets up the supreme practical joke of falling in love.
PAM: Without giving away the end, how did
you view and play her differently at the end of the movie than at the
beginning?
BETH:
In the beginning I wanted her bravado and ultimately her boredom to be a force
field around her that kept every one out and kept her seemingly safe and sound
only to have her at the end to be gobbly-gooked, wobbly, post-apocalyptic love
raw mess.
Ah,
vulnerability. Ah, love….
PAM: Do you think her story represents a
commentary on dating in this day and age?
BETH:
Sure. Vulnerability is incredibly scary and unfortunately is one of the only
roads to true intimacy and deep love. (At least, that's what I hear ...) In
this day and age when everyone has an opinion, which they're sharing on social
media 24/7, I feel it's become even scarier to be fully who you are front and
center, without fear of criticism or less than favorable commentary. I think
that leaks into our personal relationships so we're putting up the same false
fronts in dating that we do on our Facebook walls hoping to keep us safe, but
really in just keeps us lonely.
Ah
vulnerability. Ah, love …”
JACK: Here's how I see it, all of
the storylines are in service of Ryan [played by Jack Newell] and Cassie [played by Caroline Neff]. So Hannah & Dean, Jon and
Dana, and the Paris story - all are different points of view on love and
relationships, etc., and they are all to push forward, or put obstacles in
front of, Ryan and Cassie getting together. OR NOT getting together.
 |
| Caroline Neff as "Cassie" in "Open Tables" |
PAM:
No spoilers here.
JACK: The stories exist
independently, but they also all talk to each other on a thematic level.
PAM:
Like a Harold.
JACK: CORRECT!
PAM:
I win a point! 2 to 1.
JACK: But not intentionally. I
wasn't trying to make a Harold, which is just a story structure. You could say
all of these things connect like a Harold does,
or at least any other good story.
PAM:
I do see Open Tables as an improv
structure - but like that kid in the Sixth Sense who sees dead people, I see improv. But seems like the "source
scene" is the dinner table. And
all the stories branch off from that table. Ebbing and flowing from that scene.
JACK: That's intentional. It's
either a Dinner Table or a Living Room.
PAM: A Living Room structure! Exactly!
JACK: Right. The first, like,
10/16ths of the film is a Living Room, and the final 6/16ths is a La Ronde.
PAM:
La Ronde ....woah. Mind blown. Hold
on. I have to process that Is it really? Wow. Ok. I popped an improv lady
boner.
Back to the process for one sec, aside from the Dean-Hannah (Pasquesi-Lacke) story, did you give
them a general outline scene-by-scene of moments they had to hit, while leaving
the actual verbiage up to them?
JACK: The Dean-Hannah story is
fully scripted except for an ad lib or two. The dinner party is all improvised.
Paris is all improvised. The Dana-Jon (Colleen-Desmin, TJ-Linda Orr) storyline
is all improvised except the ending. That's the simple breakdown.
PAM:
TJ did scripted work?
JACK: That was interesting. So I
had read all the “TJ doesn't do scripted work” stuff. And when we met to
improvise, he was like, "Is it cool if we don't rehearse any scenes at
all?"
And I was like, "Yeah!" I
just gave him the pages for the final scenes and didn't even talk to him about
it.
And when we shot, he did all of the
lines as written.
It's part of the environment I try
to create on set. And he had the pages, he knew what I was going for. I don’t
know if he even read them. And I wasn't a dick about every comma and period.
The other actors in the scene did what was scripted, and he did too - but
perhaps without ever reading anything at all.
PAM: Wait. Are you suggesting he intuited the script? Just by listening carefully and
reacting honestly?
JACK: I have no idea what he did.
Here's my guess: He read the script, understood it, and then improvised it. Or
not. I honestly don't know.
 | |
|
So one day on set, we're shooting
the scene at Trencherman [Chicago restaurant], when "the look"
happens between Desmin and Colleen. In the script, all that it says is
something like, "They talk, and have an amazing time, and then this look
happens during The Look Away Game."
On set, they improvised everything up
until The Look Away game, which I taught them on set. The Look Away Game and
the outcome is "scripted." Everything before that was
"scripted" in that it was - "Have the best time ever." So
anyway, I'm on set feeling pretty proud of myself, like I'm this genius improv
filmmaker who is creating a whole new form. Like no one has done this shit.
Ever.
And TJ comes up, and we're chatting
and I ask him, “Do you have any questions or anything?”
And he says, "No, I get it -
very simple: First Line, Last Line, right?"
PAM:
LOL.
JACK: First Line, Last Line -
you're familiar with?
PAM: Yes, Jack. I am.
JACK: You don't call it something
different on the East Coast?
PAM:
Not to discount your question, but I get another point for knowing the game.
The score is 3-1.
Yes,
we call it First Line, Last Line here. It’s the rare improv game name that
sticks universally.
JACK: WHOA! Well, I had to look it
up. So, you have 4-1 points now?
PAM:
I think I have three. You have one.
JACK: So, the outcome of the scene
or more like the emotion of the scene
is the "last line." And they just played to that.
PAM: Everything good about art and life can
be summed up in an improv game.
Tell
me more about the environment you create on set so you can get improv-quality
(that is, natural language) out of a scripted piece.
JACK: And the opposite of that
question, How to get improv not to feel meandering and listless but on point
and ‘scripted'?’”
PAM: Burn. Ok. Two points to you, three to me.
JACK: I think filmmakers probably
get too caught up in the words, which is odd. And I think comedies nowadays are
a.) not very funny and b.) too wordy all about witticism. But what
matters is subtext … so, directing from the underneath.
And if there's a line you really
love, you do it all the same way, but just make sure they say that line.
PAM:
That's the thing about this film: It's about the relationship. And that's the
thing about good improv: It's about the relationship.
JACK: Totally.
PAM: As the brilliant Mark Sutton says,
"I guarantee you that nobody in an improv audience anywhere has ever
turned to the person sitting next to them and said, ‘Man, I sure hope they fix
that bike.’"
JACK: Exactly. The fool looks at
the finger sort of thing, right? Like someone is pointing at something? Wait.
Maybe that doesn't work …
PAM: I can't answer. Too busy looking at my
finger.
JACK: MY FINGEERRRRR!
PAM:
My nails are a mess.
JACK: Everyone has zero points now.
PAM:
I like this game. All or nothing. It just got interesting.
JACK: High stakes, Mr. Bond.
So, to go back to an earlier idea,
I think I am landing on the side of improv as a tool for creation and maybe not
an end to itself. At least in film.
PAM:
WHAT???!!!! A million points for me. Black hole points for you.
JACK: Why?
PAM: Are you familiar with the
age-old argument between Bernie Sahlins (founder of Second City) and Del Close
(co-founder of iO Theater)?
JACK: Hit me with it.
PAM: Mr. Sahlins believed that
improvisation is merely a tool for creation, as you said. That's why - or so I'm told - the
improv set at Second City is free. He believed that improv is not worth the
price of admission
JACK: Yikes. *neck collar pull*
PAM:
Del believed otherwise and spent his life proving it. They even argued about it
at Del's deathbed, or so the story goes. I would suppose Del met Bernie in the
afterlife to continue the debate.
Anyhoo
... that's the pile of dog doo you just stepped in.
JACK: Well, I don't really think
the argument or both sides is mutually exclusive. Why can't improv be it's own
art form over here, and then also this other thing - improv be a tool for
creation?
PAM:
Of course it can.
JACK: I would also throw in there,
as a filmmaker, we are like mixed media artists, and we borrow from
photography, music, dance, acting, improv … and so my view point is weird when
put next to someone who is just an improviser.
PAM:
You said, "Improv is a tool for creation and maybe not an ends to itself,
at
least in film."
JACK: Or the other way to say that
is "Of course I think it's a tool.” In film, everything is a tool to tell
story, to evoke emotion, to reveal truth, etc.
PAM: Yes, yes, of course. I see your point.
It’s the same with improv. Supposedly, Del
said to go out and live life, then bring it to the stage.
JACK: I love that.
PAM:
Yup. It's a good one. I can see the challenge in an exclusively improvised
movie though.
JACK: Yeah.
PAM:
I just take issue with your point that improv is not an end to itself. I don't
think it can be limited in that way. But what do I know? I'm, as you say, “just an improviser.”
Score:
1-1.
JACK: I don't know. It's
interesting, I think you'd talk to some improvisers, and I could explain the
film process and they would respond either a.) Your work is not improv at all,
too much "scripting,"or b.) It's totally improv because improv has
games, and bits, and "rules", and etc, etc, etc.
The Harold is scripted in my
viewpoint, and any good player knows the script. Just like someone's ability to
recognize a game; once you know "the game," it's what I would call scripted.
And then you have a chance to either subvert or play out the expectations.
PAM:
Let's have this conversation again after you read our book [Improvisation at the Speed of Life.] As TJ and Dave view
it, improv is about human nature, and not at all about game.
JACK: People get real bent out of
shape about "game." Jeez.
PAM: You have no idea.
JACK: I have some idea!
PAM:
Ok. You can have a pity point. 2-1.
Cinematically,
I see influences of Woody Allen in this movie as far as the visual rhythm of
some scenes. Especially in the scenes between TJ and Colleen in their kitchen.
JACK: Sure.
PAM: Is that intentional or unconsciously
intentional? It's very pretty.
JACK: I would say that Woody Allen
is a big influence for me.
PAM:
I love Woody Allen. As a filmmaker.
JACK: (Am I allowed to still like
Woody Allen?)
PAM:
(I'm pretty sure we're allowed to like Woody Allen, but we're not allowed to
like Bill Cosby.)
PAM:
That scene in TJ and Colleen’s kitchen made me think of Annie Hall.
JACK: Sure. I'm more of a Hannah and Her Sisters fan, so I'm
thinking more about that.
PAM: I haven't seen that one in years. I'll
take another look.
JACK: There's actually a bunch of
direct references to Hannah and her
Sisters in this film.
PAM:
Seeing them through the doorway/window, as they're talking. But then when they
argue, they're in the same frame. To me, it feels like how relationships can
be.
JACK: Yeah, totally. That kitchen,
I loved.
PAM: You see your lover in isolation, your
projection of him/her. Then when it gets real ... it’s all right there, so real
and in your face.
JACK: And I loved how Stephanie [Dufford,
Director of Photography] shot it. That is all improvised. And TJ is so fucking
good in it. I love that he gets to be the asshole here.
PAM: Please tell me there was a take in the
scene when you're fighting with TJ that you smacked the shit out of him.
COLLEEN
DOYLE: No smacking TJ. It's in his contract. Also, no direct eye contact.
JACK: How many millions of negative
points do I currently have?
PAM:
I think we're tied again. Two bananas each.
Ok
… Paris. We have to talk about Paris. First of all, I would give my left ball
to be in a movie in Paris. That's not a question. Just putting it out there.
JACK: I understand. Left ball. GOT
IT, PAM - LEFT BALL.
You don’t want to hear about my
homage to Hannah and Her Sisters?
PAM:
Of course I do. But Paris awaits and time is short. Also, I HAVE BALLS.
JACK: I'll save it for next time.
Hit me with your questions.
PAM:
Can I be in your next movie in Paris?
JACK: Haha!
PAM:
The score is tied. The game hinges on your response.
 |
| Jack C. Newell as Ryan Open Tables |
JACK: If I do another one in Paris,
we'll talk.
PAM: I speak French.
JACK: I do not.
PAM:
And I lost my virginity to a Frenchman in France.
Boom.
Five points for me.
JACK: Whoa! Okay.
PAM:
So, given all that, plus my love of wine and chocolate, I'm basically French.
JACK: I came up with the idea for
this movie in Paris and wrote a thing in Paris. And I was like, "We gotta
try to shoot in Paris. It's one of the most rewarding film experiences I've
had.
PAM:
How can you not be thinking about love in Paris?
JACK: RIGHT?
PAM:
And you actually were in love in Paris?! That's the best.
JACK: I was! That's when we FELL IN
LOVE.
 |
| Filming "Open Tables" in Paris |
PAM:
OMG. THE BEST.
JACK: Yeah, I mean, we were
definitely in love. But going there over New Year’s Eve … it was like
LOOOOOVVVEEEEE. LOVE. All the feels.
PAM:
So many feels in Paris.
Anyway,
tell me about how you were falling in love in Paris and how these particular
ideas about relationship were formed. Because Open Tables is not really a rom-com here. These aren't
the same tired old ideas about boy-girl romance we've seen a thousand times.
(And I love rom-coms.)
JACK: The simple idea is playing on
what you are talking about. But it is much sadder: What if you were the
loneliest you've ever been in the capital of love? And so, that's ultimately
his story.
PAM:
“His” being the character you play, Ryan, who is set up with Cassie. When he later tells his Paris story at the main table, she’s really turned off.
JACK: Cassie's character is
motivated by the truth and a desire for it, and she can tell when people are
full of shit. And that's what she responded to. (Like Mark Sutton’s bicycle thing
you mentioned before.) One of the points of the film is that if you are
truthful and open and vulnerable, you can or could find love.
PAM:
Maybe to apply it to the theme of relationship, lies are the deal breaker for
her. And as long as he's telling the truth, she doesn't care what it is. Maybe
it's about how we set these litmus tests for our love interests, which maybe
valid or super duper random?
JACK: Right on.
I actually feel like I am most like
Cassie in the movie. That is me, if you were gonna ask, "Who are you most
like?" I identify with Cassie.
PAM:
I am most like Beth Lacke's character. Tough on the outside. Big ol' open
hearted marshmallow on the inside.
JACK: Nice. AND CRAZY. (Just
kidding.)
PAM:
Everyone is crazy, Jack. Everyone.
JACK: Double true.
PAM:
The score is 6 to 2, if you were wondering.
JACK: Shit. Unless I am the six? In
that case: In your face!
PAM:
No, I am six.
JACK: Oh. Okay ... COOL.
PAM:
I don't know how to announce points properly. I am sports-challenged. So that’s
one more point for you. Now we're 6-3.
JACK: “Pam 6, Jack 3” would be one idea.
PAM:
Ok. That's one possible way, Jack. The obvious choice …
JACK: Jack "Obvious Choice"
Newell.
PAM:
That's what she said.
JACK: "Really, you're going to
put it there? Such an obvious choice."
PAM:
Speaking of which, one topic that comes up in this movie is the question,
"Are women 'better than' men?"
JACK: Sure. They do actually talk
about that in the movie.
PAM:
I knew I heard that somewhere!
JACK: And I think all of the
characters come down pretty strongly on the side of, "Yes, women are
better than men."
PAM:
In bed.
JACK: BOOOOOOM.
PAM:
(I was playing Fortune Cookie, which is an improv game I just made up.)
JACK: (We call it First Line, Last
Line here.)
PAM: (Hahahaha!)
JACK: So, you definitely lost
points there, right?
PAM:
Ok, ok. I lost points with "That's what she said" too, of course.
Nice.
You're winning. Jack: 6, Pam: 2.
JACK: Yeah, you're kind of bro-ing
out over there.
So, are you asking me if women are
better than men?
PAM:
I suppose I am, at least in the context of the movie and relationships.
JACK: I'll answer it like this: My Director
of Photography and Editor are both women. We had a large female crew and we
have strong, good, interesting, female roles in the film. It's ensemble film,
but the women stand out. I find women more interesting to work with. I find
women interesting to explore.
PAM:
(I get points for not saying "in bed.")
JACK: But I didn't directly answer
your question. You took it slightly more specific. I don't know how to answer
this. I feel like anything I say as a man is in danger of being
misconstrued and potentially dumb.
PAM:
WHY DO YOU THINK I ASKED THE QUESTION???
JACK: Ha! Fair.
PAM:
I think the movie asks the question and comes close to answering it: Women and
men can both be the most exquisite creatures … and total asshats.
JACK: I would agree with that
statement. Thank you for jumping in there.
I want to say one thing about
collaboration - and this is where I might sound like an idiot - but one of the
things I like about collaborating with women is that I feel like their
priorities are different than men (speaking generally) and one of those priorities or attributes is emotional intelligence and an ability to
communicate their emotions. And that is much more interesting than some men. It's
just a hard statement because there are people on either side that break that.
PAM:
Sure. I think the sticky part comes when you apply it strictly to women and
men. But I think if you think of it as feminine vs. masculine sensibilities, it
works better.
JACK: There ya' go. And to
go back to the movie, the thing you said: "I think the movie asks the
questions and comes close to answering it. Women and men can both be the most
exquisite creatures. And total asshats." That is
right on.
PAM:
Oh, please quote me more! I love that. Pam: 10, Jack: 6
JACK: Actually, the "Are women
better than men?" conversation is a distraction. In the movie, the
characters say women are better than men, right after seeing Hannah be a
douchebag.
PAM:
Exactly. And that foursome of TJ, Linda, Colleen, and Desmin – they’re involved
in that “love square.” (It’s more than a triangle because it’s four people.) They're
ALL fucked up.
JACK: Well, yeah. Classic tragic
figures.
PAM:
They've got that whole "grass
is always greener" thing going on.
JACK: They are people you know. You might have been that person. I might have been ... we ALL have been or are those people.
PAM: In thinking about your character's
storyline - sort of in that classic "torn between two lovers, feelin' like
a fool" situation - it feels like a statement on romance. What angle on
romance do you think your character's storyline explored? Do you relate to that
in anyway?
COLLEEN
DOYLE: I think my character's storyline revolved around that time (or times?)
in your life when you think you know what you want. You're technically an
adult: you have a job, people expect things of you, etc. And then you ape the
types of relationships in which you've seen other adults engage. You're not a
fully formed person yet, but you believe you're ready to play house. And that's
easy to relate to; it's how I spent a good deal of my 20's -- dramatic and
immature.
PAM: Another question raised in Open Tables is: What is the crux of attraction? I mean, for Hannah – whose
amnesiac lover allows her to re-invent herself each day - it's to have this blank slate upon
which to project her desires. Maybe for the foursome, the crux of attraction is
what you can't have. For your guy in Paris, it was human contact. For Cassie,
it's about truth …
JACK: We have these appetites (food
tie in!) that need to be satiated. And they are actually probably a distraction
from love - or can be. One thing for sure, they aren't love. Sometimes we think
they might be.
PAM:
Most of these couples don't find
love.
JACK: Open Tables is essentially a movie about why and how relationships
don't work. So when you go into that final scene with Cassie and Ryan, the couple who you are rooting for to get together through the whole film, you are presented with the question: Is this their first date or last date?
And that's up to you. There's no
answer.
PAM:
I think the final score is a tie.
 |
| The Main Meal Open Tables by Jack C. Newell |
The premier of Open Tables is on July 26, 2015 at the Wood’s
Hole Film Festival.
For more
about Open Tables, check out the website and the Facebook page.
If all goes well, you will be able to see Open Tables soon.
In the meantime, you can now see Jack C. Newell’s first
feature film,
*
Catch up on past improv geek-a-thons:
Geeking Out with...Close Quarters
...Jack C. Newell, Susan Messing, and Rachael Mason of I'Mprovising Right
...Colleen Doyle
Geeking Out with...Close Quarters
...Jack C. Newell, Susan Messing, and Rachael Mason of I'Mprovising Right
...Colleen Doyle
*
If you like groovy stuff, you might enjoy
The Zen of Improv series,
which contemplates improvisation and
mind-expanding ideas like non-judgment, joy, and curiosity.
*
Pam Victor is an improv comedian, author, teacher, consultant, and nice person. She is the founder and Head of Happiness of Happier Valley Comedy, the epicenter of improv in Western Mass, where Pam teaches The Zen of Improv to the best students in the world as well as bringing the power of improvisation to the workplace in her "Through Laughter" program. TJ Jagodowski, David Pasquesi, and Pam are the co-authors of "Improvisation at the Speed of Life: The TJ and Dave Book." She lives online at www.pamvictor.com.
Unless you're a meanie, Pam would probably like you.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment